Is Sheikh Al-Albani to be followed in his weakening of some of Sahih Muslim's hadiths due to Abu Al-Zubayr's 'an'anah from Jabir, or should one remain with Muslim's authentication and that of the scholars of the Ummah for these hadiths?

Many Hadith scholars hold that the ananah (narration with the phrase "on the authority of") of a mudallis (one who practices tadlis, i.e., conceals the identity of a shaykh or makes it appear as if he heard directly when he did not) in the Two Sahihs (Bukhari and Muslim) is considered connected (mutassil). Al-Sakhawi said: "You will find in the Sahihs narrations by many individuals who explicitly stated [their hearing], and perhaps ananah occurs therein, but it is considered to be based on the establishment of hearing from another source, out of good presumption towards their compilers." Al-Qutb al-Halabi mentioned that most scholars believe that narrations with ananah in the Two Sahihs are treated as if hearing was established, either because they came through another route with explicit declaration, or because the mudallis only narrates from a trustworthy person, or because some meticulous critics have confirmed the hearing of the one who narrated with ananah. Al-Suyuti stated that whatever is in the Two Sahihs from mudallisin with the phrase "on the authority of" is considered to be based on the establishment of hearing from another source.

As for Abu al-Zubayr's ananah from Jabir in Sahih Muslim, scholars have accepted it, as Al-Hafiz al-Ala'i mentioned that Muslim was aware that these narrations were among those reported by Al-Layth from Abu al-Zubayr from Jabir, even if he did not narrate them through Al-Layth's route. The correct approach is to accept the narrations in Sahih Muslim with reception (by acceptance), following the majority of Muslim scholars.