he instructed him to take his stuff. He didn't want Taṣwīr taking place.

The point being, those from the people of knowledge who permitted Taṣwīr did so based on ijtihād; they saw it to be necessary and something beneficial. But in reality, the benefit is little, and people are unable to differentiate the upright scholar from the misguided scholar who leads people away from the straight path. Whatever the case, if someone is a person of Sunnah and he holds this view, that is his choice. But for me to give a lecture at his place with the cameras recording, then no! Or I attend a lecture where Taṣwīr is taking place, then no! As for going out together for the sake of da’wah, giving lectures together without Taṣwīr, then there's nothing wrong with this. However, if I know he has Taṣwīr taking place in his masjid, I don't go to him, nor do I support him (in this affair). Because if people see me there, they will say we saw so-and-so with him, he must have taken part in the Taṣwīr. They won't say he prevented them from Taṣwīr, or he warned against Taṣwīr, or he disapproved Taṣwīr, and such excuses. Bearing in mind that we see this opinion (permissibility of Taṣwīr) to be wrong, because the evidences are clear in prohibiting Taṣwīr, with all its forms and means; since all of that is referred to as Taṣwīr. If you go to any person, they'll say: أصورك should I take a picture of you? Meanwhile the Prophet ﷺ says: “every image maker is in the Hellfire,” and, “Allāh has cursed the image maker.” So this person is considered a Muṣawwir (image maker) and he is included in that, regardless if people say it's similar to the eye lense or it's like looking in a mirror; this is just philosophising, otherwise the reality of the matter is that it is Taṣwīr. The act is referred to as Taṣwīr, the instrument/camera is referred to as an apparatus of Taṣwīr, the product is called Ṣūrah, and the one who engages in that is called a muṣawwir; so why are we avoiding these realities despite them being clear and evident?! And those who hold this opinion should be advised and reminded of these evidences. It's not that every issue where the scholars differ there is room for manoeuvre, where you can do as you wish. No! There are issues of differing such as covering the face in the case of women, someone comes along and says this is an issue of differing, that's it, now they can all expose their faces. Someone marries a woman, but she exposes her face on the pretext that this is an issue of differing. Hence he ends up divorcing her. Why did he divorce her? He will say, she exposes her face. Come on now, it's an issue of differing, just like Taṣwīr. Will he be satisfied with that? No! So this argument should not be a reason to go overboard. He constantly repeats this: it's an issue of differing, it's an issue of differing. No! If the proofs are obvious and the evidences are clear, it's wājib to adhere to that. Al-’Allāmah Al-Fawzān ḥafidhahullāh has clarified this in his explanation of 'Uṣūl As-sittah', he stated that differing between scholars does not mean you are allowed to differ and that you are not allowed to criticise. No! We criticise Taṣwīr, we criticise those who partake in Taṣwīr, and we criticise those who allow Taṣwīr - even if he happens to be from Ahlus-Sunnah wal Jamā’ah. We criticise him for this. We are not pleased with giving talks at his place, attending his talks and adding to the numbers while Taṣwīr is taking place. If he is truly concerned about brotherhood, unity, and loving one another (for Allāh's sake), he would abstain from Taṣwīr due to my love for him and for the sake of unity. He would not split from me and let in someone else based on this matter. This is not appropriate. We have to safeguard our ra'sul māl (capital) and not extend the matter, as this will lead to further extensions in this issue without any basis.