and I think you know the firm stance of the Prophet (ṣallá Allāhu ʿalayhi wa-sallam) when the sanctities of Allāh are violated, and that both gentleness and severity each have their appropriate place, as stated in the Qur'an and the sunnah. And you certainly know the poet's saying: "Placing generosity in the place of the sword in nobility... is harmful like placing the sword in the place of generosity!" But where were you regarding this requirement when you composed a special treatise in response to those adhering to the sunnah, which you titled "Discussion with the Albanians..." and thus you called them by a name that is not theirs?! And if this is the title, then what is the state of the content? You filled it with insinuations and allusions, and it revealed what you harbor within yourself of abundant politeness and gentleness! Despite this, all of that is trivial compared to your opposition to the sunnah of aligning the feet and shoulders in the row, your permitting prayer between the columns without necessity, and your weakening of three authentic ḥadīths with your particular convoluted methods, as will be explained, Allāh willing, in correction number 13. Thirdly - He took issue with me on three matters, misleading the readers to think that I wronged him in them, while none of that is true, and all praise is due to Allāh: 1- He denied what I attributed to him regarding his clinging to the defect of discontinuity in imitation of Ibn Ḥazm, saying: "I did not address the argument of Ibn Ḥazm, nor did I mention Ibn Ḥazm..." So I say: this is part of his evasion which I described earlier; because what I attributed to him was the discontinuity, not the argument; for Ibn Ḥazm's argument consists of two things: the discontinuity, and the narrator's uncertainty about the name of the Companion of the ḥadīth; whether it is (Abū ʿĀmir or Abū Mālik al-Ashʿarī)? He did not address this argument, but he did address the discontinuity at the beginning of his discussion on the ḥadīth in