Shaykh al-Albānī’s False Claim of Fabrication Against al-Imām Aḥmad’s Treatise on Prayer Due to Its Contradiction with His Own Work.
The author [al-Albānī] states at the end of the pamphlet the following text: “An important notice: the Risālah [treatise] on prayer attributed to al-Imām Aḥmad [may Allāh be pleased with him], which has been reprinted many times, has been established by us as not authentically attributable to al-Imām Aḥmad. Rather, al-Ḥāfiẓ al-Dhahabī said regarding it: ‘I fear that it may be fabricated.’ We will publish our verification of this soon, if Allāh wills. Accordingly, no one should be deceived by what appears in it of opposition to this book of ours.” End quote.
Shaykh Al-Tuwayjirī responds:
“I say, this is a very strange notice, and an audacity that is not praiseworthy. Indeed, the author has marred his pamphlet with this imagined notice. I think that he intended by it to repel what al-Imām Aḥmad [may Allāh have mercy on him] affirmed in his treatise regarding placing the knees before the hands in prostration, since it contradicts what he himself saw fit and established in his pamphlet. The words of al-Imām Aḥmad [may Allāh have mercy on him] have already been cited verbatim in the eighth notice, so let it be referred back to. And the statement of Imām Aḥmad [may Allāh have mercy on him] is the truth without any doubt, and its evidence is the ḥadīth of Wāʾil ibn Ḥujr, the ḥadīth of Anas, and the ḥadīth of Abū Hurayrah as well, without the additional wording narrated by al-Darāwardī, as the clarification of that has already preceded.
As for the author of the pamphlet claiming that it has been established to him that the attribution of the treatise to Imām Aḥmad is not authentic, this is nothing but a mere claim with no proof for it. And i wish I knew, did upright and reliable men testify before him that Muhannā ibn Yaḥyā al-Shāmī [The student of Imām Aḥmad] fabricated it and attributed it to Imām Aḥmad? Or that it was fabricated, whether by Muhannā or by others among its transmitters, or that the author of Ṭabaqāt al-Ḥanābilah, al-Qāḍī Abū al-Ḥusayn, son of al-Qāḍī Abū Yaʿlā ibn al-Farrāʾ, fabricated it?
And if fabrication has not been established before him through the testimony of upright witnesses, then is there anything in the treatise that contradicts the statements of Imām Aḥmad [may Allāh have mercy on him], whether in uṣūl [fundamentals] or in furū‘ [subsidiary matters], such that one could use that as evidence that it is fabricated or tampered with by addition or omission? And if all of this is absent, then he has no proof except conjecture about the unseen and speaking without knowledge. If he were to say that the proof for this is al-Dhahabī’s statement concerning it: “I fear that it may be fabricated.”
The answer to it is from several aspects:
First, al-Dhahabī, may Allāh Ta‘ālā have mercy on him, God protected him with piety, so he did not assert fabrication without evidence, as the author of the pamphlet did. And if al-Dhahabī did not assert fabrication, then what relevance does the pamphlet author’s statement have?
Second, even if we assume that al-Dhahabī had asserted it, his assertion would not be accepted except with evidence.
Third, Shaykh al-Muwafaq Abū Muḥammad Ibn Qudāmah al-Maqdisī, may Allāh Ta‘ālā have mercy on him, transmitted from the treatise in his book al-Mughnī, affirming its attribution to al-Imām Aḥmad, may Allāh Ta‘ālā have mercy on him, and no one criticised him for that, neither from the Ḥanābilah nor from others. Al-Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar also transmitted what the author of al-Mughnī transmitted in Fath al-Bārī and approved it.
Similarly, Shaykh ʿAbd al-Raḥmān Ibn Abī ʿUmar transmitted from the treatise in his al-Sharḥ al-Kabīr, affirming its attribution to al-Imām Aḥmad.
Likewise, al-ʿAllāmah Al-Ḥāfiẓ Ibn al-Qayyim, may Allāh have mercy on him, transmitted from it in his book al-Ṣalāh, affirming its attribution to al-Imām Aḥmad; and when he finished transmitting, he said afterward: “All of this is the words of Aḥmad,” and he transmitted from its content elsewhere, then said: “And Aḥmad used this very [thing/text] as evidence.”
Shaykh Muḥammad Ibn Mufliḥ also transmitted from it in his book al-Furūʿ, affirming its attribution to al-Imām Aḥmad, as did a’immah from the Ḥanābilah. None of these eminent imāms were criticized regarding their transmission from it or their attribution of it to al-Imām Aḥmad, may Allāh Ta‘ālā have mercy on him.
