Who denies authentic hadiths on the basis of reason; what is his ruling?

The questioner : A questioner says: We came across an article in an Islamic newspaper by one of the prominent scholars, in which he says: I use my mind in accepting and rejecting texts.

The Shaykh : How? I use?

The questioner : I use my mind in accepting and rejecting texts?

The Shaykh: Allah is the Greatest!

The questioner : He gave an example of this by rejecting the hadith of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) in which he reported that Musa (peace be upon him) gouged out the eye of the angel when he came to take his soul, on the grounds that it is not permissible for a close friend of Allah to be forced to meet Allah (the Exalted), let alone His Messenger.
Yes.

The Shaykh : What was the first question? Is it permissible?

The questioner : The first question is that this scholar says: I use my mind in accepting and rejecting texts?

The Shaykh : I understood this, but this is like a subject; what is the predicate?

The questioner : The predicate is: Is it permissible for him to do that?

The Shaykh : Yes, that is what came in the question?

The questioner : No, he read this statement in a newspaper; he wants to know if this statement is correct?

The Shaykh : I know, my master, but I am asking: Did the question come? You read it; so what is the question?

The questioner : The question says.

The Shaykh : No, he says, but what is the question that closed the paper?

The questioner : What is your opinion of this man, meaning?

The Shaykh : ... but I want to blame myself; did this come in the question?

The questioner : The meaning of this statement is clear; "What is your opinion" is clear? Or did it come to you?

The questioner : "What is your opinion" is not written in the question?

The Shaykh : The important thing is this.

The questioner : He means, does he have a proof for that?

The Shaykh : Do you imagine that there is a proof in the mind of the innovator?! Glory be to Allah! In any case, I say to him on this occasion: Among the scholars of hadith—as is well known—there is the critique of the chain and the critique of the text. The critique of the chain is the main basis of the scholars of hadith in authenticating hadiths and weakening them, and rarely do they turn to authenticating a hadith based on its text, and even less so to weakening a hadith based on its text.
There is now in the modern era a new expression for the critique of the chain or the critique of the isnad and the critique of the text, which they call: external critique and internal critique. External critique relates to the chain, and internal critique relates to the text. So the scholars of hadith, by their generosity and precision in knowledge, established external critique—that is, the critique of the text—by tracking the texts of the hadiths of some narrators. If they found that the majority of these texts showed the narrator contradicting the hadiths of the trustworthy ones, they judged him as weak. Perhaps they expressed this by what indicates this sifting and this tracking, so some of them say, for example: "He narrates denunciations," and some say: "He narrates denunciations from the famous ones," and "He narrates catastrophes from the established ones," and some say: "He has denunciations," and the like. All of this indicates to us that the science of hadith, which is the science of the critique and vindication of narrators, was established on tracking the hadiths of the narrators. So whoever they found contradicting the trustworthy ones about whom no question is asked, they judged him with what he deserves; either by declaring him a liar, or by severe weakening, or by slight weakening. This type can be cited as evidence, and what is below that cannot. Who did this? The imams of hadith. And on this induction they established the science of the critique and vindication of narrators.
Now we return to this speaker. What is his weight in the science of hadith? Did he study the science of hadith? First, the texts, so that he encompassed them with the largest possible quantity, so that the Sunnah flowed in his veins like blood. And from another side, he became well-versed in the biographies of the narrators of this massive wealth of Prophetic hadith; so that he is able, at least, to authenticate a hadith that is from the category of devotional matters in which there is no room for the mind to intervene, and it is not possible to judge it as authentic or weak except through the chains; that is, external critique. Did this man know anything of this or that?
The answer is: No. So he only critiques this hadith or that hadith by following his desire, and not by following the method of the early scholars of hadith in his critique. This method was established on sifting the texts, which the Imam Ibn al-Qayyim al-Jawziyyah (may Allah have mercy on him) referred to when a sensitive and very precise question was directed to him. He was asked: Is it possible to know a fabricated hadith without referring to its chain? He answered: "Yes, whoever studied the Sunnah until the hadith flowed in his veins like blood, and he developed a special taste for the authentic hadiths of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him)." So such a person—and I do not doubt this among the scholars of hadith! Let alone others—such a person can say, merely by hearing the hadith, and without referring to its chain: This hadith is not authentic. And he may even say: This hadith is denounced, this hadith is invalid, and so on. There is no doubt that this person who says this statement—as is said—is "neither in the caravan nor in the raid." This is a general statement. As for the detailed statement regarding this hadith; it confirms that this man only—in our Syrian expression, when they want to hint at a scholar or a person, they say about him—"snatches the meatball from the top of the jar and flies away." So he does not know what is in this jar of good or bad meatballs, and so on. This man read this hadith one day in some books, so he thinks that this hadith is its wording. As for tracking the hadith and forming in his mind a comprehensive and encompassing idea about it; this is something he does not do, nor is he the one who is farthest from studying the Sunnah, but even one who may be a student of the Sunnah does not do it, unless he has that perseverance and patience in collecting the wordings and routes of the hadith to clarify to him the intended meaning of this hadith or that. So this hadith is undoubtedly authentic; because the Imam Muslim (may Allah have mercy on him) narrated it in his "Sahih" with a valid chain from the hadith of Abu Hurayrah (may Allah be pleased with him). And this is what such a person can find, not directly in "Sahih Muslim," but in some books that transmit from it, such as "Al-Jami' al-Saghir" by al-Suyuti and the like. As for conducting a special study on this hadith, first hadithic, and secondly scientific textual, he does not do this for all the hadiths that he or other contemporaries denied. And he is not the one who established this misguidance; it is a misguidance that existed before him from some contemporaries.
On this occasion, I mention a scientific benefit: there was a Najdi man who was an Azhari, and few of the Najdis became Azharis—if the expression is correct—except this one known as Abdullah al-Qasimi. This Abdullah al-Qasimi, in his initial study at al-Azhar, was a sign in refuting the opponents with correct tawhid and those who deny authentic hadiths like this man and others. So he authored very beneficial books in refuting the scholars of al-Azhar, and those who say that seeking aid from other than Allah is permissible, and the like. And he authored a very beneficial book on this occasion, which he named: "Solving the Problems of the Prophetic Hadiths." It is on the model of the book "Mushkil al-Athar" by the Imam Abu Ja'far al-Tahawi. But this Imam (may Allah have mercy on him) had a long breath in authoring this book; because he collected hundreds of hadiths, whereas this Abdullah al-Qasimi spoke about some of the famous hadiths that were difficult for some of the contemporaries from the rationalists. It is good to refer to this book, with the awareness that its author deviated in the last of his life from the straight path, not from his madhhab, but from Islam entirely; so he authored a book attacking religion in general, which he named.

