2. In his book on foods and the rulings on hunting and slaughter (p. 161), he said: "We mentioned at the beginning of this chapter [on p. 127] that the wisdom b

Fourthly, some may wonder how it is possible that he does not know Al-Halabi's condition, as if this is inconceivable. However, even Sheikh Salih Al-Fawzan, may Allāh preserve him, despite his immense stature, once asked our Sheikh Yahya, may Allāh aid him, about his dispute with the Abul Hasan Al-Misri, whose fitnah could be said to have been greater than Al-Halabi's. https://t.me/AlHajoori/673 The writer said: "3. Regarding the companionship which was supposedly severed and ended with a warning. What's under question is the position of At-Tahiri towards Ubaid, not the other way round, and brushing this away due to the warning of Ubaid of At-Tahiri; which doesn't nullify this affair, isn't appropriate and Allah knows best..." Commentary: The writer refers to the end of the relationship between Sheikh At-Tahiri, may Allāh grant him success, and his teacher Ubayd, saying it "supposedly" ended. However, a quote from Salim At-Tawil indicates that the companionship indeed ended, as it is clear from his statement: "Then they returned and planted a new seed to cause division between Sheikh Ubayd Al-Jabiri and Sheikh Dr. Muhammad Hisham al-Tahiri (Abu Salah) through slander, eventually managing to divide them, even though their relationship had been strong and close, to the point that the two of them co-authored a book together." [end of quote] As is well known, division/Tafreeq involves two sides, not just one, as the writer claimed. Al-Ābadi said 'Al-Muheet': "The verb 'فَرَّقَ' (farraqa) means to distribute something; for example, 'He distributed the provisions among those who deserve them.' It also means to create division among people; for instance, 'He caused discord among the people.' Additionally, it implies scattering or dispersing; for example, 'The events scattered them into various groups.' When referring to two parties, it means to separate or distance one from the other; for example, 'The judge separated the spouses,' or 'The war divided the members of the same family.'" [end of intended quote] This error likely stems from the writer's failure to refer to the link attached to the clarification or from not giving it enough attention. Secondly, the author implies that the companionship continued even after the split, but the burden of proof is on him since the evidence is required from the one making the claim. A mere lecture without any clear indication of the companionship, even indirectly, is insufficient to prove the continuation of their relationship, and this is a matter accepted by any rational person. As for the audio clip, it was shown to me by one of the virtuous individuals, and its purpose is to convey the well-known statement of Ibn Asakir: "The flesh of scholars is poisonous, and the way of Allāh concerning those who insult them is well-known." However, this does not apply to legitimate knowledge-based refutations issued in defense of the truth. Ibn Rajab raḥimahullāh said: "Thus, refuting weak opinions and clarifying the truth with evidence is something that scholars themselves love and they praise the one who does it. It does not fall under backbiting at all. Even if someone dislikes having their error exposed, this is irrelevant, as disliking the appearance of truth when it contradicts one's statement is not a praiseworthy trait.