And the uṣūliyyūn [scholars of uṣūl] have established that al-muthabbit [the affirming] takes precedence over al-nāfī [the denying]. This is if each of them is certain in his claim; as for one who is not certain, his statement is not considered. And these imāms, among the great Ḥanābilah, have asserted the attribution of the Risālah to al-Imām Aḥmad, and they are more knowledgeable regarding the words of their imām, his books, and his madhhab than those among the other madhāhib. And it was received by those before them and those after them from the Ḥanābilah and others among the scholars, generation after generation, certain of its attribution to al-Imām Aḥmad, and no one criticized it, neither from the Ḥanābilah nor from others, Until Shaykh al-Albānī came at the end of the 14th century and criticized it, and its attribution to its author, without a chain [of transmission] by which criticism is justified.
And if people were to permit what Shaykh al-Albānī permitted, there would be no doubt that the books of the salaf, or most of them, would be denied, because many of them no longer have connected chains of transmission up to today, and they are only known by attribution, wide dissemination, and transmission generation after generation. Likewise, the majority of the books of the scholars after them do not have connected teachers [i.e., an unbroken chain of transmitters from the author to the student], and they are only known through transmission, attribution, wide dissemination, And the coherence of the author’s words and the joining of some parts with others. And the people of knowledge are content with attributing the books to their authors merely by transmission and wide dissemination, and they reject from them whatever does not align with the speech of the one attributed to it, or what is contrary to his statements in uṣūl or in furuʿ.
And whoever reflects on the Risālah of al-Imām Aḥmad, may Allāh Ta‘ālā have mercy on him, will find it in accordance with his speech and in agreement with his madhhab, and whoever denies it or denies anything from it, such are the few who deny Aḥmad’s speech and his madhhab. And astonishment does not cease at the audacity of Shaykh al-Albānī and his boldness in disparaging that noble risālah without proof.
So Allāh is the One whose help is sought, and upon Him is reliance; and there is no power nor might except with Allāh, the Most High, the Great. He is sufficient for us, and He is the best Disposer of affairs. And may Allāh send blessings upon our Prophet Muḥammad, and upon his family and companions, and those who follow them in righteousness until the Day of Judgment, and grant abundant peace.”
Source: 📑 Notes / Observations On al-Albānī’s treatise on Prayer.
Syaikh al-Albani menyatakan di akhir risalahnya:
“Catatan penting: Risalah shalat yang dinisbatkan kepada Imām Ahmad. yang sudah dicetak berulang kali, telah kami pastikan tidak valid penisbatannya kepada beliau. Bahkan, al-Hafizh al-Dzahabi berkomentar mengenainya: ‘Aku khawatir ini adalah buatan (palsu).’ Kami akan segera menerbitkan verifikasi kami terkait hal ini, insya Allah. Maka dari itu, jangan sampai ada yang terkecoh dengan isi risalah tersebut yang menyelisihi buku kami ini.”
Tanggapan Syaikh Hamud Al-Tuwayjiri:
Menurut saya, ini adalah catatan yang sangat aneh dan sebuah keberanian yang tidak pada tempatnya. Penulis (al-Albani) telah menodai karyanya sendiri dengan catatan yang bersifat imajinatif ini. Saya menduga, motif di balik klaimnya adalah untuk menepis apa yang ditegaskan oleh Imām Ahmad dalam risalah tersebut, yaitu tentang mendahulukan lutut sebelum tangan saat sujud, karena hal itu bertolak belakang dengan pendapat yang ia yakini dalam bukunya.
Padahal, perkataan Imām Ahmad telah dikutip secara utuh pada poin kedelapan sebelumnya. Dan pendapat Imām Ahmad itulah yang benar tanpa keraguan, didukung oleh hadits Wa’il bin Hujr, hadits Anas, serta hadits Abu Hurairah (tanpa tambahan redaksi dari al-Darawardi yang sudah dijelaskan sebelumnya).
Klaim penulis bahwa risalah tersebut tidak otentik hanyalah sekadar klaim tanpa bukti.
Saya ingin tahu: apakah ada saksi-saksi yang kredibel dan tepercaya yang bersaksi di hadapannya bahwa Muhanna bin Yahya al-Shami (murid Imām Ahmad) telah memalsukannya?
Ataukah pemalsuan itu dilakukan oleh perawi lain, atau mungkin oleh penulis Thabaqat al-Hanabilah, Al-Qadhi Abu al-Husayn bin al-Farra?
Jika bukti pemalsuan tidak tegak melalui kesaksian para ulama, lantas adakah isi dalam risalah tersebut yang menyimpang dari prinsip (ushul) maupun cabang hukum (furu') yang dipegang Imām Ahmad, sehingga bisa dijadikan bukti adanya perubahan atau penyisipan?
Jika semua bukti itu tidak ada, maka penulis sebenarnya tidak punya landasan kecuali hanya prasangka kosong dan bicara tanpa ilmu.
