Maulana Saad’s Treacherous Violation of the 1995 Agreement

When discussing Maulana Saad’s wrongdoings, his deviation from Ahlu-Sunnah Wal Jamaah as pointed out by Darul Uloom Deoband’s Fatwa, and several other fatwas are often quoted. Focus is also given on the secret large farm house he owns.

The truth is, these mistakes are just the tip of the iceberg. Maulana Saad has made one particular mistake that can be easily construed as the most destructive fitna to the 21st Century Ummah.

The 1995 signed agreement made it impossible for the Tablighi Jamaat Split to happen

What we need to understand is that the Tablighi Jamaat Split was supposedly IMPOSSIBLE to happen. Why? Because in 1995, all the 10 shura elders (including Maulana Saad), signed and agreed upon a treaty that:

  • From now onwards, the responsibility of patronizing the work will not be on one individual; rather it will be on a whole Shura
  • Those who belong to the Nizamuddin from the Shura are members of the Shura for Nizamuddin and together will take care of the work there.
  • Bay’ah (Oath of allegiance) will be stopped in Nizamuddin Markaz.

Haji Abdul Wahab, who was 72 years old then, vividly recollects the events of this Mashwara:

After the demise of Maulana Inaamul Hassan, we gathered for Mashwara. Lot of confusions, a lot of issues were discussed and the meeting lasted for many hours. Finally it was decided by mutual understanding of all the attendees in the mashwara (including Maulana Saad) that now the noble work of Tabligh will be managed through the mashwara of the Shura System to avoid any further conflict. We all agreed and accepted this regulation. After this Maulana Saad demanded in the Mashwara that Bay’ah will not be done inside Nizamuddin premise which is also accepted by mutual understanding of all attendees

Haji Abdul Wahab, Raiwind Ijtema, November 2017

Maulana Yaqub also writes in his letter:

The shura established during the time of Hazratji RA had unanimously decided to stop the practice of Bay’ah, with written proof having all signatures of the shura established during the time of Hazratji RA.

The agreement is currently kept in Nizamuddin. There were a lot of eyewitnesses to the agreement. Even without an agreement, it is wrong to declare oneself Ameer when there is already a functioning Shura Administration. It is not only a violation but also unlawful in Islam as such will cause harm and disunity to the Ummah.

Source 1: Dakwah wa Tabligh Azhim Mehnat ke Maujudah Halat, Page 17

Source 2: Tablighi Markas Hadhrat Nizhamuddin Kuch Haqaiq, Page 3

Source 3: Ahwal wa Atsar, Page 421

Source 4: Maujudah Ahwal ki Wadhahat se Muta’allig, Page 11

Source 5: Maulana Yaqub’s letter

Source 6: Haji Abdul Wahab’s statement (above)

READ: 3 Reasons Why Tablighi Jamaat Split

The 1995 agreement was to ensure unity and avoid future leadership disputes

The motive behind the 1995 resolution was to avoid any leadership disputes in the future. The elders had just witnessed a dispute after the demise of Maulana Inaamul Hassan (The third Amir of the Jamaat).

Bay’ah was also prohibited in Nizamuddin as it signifies the existence of a single Amir. In fact, as mentioned by Haji Abdul Wahab, it was Maulana Saad himself that heavily suggested there be no more Bay’ah. This was a sinister move by him since if Bay’ah was continued, only Maulana Zubair had the official Ijazah to do so.

Maulana Saad treacherously violated the 1995 agreement without any notice or Mashwara.

In 2014, Maulana Saad treacherously violated the 1995 agreement by initiating Bay’ah in Nizamuddin Markaz. This Bay’ah was a direct proclamation of a new single Amir. No notice and no Mashwara was made with the then-existing world Shura Haji Abdul Wahab, nor with the elders in Nizamuddin Markaz.

There is also a recording where Maulana Saad proclaimed himself Amir while at the same time cursing those who don’t accept him to Jahannam. The 1995 agreement clearly mentions there should be no more single Amir for the Work.

There is no 2-sided argument! Maulana Saad is at fault.

With this evidence alone, it is concluded that Maulana Saad is at fault here. There is NO two-sided argument. It is but a single man’s treacherous action that has destroyed this great effort of Da’wa. The 1995 resolution clearly states there will be no more Bay’ah and no more single Amir. Maulana Saad simply violated this. It is as simple as that.

Note: The author would like to point out that he himself went through this shift of paradigm. At first, without any knowledge, the author simply assumed the ikhtilaaf was a two-sided argument. Since the Sahaba also had disagreements, both of them have their side of the story, right? Well if that’s the case, does it mean that every disagreement between Islamic bodies in the future means that both are right, without looking into the evidence? Where is justice then?!

