The same applies to their respective orientations: one seeks the object of worship through certain aims and deeds, while the other seeks it through what opposes and contradicts them. This is unlike the diversity of Muslim paths and schools of thought, for their religion is one. Each believes what the other believes and worships Him according to the same religion. Each allows the other to act upon his position in disputed subsidiary matters, so they have not differed in religion.

Indeed, we go further: in those subsidiary matters over which Muslims disagree, one of the two positions must be better in Allah’s sight. This is the position of the majority of jurists, who agree with the early generations of the Muslim community that, in every question, only one position is correct in Allah’s sight. That correct position is therefore better in His sight, even if one party allows the other to maintain his position. Allowing it does not preclude its being inferior and less well-founded; it only precludes its being forbidden.

If this holds for the finer points of subsidiary matters, what, then, of their disagreements over fundamentals? Neither Muslims nor rational people disagree that only one position is correct in reality. They disagree only over whether the person who errs will be forgiven, and whether he may be deemed correct in the sense of having fulfilled his duty and incurred no blame—not in the sense of holding a true belief. For no rational person would say that two beliefs which contradict one another in every respect can both be correct.

In short, the issue here is simply that of preferring one statement and deed over another statement and deed. Among differing statements and deeds, some must necessarily be preferred over others