It seems to me that I heard that the Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him) said that dividing the religion into principles and branches is an innovation; I mean, is this correct?

The questioner : I do not know; it seems to me that I heard that the Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him) said that dividing the religion into principles and branches is an innovation. If this is the first part; I mean, is this correct regarding what is attributed to the Shaykh al-Islam? The second part: how does the outcome of the disagreement work, or how do we distinguish between one who is careless about a matter of belief and one who is careless about a specific jurisprudential issue? Are these two the same?

The Shaykh : This is the outcome; this is the outcome of not distinguishing. And what I attributed to Ibn Taymiyyah is a correct attribution to him, and it is correct in terms of truth and its conformity with accuracy. So the outcome is what I mentioned just now. This is a very clear matter; for dividing the religion into principles and branches means the opposite of the outcome you mentioned just now. Some of the rulings of the Shari'ah that have no relation to the principles, meaning to the creed, if a person considers them permissible, there is no difference between him and one who is careless about something in the creed. Listen to his saying (peace and blessings be upon him): .
Now, his saying (peace and blessings be upon him): ; that is: the private parts; that is: unlawful sexual intercourse. And silk means silk... and intoxicants are well known, and musical instruments, which are instruments of entertainment, . They consider them permissible now. This can be interpreted as considering permissible in two meanings: the first meaning is considering permissible in the heart, and the other meaning... But it is not necessary that everyone who considers something permissible by his action is considering it permissible in his heart. For example, the fornicator who commits fornication, and some of the stories that occurred during the time of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) are a precedent for what we are saying; because that fornicator who committed fornication and came asking... ... ... Did he commit a violation or...? This is a ruling of the Shari'ah, but nevertheless he became a disbeliever; why? Because he committed a sin while considering it permissible. So the distinction, first: is not correct, and second: the outcome is not achieved by distinguishing between the creed, where one who denies something of it becomes a disbeliever, and the rulings, for if some of them deny something of them, he remains a Muslim... One result; is that clear?

The questioner : Is that clear?

The Shaykh : That is it.

The questioner: May Allah reward you.