What is the ruling on one who doubts some of the hadiths of the Sunnah and their authority due to the disagreement among them?

The Shaykh : I do not know if the questioner actually expressed the doubt better; therefore, I am speaking within the limits of what I have read and heard.
Since the questioner says that they doubt some of the hadiths, he has—whether by way of reporting what others say or not—divided the hadiths of this group into two categories: a category whose authenticity they doubt, and a category whose authenticity they do not doubt. What is it that made them not doubt the first category? And what is it that led them to doubt the second category? If what led them to not doubt the first category is the science of hadith with its principles, and the critique and vindication of narrators, then we will then refer to this science regarding the second category in which they have doubts. And if they believed in the authenticity of the first category merely arbitrarily, without relying on a science that has weight, status, and a long, extensive service, then there is no difference for us between their belief in the authenticity of such hadiths that they authenticated by their desires, not by the science of hadith, and those hadiths that they rejected because they—also—rejected them by following their desires. So this group must either believe in the absolute authority of the hadith, as you heard in the lecture regarding rulings and beliefs, or they must join one of the first two groups: the Quranists, who claim to explicitly deny the hadith absolutely, and that the Islamic religion, they claim, is the Quran only; or they must join the second group, which is the sister of the first, namely the "Qadiani" sect, with the verbal and political difference to which this sect resorts, unlike the first, as you heard. They say: We take the Book and the Sunnah, and the criterion for knowing the sound from the defective in the Sunnah is what agrees with the Book, which is sound, and what does not agree with it, which is sound. So they have demolished the science of hadith from beginning to end.
And I want to remind you here, on this occasion, of a very important matter. There are matters related to the Shari'ah and to the life of the Messenger and the life of the Companions, indeed and the life of every nation, that fall into a category about which it can be said: they are neither in agreement with the Book nor in contradiction with the Book. What is the way to know this category, whether it existed or not? The Quran did not address it, neither negatively nor positively, neither by negation nor affirmation. For example, a very simple example: the Messenger of Allah lived for sixty-three years. Is this hadith in agreement with the Quran? ... You know that this meaning should be present in the Quran. It is not said of such a hadith that it is in agreement with the Quran. Likewise, if it were said that it is in contradiction with the Quran, for what I mentioned earlier: that the Quran did not address this detail at all. And so, dozens of hadiths, indeed hundreds and thousands of hadiths, are related to the core of the Shari'ah in belief and rulings, and it is not possible to say of them that they agree with the Quran, nor that they are related to the Quran. Therefore, the Muslim who is well-versed in the Book and the authentic Sunnah finds himself compelled to believe that there is something else besides the Quran. And it is sufficient to mention some of the verses that you heard in the lecture and the hadiths, so as not to ... repeat.
So what is the way to know this other thing that every researcher feels? I mean, now, the biography of the Messenger (peace be upon him)—where do we take it from? The details of the expeditions and missions and the like—where are they taken from? The Quran, first of all, did not address except some of the expeditions, and then it addressed what it addressed with a great deal of brevity. And in the expeditions, many rulings were legislated regarding the voluntary prayers, the war spoils, and the like. Where are all these matters known from? They are known from the way of the Sunnah.
What is the way to recognize this Sunnah? We have no way, by the consensus of the Muslims, except the way of the scholars of hadith.
When we say to this questioner, we ask every doubter about any hadith: What is it that led you to doubt? If the doubt stems from his lack of faith in the hadith in the first place, you have heard the refutation of it with what has no refutation. And if the doubt of every person about any hadith stems from his ignorance of the science of hadith, the answer is like jurisprudence entirely: . And if the doubt arises because he did not digest the meaning contained in the hadith due to his culture, due to his ignorance, due to, due to, and so on, of other matters such as emotions and the environment and its influence and the like.
So at that time we say: For every question there is an answer; that is, for any hadith in which any person doubts, we are ready, by the grace of Allah, to research with him until we resolve his problem. And in many cases, the hadith is what is said in the common language: "This council is not worthy of this condolence"; meaning it is a weak or fabricated hadith. So at that time, we relieve him and we relieve ourselves with him. But in many cases, the hadith is authentic, but this authentic hadith must also be understood with a correct understanding, just like the Quranic text entirely.
