Is what one of the sheikhs of Fiqh mentioned – regarding the presence of confusion in the ladder of studying knowledge for those who heard Al-Albani and his student Mashhour, in addition to Ibn ‘Uthaymeen and Ibn Baz – true? And what is the strength of his statement that Al-Albani and his students have no madhhab, and they judge based on the ظاهر (apparent meaning) of texts without usool (foundational principles), like Ibn ‘Uthaymeen and Ibn Baz?

Sheikh Al-Albani is a great scholar and a muhaddith (hadith (definition) scholar). He paid attention to fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence) and delved into it. There is no harm in following his opinions (taqlid (definition)) and acting upon his fatwas, except in matters where he deviated and contravened the ijma' (scholarly consensus). However, systematic study of fiqh is best achieved by focusing on one of the recognized madhhabs (schools of thought). Among the best starting points for the Hanbali madhhab (definition) are the books and commentaries of Sheikh Ibn Uthaymeen. As for downplaying the importance of studying Tawhid (definition) (monotheism), it is a grave error, because the oneness of Allah and the knowledge of His names and attributes are among the greatest objectives of the prophets' missions.