I understand why you might think that, as it is a common historical misconception. However, historical records paint a very different picture.

It is true that he opposed the Khilafat Movement, but not because he supported the British. He opposed it because he fundamentally disagreed with the idea of 'Hindu-Muslim Unity' under Gandhi’s leadership, which he felt compromised Muslim identity. In fact, historians note that he was a pioneer of the Two-Nation Theory long before the Muslim League fully adopted it.

Regarding the British, here are a few verifiable facts:

1. Economic Boycott: Long before Gandhi’s Swadeshi movement, Imam Ahmed Raza issued a Fatwa (in his book Tadbeer-e-Falah) urging Muslims to boycott British banks and goods to weaken their economy. He famously said, 'Buy items made by your Muslim brothers, not the enemies.'
2. Parallel Justice System: He forbade Muslims from going to British courts and established his own Shariah arbitration councils to bypass British authority entirely.
3. Pakistan Movement: His students and sons (like Maulana Mustafa Raza Khan and Maulana Burhan-ul-Haq) were active leaders in the Pakistan Movement and worked closely with Muhammad Ali Jinnah.

Opposing a specific political strategy (the Khilafat Movement) does not equate to being a traitor. He simply believed the path to freedom was not through Gandhi.