What is the ruling on one who rejects an authentic hadith from the hadiths of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him)?

The questioner: Between standing ... ?

The Shaykh: It was the brother who asked at the end; it seems your question meets with his last question: Does one who denies an authentic hadith of the Messenger (peace be upon him) become a disbeliever? In reality, this issue has a degree of precision. In my opinion, it is not permissible to rush to declare a disbeliever one who denies some of the authentic hadiths that are established with the scholars of hadith from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him and his family). However, one who denies the evidentiary nature of hadith in general is declared a disbeliever. As for one who hesitates regarding some hadiths—individual hadiths—and does not accept their authenticity, even if the scholars of hadith have authenticated them, he commits open sinfulness but does not become a disbeliever. This is because it is not permissible for a Muslim to declare someone a disbeliever unless he denies something he believed in. He denies something he believed in. So, anyone who believes that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him and his family) said a certain hadith and yet denies it is undoubtedly a disbeliever. As for one who is affected by doubt or suspicion regarding the authenticity of a certain hadith, his doubt does not fall upon the source of the hadith, which is the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him). Rather, the doubt falls, as we often hear from some of the doubters and skeptics, upon one of the narrators; perhaps he made a mistake, perhaps he was mistaken, or something similar. With such a doubt, it is not permissible to declare him a disbeliever, but it is sufficient for him to be an open sinner. This is because he denies the means by which he adopts the knowledge of Islamic legal rulings, and there is no other means besides it. From this, his misguidance, collapse, and contradiction become apparent when he accepts a hadith in a legal ruling and rejects another hadith, while the path is the same.
For example, recently a hadith was presented to us that is from the hadiths of the Hour, because some of the skeptics regarding the Sunnah have denied it. It is his saying (peace and blessings be upon him and his family): This hadith is in "Sahih Muslim," and it is narrated by Hammad ibn Salama from Thabit from Anas. This chain of narration is, according to all scholars of hadith, among the most authentic chains. This is because Hammad ibn Salama is an imam among the imams of the Sunnah, and his narration from Thabit is authentic by their consensus. Thabit al-Bunani is one of the great Tabi'un and one of the constant companions of Anas ibn Malik, the servant of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him and his family). There are many hadiths established in the Sunnah, and legal rulings are established through this path. So what is the meaning of accepting these rulings that came through this chain and rejecting this hadith that came through this chain? What is the reason?
The reason is bad understanding, just as that man misunderstood the mention of Allah (Mighty and Majestic) of the cows, and that it is among the blessings of Allah upon His servants. He struck the previously mentioned hadith with this understanding. Similarly, he understood from His saying (Exalted is He): that this verse contradicts the hadith: . The truth is that his wrong understanding of this noble verse is what contradicted the hadith, not the verse. Because the verse does not say more than that Allah (Mighty and Majestic) does not punish a person to whom the call of a Messenger did not come, and it is not that a Messenger did not come to him. There is a difference between the two. I said to the one who conveyed to me that doubt: We, the Muslims, are in the early part of the fifteenth century of the Hijrah; did a Messenger come to us? ... His call; so a Messenger did not come to us directly, but the call of the Messenger (peace be upon him) came to us. Did the argument become established against us? Undoubtedly, the argument is established against us as long as the call has reached us. But this does not negate that there may be peoples in some other lands, let us take as an example the North Pole and the South Pole, it is not far-fetched that there are people to whom the call of Islam has not reached as it reached us. So His saying (Exalted is He): if understood rigidly meaning: by his person; we would be excluded from having a Messenger come to us, and all people today would not be held accountable, because a Messenger did not come to them!! No, the intention is not the coming of the Messenger by his person only. The Messenger may come to a people directly, and then the call of this Messenger comes to the peoples who come after them.
