[EasyLOAD]

The tytle seemed to promise some in-depth analysis but unfortunately I don't have neither the knowledge nor the resources to do any..

I was just wondering about a common feature that you can notice amongst the various movements which across the 18th-19th century engaged at least up to a certain degree in the "Tajdid" of our Din, as:

Shah Wali Allah al-Dihlawy & Shah Ismail Shahid (Subcontinent)
Shaykh Uthman Dan Fodio (Northern Nigeria)
Emir Abdel Qadir (Algeria)
Tariqah Sanussiyyah (Muhammad ibn Ali as-Senussi) (Algeria, then Lybia)
And let's put also Shaykh Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab (Arabia) in the equation

According to the limited information I have, of all of them (and I may be forgetting some of the moment) stressed the importance of Tawhid and fighted Shirk and Bid'ah; all of them called to Jihad and Islamic governance, all of them strived to reform Tasawwuf from innovations and wrong practises and deviated 'Aqaid.. but they also have in common another feature: some degree of critic towards "complete Taqlid", being instead in favour of (some degrees of?) Ijtihad.

Now, I would like to ask those who have studied better their personalities and works: what's the degree of their critics?

I'm almost sure they are not to the level of what claimed by al-Albani & co., nor by today's "Ahl-e-Hadith", nor they denounced the taqlid done by laymen..

Maybe their critics is similar to what - for example - Amir al-Forum, Mufti Husain Kadodia Sahab, was saying on this forum regarding the "blind following" of Ibn 'Abidin fatawa as fatwa reference, and so on? And thus, was their critic directed only to "extreme taqlid" by scholars who instead have reached some degree of Ijtihad, and for whom, thus, complete taqlid is wrong and forbidden - while they instead found the Ulama of their times just parrotting old fatawa and really "blind-following"?

Please, let's not re-open here the usual taqlid vs. anti-taqlid polemics..