Another questioner : "The Shackles."

The Shaykh : "The Shackles," yes, he named it "The Shackles," rather, he named it "These are the Shackles."
The point is that we found this hadith in *Musnad al-Imam Ahmad* with a sound chain of narration that demolishes this man's objection to the hadith. This narration states at the beginning of the hadith: "The Angel of Death used to come to people in person, so the Angel of Death came to Musa (peace be upon him) and said to him: 'Answer your Lord,'" to the end of the hadith. It is well known. So he struck him with that strike, tearing out his eye, gouging out his eye, to the end of the hadith. Therefore, the problem disappears from its foundation when we know that the Angel of Death came to Musa (peace be upon him) in the form of a human being, and Musa (peace and blessings be upon him) did not know that the one coming to him was a messenger from his Lord. Therefore, he did nothing but strike him and gouge out his eye. The Angel returned to his Lord and said: "O Lord, You sent me to a servant of Yours who does not love death." He said to him: "Go back and tell him, or say to him: Let him place his hand on the skin of a bull; for every hair under his hand, he will have a year of life." He returned to him and conveyed this message from his Lord. Here, Musa (peace be upon him) realized that this was not a human being like himself who had come to mock him, so he gave him that reward. He only now realized that he was a messenger from his Lord (Blessed and Exalted is He). Therefore, he said to the Angel of Death: "What is after that?" He said: "After that is death." He said: "Then, now." He is saying how he could hate death when he says at the end of the hadith: "Now?" If I had placed my hand on the skin of a bull and had a year of life for every hair under my hand, I would now hasten death. How can it be attributed to him that first, he hated death, and second, how could he gouge out the eye of a messenger from Allah (Blessed and Exalted is He)? The answer is very clear: he gouged out the eye of a human being, not the eye of an Angel. So, by combining the routes of the hadith and the wordings of the hadith, the issues with many, many hadiths disappear. This is the answer in refuting such a person.

The questioner : May Allah reward you with good.

The Shaykh : And to you.

The Shaykh : Is it ten o'clock? Shall we suffice with this amount? Are we tired?

The questioner : We have many questions.

The Shaykh: Go ahead.

The questioner : If it does not affect your health or anything else.

The Shaykh : Please, I am with you for about a quarter of an hour in any case, if Allah wills.