Wa ‘alaykum assalam wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuh,

A few corrections with evidence inshallah

But also if you can reply to affirming Imam Abu Hanfias Aqidah as above to demonstrate how much Ahlusunnah depth of fiqh is carried by the TJ.

Also please note the Deoband fatawa on your page claims they are impartial/neutral in this conflict however they have noted issues in Moulana Saads views. Where has Deoband said Moulana Saad should not be the Amir?
Their scholars such Taqi Usmani want you to do the work together, you can tolerate four Musallahs but not this Subhanallah, true Manhaj is not contradictory Akhi, Allah humma barik.

1. “Four musallahs = tolerance” is a spin, not a proof.
Yes, multiple congregations existed historically—but existence ≠ Sunnah. Even classical observers noted the confusion it caused when imams prayed simultaneously. Ibn Battuta explicitly describes people getting confused—one bows with another imam’s bowing, another prostrates with a different imam’s prostration. 

In deep fiqh Akhi, holding multiple simultaneous congregations in the same masjid is described as disliked by the majority of scholars. 

Dar al-Ifta also warns that concurrent congregations with a divisive intent are not acceptable. 

Please bring some evidence to justify your claims otherwise you are demonstrating Taʿaṣṣub (تعصّب) which means blind partisanship / fanatical bias — sticking to a person, group, tribe, madhhab, ethnicity, or opinion out of loyalty and emotion, even when the truth is against it.

So if you want to call it “tolerance,” fine—call it people coexisting despite a flawed setup. But don’t present it as the ideal Salafi/Sahabi model, because it clearly wasn’t.
2. It did NOT exist in the time of the Sahabah, nor is it attributed to the Four Imams.
Your own “tolerance” argument actually proves my point: this was a later historical arrangement, not the Salaf’s practice. Even Ibn Jubayr’s travel account describes four imams praying concurrently at times due to constraints—showing it was a later development, not the original Sunnah model. 
3. “You added a fifth (Najdi) madhhab” is simply incorrect.
Unifying salah behind one imam is not “adding a new madhhab.” A madhhab is a school of jurisprudence, not “who is leading today.” 
Historically, sources even mention that alongside four Sunni imams, there was at times a fifth (Zaydi) imam—so the “you added a fifth” accusation collapses on its own. 
4. Real tolerance is: praying together as one Ummah—without factional structures. And the Maghreb prayer simulate was because of time constraints for the Maghreb prayer, not because choice.

The Salaf differed, but they didn’t institutionalize division inside one masjid with parallel congregations as the norm. And since you’re using “tolerance” as your standard: if separating into factions is “tolerance,” then by that logic you should also accept every modern split as “tolerance”—including the very one you reject of Moulana Saad . Consistency matters and that’s my point.

You contradict in your Usul.

If you want resources, here are the key ones.
Ibn Battuta (confusion with simultaneous imams): https://archive.org/stream/dli.pahar.3594/1986%20The%20Adventures%20of%20Ibn%20Battuta–Muslim%20traveler%20of%20the%2014th%20Century%20by%20Dunn%20s_djvu.txt

Ibn Jubayr (four imams; concurrency due to constraints): https://repository.digital.georgetown.edu/downloads/f7484de1-3d41-4581-b4b7-eec96ddd2dfd

Jordan Iftaa (simultaneous congregations disliked by majority): https://www.aliftaa.jo/research-fatwa-english/3723/

Dar al-Ifta (concurrent congregations causing division rejected): https://www.dar-alifta.org/en/fatwa/details/7908/

In Final,

If you reply, I’d like you to answer directly: Do you accept that simultaneous parallel congregations in one masjid are disliked by the majority (as the fatwa states)? If yes, then calling it “tolerance” cannot be used as a proof against returning to one jama‘ah.

2. Do you accept the Aqidah of Imam Abu Hanifa and that of the four others Imamas of Ahlusunnah wal Jamah as affirmed in messages earlier?

Wa ‘alaykum assalam wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuh,

This is the kind of brainwashing you’ve been fed, repeating talking points without actually examining the history.

You keep bringing up the four maqamat as if it was a problem. But this arrangement existed for over 9 centuries, patronized by the Abbasids, Ayyubids, Mamluks and Ottomans, dynasties that produced some of the greatest scholars in Islam. Hanbali scholars in Mecca participated in this system. If it was clear-cut bid’ah, why did 9 centuries of ulama tolerate it?

