[B] A Reply to `Al-Bootee versus a leading Salafee Teacher`[/B]

[As Salafee]

A Reply to `Al-Bootee versus a leading Salafee Teacher`

Author: Shaikh Eed al-Abbaasi
Source: Translated by Abu Rumaysah

'Al-Bootee versus a leading Salafee Teacher' is a debate translated by Nuh Ha Meem Keller from the book 'Laa Madh-habiyyah' of Sa`eed Ramadaan al-Bootee in which he apparently makes this Salafee Teacher look like a fool. The full text can be found on Mas`ud Khan's Homepage.

Ever since I first read this debate I remember being astonished at some of the answers that this Salafee Teacher gave, knowing that even a beginner in Salafeeyyah would not have answered in some of the ways these questions put by al-Bootee were answered. I therefore concluded that this narrative must have been grossly exaggerated by al-Bootee, especially since it was obvious that he was quoting from memory and not from a tape or book, however I kept my suspicions quiet as I had no proof.

Recently while reading through the book 'Bid`atut Ta`assub al-Madh-habiyyah' by Shaykh Eed al-Abbaasee I came to realise that the Salafee Teacher mentioned above was none other then this noble Shaykh! This because he presents a chapter in his book devoted to this debate in which he outlines the gross lies that al-Bootee leveled against him. In one of the points he brings [which will be translated later insha`Allaah] he openly calls al-Bootee to a Mubaahalah to show which of the two is lying.

What follows is a translation from the book [pp. 291+]

I have included excerpts from relevant passages from Kellers translation and then listed the comments of the Shaykh.

The Text

Al-Bootee concluded 'Laa Madh-habiyyah' by narrating a specific debate that occurred between myself and him claiming that this section was more important than all of the previous sections [of his book] because it clearly showed a sectarianism that would not be found in any intelligent person.

Then he narrated this debate in a distorted fashion and a way that was far removed from what actually occurred. We have already seen a glimpse at the lies he directed against al-Ma`soomee, may Allaah have mercy upon him, and the Salafees in general while his book and the books of the Salafees are freely available! So after this it is not strange that he should lie against me when this debate was not public, neither was it recorded and no one witnessed it except a few people. However these people are still alive so whosoever wishes to establish what follows then let him ask them.

THE FIRST LIE:

Al-Bootee wrote as translated by Keller:

Bootee: I dropped the question and said, "all right. Is it obligatory upon every Muslim to examine the evidences for the positions of the Imams and adopt the closest of them to the Qur`aan and Sunnah?"

Salafee [i.e. al-Abbaasee]: "yes."

Shaykh Eed al-Abbaasee says:

I bring Allaah, the Mighty and Magnificent, to witness that this quote is a complete and utter lie, totally concocted! For I never answered in this fashion and neither is it conceivable that I would give this answer! Rather I said to him what he quoted from me after the next sentence, "the people are divided into three categories - the Muqallid, the Muttabi` and the Mujtahid...."

Furthermore this second quote he brings goes to show the fallacy of his first quote for it in no way conforms to it. Again I bring Allaah to witness that I repeatedly mentioned to him that I agreed with him in that the one incapable of investigating and studying [in a scholarly fashion] must perform taqleed and that this was not the topic of our discussion. The difference occurred in the case of the one who was capable of studying and investigating from those who were included in the level of Mujtahid and Muttabi`, however he kept on returning to the case of the one who was incapable of investigation. Then after all of this he lies and writes in his book this fabricated response from me. Indeed Allaah will bring him to account!

THE SECOND LIE:

Al-Bootee wrote as translated by Keller:

Bootee: "That is something else, and is true without a doubt and without any disagreement among the scholars. But is there any problem with him following a particular mujtahid, knowing that Allaah has not obliged him to do that?"

Salafee: "There is no problem."

Bootee: [Al-Khajnadi's] al-Karras, which you teach from, contradicts you. It says that this is unlawful, in some places actually asserting that someone who adheres to a particular Imam and no other is an unbeliever (kafir)."

Salafee: He said, "where?" and began looking at the Karras, considering its texts and expressions, reflecting on the words of the author "Whoever follows one of them in particular in all questions is a blind, imitating, mistaken bigot and is "among those who have divided their religion and are parties" [Qur`an 30:32]. He said, "By follows, he means someone who believes it legally obligatory for him to do so. The wording is a little incomplete."

