What is the response to those who divide Islam into essence and shell, and say: We must take the essence and leave the shell?

The Shaykh : Among the preachers today—as we all know—there are those who divide Islam into essence and shell, and they say: It is obligatory that we take the essence and leave the shell. Or they make another division that may be softer than this one; for example, they say: There are fundamentals and there are branches. And peace be upon you and Allah’s mercy. There are fundamentals and there are branches; so we do not need to focus on the branches now, but rather we must focus on the fundamentals!

The questioner : Our Shaykh, may I ask a question?

The Shaykh : The time for it has not yet come, yes.
Focusing on the fundamentals to the exclusion of the branches: this is not what a scholar says. Rather, it is what these people say who have studied some traditional jurisprudence. And I mean that what a scholar does not say is: taking the fundamentals to the exclusion of the branches. As for dividing Islam into fundamentals and branches, that is a reality, like dividing it into obligatory, mandatory, recommended, and so on. But for a scholar among the scholars whose knowledge and righteousness are recognized to say: We should take Islam by its fundamentals only, to the exclusion of the branches; this is what I wanted to draw attention to: that no scholar in the past has ever said this. That is first. Second: dividing Islam into fundamentals and branches, in reality, requires a scholar from the great mujtahid scholars who are knowledgeable first of all of the Book and the Sunnah, and then who are dedicated to serving this knowledge and distinguishing the fundamentals from the branches. Where is this? It does not exist, neither before nor after; meaning that the matter is clear: these issues that number a thousand are fundamentals, so we must take them; these other issues that number in the thousands are branches, so we should not occupy people with them. This division, first: no one can undertake it or enter into it. And second: if a person were to dare, he would not be able to achieve it and present it to people clearly and distinctly.
And so, the one who says: We should take the fundamentals to the exclusion of the branches, and worse than that: that we take the essence to the exclusion of the shell; where is this fundamental or this essence that is clear to the people who are commanded to take it? And where are these branches or these shells that we should not focus on? How is it that there are issues in the hundreds—and I do not say in the tens—wherein there is disagreement among scholars: are they fundamentals or are they branches, or are they essence or are they shell? This is a very difficult matter, especially for those who have been afflicted with dividing Islam into this division. And perhaps it is permissible for me to call it: an unjust division.
And the strange thing is that since a time not long ago, we used to hear from some preachers that we must adopt Islam in its entirety, indivisible, and this is the truth. But when they found themselves unable to bear the burdens of this word of truth, they turned the scale, and said: Islam is essence and shell, or fundamentals and branches, so we must focus on the first part to the exclusion of the other.
In summary: Islam rejects this division, and no scholar among the scholars of Islam has said it. Second: no one can present Islam as two parts, but there is no doubt that there is of this and of that in it.
And finally, there is something to which our Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) drew attention, and it is undoubtedly not the essence in that unjust expression, but rather it is the shell in this expression, or the softer one is not a fundamental, but rather a branch. Nevertheless, the Messenger (peace be upon him) drew attention to it so that Muslims would focus on it, even though it is not among the fundamentals; that is to say, let us say now it is not among the obligatory duties. I mean by this his saying (peace be upon him): , it came in another hadith: ; voluntary prayer with which you complete its obligatory part. So we must not belittle voluntary prayer; that is, what is not obligatory in the juristic expression, or in the later generation’s expression: not a fundamental or not an essence, we should not focus on it. Why is this expression that we should not focus on it? Because it contradicts what the Messenger (peace be upon him) focused on, where he encouraged us to care for voluntary prayer so that Allah (Mighty and Majestic), by His grace on the Day of Resurrection, when the servant’s prayer is incomplete, would complete it from this voluntary prayer. And the deficiency—as you know in prayer—may be in quantity or in quality. As for quantity, there are many people who miss prayers, some of whom miss them making excuses that they can make them up, then the days pass and I will make it up, I will make it up, and then nothing of that happens. And even if he makes it up, it is a prayer that is not accepted, because it was performed outside its prescribed time. And the Lord of the worlds... so these prayers are what the person is held accountable for. But if he had, along with the prayers he performed in their times, some voluntary prayer, this voluntary prayer has good deeds. These good deeds are available in his scale, and they may reach the good deeds of the obligatory duties he neglected, and they are added to the good deeds of the obligatory and voluntary prayers. So if his good deeds outweigh his bad deeds, he is among the successful. And therefore, it is a great loss for a person to claim that Islam is fundamental and branch, and that we should focus on the fundamental to the exclusion of the branch because we are in such and such a time.
I do not deny, of course, that a Muslim’s enthusiasm in worshipping Allah (Mighty and Majestic) and obeying Him may differ from that of his brother, for people are not equal in this. But to present to the assembly, to all Muslims, this unjust division: that Islam is such and such; this is what we deny first, and it cannot be achieved second.
This is what I have as an answer to that question.