Muhammad Nasiruddīn al‑Albānī (1914–1999), a prominent modern Salafī‑ḥadīth scholar, holds a reputation for rigorous takhrīj (hadith authentication) and rejection of blind adherence to classical schools. He engaged extensively in identifying weak or fabricated narrations long accepted in major compilations. His methodology—eschewing taqlīd to classical madhāhib and favoring evidence from Qur’an & Sunnah—sometimes put him at odds with mainstream scholars and practitioners Reddit+15Wikipedia+15az-zaha.com+15.
Yūsuf al‑Qaradhāwī, by contrast, emerged from the Al‑Azhār tradition and became a well‑known global mufti, writer, and public intellectual with substantial reach via Al‑Jazeera and other platforms Wikipediafatwapedia.com. While respected by many—including Salafi scholars—for books like Al‑Ḥalāl wa al‑Ḥarām, al‑Qaradhāwī also drew sharp critique from Salafī circles, especially al‑Albānī. Yet al‑Albānī did acknowledge Qaradhāwī’s humility and sincerity in authorizing hadith verification of his book’s contents fatwapedia.comSalafi Research Institute.
1. Methodological Critique: Azhar vs. Salafī Prescriptivism
Al‑Albānī critiqued al‑Qaradhāwī’s intellectual pedigree as rooted in Al‑Azhār rather than the direct methodology of Qur’an and Sunnah—he described Qaradhāwī’s approach as “dangerous” for departing from the Salafī standards of explicit scriptural reliance Precious Gems from the Quran and Sunnah+3Ustaz Idris Sulaiman+3Jalan Selamat & Sesat+3.
His central allegation: when faced with practices considered illicit in Sharīʿah, Qaradhāwī would dismiss them by asserting “there is no clear-cut, definitive evidence (naṣṣ qatʿī)” forbidding them. In doing so, he effectively legalizes such acts, including music and singing, without any binding prohibition. Al‑Albānī asserted that Qaradhāwī applied this principle to permit music—even for a noted English singer who converted to Islam—arguing absence of definitive verse equated to permissibility. This contradicts the consensus (ijmāʿ) of classical scholars, which holds that prohibition does not require naṣṣ qatʿī only, and scholars can issue rulings based on less-than-certain evidence Ustaz Idris SulaimanPrecious Gems from the Quran and Sunnah.
2. Zakat on Salary: Legal ijtihād or Innovation?
Another focus of Al‑Albānī’s critique was Qaradhāwī’s stance on zakāt: Qaradhāwī argued that modern salaried income should be zakat‑liable annually, even without meeting classical criteria of ḥawl (one solar year retention) and niṣāb threshold. Al‑Albānī rejected this, arguing there is no naṣṣ—definitive evidence—for such obligation. The only acceptable zakāt rules are those established by Qur’an, Sunnah, and consensus, i.e. property that meets haul and niṣāb. Al‑Albānī complained that Qaradhāwī’s rationale—framed as welfare for the poor—resembles communist ideology rather than Sharīʿī principle, because it overrides legal norms in favor of perceived social benefit Ustaz Idris Sulaiman.
He went further, stating candidly: “Eliminate Qaradhāwī from your attention and avoid him”, emphasizing that such ijtihād is merely personal opinion and not grounded in authoritative evidence. He insisted that the view holds no legal weight, regardless of the charitable intention behind it MEMRI+8Wikipedia+8Precious Gems from the Quran and Sunnah+8.
3. Mixed Reception: Praise and Distance
Despite these substantive criticisms, al‑Albānī did recognize some merits in Qaradhāwī as a man of decorum—especially in his willingness to request hadith authentication. When Qaradhāwī sought al‑Albānī’s help in takhrīj for his book Al‑Ḥalāl wa al‑Ḥarām, al‑Albānī complied, praising Qaradhāwī’s humility: each time they met, al‑Qaradhāwī allegedly asked al‑Albānī questions about hadith and jurisprudence, demonstrating respectful scholarly engagement fatwapedia.com+1Salafi Research Institute+1.
He also stated that Qaradhāwī would bear personal responsibility for his ijtihād—which would be rewarded if correct, and at least earn some merit if incorrect—affirming that Qaradhāwī was sincere, if mistaken on some details fatwapedia.com.
