Belonging to the preferred centuries is nothing but belonging to infallibility.

The Shaykh : So when a Muslim belongs to these centuries, to this righteous Salaf, he has belonged to the infallibility that Allah (Mighty and Majestic) preserved from deviating from Islam to the right or to the left. It is not so for any person or any group, no matter how high their status in knowledge, righteousness, and piety, and no matter how large their number. This group that belongs to a person or to a group of scholars—we have not been informed, nor have we been taught, that they are infallible from error. For infallibility is only for individuals, the Prophets (may Allah’s prayers and peace be upon them), and then for the group that reached consensus and the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) testified that they are upon infallibility. We must distinguish between individuals and the era in which the sum of its people represents that period. The gathering of all of them on something entails infallibility, but if some of them isolate themselves with something, there is no infallibility in that. For the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him and his family) only said: The opposite is the case for one who belongs to a person or to a group, no matter how many they are, but this group does not represent the righteous Salaf, not in the first century, nor in the second, nor in the third.
I give you a very clear example, and there is no shame in the truth, ever, and no favoritism. I cannot imagine a Muslim, no matter how far his sectarian or partisan fanaticism goes, I cannot imagine a Muslim saying: “I disavow what the righteous Salaf were upon.” The reason is what we mentioned earlier: that these people are infallible from gathering upon error, by the testimony of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him and his family). But if someone were to say: “I disavow the madhhab of so-and-so,” and the madhhab of so-and-so undoubtedly contains correctness and error, and truth and misguidance, then when a Muslim disavows the madhhab of a certain person, he has not disavowed Islam, but rather he has disavowed this person because he has a deviation, even if unintentional, from what the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him and his family) brought, in the Book and the Sunnah. So we are extremely eager to adhere to this affiliation, hoping that Allah (Mighty and Majestic) will make us, in reality and in action, upon the methodology of the righteous Salaf, as we spoke about that recently.
So the name does not contain—this name in particular—any deviation from the Shari'ah, especially if it is accompanied by commitment to what the righteous Salaf were upon. This is very close to if someone were to say to one of our brothers, these Salafis: “What is your madhhab?” He says: “I have no madhhab.” He says to him: “That won’t do; you must have a madhhab.” When he corners him and restricts him, he says: “My madhhab is Muhammadi,” meaning attributed to Muhammad ibn 'Abd Allah (may Allah’s prayers and peace be upon him). No one can deny him this affiliation or this name, even if people did not dare... for a Muslim to say: “I am Muhammadi.” Rather, this is said in the lands of disbelief and misguidance, where they know nothing about Islam. So when he says: “I am Muhammadi,” this European understands that he is a Muslim. But if this expression were used between two Muslims, the first would start asking him: “What is your madhhab?” Meaning, are you Hanafi, or Maliki, or Shafi'i, or Hanbali? He says: “I have no madhhab,” meaning I do not have one imam in whom I confine my creed, my thought, and my madhhab to following everything he says. I have no madhhab in this. When he presses him, he holds fast to the firmest rope of infallibility and says: “My madhhab is what the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him and his family) was upon, so I am Muhammadi.”
Who among the Muslims dares to deny or refute this attribution on the grounds that this attribution is newly invented, new, and not known previously?
We say: Truly, this attribution was not known in the early time, in the time of the righteous Salaf, the first, second, and third centuries, and later centuries. It was not as is the case with there being a Hanafi madhhab, a Shafi'i madhhab, a Maliki, and a Hanbali. All these names were not known in the early time. That is because there was no madhhab in that time that governed a group of Muslims except the madhhab of the Messenger of Allah (may Allah’s prayers and peace be upon him), meaning: except the Book and the Sunnah. But later, when taqlid (following a scholar without knowing his evidence) prevailed over the masses of Muslims, and indeed when fanaticism prevailed over them, each for one of the imams of the Muslims, this fanaticism is what led them to belong to four madhhabs. So this one says: “I am Hanafi.” What does this attribution mean? It means I follow Abu Hanifah. Abu Hanifah (may Allah have mercy on him) is an imam among the imams of the Muslims, but is he infallible? The answer from all Muslims: He is not infallible. And that one belongs to Imam Malik and says: “I am Maliki.” The meaning of this attribution is that he belongs to an imam and to a man among the scholars of the Muslims, but he is not infallible either. And the third says: “I am Shafi'i,” and al-Shafi'i is like al-Hanafi and Malik; he is also not infallible. And likewise we say of the one who says: “My madhhab is Hanbali”; he attributes himself to Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal (may Allah have mercy on them all). So everyone who attributes himself to an imam among the imams of the Muslims is attributing himself to one who was not described with infallibility, but rather was described as not being infallible. As he (peace and blessings be upon him) said in the hadith that al-Bukhari and others narrated, which is known to you, namely his saying (peace and blessings be upon him and his family): .