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 to the secret large farmhouse 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.

Assalamualaykum Brothers, before reading further, please understand that our aim is to preserve the true history of Tabligh, no matter how bitter it is. As generations come, this history may be forgotten. We do not promote hate, and certainly not backbiting. See our article ‘Backbiting vs Warning‘. No matter how bad a Muslim is, he is still our Muslim brother. We love and hate only for the sake of Allah.

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

What we need to understand is that it was IMPOSSIBLE for Tablighi Jamaat to Split. Why? Because in 1995, all 10 Shura members (including Maulana Saad), signed and agreed that there will be no more Ameer for Tabligh, but a governing Shura.

There will be no more Ameer but a Shura

1995 Mashwara and agreement which Maulana Saad signed

The exact details of the agreement were:

  • 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, 72 years old then, vividly recollects the events of this Mashwara and mentioned in November 2017 in Raiwind Markaz:

After the demise of Maulana Inaamul Hassan, we gathered for Mashwara. A lot of confusion, 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

Maulana Yaqub also writes in his letter in 28th August 2016:

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 was verbally announced with the signed copy kept in Nizamuddin. The signed copy was never distributed to the public. However, there were many eyewitnesses to the agreement including Haji Abdul Wahab, Maulana Yaqub, etc.

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 leadership disputes

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

Maulana Saad himself suggested there be no more Bay’ah in Nizamuddin. This was approved.

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 in Nizamuddin. This was a sinister move since if Bay’ah was continued, only Maulana Zubair had the official Ijazah to do so. Maulana Saad never had any Ijaza whatsoever. Maulana Zubair on the other hand was given direct Ijazah from his father, Maulana Inaamul Hasan (the third Ameer of Tabligh), and from Maulana Zakariyya Khandhlawi.

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 – Introducing changes without approval

In 1999, the World Shura at that time signed an agreement that any changes to the pattern of work (aka Usool) must be unanimously approved before putting it into practice. Maulana Saad was part of the World Shura and signed the agreement as well. He, however, has been violating this agreement since 2006

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. Actually, it is permissible to inform the errors of someone who has caused destruction at a large scale to the Ummah. See the article: Backbiting vs Warning against a deviant. Also, ask yourself, are all these 30+ fatwas from various Darul Ulooms, are they all backbiting M Saad??

      What is backbiting is when one spread the errors of localized 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 tasked to select a new Amir. M Saad himself has never laid claim to this technicality.

    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.

      Finally, brother, EVEN IF Maulana Inaamul Hassan wanted an Amir to be selected, the mashwara after he passed away decided not to. So we just follow mashwara. All elders agreed and signed the 1995 agreement!

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

    5. 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 follow Mashwara and honor agreements. Ali RA did not revolt against the Shura for selecting Usman RA.

      M Saad on the other hand violated the 1995 agreement as mentioned in this article and did not accept the 2015 Mashwara decision. If he so wanted to be Ameer, put it in Mashwara and let the Shura decide. If the Shura says no, accept the decision! It’s as simple as that. We do that all the time in Jamaats!

      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 that 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 M Saad did many things (like declaring himself Ameer) without Mashwara/approval.

          Never in Tabligh do we nominate ourselves to be Ameer, let alone go against Mashwara to be Ameer. We always humble ourselves.
          M Saad also made many changes to the Usool. 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 Haji 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 and M Saad alone is telling the truth!

  4. More than 20 years ago, Hadhratji Maulana Inamul Hassan Saab (Rah) before his death made a council of Shura (referred to Elders Jamat) by selecting few members from all over the world. This council was also referred as Ahle-Hal-wal-Aqad consisted of:

    1. Respected Maulana Saeed Ahmed Khan Saab (Rah)

    2. Respected Mufti Zainul Aabideen Saab (Rah)

    3. Respected Maulana Omar Palanpuri Saab (Rah)

    4. Respected Maulana Izhaar ul Hasan Saab (Rah)

    5. Respected Maulana Zubair ul Hasan Saab (Rah)

    6. Respected Miyaji Mihrab Saab (Rah)

    7. Respected Haji Abdul Wahab Saab (Rah)

    8. Respected Haji Engineer Abdul Muqeet Saab (Rah)

    9. Respected Haji Afzal saab (Rah)

    10. Respected Moulana Saad saab (DB)

    The Ameer and Faisal (Decision maker) of this Elders Jamat was Hadhrat Miyaji Mihrab saab (rah). Hadhratji Maulana Inaam ul Hasan saab (Rah) wanted to follow the footsteps of Hadhrat Omar bin Khattab (radhi Allah anho) so that this Jamat should make an Ameer for the effort of Dawat after his demise. Hence after the demise of Hazratji (Rah) this Jamat stayed in Markaz and Mashwarahs were done for 3 consecutive days. Subsequently a jamaat of 3 Zimmidaar/Ameers were chosen instead of a Single Ameer due to certain settings, and situations. These 3 Zimmidaar/Ameer were:

    1. Respected Maulana Izhaar ul Hasan saab (Rah)

    2. Respected Maulana Zubair ul Hasan saab (Rah)

    3. Respected Maulana Saad saab (DB)

    This was accomplished even though some Ulama/Ahle Ilm were not gratified with this decision. In contrary to the situation Maulana Mufti Aashique Ilahi Bulandsheri (Muhajir Madani) said that “Ameer should only be one”.

