Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Bibliophile's Corner' started by abu Hasan, Nov 10, 2018.
dhahabi said the same in his tarikh al-islam, v43 p119-120:
ibn al-najjar, a hadith scholar and student of sayyidi abd al-Razzaq recollects the merits of his teacher and his prominence and describes his funeral.
but according to modern day researchers - he was not an inheritor of his father's knowledge!
of course, imam muhammad ibn yahya al-tadifi al-hanbali has mentioned his sons, in his work qala'id al-jawahir.
about shaykh abd al-Razzaq, he says:
the shaykh, the leader (qudwah), the hafiz abd al-Razzaq; he studied under his father and heard from him [narrations] and from abu'l Hasan ibn Sirmaa and others. he narrated and dictated hadith, he taught and issued fatawa, and debated [issues]; many scholars graduated under him.
hafiz ibn al-najjar said in his tarikh: 'his father made him hear narrations from a young age...
...he would write a lot for himself and for others, though his hand was illegible; i read a lot from him; he was a hafiz, an expert, trustworthy narrator (thiqah), truthful (saduq); he had a very good understanding of hadith; he was a jurist in the madh'hab of imam abu abdullah ahmad ibn hanbal; he was very abstemious and pious, very religious, who would pray a lot, and would stay away from people, aloof in his home; he would not go out of his house except for friday prayers. he loved the science of narration [i.e. hadith sciences], he was kind to students of knowledge, generous in sharing his insights, chivalrous, upright, benevolent; his financial condition was very modest; he had a very noble character, excellent manners, was very humble, polite and courteous; he led a life of spartan means and patiently endured hardship and poverty; yet he was very dignified and would not ask anyone anything. he was on the way of the salaf [earliest generation of muslims]. [end of ibn al-najjar's account].
... it is said about him that for thirty years, he did not raise his head towards the skies out of modesty and shame in the presence of Allah ta'ala [Haya'a].
... ibn al-Najjar has said: after his passing, his funeral prayer was announced in the morning in the localities of baghdad; a humongous crowd assembled for the prayer and therefore his funeral prayer was held on the outskirts of the city; then his bier was carried upon the heads of people to rasafah mosque where they prayed once again; and then they took him to bab turbatu'l khulafa, and then to the banks of euphrates and then to the west side of baghdad and prayed upon him near the huraym gate; and then they took the bier to kharbiyyah and they prayed there; and then he was carried to the mausoleum of imam ahmad and prayed there; thereafter he was buried.
then we have ibn rajab al-hanbali [736-795 AH] in his dhayl tabaqat al-hanabilah, v3 p77:
shaykh abd al-Razzaq ibn abd al-Qadir ibn abi Salih al-jili al-baghdadi al-Halabi [a reference to the locality in baghdad, not the syrian city]; the muhaddith, the hafiz - abu bakr, the son of the great ascetic abu Muhammad [shaykh abd al-Qadir]. we have previously mentioned his father and his brother, abd al-Wahhab.
shaykh abd al-Razzaq was born on monday, the 18th dhu'l qa'adah, in the year 528 AH in baghdad. he heard plenty, in the company of his father; and thereafter, on his own from abu'l Husayn muhammad ibn ahmad ibn Sirma, abu'l FaDl al-urmuwi, ibn naSir the hafiz, abu bakr al-zaghuni, abu'l karam al-shahrazuri, ahmad ibn tahir al-mayhani, sa'yid ibn al-banna'a, abu'l waqt and others in their rank. he dedicated himself to this science; he learned the uSul and learned fiqh from his father; he had good knowledge of the madh'hab - but his expertise in hadith overshadowed his knowledge of fiqh.
ibn nuqTah said: he was a hafiz, trustworthy narrator (thiqah), reliable (ma'mun).
hafiz Diya'a said: i have not seen in baghdad anyone more sharper or capable in research than him;
ibn al-dubaythi and others have also praised him.
in the same work, he quotes abu shamah
abu shamah said in his tarikh: he was an ascetic, a diligent worshipper, a scrupulous and abstemious person. he was the best among all of the shaykh's sons. he was content with very little of this world and he did not enter into things what some of his brothers did.
ibn uthaymin (yes, the wahabi) notes that ten of shaykh abd al-qadir's sons who were outstanding ulama. see the notice on shaykh abd al-qadir, v2/p187. [though the wahabi cannot withhold his jealousy and antipathy to sufis, and comments negatively throughout. la Hawla wa la quwwata illa billah].
anyway, ibn uthaymin lists the following ten sons of the ghawth who were luminaries (in the order of their demise):
1. yisa ibn abd al-Qadir, d.573 AH.