Jika ia berdalih dengan ucapan Al-Dzahabi: "Aku khawatir ini adalah buatan," maka jawabannya adalah:
Pertama: Al-Dzahabi rahimahullah adalah orang yang dijaga oleh Allah dengan sifat wara’ (hati-hati). Beliau tidak berani memastikan sebuah kepalsuan tanpa bukti kuat, berbeda dengan apa yang dilakukan penulis ini. Jika Al-Dzahabi saja tidak berani memastikan, lalu apa nilai pernyataan al-Albani?
Kedua: Andaipun Al-Dzahabi memastikannya, pernyataan tersebut tetap tidak bisa diterima tanpa adanya bukti nyata.
Ketiga: Ulama besar seperti Syaikh al-Muwaffaq Ibn Qudamah al-Maqdisi mengutip risalah ini dalam kitab al-Mughni dan mengakuinya sebagai karya Imām Ahmad. Tak ada satu pun ulama, baik dari kalangan Hanabilah maupun lainnya, yang menyanggah beliau. Begitu pula Al-Hafizh Ibn Hajar yang menukil apa yang ada di al-Mughni ke dalam Fathul Bari dan menyetujuinya.
Demikian pula Syaikh Abdurrahman bin Abi Umar dalam al-Syarhul Kabir, Al-’Allamah Ibnul Qayyim dalam kitab al-Shalah, bahkan beliau menegaskan: "Semua ini adalah perkataan Ahmad", serta Syaikh Muhammad bin Muflih dalam kitab al-Furu’.
Para imam Hanabilah ini adalah orang-orang yang paling tahu tentang perkataan, kitab, dan madzhab imam mereka dibandingkan orang dari madzhab lain.
Dalam kaidah ushul fikh, orang yang menetapkan didahulukan daripada yang menafikan. Risalah ini telah diterima secara turun-temurun oleh generasi ulama Hanabilah tanpa ada yang mempermasalahkannya, sampai kemudian datang Syaikh al-Albani di akhir abad ke-14 yang mengkritiknya tanpa dasar sanad yang jelas.
Jika pola pikir al-Albani ini diikuti, niscaya banyak kitab ulama salaf yang akan tertolak hanya karena sanadnya tidak lagi bersambung secara formal hingga hari ini.
Padahal, para ulama sudah cukup mengakui sebuah kitab melalui kemasyhurannya, kutipan yang konsisten, serta kesesuaian isinya dengan prinsip sang penulis.
Siapa pun yang merenungi risalah Imām Ahmad ini pasti akan mendapati isinya sangat selaras dengan gaya bicara dan madzhab beliau.
Sungguh mengherankan betapa beraninya Syaikh al-Albani merendahkan risalah yang mulia tersebut tanpa bukti yang nyata. Kepada Allah-lah kita memohon pertolongan dan hanya kepada-Nya kita bersandar. Tidak ada daya dan upaya kecuali dengan pertolongan Allah Yang Mahatinggi lagi Maha Agung.
____
Ringkasnya :
Syaikh Hamud Al-Tuwayjiri mengkritik keras Syaikh al-Albani karena dianggap terlalu berani (lancang) dalam melemahkan otentisitas kitab Risalah ash-Shalah karya Imam Ahmad.
Poin keberatannya:
1. Motif Kritik: Syaikh Al-Tuwayjiri mencurigai Syaikh al-Albani menolak kitab tersebut hanya karena isinya berseberangan dengan pendapat pribadi al-Albani (terutama soal mendahulukan lutut daripada tangan saat sujud).
2. Ketiadaan Bukti: Al-Albani dianggap hanya berprasangka. Tidak ada bukti kuat secara sanad maupun sejarah bahwa kitab itu dipalsukan oleh murid Imam Ahmad (Muhanna bin Yahya) atau ulama lainnya.
3. Pengakuan Ulama Besar: Kitab tersebut sudah diakui dan dijadikan sandaran oleh pilar-pilar madzhab Hanbali selama berabad-abad, seperti Ibnu Qudamah (penulis Al-Mughni), Ibnu Abi Umar, Ibnu Muflih, hingga Ibnul Qayyim. Mereka lebih paham mana tulisan Imam Ahmad dibanding ulama zaman sekarang.
4. Bahaya Metodologi: Jika setiap kitab klasik ditolak hanya karena tidak punya sanad yang bersambung secara fisik sampai hari ini, maka mayoritas kitab ulama Salaf bisa hilang dan dianggap palsu. Padahal, keaslian kitab bisa dilihat dari kesesuaian isinya dengan prinsip (ushul) sang imam.
5. Kaidah Ilmiah: Dalam ilmu hadits/ushul, pihak yang menetapkan adanya sesuatu lebih didahulukan daripada yang sekadar meniadakan, apalagi jika yang menetapkan adalah para pakar di bidangnya.
Singkatnya, bagi Syaikh Al-Tuwayjiri, risalah tersebut sahih milik Imam Ahmad, dan klaim Syaikh al-Albani dianggap sebagai "ijtihad yang kebablasan" karena menyelisihi pendapat para ulama madzhab Hanbali terdahulu.
Allahu a'lam
