Clarification of the ruling on one who denies something known from the religion by necessity

The Shaykh : But here is something that must be clarified on this occasion, for there is a subtlety in it: what is mentioned in books of creed, and especially those called books of kalam, is that the takfir (declaring someone a disbeliever) referred to earlier applies if what was denied is known from the religion by necessity. This qualification has validity for the general public, but it should not be understood as absolute for all people and all individuals. Examples of what is known from the religion by necessity include mutawatir (mass-transmitted) hadiths. Thus, one who denies a mutawatir hadith falls under this qualification, and in that case, he is declared a disbeliever. However, there is a subtlety in the matter now: a mutawatir hadith is a relative matter, not an absolute one for all people. This is why a mutawatir hadith differs from the Noble Qur'an. The Noble Qur'an, preserved between its two covers, is mutawatir among all Muslims, with no difference between their scholars, students, and ignorant ones. In contrast, there is disagreement among scholars regarding mutawatir hadiths: one says a hadith is mutawatir, another says no, it is mashhur (widely known), a third says it is mufarrad (singular), and a fourth says it is ahad (a report with a limited chain). The issue is relative. Therefore, it is not correct to rush to declare a disbeliever one who denies a hadith that is considered mutawatir by some scholars, because if it is not mutawatir according to everyone, then a fortiori, the hadith was not mutawatir for the one who denied it, since he is not among those scholars. Here, the scope of takfir is narrowed by denying a mutawatir hadith. Is that clear?
The student : Is that clear?

The Shaykh : But on the other hand, we will expand the scope, quite the opposite: if we assume a person among the people for whom a hadith of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) is established, established in one way or another. By "one way or another," I mean the customary method, which is studying the sanad (chain of narration) and the narrators, and so on. It is assumed that the one who denied a certain hadith denied it after it had been established for him through this path. Or another way, as we said "one way or another": there may be a Sufi who claims that due to what he claims of purity of heart, the truths are revealed to him, and he says, as is narrated from some of them: "My heart told me about my Lord." We know of some examples from some later Sufis who say: this hadith, although it is weak according to the scholars of hadith, has been established for us through kashf (spiritual unveiling), meaning: another method. If we assume that a person claims the authenticity of a hadith through this path, which we do not believe in, and yet he denies it, he is a disbeliever, because he denied what he knew the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) said. Similarly, the first example: it was established through the path "so-and-so narrated to us from so-and-so," and it was verified that this is a valid chain and the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) said it, but I do not believe in it; he is a disbeliever, even though this hadith is what? An ahad hadith. So the criterion for takfir is knowledge. We return to knowledge. It does not matter to us after that whether it is mutawatir or ahad. So, whoever knows that the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) said a certain hadith and then denies it, has committed disbelief.
Other than that?