False Accusation: Alahazrat was hasty in takfir. This canard is swallowed without any question by many so-called ‘academics’ in the west such as Timothy Winters, and have no regret or remorse even after this slander is called out. Apparently, it is fashionable to throw any accusation on Alahazrat and that needs no proof. So much for their piety and their ‘academic rigour’.
In a ĥadīth, RasūlAllāh ﷺ foretold of a time when the truthful will be slandered as liars, and liars will be praised as the truthful. The standard Deobandī line is that which Abu’l Ĥasan Nadawī wrote; that Alahazrat was hasty in takfīr and anybody who did not agree with him was declared a kāfir.
Nadawi wrote: “…he was the flag-bearer of takfīr.” Does he say the same thing about Ismāýīl Dihlawī or other Deobandī elders?
Even though, it was Ismāýīl who first introduced Wahābism in India and his Taqwiyatu’l Īmān spared nobody from kufr – commonly accepted practices like tawassul were slammed as polytheistic and Ismāýīl himself acknowledged that ‘he had even labelled lesser practices as polytheism.’ Deobandī/Wahābī literature is awash with rulings of takfīr on numerous things, yet Nadawi chose to describe Alahazrat as the flag-bearer of takfīr.
We ask Deobandīs to answer the following questions if they truly believe in Allāh táālā and Judgement day:
1. How many people did Alahazrat rule kāfir?
2. What was the basis for this takfīr?
3. In which books or fatāwā did he rule them kāfir? Was the reason for their takfīr mentioned or not? If yes, what was the reason?
4. He ruled: “Anyone who disrespects or insults the Messenger ﷺ is a kāfir.” Is this incorrect?
5. He ruled: “All those who come to know about the blasphemies of an apostate and do not consider a blasphemer as a kāfir are also kāfirs .” Is this incorrect?
6. He did takfīr of Deobandī elders: Gangohī, Nanotwī, Ambethvī, and Thanawī; was this out of personal grudge or was it because he believed that they had blasphemed (regardless of whether you accept it or not)?
Murtaza Ĥasan Chāndpūrī, in spite of being a bitter enemy of Alahazrat, acknowledged the truth in a rare moment of candour, which modern Deobandīs are trying hard to suppress:
The truth of the matter is: the difference between the takfīr made by Baraylwīs and the takfīr of Qādiyānīs made by scholars of Islām is like the difference between the sky and the earth. Do not rake it up again. If, the scholars of Deoband were indeed like what Khān sahib supposed them to be, then it would be obligatory for him to rule them kāfir. If he did not do so, he would have become a kāfir himself.
Alahazrat was extremely cautious about takfīr:
We prefer the opinion of Kalām scholars in these matters. And thus, do not do takfīr of a person as long as he does not deny or reject any necessary aspect of religion; or considers such a denier to be a Muslim.
 Ismayil Dihlawi even claimed that the cool wind that blows in final times which shall cause the death of believers and when not a single Muslim remains on earth, had already taken place – making himself a kāfir in the process.
 Arwāĥ e Salāsah, p.74, Ismāýīl says about Tafwiyatu’l Īmān, an utterly burnable book which Deobandīs adore and consider ‘reading it and keeping it’ as an integral part of faith. See Fatāwā Rashīdiyyah. It is so repugnant that even his followers have acknowledged that its language is harsh and have bowdlerised it and reworded or omitted passages to make it palatable.
 Alahazrat Imām Aĥmad Riđā Khān.
 Ashadd al-Adhāb álā Musaylamati’l Punjāb, p.13.
 Izālatu’l Áār bi Ĥajri’l Karāyim án Kilābi’n Nār, p.10.