Your brainwashing also fails to inform you that despite having four imams, there was mutual respect and unity. The congregations functioned harmoniously, no takfir, no accusations of bid’ah. And do you know that for Maghrib they all prayed simultaneously? This is the tolerance of ikhtilaf that the four madhabs demonstrated.

And here’s the irony: your “solution” to four imams is to add a fifth imam, a modern day Saudi/Najdi one. You are not reducing division, you are increasing it!

Do you really not see this?

Wa ‘alaykumsalam wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuhu,

BarakAllahu feek. I’ll keep it short and on the original point.

You keep repeating “modern Saudi/Najdi scholars”, but you still have not answered my two direct questions which test this claim as to who’s Aqidah is modern Deobandi Darul Uloom or that of Ahlul Hadith inshallah.

1) Aqidah well known & famously attributed to Imam Abu Hanifah (rahimahullah):

Imam Abu Hanifah is your Imam who you do taqlid of —so please affirm his ‘aqidah as found in Al-Fiqh al-Akbar (Arabic/English available): affirming what Allah affirmed for Himself without ta’weel, without tashbeeh, and without takyif (bila kayf) wa Tajseem, and affirming Allah’s ‘uluww.
Do you affirm this explicitly—yes or no?

2) (Haram example):
If the deep heritage passed down to Darul Ulooms was sufficient to correct sectarian rigidity, then why did the Haram remain for centuries divided into four musallahs, with madhhab partisanship preventing prayer behind one Imam—until it was removed later? Around 400 years!

This shows modern Saudi/najdi dawah as you so call is infact the true upholders of classical knowledge while what led to four musallahs was guloo that Darul Uloom still carries its legacy of today, saying we accept the 4 school yet

If you can not affirm Imam Abu hanifa Aqidah, then how can you call you follow the hanafi school and claim being part of Ahlusunnah.

Instead it would turn the argument that Deoband Tabligh Jamaat is the modern day dawah devoting itself from the classical knowledge and hence exactly the opposite of your claim Subhanallah

واللهُ المُسْتَعَان
أخوكم في الإسلام

وعليكم السلام ورحمة الله وبركاته

Waaalaikumsalam Brother,

Please keep your replies short as I can only reply one thing at a time. It’s also hard for readers to follow.

The separation with Maulana Saad’s version was both a a decision by Mashwara and violently forced by Maulana Saad himself (see Nizamuddin Bloodshed).

Maulana Saad has been issued many Fatawas by major Darul Ulooms who have declared him outside of Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jamaah. To allow him to illegitemately take control of the movement will not only disconnect the movement from the bulk of the Ulema but utterly destroy the movement as well.

Other than ‘Ghuloo’ in Da’wah, we generally have little issues with most of his followers who still ascribe to the 4 Madhabs. Our main issue is with Maulana Saad, not his followers.

If you have no issues with Karama than we also have no disagreement on this. The stories quoted in Fadhail Amaal are taken from other classical books like Ihya Ulumuddin. If you disagree with those classical books and choose to only follow Modern day Saudi Najdi scholars, there is nothing much we can do. I see this as a secondary/minor point of disagreement that should not be highlighted or further escalated.

