akramakallah!

he's a preacher on matters of jurisprudence. that's fine, but a concomitant requirement is that the preaching has to be predicated on the foundational & general principles of jurisprudence. he's clearly lacking there; example is the principle you stated https://twitter.com/ialikasim/status/1308809089418362882

"لا إنكار في مسائل الخلاف"

@YasinAwwal did a beautiful rejoinder here as you've seen. BUT what escapes us is there wouldn't have been the need for a rejoinder had the local Assim respected the principle above you yourself stated https://twitter.com/YasinAwwal/status/1308768924016824325?s=20

just say there's difference of opinion on wiping of palm on face after dua. but based on school A or B (your school kenan), it is prohibited based on evidence A or B. no harm here. no rejoinder. everyone minds his business as a delimiter has been attached to the matter.

problem is when you generalize, or better, disregard other equally or more valid scholarly submissions for centuries on the matter. worse is if the geographical area you're preaching from has been accustomed to the practice for centuries. you almost deserve ANY response you get.

another example is washing of hands before immersing them in the water-utensil of ablution. there are 4 opinions;
1. sunnah in absolute terms (Malik & Shafi'i)
2. recommended when in doubt (less popular Malik)
3. obligatory for who woke up from sleep (Dawud)

4. obligatory for who woke up from nocturnal sleep (Hanbal)

most interesting thing is; all the 4 positions were predicated on ONE Hadith; Abu Huraira's.

"إذا استيقظ احدكم من نومه فليغسل يده قبل إدخالهما الإناء، فإن أحدكم لا يدري أين باتت يده"

different methodologies...

...of interpretation amongst scholars naturally connotes different interpretations.

Malik & Shafi'i saw no contradiction between the Hadith & the Quranic verse of ablution; they didn't see the verse as limiting the obligations of ablution. thus, the Hadith is an addition to it.

Hanbal accepted the literal interpretation of the word (بات); which implies nocturnal sleep, & thus held his position.

Dawud didn't limit that word to just nocturnal sleep, as it can take the meaning of sleep in the day, & thus his position.

those that said it's recommended...

...did so cause they viewed the Quranic verse of ablution as limiting the obligations of ablution. thus, the Hadith adding wash of hand was contradictory to the verse, & how you reconcile them in this case is to take the normal corollary of the imperative verb in the Hadith from

obligation to recommendation.

all these different positions relied on ONE Hadith. in many other cases, it can be different Hadiths. who is right & wrong among them?

the dumbest thing is to disregard the absolutism & relativism of jurisprudential value-judgements.

if the matter is only wrong on relative terms, make a better case for your preferred position but don't disregard it on absolute or general terms.

like @maqary said; duk wanda ke inkarin masa'il din sabani jahili ne.

i join those saying he doesn't know what he's saying.

imagine the repercussion of a hasty generalization that what has been affirmed from Sunnah by scholars for centuries, & has been the practice of Muslims in Nigeria for centuries, is wrong simply because your preferred modernist scholars said so.

how would i feel? the society?

of course, we should repent & correct our ways, since our society is so dumb no one knew it is wrong to wipe palm on face after dua until local Assim came along.

Mujtahid Mutlaq. mun tuba. bamu iya addini ba sai da su Albani (due respect) & co suka zo.

nonsense!!!