4. Broader Context: Salafī vs. Traditionalist Tensions
Al‑Albānī’s critique of Qaradhāwī must be understood within the broader Salafī–traditionalist intellectual tension. Al‑Albānī rejected taqlīd (automatic adherence to madhāhib) and emphasized scholarly independence in hadith evaluation. Traditional scholars, by contrast, valued continuity in jurisprudence and consensus across schools—even when texts or rulings were questioned Reddit+1Wikipedia+1.
Meanwhile Qaradhāwī, while progressive at times, especially on issues like relations with non-Muslims, societal governance, and modern fiqh, came from a mainstream and pluralistic training at Al‑Azhār. Al‑Albānī viewed this tradition as insufficiently anchored to the Salafī ideal of direct scriptural derivation—thus he framed Qaradhāwī’s approach as weakened by institutional convention and consensus that al‑Albānī distrusted Masudlivingislam.org.
5. Substance of Their Differences: Summary Table
| Issue | Al‑Albānī’s View | Qaradhāwī’s Position |
|---|---|---|
| Methodology | Salafī: direct Qur’an & Sunnah, rejects Al‑Azhār approach | Al‑Azhār-based training, mainstream scholarly tradition |
| Ruling on music/singing | Opposed—even if no “clear text” | Permits singing/music when no naṣṣ qatʿī forbids it |
| Zakat on salary | Not obligated without haul & niṣāb | Obligatory on salaried income for welfare of poor |
| Attitude toward errors | Qaradhāwī’s opinions are personal; should be avoided | Responded by seeking takhrīj and dialogue with al‑Albānī |
| Overall tone | Critical, wary of Qaradhāwī’s methodology & rulings | Open to correction, displays humility in seeking feedback |
6. Why This Matters
The clash between al‑Albānī and al‑Qaradhāwī reflects deeper questions facing modern Muslim scholarship:
-
Methodology vs. Convention: Should rulings be strictly text-based, or can institutional consensus and traditional training be relied upon?
-
iḥtījād & Modernity: How should new economic and social circumstances—like salaried employment—be addressed within Islamic law? Can maslahah (public benefit) override classical precedent?
-
Tone of Engagement: Is respectful scholarly debate possible, or will disagreement descend into dismissal or alienation?
Al‑Albānī’s critique—though strong—came within a disciplinary framework that valued textual purity above social harmony. Qaradhāwī’s framework sought a balanced middle path between tradition and adapting Islam to contemporary challenges.
7. Legacy and Continued Relevance
Al‑Albānī remains a polarizing figure: revered in Salafī revivalist circles for his hadith scholarship, disparaged by traditionalists for bypassing classical authorities and at times issuing harsh verdicts on others’ methodology Ustaz Idris SulaimanPrecious Gems from the Quran and SunnahJalan Selamat & Sesat+1Ustaz Idris Sulaiman+1. Qaradhāwī, similarly, retains massive influence as a public intellectual and legal authority—but also faces criticism from more purist voices for compromising or liberalizing Sharīʿah rulings Wikipedia+10Reddit+10Precious Gems from the Quran and Sunnah+10.
Their interaction—especially al‑Qaradhāwī’s willingness to engage with al‑Albānī via takhrīj—demonstrates that even profound methodological disagreement need not preclude respectful scholarly exchange.
Conclusion
Muhammad Nasiruddīn al‑Albānī’s criticisms of Yūsuf al‑Qaradhāwī highlight fundamental differences in methodology, interpretive standards, and juristic philosophy. Al‑Albānī accused Qaradhāwī of relying on Al‑Azhār training rather than rigorous textual derivation, and of issuing rulings based on absence of definitive prohibition—especially regarding music and zakāt on salaries. Yet al‑Albānī also acknowledged Qaradhāwī’s humility, sincerity, and willingness to seek correction by allowing hadith authentication of his major book.
This episode underscores a key tension in modern Islamic thought: how to balance fidelity to scripture, coherence with tradition, and responsiveness to contemporary realities. While al‑Albānī took a purist, Salafī position, Qaradhāwī leaned more toward applied jurisprudence serving evolving social contexts. Their interchange remains a valuable case study for students of Islamic jurisprudence and modern religious discourse alike.
