Remember that this book by Rampuri was approved by Ahmad Raza Khan and other Barelwis later on.
I believe this quote of Rampuri should me more highlighted than anything else, as also stated by Ml. Sarfraz in Ibarat Akabir. With the angel of death they can cite the excuse that it is a pure angel. But why the comparison with the devil and then claiming that the angel of death and the devil are present in MORE places than the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam).
Rampuri clearly states that “we” do not believe that the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) is present in every gathering of the mawlid, but they do believe that the devil is present in every place:
“The people of the gathering of mawlid do not claim that the Prophet is present in all pure and impure gatherings, religious and irreligious places. The Angel of Death and Iblis can be found in far more places of purity, impurity (napaak), unbelief and not unbelief (ghayr kufr).” (p. 181, sixth line from under)
Before he says:
“Look, the devil is present in every place (har jaga). In Durr Mukhtar under the rulings of prayer it is written that the Devil remains with the children of Adam and his child remains with men (aadmiyon) in the evening.” (p. 180 of anwar sati’a)
“When the moon and sun is present in every place, and in every place on earth (zameen) the Devil is present, and the angel of death is present in every place, how can this be a specfic attribute of Allah?” (p. 181)
So we ask the Barelwis: why do you not declare Rampuri a Kaafir for saying that the devil is present in more places than the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam)? Why not declare him a kaafir for such a comparison?