And here is a question I want to answer on the way, meaning in answering this first question. Another question is that the questioner asks that in some hadiths, the scholars disagreed, or that people did not encompass them. We answer: The Quran, although it is preserved in terms of transmission between the two covers, sometimes disagreement occurs in the understanding of some texts. We are certain that the correct understanding exists in this nation. This correct understanding is not lost, but it is not present with every person, even the scholars, let alone others. The correct understanding of a verse about which people have disagreed must necessarily exist in a group of this nation, and it is not necessary that it be preserved and known by every individual of this nation in every past or future time. Likewise, the hadiths are so. The hadiths spoken by the Messenger (peace be upon him) are also preserved by the nation, but not by every individual of the nation.
I return to say: It is obligatory that the verse be understood with a correct understanding; likewise, the hadiths of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) must be understood with a correct understanding. And at that time, the problem falls away, and the correct and clear meaning appears in the hadith.
For example, in the questioner's question, there was the two categories regarding the hadith of sorcery. He assumed that the hadith of sorcery has a relation to the discussion of ahad hadiths, and has no relation at all; because our discussion was belief; meaning the unseen matter that Allah informed about, what was and what will be. If a correct ahad hadith comes to you, you must explicitly state it and believe in it. As for the issue of the sorcery of the Messenger (peace be upon him), this is a historical issue, like the injury of the Messenger (peace be upon him); he was injured ... or not? He was injured, and this is known in the biography. Does this have a relation to belief? It has no relation to belief. So those who distinguish between ahad hadiths and mutawatir hadiths in belief do not distinguish in a hadith related to the person of the Messenger: was he injured or not? ... They took the hadith by that. Likewise, the hadith of the sorcery of the Messenger has no relation to the ahad hadith related to belief. And for this reason, we say: The hadith of the sorcery of the Messenger is misunderstood by many people, so the problem naturally enters it. And at that time, it is not permissible for this person to surrender to his doubt or problem, but he must always and forever verify the saying of his Lord in His Book: .
I do not wish to enter into a discussion of ahad reports or the report of sorcery now, because I have spoken about it more than once. However, I will say briefly: it is a report concerning the body of the Messenger, and that weakness and frailty affected his body; not his mind, and not his thought, absolutely not. Therefore, the fact that he experienced weakness and illness is not problematic. But the problem is to imagine that the Messenger (peace be upon him) was absent from his sanity for days, or even months; that he was speaking without knowing, without realizing, and without understanding. This is impossible for him (may Allah’s peace and blessings be upon him). But that he would fall ill, yes, that is what the report of the sorcery of the Messenger (may Allah’s peace and blessings be upon him) contains.
As for being uncertain about some of the hadiths, I commented on the word "some." Why are they certain about some and not certain about others? Since the objection they are making is that the hadith was only collected after the Messenger (peace be upon him), then it follows that they must have no confidence in any hadith at all. And sufficient proof of the error, indeed the misguidance, of this claim—that is, the lack of confidence—is that in that case, nothing would remain in the hands of the Muslims that connects them to their glorious and radiant history at all. Because any person who... has many objections and doubts about the hadith of the Messenger (may Allah’s peace and blessings be upon him), who was commanded to explain the Book of his Lord: You, O Messenger, with your words to the people, if they doubt this explanation; that is, the hadith of the Messenger (peace be upon him); then doubt will inevitably seep into the entire history of the Messenger, the entire life of the Companions, all the wars, and all of history, and nothing will remain for us at all. Knowing that the scholars of Islamic history, including the disbelieving Orientalists, and it is sufficient to have the testimony of the enemy, what does the proverb say?

The questioner: "And excellence."

The Shaykh: "And excellence is what the enemies have testified to."
These people say: There is no history on the face of the earth more authentic than the history of the Muslims; there is no history more authentic than the history of the Muslims. So what can be said about the history of the Messenger (peace be upon him) and his biography in particular, which includes, first and foremost, his (may Allah’s peace and blessings be upon him) explanation of the Noble Qur'an? Therefore, this doubt means, as I said previously, that these doubters should return to the first or second group. As for believing—no, not saying: "No, we believe in the hadith and the necessity of the hadith; because it is impossible to do without it, otherwise people would come up with new religions in the name of Islam"—at that point, we draw their attention to something that was previously hinted at briefly; which is that the way to know the hadith is through the scholars of hadith.