Making the remembrance of ahl al-bayt alone could be for a few reasons: 1. Out of love for them with no ill intent towards sahabah. This is permitted. 2. Out of "love" for them and purposely leaving the mention of sahabah. This is forbidden. So if scenario 1 is permitted, why did Alahazrat recommend mentioning ahl al-bayt after the sahabah? Would people say Alahazrat was reactionary in the negative sense? Alahazrat recommended it to demarcate Sunni gatherings from shiah ones and not because he is pained at the remembrance of ahl al-bayt per se. Because shiah only extol ahl al-bayt, the most foresighted master of the last century said the above. To say that we shouldn't have a reactionary approach in this particular issue gives an incorrect impression that Ahl al-Sunnah are disturbed by the praise of ahl al-bayt. This is an incorrect deduction. Ahl al-Sunnah don't mention sahabah when ahl al-bayt are praised due to enmity for the latter - they do it due to the times we live in to curtail the spread of rifd amongst the masses. Have we not seen how sahabah are vilified on "sunni" stages? Aren't they considered sunni who attacked Siddiq e Akbar about Fadak? The same people disparage Hazrats Umar and Uthman too. Others attack the remembrance of Amir Muawiyah. This is all done in the name of Ahl al-Sunnah! So isn't it wise to mention sahabah when ahl al-bayt are extolled so that notions are corrected? It certainly is. And Alahazrat was the wisest of his time onwards. Rifd has been injected into sunnis covertly and en masse. In such a climate, it makes perfect sense to mention sahabah in gatherings dedicated to ahl al-bayt. I hope Shaykh Asrar takes note of this.