Is the agreement of a hadith with the Noble Qur'an one of the signs of its authenticity?

The questioner : Some people say that one of the criteria for the authenticity of a hadith, especially those who have no knowledge of hadith sciences, have not tasted its sweetness, and do not know its flavor, is that the hadith agrees with the Noble Qur'an on any subject. If it does not agree with the explicit text of the Qur'an regarding the matter to which the hadith is attributed or about which it is spoken, then the hadith is not authentic. The answer is also a continuation of the answer to the first question. May Allah reward you.

The Shaykh : The truth is that this statement attributed to Professor Abu Malik is well known, and many who claim, or are claimed to be, callers to Islam sing its praises. This meaning, despite its falsity, has been mentioned in some hadiths whose chains of narration are not authentic by the consensus of hadith scholars, such as the hadith that says: Some of the early scholars, such as Ali ibn al-Madini, who was one of the great teachers of Imam al-Bukhari, and Ibn Abd al-Barr, the Andalusian hadith master, stated that this hadith was fabricated by the Zindiqs (atheists). Among the curiosities is that some intelligent scholars, we said, since this hadith is not authentically attributed to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), we tested it against the Book of Allah and found that it commands us to follow the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), as in His saying: So we tested this hadith against the Book of Allah and found that it commands us to follow the Messenger, as in the other verse: So we are the happiest of people to act upon this hadith, considering it an inauthentic hadith. To elaborate on this issue, as Professor Abu Malik requested, may Allah reward him with good, we say: If the intention behind this hadith, whose chain is not authentic, is that the agreement of a hadith with the Book of Allah means its content is explicitly found in the Noble Qur'an, then we have no need for the hadith, whether it is authentic or not. But if the intention is that any hadith containing a ruling that we do not find in the Book of Allah, Mighty and Majestic, but which was brought by the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), then in this case, agreement is not a condition, as we mentioned earlier, that Allah, Mighty and Majestic, commanded us to obey the Messenger as He commanded us to obey Him and follow him (peace be upon him), as He commanded us to follow His Book. There are many, and very many, hadiths in this meaning. So we are not obligated to test the hadith against the Book, because the Noble Qur'an has explicitly stated in its saying: There is no doubt that the explanation of the Messenger (peace be upon him), even though it does not contradict the Qur'an, does not agree with it in the meaning we mentioned first, otherwise we would be content with the Qur'an and dispense with the hadith. But it is sufficient for us that the explanation of the Messenger (peace be upon him) does not contradict the Qur'an, because he is obligated to explain it. So His saying, Mighty is He: includes correct scientific principles agreed upon by Muslim scholars. So the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), or more precisely, his hadith, has the right to specify the generalities of the Qur'an, restrict its absolutes, and clarify its ambiguities. All of this falls under the category of His saying: Therefore, these people who cling to this hadith, whose chain is false, and you have heard some of the testimony of the great hadith masters that it was fabricated by the Zindiqs, if they mean what they say, then in reality they are not Muslims; they have exited the circle of Islam. And I know that many of them are still with us in the circle of Islam; but they are among the misguided, without any doubt or ambiguity. The least indication of their misguidance is that in some matters they restrict texts from the Book and Sunnah with the hadiths of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), and they have no choice but to do so, otherwise they would exit the circle of Islam. In other hadiths, they say we refer to the Qur'an. For example, many people today do not accept the hadiths that forbid music and musical instruments in general. Why? They say we do not find a text in the Noble Qur'an, or they hide behind a phrase we have often read in some writings, which is that there is no definitive text, such as there is no definitive text forbidding, for example, musical instruments. And they know well from the books of the scholars of usul (principles of jurisprudence) that such a text described as a definitive text is not required for legal rulings. Because all of them, I mean the scholars of usul, there is no disagreement between them, from one school to another, that they believe it is sufficient for legal rulings to have a text that is probable in the opinion of the scholars, not the ignorant. It is probable either in its existence through the stronger probability, or in its indication through the stronger indication. Such a text is sufficient to establish a legal ruling, whether it is an obligation, a recommended practice, a prohibition, a disliked act, or similar legal rulings. So, to get rid of the hadiths that came regarding the prohibition of musical instruments, they reject them by saying there is no definitive text, even though the explicit text exists in Sahih al-Bukhari. Then they follow this by saying we do not find such a prohibition in the Noble Qur'an. This means that all legal rulings are explained in the Qur'an, and no Muslim says this, otherwise they would nullify the text of the Qur'an in more than one verse. And we mentioned earlier the previous verse: And I give, on this occasion, a clear example that the least knowledgeable person can understand the danger of these people who resort to relying on the Qur'an only when their desires and whims clash with some of the authentic hadiths, such as His saying, Blessed and Exalted is He: It is forbidden to you carrion. This is a general text that includes all carrion, and among that is the carrion of the sea. So if one of these people who hide behind what you heard of the false hadith, or that there is no text in the Noble Qur'an forbidding such and such a thing, were asked: What is your opinion on dead fish in the sea, is it permissible to eat it or not? Here you do not see them relying on the verse: According to their school and their deviated path from the Sunnah, they must say it is forbidden, it is not permissible to eat dead fish because it falls under the generality of His saying, Exalted is He: Similarly, blood, which is conjoined with carrion in the prohibition, if they were asked about the liver and spleen, what is your opinion, is it permissible to eat it? You will see them answer contrary to their methodology, they do not resort to the verse, they say it is permissible. Why? Because there are many hadiths regarding the permissibility of the carrion of fish, and some hadiths regarding the permissibility of the liver and spleen. The most explicit of them is his saying, peace be upon him: So what is the position of the scholars of the Muslims, past and present, regarding this verse that forbids, in its generality and comprehensiveness, all carrion? What is their position regarding the large fish that the waves throw onto the shores of the seas and then die, is it permissible to eat it? All of them, past and present, without any exception, say this is lawful. What is the evidence? Is it the Qur'an? No, it is the explanation: The Messenger (peace be upon him) explained that this verse is not in its generality and comprehensiveness. So this explanation must be verified with the basic condition, which is that it is established according to the method of the hadith scholars, and not according to the whims, tastes, and times of people. So this is the truth, as it was said:
"So this is the truth, there is no obscurity in it, so leave me alone from the intentions of the people of the path."
This is what we see regarding this observation made by Professor Abu Malik.