[As Salafee]

Bootee: I said, "What evidence is there that that's what he meant? Why don't you just say the author was mistaken?"

Salafee: He insisted that the expression was correct, that it should be understood as containing an unexpressed condition and he exonerated the reader from any mistake in it.

Let us read what really happened. Shaykh Eed writes:

Al-Bootee asked me about my opinion concerning the words of al-Ma`soomee in his book: that whosoever clings firmly to a specific madh-hab in every issue is a partisan and mistaken, performing taqleed in a blind fashion.

My reply to him was: "What I understand from this book [as a whole], in the light of various evidences, that al-Ma`soomee meant that whosoever follows a specific madh-hab in every issue while believing that Allaah had obligated this upon him [then he is a partisan...]. One part of his book explains the other and as a whole it shows that he is attacking partisanship to a particular madh-hab and rejecting the condition of those who have come across that which contradicts the Book and Sunnah in their madh-hab and they are from those people who have the ability to investigate and study [in a scholarly fashion] yet despite this they turn away from the Book and Sunnah and stick to the stance of their madh-hab." Even after all of this I said to him: "It would have been upon al-Ma`soomee to further clarify this for in this sentence of his there is [some] deficiency."

However this is what he quoted from me: "there is [some] deficiency in this sentence" and said after this: "but the man persisted in claiming that the sentence was correct and that it was to be understood in the sense that the governing words had been omitted and that al-Ma`soomee was free of any error in it."

I bring Allaah to witness that this is a complete lie and I do not know how his contradictory quotes from me could ever stand in the mind of an intelligent person, especially when they are only two lines apart! Does al-Bootee not give any respect to the minds of the intelligent who would clearly see this contradictory [quote] and reject it?! Is it possible that a Muslim would say that anyone other than the Messengers and Prophets were free of any error?!

THE THIRD LIE:

Al-Bootee writes as quoted by Keller:

Bootee: "A young man, newly religious, without any Islaamic education, reads the word of Allaah Most High, "To Allaah belongs the place where the sun rises and where it sets: wherever you turn there is the countenance of Allaah. Verily Allaah is the All-encompassing, the All-knowing." [Qur`an 2:115] and gathers from it that a Muslim may face any direction he wishes in his prescribed prayers as the ostensive purport of the verse implies. But he has heard that the four Imams unanimously concur upon the necessity of his facing the Kaaba, and he knows that they have evidences for it that he is unaware of. What should he do when he wants to pray? Should he follow the Imams who unanimously concur on the contrary of what he understood?"

Salafee: "He should follow his conviction."

Bootee: "And pray towards the east for example. And his prayer would be legally valid?"

Salafee: "Yes. He is morally responsible for following his personal conviction."

....

Bootee: "I intend to publish these remarks of yours. They are dangerous and strange."

Salafee: "Publish whatever you want. I'm not afraid."

Bootee: "How should you be afraid of me when you are not afraid of Allaah Mighty and Majestic, utterly discarding by these words the word of Allaah Might and Majestic 'Ask those who recall if you know not.' [Qur`an 16:43]"

Let us see what really was said. Shaykh Eed writes:

The example that al-Bootee brought, in which he exaggerated and shouted, was to consider the case of a youth who recited the saying of Allaah, "To Allaah belongs the East and West so wheresoever you turn there is the Face of Allaah." He distorted the discussion, omitted part of it and deliberately distorted the understanding of my answer such that he totally altered the context of this discussion.

To explain, he asked me about the ruling of the one who heard the above mentioned verse and understood from it that he could face any direction in prayer. It reached him that the Four Imaams had said that it was obligatory to face the Qiblah only, however their evidence for this did not reach him. Then he stood to pray - where should he face?

I asked: does this youth understand Arabic well? He [al-Bootee] said: "yes, like yourself."

I said: then let him look just a little after this verse for he will find His saying, "so turn your face in the direction of the Holy Mosque."

He said: Let us assume that he has only heard this verse and he does not have the Mus-haf with him.

I said: Let him ask a scholar for the evidences and to reconcile what he has read with the opinion of the Four Madh-habs.

[As Salafee]

He said: Lets assume he is in the desert, there is no scholar or jurist with him.

I said: This is an imaginary example that would not occur in reality so there is no need to busy ourselves with it.

He said: Let it be an imaginary circumstance, what is the ruling?