Wa ‘alaykumsalam wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuhu,
BarakAllahu feek for your reply. Before we proceed to the topic of Karamaat, let’s clarify two key points that remain unanswered. These directly relate to your earlier remarks about a “lack of knowledge and depth of fiqh” and “modern Najdi dawah” versus “Darul Uloom heritage.” I raise these simply to apply fairness and consistency to our dialogue.
Preliminary Reflections:
• The Tarteeb Paradox
If the issues between us are considered “minor,” then the ongoing ikhtilaaf (conflict) between the Amir (Nizamuddin) and Aalami Shura groups would seem negligent. Why have you then separated over Tarteeb (manhaj) instead of joining together?
• Unity upon Quran, Sunnah and Understanding of the Salaf
Since we all claim to follow the Salaf, would you join us for gusht and tashkeel based on the ‘Aqidah of Imam Abu Hanifa, the other Imams of Ahlus-Sunnah, and Imam Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab?
Back to our original points Akhi, the above will attest to who is following the salaf, who is only saying and who is demonstrating depth and understanding of knowledge and fiqh as otherwise I would appreciate if you retract your remarks as this should establish argument against your remark inshallah, inshaAllah.
________________________________________
1) The ‘Aqidah of Imam Abu Hanifah (rahimahullah)
We both agree Imam Abu Hanifah is a great Imam of this Ummah. You emphasize taqlid of him—so please affirm his ‘aqidah plainly as found in Al-Fiqh al-Akbar (cf. Aḥmad Ibn Muḥammad Maghnīsāwī et al., Imām Abū Ḥanifa’s Al-Fiqh Al-Akbar Explained, London: White Thread Press, 2014, pp. 99–102):
Allah possesses a Hand, a Countenance, and a Self, as Allah Almighty mentioned in the Qur’an, as befits His Majesty—without distortion (tahrif), without ta’weel, without tashbeeh, and without takyif (bila kayf).
This is also available in this Arabic/Urdu translation (pg. 32). Can you affirm this explicitly—yes or no?
https://archive.org/details/Fiqh-ul-Akbar/AL-FIQH-UL-AKBAR-IMAM%20ABU%20HANIFA-TARJUMA-SUFI-ABDUL-HAMEED-SAWATI/page/n17/mode/2up

This is the true test of who follows the Imam’s creed, as Imam Abu Hanifa was from the Aslaf (early generations), Alhamdulillah.
He (rahimahullah) called this the “Greater Fiqh.” Let us establish this foundation to ascertain the depth of knowledge and fiqh—qualities you have unjustly and wrongly claimed are lacking among the Ahlul Hadith. Otherwise, continuing to propagate these claims would now constitute a lie and Slander, which is a great sin and a direct violation of Ikram-ul-Muslimin, one of the very Six Points you emphasize in the dawah of Tablighi Jamaat.
________________________________________
2) The Historical Reality of the Haram
For centuries, the Masjid al-Haram was effectively divided into four musallahs (Hanafi, Shafi‘i, Maliki, and Hanbali), where one group would often not pray behind the other.
https://ebnhussein.com/2021/06/22/the-wahhabis-and-the-demolition-of-the-four-maqamat/
• If the “Darul Uloom heritage” represents “deep fiqh,” why was this institutionalized division justified and allowed to persist for generations?
• Why was it later abolished—not by that heritage, but by the so-called “modern Najdi dawah” under the principle of returning to the Qur’an and Sunnah upon the understanding of the Salaf?
If this division was a “minor” issue, please explain why it persisted for 400+ years and why it required a return to the Najdi/Salafi principle to finally unite the Ummah in prayer.
________________________________________
3) Regarding Fazail-e-A‘maal and Karamaat
Our concern is not the rejection of Karamaat. We affirm them with the correct conditions. For a clear understanding of our position, I offer this resource: Extraordinary Occurrences from the Allies of Allah by Imam Al-Lalika’i.
https://kalamullah.com/Books/Extraordinary%20Occurrences%20from%20the%20Allies%20of%20Allah%20By%20Imam%20Al%20lalikai.pdf
The issue is the reliance on weak or strange reports and narratives that open doors to incorrect ‘aqidah and grave-related exaggeration. Quoting the Ihya or similar works does not resolve the fundamental questions of authenticity and creedal boundaries.
Once you answer these points clearly, inshaAllah we can move to the specific examples of Karamaat with clarity and fairness.
بارك الله فيكم، أخوكم في الإسلام

Wa-salamu ‘alaykum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuhu.

I can only reply one thing at a time.

This issue is secondary as it can be clearly seen that both of us are following the Salaf.

What I am trying to say is that you follow the Salaf based on the understanding of your modern day Najdi scholars
We follow the Salaf based on the understanding of the Madhab which has been passed down to the Darul Ulooms.

Your rejection of the stories in Fadhail Amal is based on the rejection of Karama, nothing more than that. The stories quoted from Fadhail Amaal are from sources such as Ihya Ulumuddin. You should have a look at Kitab Al-Ruh by Hafiz Ibn Qayyim which include many stories of Karama as well.

Ameen, May Allah guide us all.

