As for the “Sālimiyya,” they and the Hanbalīs are virtually one and the same, except on certain points comparable to the differences among the Hanbalīs themselves. They also have a Sufi tendency. Those among our companions who declare these people innovators likewise regard adopting the Hanbalī label or similar labels in matters of creed as an innovation. They hold that, in matters of creed, one should identify only with the Book and the Sunnah. This is “a sound approach,” but it is a matter in which independent scholarly judgment is permissible. For scarcely any group agrees on the finer points of creed; were it otherwise, the early generations—the Companions and the Successors—would not have disagreed over some of them. Something may warrant censure in one situation but not another, or in the case of one person but not another.

The underlying principle is what I have mentioned elsewhere: doctrinal matters may stand on the same footing as practical matters. Even though the former are called “fundamental matters” and the latter “subsidiary matters,” this terminology is a later innovation, a classification introduced by some jurists and speculative theologians. It is more prevalent among speculative theologians and legal theorists, especially when they discuss questions of judging views correct or mistaken.

The majority of accomplished jurists and Sufis, however, consider actions more important and more deserving of emphasis than disputed doctrinal positions. The jurists’ discussions concern actions, and they often dislike discussing any question that has no practical implications, as Mālik and others among the scholars of Medina state (1). Rather, the truth is that the weighty questions in either category are “fundamental matters,” while the finer points are “subsidiary matters.”