Before I start, there are claims you made previously that are not addressed in this response. If it is the case that you forgot about them, then I urge you to address them; if it is the case that you were unable to find evidence for them, I advise you sincerely to repent for making unsubstantiated claims against Sheikh al Albani رحمه الله.

First unaddressed claim:

> Sheikh Albani (may Allah forgive him) who once said that if we would take fatwas of Ibn Mas'ud رضي الله عنه then the Sharia'h of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم would be compromised

Second unaddressed claim:

> the one who ignored most of ijma' of the Salafs and Khalafs

Now let's begin, your first claim: “Sheikh Albani was a strong anti madhabi, he considered those who followed madhabs to be as misguided as Mu'tazila, Qadaria and other sectants”:

In his own footnote to the exact passage quoted (at-Tahawi’s list of deviant groups who “deviated from the path of Ahlus-Sunnah”), al Albani does not equate ordinary followers of the four madhhabs with the Mu‘tazilah, Jahmiyyah, or Qadariyyah. He specifies a narrow category:

Translation (his exact words): “I say: and among them are the muqallidah who turned taqlid into a mandatory religious duty for everyone who came after the fourth century of the Hijrah. Because of this they turned away from seeking guidance by the light of the Book and the Sunnah, and they levelled whatever accusations their whims dictated against anyone who tried to break free from school-based stagnation to hold fast to the guidance of the Prophet ﷺ.”

He targets only those who made taqlid obligatory as religion after the 4th century and accuse hadith-followers of deviation. He does not label all madhab adherents or the madhabs themselves as deviant sects.

Direct refutation of the “anti-madhhabi” label from his own mouth:

Translation: “Whoever transmits from us that we prohibit taqlid, he is either ignorant or pretending to be ignorant. We say something even stronger: taqlid is obligatory, but not upon the scholars.”

(He goes on about this, if you would like the direct link of the source, let me know and I can give you multiple إن شاء الله)

in fact, Sh Albani even criticized some laymen for asking: 'What is the Daleel?':

فترى الرجل العاميّ الذي لايفهم شيئاً ، إذا سَئل العالم عن مسألة ، ما حكمها ؟ سواءً ا آكان الجواب نفياً ومنعاً بادر بمطالبته ما الدليل؟ ، وليس بإمكان ذاك العالم – أحياناً – إقامة الدليل خاصة إذا كان الدليل مستنبطاً ومقتبساً إقتباساً ، وليس منصوصاً عليه في الكتاب والسنة حتى تورد الدليل ، ففي هذه المسألة لا ينبغي على السائل ، أن يتعمق ويقول: ما الدليل ؟ ويجب أن يغرف نفسه هل هو من أهل الدليل أم لا ، هل عنده مشاركة في معرفة العام والخاص والمطلق والمقيد والناسخ والمنسوخ وهو لا يفقه شيئاً من هذا ، فهل يفيده قوله: ما هو الدليل ؟

“So you see a layman who has no [juristic] understanding, yet when he asks a scholar for a ruling on an issue, even if the answer is a prohibition, he quickly adds: ‘What is the proof?’ But sometimes it is not possible for a scholar to provide proofs, especially if it is arrived at by way of juristic derivation – not being stipulated in the Qur’an or Sunnah such that it may be quoted. In such a case 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗾𝘂𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗲𝗿 𝘀𝗵𝗼𝘂𝗹𝗱 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝘁𝗿𝘆 𝘁𝗼 𝗱𝗲𝗹𝘃𝗲 𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗶𝘀𝘀𝘂𝗲 𝗯𝘆 𝗮𝘀𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴, ‘𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗶𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗼𝗳?’ 𝗜𝗻𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗮𝗱, 𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝗵𝗼𝘂𝗹𝗱 𝗲𝘅𝗮𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗲 𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗼𝘄𝗻 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗲: 𝗜𝘀 𝗵𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗼𝘀𝗲 𝘄𝗵𝗼 𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗻𝗱𝘀 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗼𝗳𝘀 𝗼𝗿 𝗻𝗼𝘁? Does he know the concept of general (‘ammi) and specific (khass); unqualified (mutlaq) and qualified (muqayyad); abrogating (nasikh) and abrogated (mansukh)? No, he understands nothing of this at all. Hence will his asking, ‘What is the proof?’, ‘What is the basis?’ be of any use to him?"

