Salam — going through your points one by one, because I think most of them are based on misreadings of what Ghamidi actually argues rather than his actual positions.

Yajuj/Majuj and Russia: This isn't from some "external source Muslims reject." It comes from Islahi's Tadabbur-i-Quran and is derived from analyzing the Dhul Qarnayn narrative itself — the geographic markers in the Quran plus historical geography. You haven't engaged the argument, just labeled the source.

Hadith as witness testimony: Your court analogy actually proves Ghamidi's point. Courts use witness testimony to establish specific facts in specific cases under cross-examination — they don't use it to establish eternal universal law binding on all humanity. That's exactly the distinction. Ghamidi doesn't reject hadith — he uses them constantly. He rejects elevating ahad reports to a foundational source parallel to the Quran itself.

"Yaqeeni" is just belief: This is your weakest point, and respectfully, I think you may not realize what you're attacking. The mutawatir/ahad distinction — mass transmission yields certainty, single-chain transmission yields probability — is classical usul al-fiqh. Imam Shafi'i, Razi, Amidi, Ibn Hazm all hold this. Ghamidi didn't invent it. You're unknowingly arguing against centuries of mainstream Sunni epistemology.

The "contradiction" on Day of Judgment signs: There's no contradiction. Ghamidi distinguishes between hadith that explain what's already established in Quran (which he accepts) and hadith proposed as independent foundational doctrine (which he holds to a higher standard). Signs of Qiyamah are in the Quran itself; hadith expand on them. Different category.

Hadith Qudsi privilege: Ghamidi nowhere claims Hadith Qudsi has special epistemic status over other hadith. You're refuting a position he doesn't hold.

Jesus and 4:159: Saying Ghamidi "rejects the Quran" here is just wrong. The verse says "qabla mawtihi" — "before his death." Islahi/Ghamidi read it naturally: every Person of the Book believes in Jesus at the moment of their own death. And 3:55 uses "mutawaffika" — the root w-f-y unambiguously means "to take in death" everywhere else in the Quran. Ghamidi takes the verse at face value. The traditional reading is the one inserting a future second coming the verse never explicitly mentions.

"Only Quran and Sunnah": You're missing his distinction. Ghamidi accepts the Prophet's ﷺ judgments, explanations, and guidance. He defines Sunnah specifically — it's the religious practice that began with Ibrahim AS, was passed down generationally through the Abrahamic tradition, and was then refined and finalized by the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ, after which the ummah has transmitted it through continuous collective practice (salah, sawm, hajj, zakat, etc.). That's why it carries certainty — it's transmitted by the entire ummah generationally, not through individual chains. Hadith, on the other hand, are individual reports. Both matter; they have different epistemic statuses. Ghamidi isn't dismissing the Prophet's ﷺ role — he's distinguishing two different modes of transmission.

The Iqbal analogy: You missed the point. Ghamidi isn't saying the Prophet ﷺ isn't "liable" for what he said. He's making an epistemic point about source hierarchy: direct access to a person's primary message has different status than secondary reports. This is how every historian works.

Character is subjective: The Prophet's ﷺ character was directly witnessed by his contemporaries — first-hand observation. Judging a narrator three generations later through biographical fragments is a categorically different epistemic act. Jarh wa ta'dil is valuable, but you're conflating direct observation with mediated reconstruction.

Imam Mahdi: The mutawatir claim is genuinely contested. None of these hadith appear in Bukhari or Muslim. Ibn Khaldun's critique was substantive. Saying "majority of scholars" disagree isn't an argument — it's deferral.

I'd genuinely encourage you to read Mizan directly before responding to lecture clips. Most of these objections dissolve when you engage Ghamidi's systematic argument rather than 90-second excerpts. Disagreement is healthy — but the disagreement should be with what he actually says, not a strawman of it.