Assalamualaikum,
Wa ‘alaykumsalam wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuhu,
BarakAllahu feek for replying. I appreciate you ending with unity and adab, and I agree: we are brothers in Islam, and discussions should remain principled and not become personal.
However, with regret, there are baseless and misinformed claims in your response. This is either due to unawareness or stated in a way that spreads misinformation. We will take it as unawareness, because the other possibility would involve a serious sin—so we take the position of husn-zann. This is the Ikramul-Muslimeen attitude that the scholars and elders of Ahlul Hadith have passed on, alhamdulillah.

1) “Lack of fiqh / ignoring centuries” — this is not accurate
There is no other group that takes the legacy and heritage of centuries of scholarship as fully and completely as Ahlul Hadith, alhamdulillah—unlike those that bind themselves to taqlidi shakhsiyaat.
Even then, many groups do not maintain their taqlid consistently: you reject other schools due to taqlid, while we do not bind ourselves to one person—yet we also do not give “free will” to interpret Qur’an and Sunnah as we like. Rather, we say it must be according to the understanding of the Salaf, which includes the legacy of the pious predecessors—the first three generations—and this includes the four famous Imams, alhamdulillah.
What can be more in-depth and complete than this? And why would it not be so, when “the Hand of Allah is on the Jama‘ah” (Jami` At-Tirmidhi 2166, Chapters on Al-Fitan).
Also, otherwise how else would the Haram Sharif have been divided for centuries into four musallahs (Hanafi, Shafi‘i, Maliki, Hanbali)—each not offering salah behind the other—until this was done away with under the Saudi kingdom under the flagship of upholding Qur’an and Sunnah upon the understanding of the Salaf?
This is clear depth of fiqh and understanding which rigid taqlid prevented people from reaching. So who has depth and insight, if not the Ahlul Hadith / Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jama‘ah, who removed the four musallahs?

2) One example of Ahlul Hadith “fiqh and depth”
Moreover, to demonstrate Ahlul Hadith depth and fiqh—one example from an ocean full of examples:
Ahlul Hadith affirm that Allah possesses a Hand, a Countenance, and a Self, as Allah Almighty mentioned in the Qur’an, as befits His Majesty—bila kayf, without imagination, without false interpretation, without denial, and without distortion—as affirmed by Imam Abu Hanifah (rahimahullah) in his book Fiqh al-Akbar. [1]
Can you affirm the same, and at least do taqlid of Imam Abu Hanifah in this matter? It will show who truly follows the legacy and heritage.

3) “Ahlul Hadith reject karamaat” — baseless claim
Secondly, this is also a baseless claim. Ahlul Hadith believe in karamaat.
This is articulated in the Creed of Imam at-Tahawi al-Hanafi, point 109: “We believe in the miracles (karamaat) that have proceeded from them and have been reported by reliable reports.” [2]
The conditions of karamaat are well known: first and foremost reliable proof/isnad; it must not be against legislated Shari‘ah or against ‘aqidah; it must not be presented in a way that creates an impression of surpassing the Prophets; and the person must be sound in creed and free from shirk. [3]

4) “Only Najdi dawah” / comments about books and narratives
If by “Najdi dawah” you mean Kitab at-Tawheed of Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab, then how is this book diverging from the scholarly legacy of centuries and from Qur’an and Sunnah?
Whereas, contrary to this, Fazail-e-A‘maal contains Sufi/philosophical ideology of wahdatul wujud and insinuations that seeking aid by the grave of the righteous is acceptable.
These elements are contemporary discussions, and alhamdulillah not one matter goes past Ahlul Hadith ‘ulema except that—by Allah’s grace—they give it the most complete checking, according to the Islamic legacy. This is clarification, not escalation.
Just as many Americans do not understand the history of Palestine and somehow think it is Israel’s land, similarly among Muslims many don’t realise Ahlul Hadith manhaj has been there since the first revelation began, alhamdulillah.
And as for Shaykh al-Albani, scholars’ attestations of his knowledge and scholarship are plenty, regardless of my need to mention them. Please refer here for attestations of his scholarship:

5) “Secondary disagreements” — agreed in principle, but ‘aqidah is not secondary
Yes, some fiqh differences are secondary and should not be escalated. But when a matter touches tawheed, shirk, bid‘ah, graves, or creed, that is not “secondary.” Even then, it must be discussed with adab, wisdom, and without takfeer. What is secondary is the Administration ikhtalaf you have with the Amir group and vise -verca for which you sight difference in Tarteeb (manhaj).