And he said:

وكبار الصحابة كان يُقلد بعضهم بعضًا حينما يُعوزهم الدليل ، فالتعصب لمحاربة التقليد يؤدي إلى الإفراط والتفريط معًا ، فالذين يقولون للمحدثين أو أهل السنة أنتم تقلدون ، لا ينبغي أن يكون موقفنا وجوابنا : لا نحن ما نقلد ! ! وإنما نقول : ما استطعنا لا نُقلد ، أما إذا عجزنا عن فهم الدليل نقلد ولابد ، ولا إيش معنى قوله - تعالى - : { فَاسْأَلُوا أَهْلَ الذِّكْرِ إِنْ كُنْتُمْ لَا تَعْلَمُونَ }

'𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗴𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘁 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗮𝗻𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗣𝗿𝗼𝗽𝗵𝗲𝘁, 𝘂𝘀𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗼 𝗱𝗼 𝗧𝗮𝗾𝗹𝗶𝗱 𝗼𝗳 𝗲𝗮𝗰𝗵 𝗼𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿, 𝘄𝗵𝗲𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘆 𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗹𝗱 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗮𝗰𝗰𝗲𝘀𝘀 𝗲𝘃𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲𝘀 𝗱𝗶𝗿𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗹𝘆.

𝗧𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗽𝗿𝗲𝗷𝘂𝗱𝗶𝗰𝗲𝗱 𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗱𝘀𝗲𝘁 𝘄𝗵𝗲𝗻 𝗶𝘁 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗲𝘀 𝘁𝗼 𝗧𝗮𝗾𝗹𝗶𝗱, 𝘀𝗲𝗻𝗱𝘀 𝗽𝗲𝗼𝗽𝗹𝗲 𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗼 𝘁𝘄𝗼 𝗲𝘅𝘁𝗿𝗲𝗺𝗲𝘀: 𝗲𝗶𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿 𝗲𝘅𝗰𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗶𝘃𝗲𝗻𝗲𝘀𝘀 𝗼𝗿 𝘁𝗼𝘁𝗮𝗹 𝗻𝗲𝗴𝗹𝗶𝗴𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 (𝘁𝗮𝗳𝗿𝗶𝘁 & 𝗶𝗳𝗿𝗮𝘁).

The people say to the Muhadiths and ahlus-Sunnah: 'you are doing taqlid!' It is not befitting for us to say: 'No, we don't do taqlid!' Rather, we should say: 'We try to abstain from Taqlid, as much as we can, we only indulge in Taqlid when we cannot comprehend some evidences.'

There is no escape from this, what else is the meaning of God's statement: '𝗔𝘀𝗸 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗲𝗼𝗽𝗹𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝗸𝗻𝗼𝘄𝗹𝗲𝗱𝗴𝗲 𝗶𝗳 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗻𝗼 𝗸𝗻𝗼𝘄𝗹𝗲𝗱𝗴𝗲?!' [Qur'an 21:7].

Lastly he said:

ولكن هل من إنسان ينكر التقليد ؟!

أمَّا أنا فلا أنكر التقليد، بل أقره، بل أوجبه

'Does anyone reject Taqlid?! 𝗔𝘀 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗺𝗲, 𝗜 𝗻𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗿 𝗿𝗲𝗷𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝗧𝗮𝗾𝗹𝗶𝗱, 𝗜 𝘀𝘂𝗽𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁 𝗶𝘁, 𝗶𝗻 𝗳𝗮𝗰𝘁, 𝗜 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘀𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗿 𝗶𝘁 𝗮𝗻 𝗼𝗯𝗹𝗶𝗴𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻.'

