Ali then said:

"The first to respond to these deviant ideas were a number of students of knowledge. When Ali al-Halabi printed Murad Shukri's book Ihkam at-Taqrir fi Ahkam at-Takfir, a Saudi student of knowledge Abu Abdur-Rahman as-Subai'i published a short essay entitled Bara'a Ahl as-Sunna. Then when al-Anbari printed his book al-Hukm bi ghayr Ma Anzala Allah, other students of knowledge wrote works refuting it. And when Ali al-Halabi printed his book Fitna at-Takfir wa l-Hakimiya again we found a professor of Islamic studies Dr. Abu Ruhayyim refuting it."

[To which Abu Khadijah replies]

"My Response: As for Shaykh Alee Hasan printing the book of Muraad Shukree, then he has clearly and PUBLICLY stated that he was wrong
to print the book of an amuteur like Muraad Shukree, and Shaykh Ali Hasan
published this in numerous newspapers and magazines."

This again is a misrepresentation. Ali Al-Halabi was very specific with his words, he distanced himself from what he said "might" be misunderstood. He further placed the words "might" in parenthesis. So what does that mean? Also Ali al-Halabi's notes not his warning from "the fitna of Takfir and Hakimiyah" and his further defense against Dr. Ab Ruhayyim's refutation of Him, show that he holds the same
views of Murad Shukri. So where is the difference in belief?

Abu Khadeejah then says:

"As for the other two books, then they have clear references from the great scholars like Al-Albaanee and Saleh Fawzaan, Ibn Uthaymeen etc., so it is going to take more than two unknown names (regardless of how you promote them) to refute."

Do not misrepresent the facts. These references mean nothing, as they do not give tazkiya to the two aforementioned books. Anyway you call yourself a Salafi so where is your manahj here? It is not a matter of names, but rather the arguments and their evidences.

"Also just to mention that thay have been refuted by a "professor" gives a
false impression to the laymen, so fear Allaah. And just because someone has refuted another does'nt mean much in itself - because then we would have to say Imaam Ahmed ibn Hanbal was wrong in his aqeedah because he was refuted by Bishr Mireesee !! Also that Imaam Barbahaaree (d 329H) is
wrong because he was refuted by Hishaam (the innovator) Kibbaanee from
downtown somewhere in Canada - and that Shaykh Al-Albaanee is wrong because he was refuted by Hasan (the innovator) as-Saqqaaf and Nah Haah (the innovator) Meem Keller. And what a calamity all this would be!!

This is again ignorance that does not require any comment.