6) My request remains the same as before;
Instead of broad labels like “pseudo-literalists” or sweeping claims like “lack of fiqh,” let’s discuss specific issues with evidence, and apply the same fairness and consistency you expect from Moulana Saads’ group however we go a step futher and ask you to apply and vise versa to Moulana Saads group to apply to the Tarteeb of Asalaf and do Dawah effort with knowlege and insight as per according to books of Tawheed, enjoining good but also from Evil.

May Allah guide us all to truth, grant us ikhlas, and unite our hearts upon the Qur’an and Sunnah with justice and mercy.
BarakAllahu feek,
Wa-salamu ‘alaykum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuhu,

Waalaykumsalam warahmatullahi wabarakaatuh,

The issue with Ahle-hadith is the lack of knowledge and deep understanding of Fiqh which has been gathered throughout centuries.

You have restricted your understanding of Deen to modern day Najdi (Saudi/Dubai) scholars ignoring thousand years of Islamic scholarships. One example is the rejection of ‘Karama’ i.e. supernatural help from Allah that happens to the pious.

To make matters even worse, your Scholars like Al-Albani was self-thought and never had any formal Islamic education.

Having said that, we are still brothers in Islam. These disagreements are secondary and should not be escalated.

Allah SWT knows best.

Barakallah Fiik.

Assalamualaikum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuhu to TJ Admin and my Tablighi brothers,

May Allah bless you all. We need to stand together to fight the enemies of Islam. A sincere point of reflection is that each group emphasises the same work and the same 6 points, yet due to differences of establishment/administration you are not choosing to work with each other.

You emphasise that this work is important and you try to gather everyone upon it, yet you do not join each other, while still emphasising success based on this effort. The truth of the matter—shown through actions—is that ‘aqidah and tarteeb (manhaj) matters when you do a work, whether joining together or separating.

Ahlul Hadith / Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jama’ah have always said openly: ‘aqidah and manhaj (tarteeb) are essential for success in this world and the Hereafter. We do not hide behind slogans. Ahlul Hadith are not against the work of tabligh, but against spreading false manhaj and ‘aqidah—such as:
1. Wahdatul-wujood
2. Seeking benefits from graves, or narrating tales that may lead people to believe needs are met at gravesides
3. Stories in Fazail-e-A’maal that are mysterious yet given leverage on the basis of karaamaat
4. The belief that the zaahid worshipper does not die, rather he moves from one place to another
5. Fabricated/weak narrations being used in ‘aqidah matters (e.g. tawassul presented in a way that misguides)

Yes, mistakes are made except by the Anbiyaa. But the Ahlul Hadith ‘ulama say the same principle the World Shura is saying: tarteeb is important—and we go a step further: tarteeb in ‘aqidah is important, not political.

While “agreements” (like 1995) are mentioned, I want to mention that the Qur’an and Hadith agreements and usool are first and should be sanctified above all. The greatest “agreement” and the foundation of unity is the agreement of the Qur’an and Sunnah, and the usool of Ahlus-Sunnah.

So yes—tarteeb matters. But the first tarteeb is: correct ‘aqidah, correct worship, correct manhaj, then unity upon that.

I respect my brothers in Islam and we need to stand together, but we must point out: Ahlul Hadith state their ‘aqidah openly and invite to Allah and His Messenger ﷺ. The scholars and general public sometimes take hits for being “overzealous,” but by Allah it is enjoining good and forbidding evil. Contrary to TJ which focuses on always enjoining good and tends to avoid discussing the bad openly—yet it naturally raises the question: if these matters were not significant, why would the World Shura not work together with the Ameer group and vice versa? And why not join ranks with Ahlul Hadith in dawah if the call is truly to unite upon the same effort?

This is just a point of reflection. If you call others to join tabligh, then reflect: you yourselves show that tarteeb matters. So let tarteeb be upon correct ‘aqidah and clear proofs—not organisational differences.

I say this with respect and love for my brothers in Islam. We want goodness for everyone, and we ask Allah to guide us all to what pleases Him, to unite our hearts upon the truth, and to protect us from innovation, exaggeration, and division.

JazakumAllahu khayran
Was-salamu ‘alaykum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuhu

So can you also post pictures of houses of all the elders of Aalami Shura?