I said: He should follow what seems more obvious to him arising from his personal ijtihaad. If I was in his place I would have followed the verse and were I later to find that I was in error then my belief is that Allaah would not bring me to account for this because I did all that I could in that situation and fulfilled my obligation. However the youth can also follow the opinion of the Four madh-habs that has reached him and I see no harm in this if this is what he decides to be the stronger course. However the best course is to follow the verse because it is the Speech of Allaah and constitutes evidence in and of itself and should not be left for doubt or error. The Four Imaams on the other hand are men and it is possible that they err even if their errors occur rarely.

At this point al-Bootee began to rant and rave, raising his voice, fuming with rage and exclaimed: "There is no harm in your view that he prays in a direction other than the Qiblah, leaves the saying of the Four Imaams and you consider his prayer to be valid?!"

I said: Yes, because the circumstances that you put him in [in this example] and imagined do not allow him to come to know the Sharee`ah ruling with certainty and therefore he has to exert himself in trying to ascertain it to his utmost ability. He believes that the noble verse shows that he can pray in any direction and that this is the stronger course because the Qur`aan constitutes proof in and of itself. On the other hand he has the mere saying of these Imaams and their proof has not reached him and therefore [under these circumstances] it constitutes only opinion. Evidence takes precedence over opinion in the eyes of all the People of Knowledge. Imaam Ahmad, may Allaah have mercy upon him said, 'the opinion of al-Awzaa`ee, Maalik, Abu Haneefah is only opinion and it is all the same to me. The proof lies with the hadeeth.'"

The debate on this point continued for some time and al-Bootee was unable to bring a single evidence that would prove that the prayer of this youth was invalid in these circumstances. All he did was to shout and exaggerate, threatening to publish my words to the people in order to frighten me.

I said to him: spread my words as you like for I do not fear your publishing what I believe to be correct and the truth.

His reply was vile and I have no doubt that Allaah will bring him to a painful account for it.

He said: you do not fear Allaah so how can you fear me?

The meaning of this is that he has accused me of that which resembles disbelief for I do not believe that you will find a Muslim who does not fear Allaah, the Mighty and Magnificent.

I reminded him of the danger of this accusation and the severity of its sin in the Sight of Allaah, the Mighty and Magnificent. I reminded him of the hadeeth of the hadeeth of Usaamah bin Zayd wherein the anger of the Prophet (sallallaahu `alaihi wasallam) was severe when he learned of his killing the disbeliever even after he had uttered the Shahaadatayn. Usaamah tried to excuse himself saying that he only said out of fear for his life. The Prophet (sallallaahu `alaihi wasallam) said: Did you split open his heart?

Instead of retracting after hearing this hadeeth, al-Bootee only increased in arrogance and repeated the last sentence 'did you split open his heart' in a vile fashion. He mockingly repeated it, mimicking my voice such that even those who were listening objected!

Then I said to him: Allaah will call you to account for this.

He said: Let Him take me to account!

These are the manners of al-Bootee O noble reader! [Then follows some emphatic advice to al-Bootee to correct his manners and know his standing.]

END

He mentions further lies, that I will insha`Allaah translate soon, commencing with the section I have omitted from the last quote of Kellers translation. Some of these even exceed what we have seen above!!

For a related debate refer to the article 'Al-Albaanee versus Bootee.'

And Our Lord Most High Knows best.

[As Salafee]

Imam al-Albani's Subjugation of al-Buti

Author: Translated by Abu Rumaysah
Source: Bid`atut Ta'assub al-Madhhabee (Shaykh Eed al-Abbaasi)


First some of the history behind this debate.

Soon after Sa`eed Ramadaan al-Bootee had written his ‘Fiqh as-Seerah’ in which he accused Ahlus Sunnah, the Salafees, of that which they are free of, Shaykh Naasir [al-Albaanee] asked to open a discussion with al-Bootee. The topic was to be these accusations and some more specific ones levelled at Shaykh Naasir himself.

However, for various reasons this discussion never occurred. Then when al-Bootee wrote his book ‘laa madh-habiyyah’ in which he launched even more attacks against Ahlus Sunnah, Shaykh Naasir renewed his efforts to open a discussion with al-Bootee, writing a letter to him which commenced with Surah al-Asr.

