Discussion on the division of religion into fundamentals and branches, and what follows from that.

The Shaykh : Praise is to Allah; we praise Him, seek His help, and seek His forgiveness. We seek refuge in Allah from the evil of our own souls and from the evil of our deeds. Whomsoever Allah guides, none can mislead, and whomsoever He leaves to mislead, none can guide. And I bear witness that there is no god but Allah alone, with no partner, and I bear witness that Muhammad is His slave and His Messenger.
.

As for what follows, the best of speech is the speech of Allah, and the best of guidance is the guidance of Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him and his family). The worst of matters are their innovations, and every innovation is a religious innovation, and every religious innovation is misguidance, and every misguidance is in the Fire. After that, it is known today that the Muslims have differed greatly, both in the past and in the present. As for the old difference, it is divided into two parts: a difference in what they call the fundamentals, and a difference in what they call the branches. The intended meaning of the difference in the fundamentals is the difference concerning matters of knowledge, as some scholars express it, "matters of knowledge," meaning the unseen matters, namely the Qur'anic reports and the Prophetic hadiths that relate to the unseen, which is called creed. They differed in this section, which they call the fundamentals, meaning the creeds. As for their difference in the branches, they mean by that the legal rulings. Although this terminology is acceptable, as the scholars say, "Every people have the right to use whatever terminology they wish," there is no harm in such a terminology, provided one condition is met: that the distinction between the fundamentals and the branches does not lead to focusing on the first part to the exclusion of the second. This is because the second matter, which relates to what they call the branches or legal rulings, as opposed to what they call the fundamentals, which are the creeds, contains matters that every Muslim must believe in Allah and adopt as legal rulings. Even if he denies something of that, his ruling is the same as the ruling of one who denies something of the first part, namely the fundamentals. For example, it is known that the pillars of faith relate to the unseen matters: belief in Allah, His angels, His books, and so on. And the rulings relate to the testimony that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, establishing the prayer, giving the alms, fasting in Ramadan, and performing the pilgrimage to the House of Allah. These five Islamic pillars are practical pillars. Nevertheless, if a Muslim denies any of them, or anything that branches from believing in them and having faith in them, his denial is disbelief, which is akin to denying something of the first part, namely the creeds. Therefore, as we said earlier, there is no harm in such a division, provided it does not lead to focusing on one of them to the exclusion of the other. Both matters are religion and Islam, and one must believe in them and affirm them, either by intellectual affirmation only, not accompanied by action, or by affirmation accompanied by action. This last point, affirmation accompanied by action, is a matter that must be attended to so that one part does not dominate the other, in the sense that the first part is more important and the second part is less important. That is not the case. Let us give an example: the five daily prayers are known, but on one day of the week, the obligatory prayer is not the midday prayer; it has its own specifications and conditions, namely the Friday prayer. So, whoever denies the legitimacy of the Friday prayer is a disbeliever, even though this has no relation to the unseen matters, matters of knowledge, or matters of creed. These names are approximately all synonyms indicating a single referent. Therefore, if the difference occurred in the branches, what I want from this introduction is that the Muslim not be deceived by what he sometimes hears, namely that the difference is only in the branches and not in the fundamentals. Because the difference, even though it is in the branches by their agreement, is also a fundamental difference and not a trivial matter. Furthermore, limiting the difference to the boundaries of the aforementioned terminology, and limiting the difference to the branches to the exclusion of the fundamentals, also contradicts reality.