Mawlana Rashid Ahmad Gangohi denied the statement Ahmad Rida Khan Barelwi based his takfir of him on. This was reported by Mawlana Gangohi’s student, Mawlana Murtaza Hasan Chandpuri. Mawlana Gangohi’s students like Mawlana Khalil Ahmad Saharanpuri and Mawlana Husayn Ahmad Madani have consistently reported it to be a fabrication. Moreover, the fabricated statement opposes Mawlana Gangohi’s well-known and established viewpoint. But, Barelwis still attribute the statement to Mawlana Gangohi and still charge him with kufr based on it.
What Mawlana Ashraf ‘Ali Thanawi said in Hifz al-Iman: If Zayd unconditionally applies the term “‘ilm al-ghayb” or “‘alim al-ghayb” to the Prophet ﷺ based on partially acquired (i.e. extrinsic) unseen knowledge, then the term loses any significance, as it can be applied to all who possess partially acquired unseen knowledge, which includes even madmen and animals.
How Barelwis misconstrue it: Thanawi said the knowledge of the Prophet ﷺ is the same as the knowledge of madmen and animals.
This is despite the fact that in the very same section of Hifz al-Iman, Mawlana Thanawi clearly outlines the Prophet’s ﷺ unique knowledge. He says, the knowledge required for prophethood was acquired in total by the Prophet ﷺ.
What Mawlana Khalil Ahmad Saharanpuri said in Barahin e Qati’ah: Affirming knowledge of worldly details for the Prophet ﷺ that are not proven for him (e.g. lyrics of songs; lines in movies) based on an analogy with the knowledge granted Satan and the Angel of Death is shirk. Why? Because only “intrinsic knowledge” can be affirmed in this way given the knowledge was not proven to be acquired via a means (hence is “intrinsic” not “extrinsic”). To affirm intrinsic (i.e. not attained via a means) knowledge for any creation is of course shirk.
How Barelwis misconstrue it: Saharanpuri said the Prophet’s ﷺ knowledge is less than that of Satan and the Angel of Death.
What Mawlana Qasim Nanotwi said in Tahzir al-Nas: The total meaning of “Khatam al-Nabiyyin” is not the “last chronological prophet” as is the belief of common people. Rather, the total meaning is broader than just this and includes the meaning of “Khatamiyya Dhatiyya” i.e. an “intrinsic prophethood”; that is, the Prophet ﷺ received prophethood directly from Allah and all other prophets received it through him. Hence, any imagined prophet, even one that is imagined to come after him, would have received prophethood from him and thus be inferior to him and be subject to his Khatamiyya Dhatiyya. Hence, his Khatamiyya Dhatiyya and his absolute superiority would remain even if we hypothetically assume a new prophet came after the Prophet ﷺ.
How Barelwis misconstrue it: Nanotwi said a new prophet can actually arise after the Prophet ﷺ. This is despite the fact that Mawlana Nanotwi explicitly said the Prophet ﷺ is both the chronologically last prophet, as well as the intrinsic khatam, and both meanings are included in the term “Khatam al-Nabiyyin”.
For more detail, see:
The Full Passage from Barahin e Qati’ah
The Full Answer from Hifz al-Iman
Mawlana Qasim Nanotawi & Khatm al-Nubuwwah – A Detailed Explanation
Ahmad Ridha Khan Used a Fabricated Fatwa to Takfir Mawlana Rashid Ahmad Gangohi
Ahmad Ridha Khan Manufactures a Quote to Takfir Mawlana Muhammad Qasim Nanotawi
Ahmad Ridha Khan Distorts a Quote to Takfir Mawlana Khalil Ahmad Saharanpuri
Ahmad Ridha Khan Distorts a Quote to Takfir Mawlana Ashraf ‘Ali Thanawi
Books:
Critique of Ḥusām al- Ḥaramayn
In Arabic:
الجواب عما اتهم به الشيخ محمد قاسم النانوتوي من إنكار ختم النبوة
الجواب عن اتهامات البريلوي على العلامة خليل أحمد السهارنپوري
مولانا أشرف علي التهانوي وبحثه عن علم الغيب في رسالة حفظ الإيمان
Barelwis: A Critical Review 