Therefore, incidentally, I say: It came in the authentic reports in a story I do not want to mention in full now, but the point of reference is: The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said to his companions one day: , and he entered the chamber. So the people began to speculate who these people were? Happy for them, blessed for them; they enter Paradise without reckoning or punishment, their faces like the moon on the night of the full moon. Some said: These are the Muhajireen who migrated from their homes and wealth in the cause of Allah. Some said: No, they are the Ansar who supported the Messenger of Allah in the time of hardship. A third opinion said: No, neither you nor these, but rather your children who will come after you, who will believe in the Messenger and not have seen him. So the intention is not the sending of the Messenger by his person only, but also by his call. So whoever met the Messenger directly has certainly met the call, and whoever did not meet the Messenger directly may be met by the call or may not be met by the call. So we Muslims today have been met by the call of the Messenger, so we are not concerned with the noble verse: . When I said to the man: Did the Messenger come to us? And he thought a little, he said: The call came to us.
So the one who strikes the authentic hadith of Muslim: it is not correct for him to say: A Messenger did not come to them. It may be correct for them to say: The call of a Messenger did not come to them. At that time, we hold to my words and say to you: Where do you get from that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) ruled that these people are from the people of the Fire? And this ruling is not only for the parents of the Messenger; because you know the occasion in which the Messenger (peace be upon him) said this phrase. A man from his companions (peace be upon him) came and said to him: O Messenger of Allah, where is my father? He said: ; meaning: He died in the pre-Islamic age of ignorance; so he is in the Fire. So the man turned away, and naturally he was sad. So the man repeated and said to him: ; meaning, who are you if my father and my mother—and I am the master of mankind—are in the Fire for their associating partners with Allah (Blessed and Exalted is He)? So do not grieve and do not be sad for your father. Similarly, in other hadiths, when the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) passed by two graves one day, his mount stumbled, so he turned and saw the two graves. He said: . They said: In the pre-Islamic age of ignorance. So he said (peace and blessings be upon him): , they died in the pre-Islamic age of ignorance, .
Similarly, that noble man whose son asked the Prophet (peace be upon him) about his father? He was noble and he used to honor the guest, and he was, and he was, and so on. Does that benefit him? He said: . So there are numerous hadiths that speak about the polytheists before the sending of the Messenger (peace be upon him) that they are from the people of the Fire. So where do those who cite the noble verse as evidence get from that that these individuals whom the Messenger (peace be upon him) testified that they are from the people of the Fire did not have the call reach them? This is contradictory. Because the ruling of the Messenger (peace be upon him) that they are from the people of the Fire means that the call reached them. Otherwise, the verse is explicit: . Or that the man's understanding is superficial, wretched, and rigid; meaning by his person. And at that time, you understand this interpretation in the Qur'an as a matter of course. Because we, at that time, are not included in the warning of disbelief. Because the Messenger did not come to us directly. And no Muslim says this.
Once we understand this reality, it is not permissible for us to fall into either of two things: either denying the authentic hadiths that the scholars have authenticated due to our limited understanding of them, such that they do not contradict the Noble Qur'an. This is not permissible, as al-Ghazali of the present day and many others have done—regrettably! But this—very regrettably—means that his tongue and pen have destroyed him, although there are many like him who deny the authentic hadiths because they do not understand them in a way that does not contradict the Noble Qur'an. This is the first thing that a Muslim should not fall into: rushing to deny the authentic hadiths that the scholars have authenticated because he does not realize the reconciliation between them and what he may perceive as a contradiction between these hadiths and some of the noble verses.
The second thing: that we do not rush to declare as disbelievers those who deny some of these authentic hadiths, except in the case I mentioned earlier: if one denies the Sunnah in its entirety, both in general and in detail, and says, "The Qur'an is sufficient for us." In that case, this is disbelief by the Qur'an, because the Qur'an—as you know, and there is no need to elaborate on that—commands following the Messenger just as it commands following the Qur'an.
Please proceed.

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh: - And upon you be peace and the mercy of Allah - It appears that you were not present.

Another questioner : ... .

The Shaykh: Ah? It was not [permissible]. The matter has been discussed, and the answer is that it is not permissible, and it is recorded.
Yes.
Please proceed.