What is the ruling on a Sufi scholar in Yemen who denies authentic hadiths in Sahih al-Bukhari, invalidates the existence of occasions of revelation for the Qur'an, says that the Qur'an is abrogating and not abrogated, claims there are many errors in Islamic history, and describes the consensus of the Ummah on some issues as blind imitation and bigotry, while calling for dialogue on these matters?

Muslims have agreed upon the authenticity of what is contained in Sahih (definition) al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim, with the exception of a few minor letters criticized by some preservers of hadith (definition), such as Al-Daraqutni. Whoever criticizes anything beyond that has criticized what the Ummah has unanimously accepted, and this is a deviation. If the statement "the Quran is abrogating and not abrogated" means that the Quran is not abrogated by the Sunnah (definition), then this is a point of scholarly disagreement, and it is the view of Al-Shafi'i. As for denying the occasions of revelation (asbab al-nuzul), it is a deviation, for some occasions of revelation are established in the Two Sahihs. As for the statement "Islamic history contains many errors," it is a general statement that requires elaboration. The questioner is advised to turn to people of knowledge and rectitude, and to abandon the sayings of this man and those like him.