[hereiamguy]

WS,

The main intention of this thread was not to provoke a discussion or debate. These issues have been several times discussed and i am sure that one can find a huge literature related to these issues with a few clicks. My understanding of it is that though we desire to see the things in a historic order but they almost never are. Our understandings have evolved with time relative to our social circumstances when it comes to the understanding of Islam. The madhab which you follow now has gone through the same evolution. If the texts were so much in order and the principals of Aqedah and fiqh were so universal , we would have never seen a Deobandi barelvi split as in pen both are Ashari/Maturidi Hanafis.

As far as the Aqeedah and Fiqh of the present day Salafis is concerned , it is inline with the historic Hanbali Madhab. There might be a few rulings which might be in contradiction with the classical hanbali literature like Al Mughni for example but the ruling can be justified from other works and opinions of the Hanbali scholars. Same is true for the Hanafi madhab. As a test case , you can mention any opinion of the present day Salafis related to Aqeedah and Fiqh and i will try to show you the similar opinion in the classical Hanbali texts.

the deobandi/barelvi split does not undermine the written principles of the ahnaf.

here is the text case:
why do the salafis do rafa yadain after third rakat while hanbalis dont?

again you are missing the point however. it is not the aqeedah or fiqh it is the usool of the salafis that is wrong. judgin every ruling by a sahih hadith. which madhab has declared that to be their usool?