The Shaykh’s clarification that belonging to the preferred centuries is nothing but belonging to infallibility

The Shaykh : 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 individual 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 has not been informed to us, nor announced, that it is infallible from error, for infallibility is only for individuals, the Prophets (peace and blessings 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 represent that epoch. The gathering of all of them upon something entails infallibility, but if some of them are isolated in something, there is no infallibility in that, for the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him and his family) only said On the contrary, 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, absolutely, and no favoritism. I do not imagine a Muslim, no matter how far his sectarian or partisan fanaticism goes, I do not imagine a Muslim saying, "I am innocent of what the righteous Salaf were upon," and 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 says, "I am not disavowing the madhhab of so-and-so and the madhhab of so-and-so," there is no doubt in it that there is correctness and error, and there is truth and misguidance. So when a Muslim disavows the madhhab of a certain person, he has not disavowed Islam, but he has disavowed this person, because in him is a deviation, even if unintentional, from what the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him and his family) brought, in Book and Sunnah. So we are keen, with all keenness, to adhere to this affiliation, pleased with Allah (Mighty and Majestic) to make us, in reality and in action, upon the methodology of the righteous Salaf, as we spoke about that recently. So the name, this name in particular, contains no 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 said to one of our Salafi brothers, "What is your madhhab?" He says, "I have no madhhab." He says, "That won't do, you must have a madhhab." So when he corners him and tightens the noose, he says, "My madhhab is Muhammadi," meaning attributed to Muhammad ibn 'Abd Allah (peace and blessings be upon him and his family). No one can deny him this affiliation or this name, even if no one among the people dared to say, "The Muslim is Muhammadi," but rather he says this 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 to occur 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. So 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... Muhammadi. Who among the Muslims dares to deny or disavow this attribution on the pretext that this attribution is an innovation, new, and not known previously? We say, truly, that this attribution was not known in the first time, in the time of the righteous Salaf, the first, second, and third centuries, and later centuries. It was not so, 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 first time, because there was no madhhab in that time that governed a group of Muslims except the madhhab of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him and his family), meaning except the Book and the Sunnah. But afterwards, when taqlid (following a scholar without knowing his evidence) prevailed over the masses of Muslims, and indeed 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 am a follower of 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 is that 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 the Hanafi and Malik, he is also not infallible. And likewise we say, the one who says, "My madhhab is Hanbali," he is attributed to Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal (may Allah have mercy on them all). So everyone who is attributed to an imam among the imams of the Muslims is attributed to one who was not described with infallibility, but was described as having no infallibility, where 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) .