2. abdu'l Jabbar ibn abd al-Qadir, d.575 AH.
3. abdullah ibn abd al-Qadir, d. 578 AH.
4. ibrahim ibn abd al-Qadir, d. 592 AH.
5. abd al-wahhab ibn abd al-Qadir, d. 593 AH.
6. muhammad ibn abd al-Qadir, d. 600 AH.
7. yahya ibn abd al-Qadir, d. 600 AH.
8. abd al-Aziz ibn abd al-Qadir, d. 602 AH.
9. abd al-Razzaq ibn abd al-Qadir, d. 603 AH.
10. musa ibn abd al-Qadir, d. 618 AH.
and then ibn uthaymin says:
"...and then he had grandsons - a great number of them who were all scholars and it is difficult to mention all of them, because they are so many; the author [i.e. ibn rajab] mentioned some of them and omitted some others. we will mention those whom he omitted in our addendum according to their dates of demise."
even a wahabi acknowledges that the shaykhs sons and grandsons were ulama.
but no! shaykh abd al-razzaq did not inherit knowledge from his father, according to the foremost authority on qadiri tariqat in our time, abu ja'afar.
it is a pity hafiz diya'a and dhahabi couldn't learn from abu ja'afar al-hanbali of the 15th century.
in siyar al-a'alam, v21 p.426 onward
Shaykh Abd al-Razzaq ibn Shaykh al-Islam Abd al-Qadir ibn Abi SaliH;
the shaykh, the imam, the muHaddith, Abu Bakr al-Jili (thereafter Baghdadi) al-Hanbali; the great ascetic. He was born in the year, 528 AH.
He heard [i.e. reports from] QaDi Abu'l FaDl al-Urmuwi, Muhammad ibn Ahmad ibn Sirma, Ibn Nasir, Abu'l Karam ibn al-Shahrazuri; he was dedicated himself to this science [of narration], and has written plenty.
... He passed away in the year, 601 AH.
In Tazkirah al-Huffaz, imam dhahabi says: v4/p 1385, #1116; the 17th Rank of Hadith Scholars.
Abd al-Razzaq, the son of the great shaykh, the leader, Abu Muhammad Abd al-Qadir ibn Abu Salih al-Jili; the imam, the muHaddith, the Hafiz, the ascetic, Abu Bakr al-Hanbali - the muhaddith of Baghdad. He was born in the year, 528 AH and heard plenty, in the company of his father; thereafter, he strived on his own, and excelled in this field.
Hafiz Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahid [Diya al-maqdisi] said: I have not seen in Baghdad anyone more perceptive, sharp and expert in research and inquiry than him.
Ibn Abi Shamah mentioned him in his tarikh and said: "he was an ascetic; a diligent worshipper, a trustworthy narrator, content with very little in this world."
i [dhahabi] say: among those who have reported [or narrate from] him are: Abu Abdullah ibn al-Dubaythi, who praised him; Majduddin ibn al-Najjar, Diya'a al-Maqdisi, Najib Abd al-Latif, Taqi al-Yaldani and his own son, Qadi Abu Salih [ibn Abd al-Razzaq al-Jili] and many others.
He has granted ijazah to Shaykh Shamsuddin Abd al-Rahman ibn Abu Umar, Al-Fakhr Ali, [Ahmad] Ibn Shayban and a group of scholars. He passed away in Shawwal, 603 AH.
these are views of contemporaries or those who came soon after them. hafiz muhammad ibn abd al-wahid, that dhahabi mentions is Diya'a al-maqdisi, the author of al-mukhtarah. 568-643 AH. he was a student of shaykh abd al-razzaq.
now who was sayyidi abdul razzaq al-jilani? and how true is the allegation:
first, we checked imam dhahabi's siyar:
siyar al-a'alam, dhahabi, 20/439:
#286. Shaykh Abd al_Qadir (raDi'Allahu anhu)
The shaykh, the imam, the scholar, the ascetic, the gnostic, the leader, Shaykh al-Islam, the Standard of the Friends of Allah, the reviver of religion (Muhiyuddin), Abu Muhammad, Abdul Qadir ibn Abi Salih Abdullah ibn Janki Duust, al-Jili, al-Hanbali; the Shaykh of Baghdad.
