i myself am an example of this. pre 2015, i was pro-keller and had accepted the widely-held belief (in the circles i was formerly associated with) that keller was a "confirmed Wali" of Allah. And then after I had read IKT and was exposed to his pseudo-ilm, I was initially impressed and convinced by his article. I had a negative perception of Ala Hazrat and believed the false belief that he was a "british agent." Little did i know. Eventually, someone introduced me to TKM after I was trying to talk this person out of hating deobandis. This person insisted i read TKM. So I decided to read it. By the time i was passed the first several pages, I was already convinced. The style of argument was very direct with pinpoint accuracy of quoting evidences and pointing out contradictions. And there was no double-speak, equivocating, nor verbal gymnastics. It was very clear and succint (unlike IKT which i realized later had all the aforementioned deficiencies). الحمد لله for Mawlana Abu Hasan and this work. This was the turning point which led me to fully leave deobandiyyat and recognize deobandis and their akabir for their true colors. (While reading TKM, i couldnt help it but send lanat upon the kafirs and their defenders). And it also led me on the path of appreciating Ala Hazrat and towards enlightenment. Lastly, a question i have: Does the fatwa of Hussam Al-Haramayn apply also regarding the English translation of the kufr statements from the original Urdu. As in, does it extend to those who participated in helping to write IKT (via translating the statements for the purpose of their defense-Faraz, Karamali, defending them directly- Keller, etc)? At the very least, they would come under "man shakka fi kufrihim wa adhabihim.." or no..?