Maulana Saad also violated the 1999 agreement

In 1999, the World Shura at that time signed an agreement that stipulated that the (World) Shura must unanimously agree on any changes to the pattern of work (aka Usool) before they are put into practice. Maulana Saad was part of the World Shura and signed the agreement as well.

We have written a separate article on this: Maulana Saad’s Continous Violation of the 1999 Agreement.

Maulana Saad’s treachery has caused destruction to the biggest Islamic Movement of the 21st Century

Maulana Saad’s treacherous violation is the biggest fitna he has committed. Not only did he breach his trust, but he also took a large portion of the 100 million+ workers of Tabligh to rival against the other. Worse, many devotees have stopped doing Tabligh because of this.

In our humble opinion, this is one of the most destructive Fitna of the 21st Century. The effect is a big blow to the largest Islamic movement of this era. The blood is on Maulana Saad’s hand.

May Allah SWT protect us all.

Next: Learn the Full History of Tablighi Jamaat

READ ALSO: 3 Reasons Why Tablighi Jamaat Split


  1. All your explanation heard but in Jew methodology, to spread all what u call fault of Muslim is worst more than the offense u think he has committed. The decision of everything is in hand of Allah. Let’s Allah decide, let’s both sides continue with their effort, All mighty Allah decision will follow but our sincererity matter most. Jazakallahu Khair

    1. Barakallah fiik.

      Actually, it is permissible to inform the errors of someone who has caused destruction at a large scale to the Ummah. See fatwa from deoband and fatwa from darul ifta mahmudiyyah. Also, all these 33 fatwas from various Darul Uloom against M Saad, are they all wrong to issue them?

      What is backbiting is when one spread the errors of individuals who have not caused widespread damage to the Ummah.

      If you have been in this effort for a long time and have lived your whole life for this effort, how is it possible to see this effort being disunited? Having two groups will only cause confusion. Let us unite upon the truth.

  2. How can the “Effort to bring Deen Alive” not have one amir when they have taught us from the beginning that etaad of amir is the key to the work, now what has happened. When Ml Inaamul Hassan passed away he previously appointed 10 persons to “choose an amir from amongst them” true or not? They could not complete the task and it is said that Miagee Mighrab Saab was crying as he was Fasel of Mashura, that the task could not be completed. Please Help!!!!!

    1. Salam Brother, I have explained this on the website

      Maulana Inaamul Hasan made the Shura on 14th June 1993 two years prior to his demise. He passed away on 10th June 1995. Maulana Inaamul Hasan’s exact words were ‘The purpose of the Shura is to help progress the work further’. The Shura was never meant to select a new Amir. It is a pure fabrication. Maulana Saad himself has never laid claim to this.

    2. Source 1: Dakwah wa Tabligh Azhim Mehnat ke Maujudah Halat, Page 15-16
    3. Source 2: Maujudah Ahwal ki Wadhahat se Muta’alliq, Page 11
    4. Just think about it. If there was a mention of selecting an Amir then the Shura would have honored it. Instead, they signed the 1995 agreement, which agreed there should be NO MORE AMIR.

      The opposite is possibly true. There are many accounts from Maulana Inaamul Hassan’s closest companions that he wanted a Shura to lead the effort. One of the dying wishes of Maulana Inaamul Hasan was to go on a tour (Safar) from Sri Lanka to Australia. He expressed this wish 2 months before he passed away. The Shura honored this wish the next year.

    5. Source: Ahwal wa Atsar, Page 183
    6. Finally, brother, EVEN IF it was true that Maulana Inaamul Hassan wanted an Amir, the mashwara after he passed away decided not to. Everyone agreed and signed the agreement!

      Hope this clarifies. May Allah guide us all. Jazakallah Khair.

    7. Also to point out brother Shadley, the effort has been running under Shura since 1995.

      It’s not that there is no Ameer, the Ameer during mashwaras rotate between them.

      We have Shura in many masaajid-level and country-level efforts. Ameers are made in turn.

      There is nothing wrong with that.

  3. Any disputes in islam must be resolved in accordance with kitab and sunnah so As we know in any previous Islamic history there is no time that the ummah was led by shura raher a single ameer and meshura aswell it is impossible to unite ummah without a single ameer according to me we have to accept Allah’s selection prophet Muhammad (s.a.w) said that leadership is from qureysh as that is confirmed by correct chain maulana saad is from qureysh and also he is the only person left from those maulana Inaamul hasan(third aneer) had appointed like aliy(r.a)when khelifa umer(r.a) appointe six sahaba their ameer was abdurrahman ibn auf and then he appointe two from them (aliy and uthman (r.a)) this means after this the rest four has no role on imara and he appointe uthman as an ameer when uthman passed there was no shura again but from the previous two appointees the left one was aliy bacame an ameer(may Allah guide us to straight path )

    1. Yes, in Islamic Khilafah there should be only one Ameer. But the effort of Tabligh is not an Islamic Khilafah. It is a Da’wa organization. The effort was agreed to be run under a shura since 1995. Were the elders committing sin since then?