He was born in Jilan in the year, 471 AH. He entered Baghdad as a young man, and studied under Abu Sa'yid al-Mukharrimi.
NOTE: in tadifi's qala'id and other biographies, sayyidi al-ghawth's father is mentioned as musa janki dost, which is supposed to be jangi-dost in farsi. wAllahu a'alam.
further below, he lists his students; (p 440)
Those who narrate from him (Shaykh Abdul Qadir Jilani RaDiAllahu Anu):
Umar ibn Ali al-Qurashi;
Hafiz Abd al-Ghani;
Shaykh Muwaffaquddin ibn Qudamah;
Abdu'r Razzaq and Musa, his two sons;
Ali ibn Idris;
Ahmad ibn MuTi'y al-Bajisra'i
Muhammad ibn Layth al-Wastani
Akmal ibn Mas'ud al-Hashimi
Abu Talib Abdul Latif ibn Muhammad ibn al-QubayyaTi
and a great many people.
there, i finished listening to the entire clip. there are some valid points he makes in the later part of the talk, about frauds posing as shaykhs and the tariqah business that is happening in our time. i don't disagree with that. however, the guy seems to have extrapolated his own experience and the flawed people he has seen and generalises that to a great many people.
in summary, most of the talk is nonsensical - even idiotic at times. i don't know why islamic preachers don't take time out to learn about fallacies, so they can avoid them. imam ibn Salah has said that he was not interested in logic because according to him, a jurist [faqih] is a reasonable man by default. that is, even if he doesn't know the terms and formal methods of logical, he is accustomed to thinking logically and using a sound reasoning process. when i read it long time ago, i felt that his opinion sounded reasonable. in spite of having an interest in logic and having read a few books long before entering grad-school, at times, i have also wondered why antiquated formal logic was being taught in madrasahs of our time. i now fully understand the wisdom of scholars who had inserted this in the syllabii and those ulama who passionately advocated teaching logic as an indispensable tool for a scholar.
if someone could transcribe the speech, or if it is available somewhere, it would save me time. [also, i do remember; nouman's speech is still due].
for example, take this section:
explaining the statement: 'whoever doesn't have a shaykh, his shaykh is shaytan', the most prominent living authority on the qadiri tariqah says:
now if someone said that regarding about the revealed law, in particular, that would be correct. but if we are talking about iHsan, we can bring examples, that is not the case. we bring examples in the first few generations where, people did not have, shaykhs... or what have you...yet they had a high level.
there is an evidence that is in riyad al-salihin.
where abu bakr and another companion are speaking and they say, 'shall we not go visit umm ayman...and benefit'. and they got...because umm ayman was seen as a source of great knowledge and ihsan and wisdom. and they used to go and visit her and take knowledge and take wisdom and benefit.
so when you see that, you realise that, ok this is an example of umm ayman not necessarily having...you know...been among the scholarly companions, but none the less, having some type of repository of knowledge, some deep knowledge that the companions were also deriving and taking from.
umm ayman had a teacher (what you refer as 'shaykh') and he is the greatest teacher in the creation. sub'HanAllah! the companions did not go to umm ayman because she had knowledge from somewhere else. they went there FOR the very reason that she might have knowledge from the same teacher, but possibly, which they could have missed.
there is no comparison!
ironically, this refutes a statement he makes further when he says a person cannot have knowledge of ihsan until they are complete or perfect in revealed law. i am not refuting this later statement per se, and our position articulated by our grand shaykh imam ahmad rida khan, who has explained eloquently and in detail, what this statement means; shaykh asrar has also mentioned this somewhere, if i remember; i wanted to insert this in prospects, but decided to keep it as a separate paper. in sha'Allah. [this is from fatawa afriqah].
the example of umm ayman actually weakens his own argument.
oh, by the way. abu ja'afar's has erroneous described this incident of umm ayman from the riyad al-salihin. in a hadith of anas ibn malik, sayyiduna abu bakr and umar visited umm ayman (raDiyAllahu anhum) because: "come let us visit her, just as RasulAllah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam used to visit her"
but who will check? one can confidently dismiss the khilafat of sayyidi abdul razzaq al-jilani raDiyAllahu anhu and denying that he inherited knowledge from his father - in spite of being ignorant of a great many things.
nas'alu Allaha al-aafiyah.