This meeting did take place and took more than three hours. The following is a summarised transcript of this meeting reproduced in the book ‘Bid`atut Ta`ssub al-Madh-habee’ of Shaykh Eed al-Abbaasee, may Allaah preserve him, who states that he would soon, insha`Allaah, produce a separate booklet with the transcript to the whole discussion. He states, "this is [the discussion] O brother reader, I have quoted it truthfully and sincerely, highlighting its important points. If you wish to ascertain this for yourself then listen to the tapes which [you will find] in the possession of either party."


The First Issue:

Shaykh Naasir mentioned what occurred in some of the Mosques wherein a number of congregational prayers were held for the same prayer and the blind-followers of one madh-hab preventing them from praying behind a blind-follower of another madh-hab. This led him to declare the point to be incorrect that al-Bootee made [in his ‘Laa Madh-habiyyah’] that there was a consensus that the prayer of a blind-follower of one School behind a blind-follower of another School was valid. The reality is that there is a great deal of difference over this issue and in fact the weightiest opinion in the Hanafee and Shaafi`ee Schools is that it is disliked to pray behind an adherent to another madh-hab. He asked al-Bootee to prove the correctness of his quote and assertion.

Al-Bootee objected to the words of Shaykh Naasir by saying, ‘the dislike of a thing does not negate its validity.’

Shaykh Naasir refuted this by saying that it was established in the Books of Shaafi`ee Fiqh that if a Shaafi`ee follower comes to know that his Hanafee Imaam has touched an ajnabee woman and that Hanafee led the prayer without performing wudu` then the prayer of the [Shaafi`ee] follower is invalid.

Al-Bootee replied by saying that this was not what he intended by his words. What he meant was that the prayer was valid behind an Imaam with the condition that the Imaam being followed had not done something that invalidated the wudu` or prayer according to the madh-hab of the follower.

Shaykh Naasir objected to this by saying [that this could not be understood from his words in his book] because his words were general and hence would remain upon their generality until some [text] occurred that restricted their meaning.

At this juncture there arose a discussion concerning Usul in which the meaning of general and restricted was discussed wherein al-Bootee fruitlessly tried to avoid the point that Shaykh Naasir made. His father [who was also present] aided him in this even though he admitted that the words of Shaykh Naasir spoke the truth and his son had no idea how to respond!

The discussion concluded with it being agreed that it would have been upon Dr. al-Bootee to bring some form of restriction to his words by saying: The scholars have agreed that the prayer of a Shaafi`ee behind a Hanafee and vice-versa is valid with the condition that the follower not know of anything the Imaam may have done that invalidated the wudu` or prayer according to the madh-hab of the follower.


The Second Issue:

Shaykh Naasir asked Dr. Bootee to furnish him with the evidence that would justify the correctness of the title of his book that the Laa Madh-habiyyah [Anti-Madh-habees] were the most dangerous innovation destroying the Islaamic Sharee`ah.

Al-Bootee replied by saying that the evidence lay in his book in that the Sahaabah used to stick to the madh-habs of their scholars. Likewise those who followed them, then those who followed them until this day of ours.

This astonished Shaykh Naasir who said: It becomes clear to me that you [he refers to al-Bootee in the plural] intend by the word madh-habiyyah a meaning other then what commonly crosses ones mind. For the understood meaning of it is that the Muslim sticks to one specific Imaam for the entirety of his life in all of the matters related to his religion. This was never present amongst the Companions, for they were never divided into different groups wherein each group followed its specific Mujtahid from amongst the Mujtahid Companions.

[As Salafee]

Dr. Bootee replied by saying: Amongst the Sahaabah were the muqallid and the mujtahid. The Muqallid Sahaabah used to follow one of the Mujtahid Sahaabah whose ruling he felt comfortable with.

Shaykh Naasir replied: The Muqallid Sahaabah used to adhere to the opinion of every Mujtahid amongst them and did not restrict themselves to just one (i.e. they asked any Mujtahid they found easy to go to at the time they needed a ruling). So sometimes if they found it easy to go to Abu Bakr they would take to his legal verdict without then clinging to him [in all matters of the religion]. Similarly if they found it easy to go to Umar they would take to his legal verdict and so on. There was never this clinging to one Imaam present amongst them, however you claim there is so I ask you to furnish me with evidence.

At this juncture al-Bootee tried to escape the strong point that Shaykh Naasir made and rejected that he had ever made such a statement, and then gave a whole new definition to al-Madhhabiyyah.

