Islam Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for Muslims, experts in Islam, and those interested in learning more about Islam. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Often, I see ahadith cited, especially from those major collections other than the sahihain, with their authenticity graded by al-Albani. From perusing his selected bibliography on Wikipedia, I can see that he has done a fair amount of writing in this regard, and is apparently considered a hadith scholar of some renown (and more than a little criticism).

Traditionally, ilm al-rijal is a major factor in determining whether any hadith is authentic; an otherwise flawless hadith could still be deemed da'if if anybody in the chain of narration is considered questionable. However, while the major collections were compiled at a time when many of the narrators were still alive (and thus able to be studied), or were personally known by people who were still alive (and thus able to be studied), al-Albani himself was born significantly later and would (presumably) only be able to rely on written accounts thereof by the scholars of that time.

Given that these contemporary scholars would've had access to much of the same information (although maybe not all at once), one would think there would have been significant research into how authentic any particular hadith was at the time (either by these scholars or in the generations following as the information disseminated among the Islamic world).

The fact that al-Albani's classification is specifically mentioned suggests to me that either:

  1. No major scholar considered authenticity of these hadith important enough to study for over a thousand years (highly unlikely)
  2. Most of the work of these earlier scholars was somehow lost to the ravages of time (possible, but still doesn't seem too likely)
  3. al-Albani's methodology and/or the information available to him was somehow different than that of earlier scholars.

In an attempt to understand the likelihood of the third position, my question lies thus: What was al-Albani's methodology for determining authenticity of a hadith? How, if at all, did it differ from the methodology used by the contemporary scholars?

share|improve this question
There are other possibilities as well, e.g. 1) There were many other scholars who studied authenticity in between, but not on al-Albani's scale. Or 2) Scholars in between didn't feel the need to stamp every hadith, since the only people looking at hadith anyway were those who had already passed a high entry barrier and could do the grading themselves. Also one has to factor in a centuries-long period of stagnation in original research in Islamic sciences. In any case, IIRC there is a book describing his methodology. Will try to see if I can dig it up. – Ansari Jan 22 '13 at 1:03
honestly, i'm leaning more towards the second explanation than the third (especially since a lot of information back then was likely still transmitted orally). but given that my own google searching on al-Albani's methodology came up with more zealotry than actual information, i felt it was still an important question for the site. – goldPseudo Jan 22 '13 at 2:34
Someone in the answers pointed this NASIRUDDIN AL-ALBANI ON MUSLIM'S SAHIH: A CRITICAL STUDY OF HIS METHOD – servant-of-Wiser Apr 28 '15 at 11:02
Did he have any methodology? As far as i could read many people found serious contradictions in his authentications, and he sometimes declared ahadith as sahih, later da'if etc. without any explanation! He usually just followed a couple of real authorities in that matter! – Medi1Saif Feb 18 at 15:20

I think this may answer your question:

Nor was he [al-Albānī] rejecting the work of classical Muslim scholars; indeed al-Albānī relied entirely on earlier criticisms of Ḥadīths and their transmitters in his reevaluation of the contents of famous works. Although he considered himself qualified enough to reexamine classical texts, he could not recreate the intimate access that classical scholars had to the minutiae of Ḥadīth criticism. Al-Albānī’s books, such as the Silsilat al-aḥādīth al-ḍaīʿfa, thus apply the opinions of classical Ḥadīth masters and later critics such as Ibn Abī al-Wafāʾ to classical texts. They are thus replete with citations from the whole range of Sunni authorities, including al-Shāfiʿi, Ibn Ḥajar and Ibn Ḥazm.
This telescoped vision of religious history centered on the study of Ḥadīth as a continuous and living tradition in a constant state of reevaluation. When asked about his controversial criticism of a famous Ḥadīth transmitter from the early Islamic period, al-Albānī replied that the science of Ḥadīth criticism “is not simply consigned to books (masṭūr fī al-kutub),” it is a dynamic process of critical review. Al-Albānī explained that one of the principles of Islamic scholarship is that “religious knowledge (ʿilm) cannot fall into rigidity (lā yaqbalu al-jumūd).” It is thus not surprising that al-Albānī and his students(1) are the first Muslim scholars in centuries to produce massive collections evaluating Prophetic traditions.

(Jonathan A.C. Brown, The Canonization of al-Bukhārī and Muslim: The Formation and Function of the Sunnī Ḥadīth Canon, p.324)

(1) : For instance, one of al-Albānī's students, the Yemeni Muqbil b. Hādī al-Wādīʿī (d. 2001), compiled the first comprehensive ṣaḥīḥ collection in almost a thousand years, a work designed to provide all the authentic Ḥadīths not included in the Ṣaḥīḥayn. It may be accessed here.

share|improve this answer

protected by Community Jun 10 at 23:00

Thank you for your interest in this question. Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).

Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.