abu ja'afar said:
according to abu ja'afar, sayyidi abdul razzaq jilani was not the successor of his father in knowledge. my question is JUST WHY? what made you to exclude him from the khulafa? and what is the criteria for being a 'successor in knowledge'? imam muwaffaq al-din ibn qudama is a great hanbali imam, and a maqdisi (from the levant). how do we know that he was a khalifah? because, historians mentioned that he travelled to baghdad and stayed there and took from the ghawth. if they did not do so, it would be easier to dispute HIS being the khalifah compared to rejecting the khilafah of shaykh abd al-razzaq al-jilani. we will have a brief look at ibn qudamah, but first, we must learn about shaykh abdul razzaq.
wa billahi't tawfiq.
making sweeping statements and broad generalisations is usually erroneous. just a few minutes of talk is not sufficient to judge a man's knowledge. it is quite possible that abu ja'afar is a scholar, but mistaken in this issue. but his supreme confidence is off-putting.
however, he has made blunders in this speech and we are not going to spare that.
tasawwuf, tariqah, etc - the name, the methods have all evolved over time. one can only suggest that perhaps these were reasons, the motivations, the conditions for certain practices or methods that we now see - it is not a 2+2=4 affair. historical context is of great importance; we cannot dismiss people or a whole group as liars just because *we* have not seen any evidence. this is why, in my opinion, abu ja'afar is a jahil regardless of his phenomenal ability to recall the difference between majduddin and taqiyuddin ibn taymiyyah.
no. he doesn't know. he is ignorant but tries to pose as the authority on shaykh abd al-qadir jilani or his tariqah.
this implies that anyone claiming qadiri tariqah going via sayyidi abd al-Razzaq al-jilani is a liar.
an unsuspecting person may be easily misled by this deceptive claim. this (and other express statements) imply that abu ja'afar has an irrefutable method to trace them back - that he has examined all the chains and is aware of all the names of mashayikh and scholars in the chains and has robust evidence to DENY those who cannot match this 'verified list'.
notice, he says:
how exactly does he know these names? did they maintain a register in the zawiyah, that was continuously updated until the ruh pur futuh of sayyidi al-ghaws al-a'azam left this world, and then handed down to abu ja'afar so he "knows who they are" to the point that he can exclude those who are not in that list?
indeed, WE too know who they are - but how can we exclude those who are not in this list unless there is compelling evidence that such-and-such a person cannot be a khalifah?
i sat down to examine works of history and biographical compendiums to see if any reliable source has said so. in spite of browsing more than a dozen works, i couldn't find anything against sayyidi abd al-razzaq raDiyAllahu 'anhu. perhaps i have not looked in the right places.
but what is baffling is that he does not seem to know facts about imam muwaffaq al-din ibn qudamah, or doesn't understand (if he has read it) or is deliberately concealing those facts, for whatever reason - one would be tempted to say, perhaps, to peddle his own narrative.
we will come to this. in sha'Allah.
chisht is in iran, khwajah mu'inuddin chishti was actually hasan sanjari; shaykh umar suhrawardi was from baghdad, i.e. iraq, not shaam; shah baha'uddin naqshband was from bukhara (nowhere near today's turkey - unless uzbekistan is occupied by turkey now).
he doesn't even know these commonly known facts of mashayikh - but wants to retell history!
that is why you should cling to the mantles of qadiri mashayikh, one of them who said in the manqabat of ghaws e aazam:
mazra'a e chisht o bukhara o iraq o ajmer
kaun si kisht pe barsa nahin jhaala teraa
i get immediately put off by those who blow their own trumpet, and by braggarts - particularly foolish people who think that they are smarter and more knowledgeable than all those great ulama who came before them. especially taymiyyites (those who fawn on ibn taymiyyah) in our time.
this man is so full of himself and appears to have all the arrogance of modern day hanbalites whose minds are so closed and inert, that they cannot think beyond the written word; and most of them are dry as moon-rocks. la Hawla wa la quwwata illa billah.
i have not listened to this newly linked talk fully, but i scrubbed here and there. the impression one gets from his overconfident interview is: 'there is no one who knows about tasawwuf and al-ghawth al-aazam better than me; most of those who call themselves qadiris in our time are liars.'
even though one may be compelled to say that only a prize idiot will make such a stupid claim, we have to wait until he produces his proof.
my question is: is this only talk or is there any book in which we can read more of this research on how shaykh abd al-razzaq was not a khalifah of sayyidi al-ghawth al-azam, and that all turuq that trace back to him are invalid, lies or deception?
for someone who tries to impress common non-arabs about his prowess in arabic (from his blog jurjis - or is it someone else?) and his mind-blowing ability to distinguish between four different ibn taymiyyahs, and his oh-so deep knowledge of al-ghawth al-a'azam, he claims that suhrawardy was from shaam. this, apart from many other mistakes in this short talk. ye munH aur masur ki daal. [not hiding behind urdu, but i couldn't immediately think of a better phrase].
of course, this is not a big deal. but i am just mentioning it... people think that recalling names and titles is a very big achievement.
some of his rambling (like many others dissected on this forum before) that i intend to comment on:
and this method of his, produced students and people of high calibre. because, this acted like... as a social network. he himself solved these things happening. that the khalifah was coming up short in his obligations and he was tyrannical anyway. shaykh abdul qadir jilani decided, that what i will do is i will take this on; i will take care of this myself; and he began to take these people on.
and this was the birth of what we know as the qadiriyyah. the qadiri tariqah. which is (some) a sort of a social group of people...bringing people together. to strengthen the people, part of society were either forgotten or neglected, and to bring them together; to nourish them, physically and spiritually. and cared for them.
now, after his time you had other jama'aat that saw the utility in this. and in the same vein. such as moinuddin shishti* who comes from shaash in afghanistan, but he settled in ajmer india. he was another such one. you had umar suharwardy who was coming from shaam. and he taught people in the same way (vein?). then you had mohammed shah...shah mohammad...shah..baha'uddin shah naqshband who is coming from where today's turkey is and he did the same thing. so you had these jama'aat.
the naqshbandi jama'ah which became tariqah; suharwardy which became tariqah, the qadiris which were the very first, and then you had the shistis or the shashtis, who became one as well. and then you had shaykhs within these jama'aat which would help followers and would also do additional things besides that and the jama'ah came to be known as such and such and the shaykhs name would be added to that. so now there is like this double-barrel name.
[* aH: no we are not blaming you for not pronouncing the farsi names properly; anyway, your arabic accent is not very spectacular either (at least in this talk - perhaps he talks fluently on other occasions, without the heavy american accent to his arabic heard in this talk. wAllahu a'alam)
right now, the issue...the issue that come with this. is that some of the slaves of Allah don't want to acknowledge that sometimes innovations creep into these things because as it got into later ages, people who were not scholars of revealed law entered into these tariqahs. and so now we had people saying well...this is my shaykh in fiqh but he is my shaykh in tasawwuf. he is a layman. or this is my shaykh in creed, and this is my shaykh...i am only going to study this...i am not going to study anything else.
wait a minute..you are supposed to be...if you are a shaykh over these people, you need to be complete to a certain degree you can assess their needs. and address their needs. and that started to go away. part of the reason for that is
i give the cassette example.. but i think... that is more difficult for people who don't come up from cassettes. so i use this example might be easier.
if you are making a scanned copy of something on your computer and you use the original book. that will produce an exact replica. however, if you take a copy that you produced from the original and you give that to someone else to scan; and they scanned that. and then they take that copy.. there comes a time when the resolution starts to dim. the quality starts to get lost. and if you carry on enough generations, the original thing that was scanned or copied or put across is no longer legible or recognisable. to the first people or to those now. and this is what has happened to many of the tariqahs and which is unrecognisable whats happened to them. it's unrecognisable.
the man says @ 41:07 about the khulafa of shaykh abdul qadir jilani:
"now, imam abdul qadir jilani raHimahullah for his khulafa, the people who taught his way, the tariqah, we know who they are, we know their names...muwaffaquddin ibn qudamah was one of them; abu umar al-maqdisi was one of them; abdu'l ghani ibn abd al-wahid al-maqdisi was another one; al-SarSari was another one; ibn idris (aydarus?) was another of them. so these were the people that were designated as khulafa, and anyone who does not follow on their (calibre?) is not teaching qadiriyyah...as we would say.
now, this has then caused us today to see people claiming allegiance to the imam and we will ask them for where are they getting their practices or their ideas; how can we trace you back; and we trace them back - they don't reach those khulafa. in which case we have to dismiss them as liars. because we don't care if you trace his lineage back and say, well..we go back to abdul razzaq, his son. no; abdul razzaq al-jilani was the son of shaykh abdul qadir jilani, but he wasn't one of his khulafa; he wasn't his successor in knowledge. so that is what we want to know, we don't care about that. because..you can....there will be some people related to them. that is not the discussion. the discussion is the knowledge tree. not the nasab-tree in terms of blood. we want to know where did you get these practices from? how are you claiming these things? how did you come across this knowledge? if you cannot establish it, then you are dismissed.
