Let us give an example from the authentic narrations, two women came to Dawood, claiming that one of them was the mother of a child whom a wolf had taken. Dawoo

Indeed, how well is the saying: 'Who is it that has never erred, and who possesses only what is good?' And another has said: 'And I do not abandon a brother whom I do not blame for his shortcomings, regardless of how dishevelled he appears among men...' [end of quote] For further reading, please refer to the following link: https://www.muqbel.net/fatwa.php?fatwa_id=353 The writer states: "6. At-Tahiri's conveying greetings and sending regards when he was told that about studying with some students from Dammaj, which was from the reason which lead to have a favourable opinion of At-Tahiri. Here there is eluding to that At-Tahiri has knowledge of what occured in Yemen..." Commentary: What an absurd conclusion! The writer claims that I had a good opinion of Sheikh At-Tahiri because he conveyed greetings to us, indicating that he was aware of what occurred in Yemen?! In reality, the opposite is true. I was the one who was informed about that, and this incident confirmed what I clarified: that I did not perceive any negative attitude from Sheikh At-Tahiri, may Allah grant him success, towards Sheikh Yahya, may Allah preserve him, or his students. Is it said that if a suspicion is strengthened by corroborative evidence, it becomes a contradiction?! It seems the writer forgot that he acknowledged this possibility! From this perspective, it is reported that Ibn Mas'ud was asked about a man who married a woman without specifying a dowry and died before consummating the marriage. Ibn Mas'ud ruled that she would receive the equivalent of the dowries of her peers, with neither excess nor deficiency, and that she must observe the waiting period and is entitled to inheritance. Then Ma'qil ibn Sinan Al-Ashja'ee said: "The Messenger of Allah ﷺ ruled similarly regarding Barwa’ bint Washiq, one of our women." Ibn Mas'ud was pleased with this. [Narrated by At-Tirmidhi (1145), and Abu Dawood (2114) in a summarised version with slight differences, and An-Nasa'i (3524)] Al-Mubarakfuri stated in Tuhfat Al-Ahwadhi (4/250): "(He was pleased) either with the ruling or with the fatwa because his reasoning aligned with the judgment of the Prophet ﷺ." As for your inquiries, Allah knows best the reason behind them, but Sheikh At-Tahiri is alive, and there is no harm in asking him to clarify matters, as it is better than building conclusions on assumptions and speculations. The writer states: "7...Why is there no clear speech on the position of At-Tahiri on Al-Jaasim and a clarification for the masses, for the cause of this reluctance? And the statement that it wasn't announced on his official channels, is incorrect rather lectures have taken place twice!..." Commentary: I believe that what was mentioned in the initial clarification addressed some of these points sufficiently. As for not publishing an announcement on the Sheikh's platforms, the mention in the plural form is erroneous! This misunderstanding arose from reliance on translation tools without review. My intention was regarding the conference they both participated in together, which took place in Jumada Al-Awwal of 1443. In truth, this detail does not change the matter, as the criticism lies in the participation, regardless of whether it was announced or not. Thus, it returns to what was previously stated.