the fundamentals or the subsidiary matters. A passion-driven partisan may voice dissent on some point of worship or commercial dealings, but he does so out of whim and sectarian zeal, not out of a genuine effort to know the truth through its proofs. Such people are not to be counted, nor should their dissent be considered a breach of the concord of Ahl al-Sunnah or of their consensus on any juristic question—whether in worship or in transactions.

The eminent ḥadith scholar Muqbil b. Hādī (may Allah have mercy on him) said in his Advice to the People of the Sunnah, p. 13: “After examining the issues over which contemporary Sunnis—those whose disagreements are not driven by desire—differ, we found them to be roughly thirty matters. We have assigned these topics to our Sunni brethren so that, God willing, they will cite the ḥadiths with their chains of transmission, study the commentators’ explanations of those ḥadiths, and, should the need arise, consult the jurists’ books (may Allah be pleased with them). When the work is finished—God willing—it will be published in a small booklet.” End quote.

I say—and may Allah have mercy on you—know that the maxim, “We cooperate in what we agree upon and excuse one another in what we differ over” (1) is a false principle. Its aim is not the unity of the Muslims but the dilution of truth and submission to whims under the pretext of consensus. It is a call to blur the distinctions between Ahl al-Sunnah and the deviant sects—Shiʿites, Kharijites, Muʿtazilites, Murjiʾites, and others.

So, may Allah protect you, cling to the path of the righteous predecessors and do not deviate from their understanding by so much as an atom’s weight. They are the people to follow; do not let your eyes stray from them in search of the bedazzling rhetoric of those driven by passion. Hold fast—hold fast!—to the way of the Salaf, and beware—beware!—of departing from their consensus in matters great or small, for the righteous predecessors never unite upon error. This holds whether the issue relates to the fundamentals of the faith or to a point of jurisprudence—such as the permissibility of wiping over leather socks—and the like.