well...most of the claimants today to the tariqah are liars. or if they are not liars, the commonality among them are deceived. as far as the qadiriyyah tariqah today, you will find most of the people today, that, will belong to a sub-jama'ah, which is known as the khalwati.
in other words, except this fella and those whom he approves, all the qadiris of the subcontinent and haramayn for the past few centuries were all liars and had no link to the tariqah. not only is this man a disrespectful jahil, but it appears that even a whiff of the fayD of al-ghawth al-azam and the blessed aal al-bayt has not touched this gasconader. don't get upset, wait for some time until i shine light on his bluff.
for shame, all of this bluster is probably to sell his book, of which he speaks as it is the best thing in the english speaking world since sliced bread; an indian birdie told him. oh, wow! an INDIAN!
i found his idiotic analogy quite amusing, though not surprised as he speaks like a true literalist modern-day hanbali - so his petty mind cannot think of a better analogy than printed pages and photocopying (which he keeps calling 'scanning' and probably doesn't realise that we have 2400 dpi scanners and higher today).
if you thought that i would sit still after hearing his 'liar' accusation - just for perspective, this goat is calling alahazrat, shah aal-rasul marahrawi and his great forefathers up to sayyidi abdul waHid bilgrami and beyond as 'liars' and impostors. (the last one is implied, he didn't say it).
ik zara aur chiRakta rahe khaama tera...
[update: i had written most of above, but then got busy; today, i was stuck in a traffic jam, and found the opportunity to listen to this talk from the beginning, which i did for 20 minutes or so - apart from the bits and pieces that i have quoted above.
update 2: i have transcribed it honestly; if there is any mistake, it is because i might have misheard it due to the accent; please highlight and will be corrected promptly, in sha'Allah.]
He knows - see around 41:30 mark of the following:
takfir, apostasy and blasphemy are very important terms that can be potentially misunderstood; these terms should be understood well to understand the context of fiqh books and fatawa. many people in our time take advantage of the fact that these terms are not properly explained, and then throw about quotes sans context and strut with prime confidence about their own reading.
that some of the most prominent scholars of haramayn agreed with alahazrat's opinion about those statements, are conveniently glossed over.
keller's tract IKT is a prime example of such befuddling.
that is why i had to explain the terms first separately - and if you understand those two chapters well, the rest of the argument will make sense.
if not... wa billahi't tawfiq.
that essay is a hollow and uninformed piece of braggadocio. to wit:
so divine immunity to scholars? are we not supposed to measure BOTH by established principles of fiqh and yardsticks like ijmaa?
one scholar states that blasphemy of RasulAllah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam is kufr. NOW, if another scholar "disagrees" with this ruling, you simply keep quiet because of the conditions set in stone:
and of all the idiotic assertions, we are supposed to kowtow to scholars of our age! and what makes one a scholar? why should we even listen to a man like jurjis?
the bombastic bravado of jurjis fellow - i, me, mine (which is the prominent theme of his essay) - makes me think very low of his scholarly abilities. perhaps i am mistaken, but he seems to think that he is ibn taymiyyah of our time - and he thinks the best way to show it is to act with similar arrogance. look at how disdainfully and condescendingly he speaks of others. poor fellow, he thinks boasting about oneself in comparison to laymen makes him look bigger.
ibn taymiyyah was refuted in his own time and sent to prison for his heretical beliefs. just because ibn hajar al-haytami reported it after 200 years doesn't invalidate his opinion. (ironically, this jurjis fellow's opinion should be taken after 700 years, as if he is a primary source!)
dhahabi mentioned this in his zaghl al ilm (p42-43)
and not only deobandi elders whom we do takfir, even those who do not do takfir of those who uttered such statements will be ruled kafir by the opinion of the very ibn taymiyyah, jurjis miyan so adores. read his 'sarim al-maslul' if you wish.
mistaken and hasty takfir on people who commit bid'ah is not the same as takfir of insolent and blaspheming wretches.
sayyid sab, rest assured. nobody is gonna shut you down, least of all me. you are free to write or criticise within the bounds of shariah.
I said my part, now: Who's gonna have a go at shutting me down first?