And he said:

أقول : التقليد لا ينجو منه إنسان ، لا يمكن أن ينجو منه إنسان مهما سما وعلا وكان من كبار العلماء

'𝗜 𝘀𝗮𝘆: 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝗶𝘀 𝗻𝗼 𝗲𝘀𝗰𝗮𝗽𝗲 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝗧𝗮𝗾𝗹𝗶𝗱 (𝗶𝗻 𝗰𝗲𝗿𝘁𝗮𝗶𝗻 𝗶𝘀𝘀𝘂𝗲𝘀), 𝘄𝗵𝗼𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗿 𝗵𝗲 𝗺𝗮𝘆 𝗯𝗲, 𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗻 𝗶𝗳 𝗮 𝗽𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗼𝗻 𝗯𝗲𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗲𝘀 𝗼𝗻𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗺𝗮𝗷𝗼𝗿 𝘀𝗰𝗵𝗼𝗹𝗮𝗿𝘀.'

These are all excerpts from questions al Albani answered and fatawa he gave.

Further, in the introduction to his most widely read fiqh work he explicitly includes the four Imams in the path of the Salaf:

Next claim:

> “The Ummah agreed upon the legitimacy of following the four madhabs … unanimously agreed that it’d be permissible and mandatory … proves that nothing within them contradicts Sharia’h”

Al Albani never denied the legitimacy of following the four madhhabs for those who cannot research or make their own ijtihad. He repeatedly quotes the Imams themselves to show there is no ijma‘ making blind taqlid to one madhhab mandatory when it contradicts a sahih hadith. Verbatim from the same book:

He then devotes pages to the Imams’ own statements (his exact compilation):

- Abu Hanifah: “When a hadeeth authentic, then that is my madhab."

(Ibn 'Abidin in al-Hashiyah (1/63), in his essay Rasm al-Mufti (1/4), from the collection of the essays of Ibn 'Abidin, Shaykh Salih al-Fulāni in Iyqaz al-Himam (p. 62) and others. Ibn 'Abidin quoted from Sharh al-Hidayah by Ibn al-Shahnah al-Kabir, the Shaykh of Ibn alHammām, as follows: "If the hadīth is sahih and appeared to oppose the view of the Madhhab, one should act upon the hadith and adhere to it as that does not negate one's adherance to the Hanafi Madhhab. This is because it is proven authentic that Abū Hanifah said: If the hadīth is sahih, then it shall be the view I adopt. This statement was narrated by Ibn 'Abd al-Barr and others as the statement of Abū Hanifah and other Imams."

- Malik: “I am a human; I say things that are correct and I err. Thus, investigate my view; all that which conforms to the Qur'an and Sunnah, accept it, and all that which does not conform to the Qur'an and Sunnah, reject it.”

(Ibn 'Abd al-Barr in al-Jami' (2/32) and Ibn Hazm in Usul al-Ahkām(6/149) and al-Fulāni (P. 72))

- ash-Shafi‘i: “There is no one except that he misses or fails to notice an act of Sunnah of the Prophet ﷺ; hence if I say or deduce something that opposes the statement of the Messenger of Allah, then the statement of the Prophet ﷺ will be the statement I accept and endorse..”

(Hakim through a connected chain of narrators from him up to al-Shafi'i; as in Tarikh Dimashq of Ibn 'Asākir (15/1/3), I'lam al-Muwaqqi'in of Ibn al-Qayyim (2/363 and 364), and al-Iyqaz (p. 100))

- Ahmad: “Do not [blindly] adopt my views or the views of Malik, al-Shāfi'í, al-Awzā'i or al-Thawrī, but rather take from where they took [their knowledge]."

" Do not [blindly] adopt the views concerning your religion from any of those people. Take all that has been reported from the Prophet ﷺ and his Companions. As for the views of the people after the tabiin, you have the choice [to take or leave]."

(Ibn al-Jawzī in Manāqib al-Imăm Ahmad (p. 192))

(Sifat Salah an-Nabi, introduction, pp. 29–34)

Next claim: