Is the disagreement among the followers of the four schools of jurisprudence in the principles or the branches?

The questioner : ... on the same topic.

The Shaykh: Go ahead.

The questioner : Is the disagreement in the branches or in the principles?

The Shaykh : Both of them.

The questioner : In the principles, O Shaykh, like what, for example?

The Shaykh : Do we take these three schools of jurisprudence as principles or as branches?
Are the three schools of jurisprudence principles or branches?
Why are you not speaking?

The questioner : Fundamentals.

The Shaykh : These are principles, not branches; because they deal with creed only. The foundation of all principles is faith, because without faith, nothing is of any benefit, as is established among all Muslims. So what is your opinion if the scholars disagreed on this foundation and this principle, which is faith? They disagreed on it: Is faith speech and action, or belief and action—and action naturally entails speech—or is it belief, and action is not part of faith?
There are two schools of thought. The people of hadith and the Asha'irah say the word of truth: In our belief, faith is belief and action; therefore, no verse mentions faith without mentioning righteous action with it .
The Maturidiyyah say: Faith is belief only, and righteous action is not part of faith. This is a disagreement—as we said—in a principle of the Shari'ah, which is faith. From this disagreement, another disagreement branched out: Does faith increase and decrease, or does it neither increase nor decrease?
There are two opinions that branched out from the two previous opinions. The one who says that faith is belief and action says: It increases and decreases; its increase is obedience, and its decrease is disobedience. The one who says that faith is belief and does not include righteous action says: It neither increases nor decreases. Now, in this important issue, we have reached the point that there are two disagreements, or two schools of thought, in creed regarding understanding. But from this disagreement, a jurisprudential disagreement has branched out that is still recorded in the depths of the books: Is it permissible for one who believes that faith does not increase or decrease to marry a woman who believes that faith increases and decreases, or is it not permissible? A fatwa was issued stating that it is not permissible. Why? They are now applying their school of thought. They say that those who say faith increases and decreases, if one of them is asked: Are you a believer? He says: I am a believer, if Allah wills. And those who say it does not increase or decrease, if they are asked: Are you a believer? He says to you: I am a believer, truly. The one who says: I am a believer, truly, says: I do not marry a woman who doubts her faith; she says: I am a believer, if Allah wills. Thus, a fatwa was issued and the followers of this opinion acted upon it for decades until one of their great scholars came. Perhaps some of the attendees know the tafsir—this tafsir is printed—"Tafsir Abu al-Su'ud," the Mufti of the Two Heavyweights. This is one of the great scholars of the Hanafis. He answered when asked: Is it permissible for a Hanafi to marry a Shafi'i woman? He said: It is permissible, by classifying her as a People of the Book. And this means—regrettably—this means is serious. The reverse is not permissible; it is permissible for the Hanafi, as a man, to marry a Shafi'i woman, as a woman, at the price of the People of the Book. But is it permissible for a People of the Book man to marry a Muslim woman? No. So it is not permissible for the Shafi'i, who doubts in his faith in their claim, to marry a Hanafi woman!! All of this is written in their books, and if you wish, I can name some of them. This, my brothers, exists, and it is a disagreement, as you see, in the principles, in the foundation of the principles.
Then there are many, and very many, issues that are not easy for the general public to grasp, like this issue. You know that the old disagreement that the Mu'tazilah, in particular, raised during the reign of the Abbasid Caliph al-Ma'mun regarding the Qur'an: Is it the speech of Allah or is it not from the speech of Allah? All the people of the Sunnah say: The Qur'an is the speech of Allah. The Mu'tazilah say: No, this Qur'an is the speech of Allah, but the speech of Allah is created; meaning it is not from the speech of Allah (Mighty and Majestic). Here, the precision in the subject appears; because the three schools of the Sunnah now meet in wording but differ in meaning. The people of hadith say: The speech of Allah is an attribute of Allah, and it is impossible for it to be created. It is heard speech that the angels hear and the messengers hear; because Allah says—for example—regarding Musa: He said to him when He spoke to him with direct speech: , so He said to him: ; meaning the speech of Allah is heard. The scholars of hadith, the people of the Sunnah, truly describe it as the speech of Allah being letters, and this is what he (peace and blessings be upon him) explicitly stated in the authentic hadith: . So, the speech of Allah, according to the people of hadith, is heard by the chosen ones and has letters. But according to the other two schools of the people of the Sunnah, the speech of Allah is not letters and it is not heard. They express this negation with an affirmative phrase in their claim: The speech of Allah is the self-speech (nafs al-kalam), and they speak of the self-speech; meaning: the self-speech in their expression is exactly like divine knowledge; meaning: it is not heard, nor seen, nor anything. Here, the dispute intensified between the people of hadith and the Asha'irah and the Maturidiyyah; because these people, when they say: The speech of Allah is not created, they mean the self-speech; meaning they mean what resembles divine knowledge settled in the divine self (Glorified and Exalted is He), not what the people of hadith mean and what the Qur'an means, if a person wanted to count the verses, perhaps they would reach hundreds in which there is addressing...