He said: al-Madh-habiyyah is that one person who has not reached the level of ijtihaad follow an Imaam from amongst the Imaams, regardless of whether this Imaam changes or the number [of Imaams asked] be more than one or he does not change and there not be a number of [Imaams being asked]. As for the Laa Madh-habee then he does not go to a single Imaam for a legal verdict and neither does he go to a number of Imaams (i.e. neither does he not stick to just one). Hence such a person is from the most dangerous of innovators.

At this Shaykh Naasir expressed his utter astonishment and said: upon this definition you will not find a Muslim on the face of this earth except that he is a madh-habee! So who are you refuting in your book? And why did you not make clear what you meant by al-Madh-habiyyah so that the people could understand?

The Discussion Now Digressed into talking about al-Ma`soomee’s book [translated into English as ‘The Blind Following of Madh-habs’ – this book was the initial reason behind al-Bootee authoring ‘Laa Madh-habiyyah’]

Al-Bootee understood from this book that the author took it upon every Muslim to perform Ijtihaad and to take [directly] from the Book and Sunnah.

Shaykh Naasir asked him to furnish evidence from the book that would justify his understanding. So al-Bootee quoted some sentences that mentioned that the Prophet (sallallaahu `alaihi wasallam) was sinless (ma`soom), that the Madh-habs were an innovated matter, that Imaams were not sinless, that the Madh-habs consisted of the opinions of some of the Mujtahids in some issues, and that neither Allaah or His Messenger (sallallaahu `alaihi wasallam) had obligated following them.

Shaykh Naasir stated that these statements were restricted [and to be understood in the light of] other statements that [al-Ma`soomee] made in his book, such statements that al-Bootee had overlooked and had not indicated to in the slightest way.

Al-Bootee asked Shaykh Naasir to quotes some of these.

Shaykh Naasir mentioned some of them, for example on page 29 where al-Ma`soomee said, "know that taking to the opinions of the Scholars and their analogies is like performing tayammum. One only does it when one cannot find water. In the case that a text from the Book, Sunnah or statements of the Sahaabah are found then taking to them is obligatory and one should not then turn to the opinions of the Scholars."

[The meaning of the words of al-Ma`soomee can be found articulated by ash-Shaafi`ee in his Risaalah (pg. 599 – tahqeeq Ahmad Shaakir). It is strange that al-Bootee, who claims to be a follower of ash-Shaafi`ee refutes these words [of al-Ma`soomee] understanding them in this strange way that they necessitate that everyone must perform ijtihaad. For sure if these words were to have been quoted to him as the words of ash-Shaafi`ee then he would have directed them towards their correct meaning (with no problem)!]

Shaykh Naasir asked al-Bootee: Do these words not restrict the generality of his words [that you quote]?

Al-Bootee replied that al-Ma`soomee had mixed truth with falsehood. For if these words of his are compared to what he states on page 40 that ‘understanding the Book and Sunnah is easy and does not require more than the Six Books of Hadeeth’ then his words are contradictory.

Shaykh Naasir remarked that al-Bootee had not fully quoted the words of al-Ma`soomee and asked him to read from beginning of al-Ma`soomee’s words that said, "O Muslim! When you delve and excel in knowledge and your strength of resolve increases through taqwaa then strive in understanding the clear [texts] of the Book and the clear Sunnah and the actions/understanding of the majority of the People of Knowledge…"

So Shaykh Naasir asked al-Bootee: So did al-Ma`soomee require every Muslim to understand the Book and Sunnah or did he restrict it to a specific group of Muslims?

[As Salafee]

Again al-Bootee tried to avoid Shaykh Naasir’s point and claimed that al-Ma`soomee [began by] addressing all the Muslims with those words.

Shaykh Naasir then said: however he has set two conditions "when you delve and excel in knowledge and your strength of resolve increases through taqwaa" so is he addressing those who have no knowledge or those who have no taqwaa?

Al-Bootee did not reply, instead he quoted again from Ma`soomee claiming that his words required every Muslim, including the ignorant, to perform ijtihaad. He quoted from page 5 where al-Ma`soomee quotes some ahaadeeth proving the ease of Islaam and the ease of understanding it such as the hadeeth of Jibreel and the hadeeth of ibn Umar concerning the five pillars.

