a quick browse through ahmad al ghumari's work: 1. the ashari's are ignoramuses, and imam subki was 'majnun' (pg. 11) 2. according to him, when the salaf spoke of innovators and mu'atila, they meant the ashari's (pg. 13) 3. imam zahid al - kawthari is an enemy of the sunnah, the salaf, and the scholars, with the exception of the hanafis and those who concord with them (pg. 40) 4. takes shots at khatib al - baghdadi, al- hakim, abu nuaym, and especially ibn al - jawzi - according to him, ibn al jawzi was a jahil whose words ought to be discarded because they hold no value whatsoever! (pg. 44/45/46) 5. he has a major gripe with shah waliullah because of his position on sayyiduna ali (radiy'allahu anh). in 'al tafhimat', shah waliullah is allegedly reported to have said 'ali is not from the khulafa al - rashidin' and he was refuted by ibrahim saqa.. 'because of this, i do not call him waliullah, because he was a wali of shaytan!' (pg. 47) 6. ahmad al tijani (rahimahullah) according to us, 'is not counted from amongst the muslims, let alone the notion that he was from the awliya, rather he is greater than dajjal...! (pg. 65) 7. criticises ibn khuazyma's work 'kitab al tawhid' (this might be a valid criticism) pg. 80 8. ibn hajr al makki demonstrates his ignorance and his hypocrisy in his works 'al sawariq ul - muhriqa' and 'salb ul - jinan' (pg. 81) 9. absurd statements pertaining to the 'iyman' of firawn! (pg. 96) i'm all for ta'wil, but even i'll struggle here.