      In the past, many organizations were run by a Shura where the Ameer rotates. We have Shuras at the country level, district level and etc. M Saad himself has appointed Shuras in many countries. Isn’t he committing a sin?

      Finally, I agree that any disputes in Islam must be resolved in accordance to Quran and Sunnah. The Sunnah is to make Mashwara and abide by any agreements one has taken. MS violated the 1995 agreement as mentioned in this article. If he so wanted to be Ameer, at least put it in Mashwara and let the Shura decide. If the Shura says no, accept the decision! It’s as simple as that!

      1. Assalamu alaykum warahmatulahi wabarakatuhu my brother. No, they were not committing a sin as it was difficult to appoint a single ameer at that time. As you said Tabligh is a Dawa organization. If so, in what way can it be led by a Shura when
        our prophet (s.a.w) said that even when three persons go out for travel let them appoint one of them as an Ameer (Ameer is not only in Khilafa)? It is easy to make a Shura in a small number of Jamaa than in a large organization (like Tabligh) but our prophet (s.a.w) orders us even in three single persons.

        In a Shura, all thirteen respected elders will have different points of view as they are only Human. It is impossible to lead the effort of Da’wa in one unified Fikr. Even if their intention is good, each of them will try to practice their own Ijtihad. In this way, the Ummah will not be united. We have Shura at country level, yes, but there is still a single Ameer (ahlul Faysala). Does Shura means discussion only? There needs to be a decision, and who makes the decision? Let’s say if all thirteen respected elders exist, who will make a faysala? Surely one of them isn’t it? You see the Shura itself does not exist without a single Ameer. Wallahu a’alam may Allah SWT show us the truth for us to follow.

        1. Wa’alaikumsalam Brother, I agree with all that you say. Ameer is essential as per the Hadith of Rasulullah SAW. As mentioned before, again and again, the Shura has an Ameer. The Ameer rotates between them. We do this in our local work where the Ameer rotates sometimes weekly, monthly, or even daily. Alhamdulillah, the effort has been united since 1995 under a Shura with a rotating Fayshal. Who knows in the future the Shura will decide on an Ameer as there is nothing wrong with having a single Ameer.

          The issue is not Ameer vs Shura. The issue is the Fitna of M Saad who made many changes to the Usool and forced himself to be Ameer without Mashwara. He violated the 1995 agreement as mentioned in this article. It is crystal clear that he is at fault. His ruthless act is the cause of the current disunity. Alhamdulillah, more and more people are opening up to this.

          It’s ok brother to make a mistake. It’s a test for all of us. We need to keep our hearts clean. Those who are in the wrong need to humble themselves to the truth. Just imagine what new Muslim reverts go through… They have to sacrifice everything when they accept Islam. Allah SWT is giving people like you a chance to perform this great act of sacrifice. As you know, Jannah is not cheap.

          Anyway, before it’s too late, Ramadhan Mubarak

          1. My brother, firstly if you say we have to keep our hearts clean you need to be open to accept others idea it is unlawful to change other’s idea why did you remove the idea? if shura is the solution it must be from all countries elders as there are many elders who spent their lives in the effort of Dawa why not from other countries? You have said that the issue is not shura vs ameer. I know that we also have shura in our masjid with weekly rotating ameer no proplem because in masjid even in country level we don’t have our own ideology we simply follow what is released from the top but from the source, there must be one fikr so the ummah will be united. The changes to the Usool are not fitna because Tabligh itself did not exist before. Maulana Ilyas(r.a) revived this effort of Dawa he hadn’t completed everything at his time. He tried his best and he explained his goal for this effort of dawa as said his goal was to return the ummah to the level of the Sahaba where the messenger (S.a.w) left. Currently M Saad is also trying to push this forward. So we cannot say changes to the Usool is a Ditna rather to see if the changes to the Usool fits with Sharia or not. May Allah guide us all. Alright Alayna waalaykum.

    1. As mentioned in the article, the agreement is currently kept in Nizamuddin. No copies were distributed, unlike the 1999 agreement which was distributed to all workers Worldwide.

      There are many witnesses to this agreement including Hj Abdul Wahab, Ml Yaaqub, etc. There were no ‘additional clauses’ like M Saad should be Ameer or Shura should be disbanded, etc. If there were, all the Elders would’ve honored it or MS himself would’ve made noise on this. On the contrary, we see many MS die-hard supporters are kept in the dark with regard to the 1995 agreement.

      Ultimately, our evidence is the statement of our elders. It is highly unlikely that all the Elders are lying!

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *