How do we respond to those who cite the disagreement of the Companions in creed to justify the mixing and combining of schools?

Musa Nasr: The Islamic callers who are concerned with random mixing justify this mixing by saying that the Salaf disagreed in creed. They are lenient regarding disagreement in the branches, but when you tell them that this is creed and it is not permissible to gather people upon it, because there is nothing after the truth but misguidance, they say the Salaf disagreed in creed regarding the vision, the annihilation of the Fire, and so on. What do we respond to them with, O Shaykh?

The Shaykh : O my brother, the answer was given earlier, may Allah reward you. Did they disagree intending to disagree, or intending to agree?
Musa Nasr: Intending to agree.

The Shaykh : And what do these people do? They intend to remain in disagreement. This is what we addressed in some detail in the introduction to "The Description of the Prophet's Prayer (peace and blessings be upon him)." The difference between the disagreement of the Salaf and the disagreement of the Khalaf is that the disagreement of the Salaf was due to a compelling excuse, whereas the disagreement of the Khalaf is their satisfaction with the disagreement. There is a great difference between the two. One of them would exert independent legal reasoning when the explicit text did not reach him. We do not say to them, "Why did you differ?" There were some Companions who said that if a man has intercourse with his wife and does not ejaculate, he only has to perform the ablution for prayer. This is the only case where we can say to him, "Why did he say this?" because the answer is known: the hadith reached him, and he acted upon it, but the hadith that abrogated it did not reach him, namely the hadith of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him): So he is excused. And so it is with all the disagreements. Like that stranger in his ruling that in Ramadan, on days like the ones we see now, which are anomalous compared to the general pattern, when you see the weather is clear and hot, then the air changes, and then the rains fall, and then the snow also comes down. In the month of Ramadan, snow fell, and one of the Companions took some snow to eat. They said to him, "You are fasting, how can you eat snow?" He said, "This is a blessing from the sky, not food." This was his opinion; he did not have the perception to distinguish between drinking water and eating snow, which is water plus something else. He said, "This is a blessing from the sky." We do not say to him, "Why?" It appeared to him that way. But today, is it permissible for someone like me to issue this ruling? The answer is not permissible. This is like the one who says regarding the first opinion that a Companion said if a man enjoys his wife but that drop does not come out, then the full ritual bath is not obligatory. It is not permissible after the Sunnah has become clear to us. This is what we keep repeating regarding these sectarianists who are fanatical. Why do they continue to be fanatical about the opinions of their school of jurisprudence when there is a clear and evident Sunnah, as I gave you some examples of earlier? The difference is very clear between the disagreement of the Salaf and the disagreement of the Khalaf.
Then I want to draw attention to a very fundamental issue, which is that you quoted from some of them that they disagreed regarding Paradise and the Fire, whether they are annihilated or not? This is not from the disagreement of the Salaf, and it is not permissible to mention this issue as one of the other issues in which they truly disagreed. Rather, this is an opinion in which some of the Imams, whom we respect, exerted independent legal reasoning specifically regarding the annihilation of the Fire only, and not specifically regarding the annihilation of Paradise. And even so, it is an error and a sin, and an error that is forgiven in light of the multitude of his correct statements to which he called people.