Shaykh Naasir replied by saying: It is necessary to understand these hadeeth in their correct context for the author did not intend by quoting these two hadeeth what al-Bootee understood from them. This is because al-Ma`soomee mentions in his introduction the reason why he wrote this book. This being that some Japanese Muslims had written a letter to him mentioning that some Japanese desired to enter Islaam in the year 1357H. This was presented to the Jam`iyyah of Muslims in Tokyo and some of these Muslims asked these Japanese to become Hanafee and others asked them to become Shaafi`ee. This confused the Japanese and became the cause for them not to enter into Islaam! So the people who wrote al-Ma`soomee the letter asked him to clarify his views on this issue. So al-Ma`soomee wrote them this book explaining that entering into Islaam was easy, by articulating the Shahaadah and establishing the remaining four pillars and that it was not necessary to follow a specific madh-hab.

Al-Bootee objected to this by quoting al-Ma`soomee on page 6 as saying, "as for the madh-habs then they consist of the opinions and the understanding of the People of Knowledge in some issues and neither Allaah or His Messenger have obligated anyone to follow them."

Shaykh Naasir explained that al-Ma`soomee had restricted the meaning of his words when he said, "in some issues" and it is known that there are some opinions that are purely ijtihaadi [not having any text to support them] and it is these that al-Ma`soomee intended.

At this point al-Bootee accused al-Ma`soomee of having a bad convention in writing.

Shaykh Naasir replied by saying that al-Ma`soomee was to be excused for this because he was a non-Arab, a Turk, and that the important point was to take note of the meaning of his words and not the sentence construction. Indeed that which was to be understood from the book of al-Ma`soomee was the opposite to what al-Bootee understood.

The Discussion now digressed to Ijtihaad

At this point the father of al-Bootee interjected saying that the analogy that al-Ma`soomee made to water and tayammum was correct. However this was for the Mujtahid scholar who fulfilled the well-known and many conditions. He stated that the Hanafee, Shaafi`ee and Maalikee madh-habs are agreed that the door to ijtihaad closed after the fifth century to the extent that they considered an-Nawawee and ar-Raafi`ee to scholars who merely decided what the strongest opinion [of already existing opinions] was.

Dr. Bootee, realising that this was a point of difference between himself and his father tried to change the subject. However Shaykh Naasir mentioned that Dr. Bootee differed with him on this issue and that he endorsed the fact that the door to ijtihaad remained open. The father thought this was to be very strange. Dr. Bootee again interjected trying to return the discussion back to the book of al-Ma`soomee claiming that the analogy of water and tayammum meant that al-Ma`soomee required everyone to perform ijtihaad because it required everyone to leave the words of the scholars except in those issues for which there was no text.

Shaykh Naasir refuted him by saying that this was an erroneous understanding and he mentioned other texts from the book endorsing this in which al-Ma`soomee explained the obligation of taqleed upon the ignorant.

Then al-Bootee found no further room for arguing except through claiming that the words of al-Ma`soomee were self-contradictory.

The Discussion now Digressed to Whether one could call the religion of Muhammad (sallallaahu `alaihi wasallam) a madh-hab.

Both al-Bootee and his father rejected this. Shaykh Naasir stated that from a linguistic point of view there was nothing preventing this however he agreed to their stance.

The Discussion then Digressed to whether an incorrect ijtihaad could be called (or taken as) deen

Shaykh Naasir was of the opinion that to do so was erroneous, however al-Bootee and his father were of the opinion that to do so was correct. After some discussion they conceded to Shaykh Naasirs stance.

[As Salafee]

The Discussion digressed to the issue of Ittibaa` (following) and whether or not it was an independent level that a person could reach

Shaykh Naasir was of the opinion that it was an independent station falling between the station of taqleed and ijtihaad because its [state] differs from the [state] of the other two. Dr. Bootee was of the opinion that it falls within taqleed. A number of those present agreed with Shaykh Naasir because he quoted a number of the People of Knowledge in their affirming the station of ittibaa`. The discussion on this went on for a long time ending with both sticking to their opinion. However there was a weakening in al-Bootee’s stance for he stated that this was an issue over which there was a difference of opinion.

The Discussion ended with a Vile word from al-Bootee

Finally Shaykh Naasir asked al-Bootee for another sitting but he refused and so Shaykh Naasir asked permission to leave. He stood and moved towards the door. Al-Bootee realising that he had been defeated [in a number of his stances] then called out, "By Allaah! Shaykh Naasir you state what is not in your heart."

Shaykh Naasir rejected this vile accusation, as did those who were present and then the discussion was over.