The story of the Companions' disagreement regarding the 'Asr prayer while on their way to Banu Quraizah

The Shaykh : They disagreed, for example, over an issue that occurred during the time of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him). When the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) returned from the Battle of the Trench and put down the burden of war and weapons, Jibril came to him and ordered him to go out to the Jews of Banu Quraizah because they had broken the treaty between them and the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him). So the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) encouraged his Companions to go out and said: The Companions set out, and the time for 'Asr entered, and the time for 'Asr was about to end. They disagreed; some said, "We will pray 'Asr before its time ends," while others said, "We will not pray it, even if the time passes, except in Banu Quraizah." So the first group prayed, and the second group did not pray. They disagreed, did they not? About what? Yes, about the prayer, which is the most important thing. For example, if a person prays after the time has passed, we say this is forbidden for you, and yet they disagreed over this. When this reached the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), he did not rebuke any of them, nor did he hold any of them against the other with hatred or dislike. Why? Because they were exercising independent legal reasoning, and the situation was one of independent legal reasoning. One does not rebuke the one who exercises independent legal reasoning, and it is not correct for you, even theoretically, to rebuke him for his independent legal reasoning. Because if you rebuke him for his independent legal reasoning, he will say to you, "Say the truth and be just; I also rebuke you for what? For your independent legal reasoning. If you rebuke me for my independent legal reasoning and dislike me for it, then if I treat you in kind, I will rebuke you for your independent legal reasoning and dislike you for it. Is that not so? And then the community will dispute and the community will divide over issues of independent legal reasoning where disagreement is permissible.