    The mentioned above Zimmidaar/Ameers use to be Ameer/Faisal (decision maker) turn by turn. After few months, Respected Moulana Izhaar ul Hasan saab (Rah) passed away. Since then the remaining two Elders used to be Faisal (decisionmaker) turn by turn and whenever one of them was away the other elder used to be the Ameer. Never did it happen that the (Elders) jamaat ever came together for Mashwarah to add a third individual in the list of Ameer/Faisal(decision makers).

    It is apparent that after the demise of Respected Hadhrat Moulana Zubair ul Hasan saab (Rah), Hadhrat Moulana Saad saab (DB) is the only standing decision maker in Markaz-Nizamuddin.

    Now the real Sunnah is being revived. As Rasulullah ﷺ has said (to nearest meaning): If there are three of you, make one among you an Ameer. (reported by Bazaar).

    Ulama have explained this hadith by providing few analogies, if 3 people are travelling or are in a jungle/desert, one should be selected as their Ameer. So Tablighi Jamat which does not consist of ONLY 3 people but in millions which are spread all over different towns, villages, cities, and countries working for extraction of evil, and spreading of virtue, should this Jamat not have an Ameer?

    In order to keep up the unison, unity, and unanimity among the Muslims, an Ameer has to be followed. The hadith of Rasulullah ﷺ is the evidence necessary to pursue the fact that it is an obligation on Muslims to choose an Ameer for themselves. (Neel-ul-Awtaar)

    In contradiction to the present Ameer, if anyone would like to become an Ameer, Rasulullah ﷺ has admonished of such a person in the most undesirable reprimanding. Hadhrat Maulana Saeed Ahmed Khan Saab (Rah) several times used to say with great regret “Alas! We were not able to choose a single Ameer.”

    The successors of Tabligh do not have the right to overturn the decision made by the predecessors of Tabligh. The Elders Jamat which was made by Hadhratji Maulana Inam ul Hasan Sab (Rah) got together for only one time in Markaz Nizamuddin for the sole purpose of deciding the Ameer and never again did they got together for any other purpose.

    Rather they left this world doing Tabligh while Obeying their elders. Thus, all the actions by the “Elders Jamat” made by Hadhratji, provides us incumbent evidence that proves this Elders Jamat was only made to serve the purpose of choosing an Ameer. In similar fashion, the shura made by Hadhrat Omar (Rad) fulfilled the purpose of choosing an Ameer and then stayed in the obedience of the selected Zimmidaar/Ameer.

    The practice of making a Jamat consisting of various Zimmidaar/Ameer in the form of Shura, where the decision is made turn by turn is not acceptable in ISLAM. Neither it has been portrayed by Rasulullah ﷺ while sending Jamaats nor it has been proved by the lives of Sahaba-Ikram (Rad). Moreover, the Four-Imams have not mentioned it to be a recommended practice in their respective Schools of thought.

    Alhamdullilah, since his inception, Maulana Saad Sahab (Db) is following the footsteps of our Elders Maulana Ilyas Sahab (Rah), Moulana Yousuf Sahab (Rah) and Moulana Inamul Hassan Sahab (Rah). An Ameer has the right to add/edit /subtract some working methodologies in order to elevate the workers to another level (like Moulana Yousuf Sahab (Rah) introduced Hayaatus Sahaba and Maulana Inamul-Hassan Sahab (Rah) introduced 5 A’maal – these methodologies are way of work and Shariah is not being hampered)

    Ahle-Batil want to destroy the importance, reputation, and Markaziyat (Obedience to Markaz with collectiveness) of Nizamuddin. They plan to corrupt the effort of Tabligh, and root it out from the world. Due to the same reason, people are rising against Markaz Nizamuddin, and Maulana Saad Sahab (DB), working on assassinating his character by spreading rumours.

    “It is a plea from the entire Ummah to stay against the propaganda created by the media and Ahle-Batil and make special du’as for the protection of the Markaz-Nizamuddin. Furthermore, everyone needs to increase their daily effort, infiradi a’maal, put on an effort to join the Ummah towards unity, and Ijtimaiyyath (collectiveness).” Mufti Saeed Omar Hashmi Mazahari-Qasmi

    1. I am giving you 3 reasons why M Saad is not the Ameer as he was never appointed nor approved by Mashwara. This is the bottom line that you need to answer. Your lengthy explanation only serves to confuse the weak-minded.

      M Saad is not the Ameer as he was never appointed nor approved by Mashwara

      1. There was a signed agreement which Maulana Saad himself signed: No more Ameer and no more Bay’ah in Nizamuddin
      2. There was already a leading council (Shura) which Haji Abdul Wahab was part of. Going against a functioning organization causes disunity.
      3. Finally, even without the agreement, Ameer needs to be appointed and approved in Mashwara. M Saad did not get the Shura’s approval to be Ameer nor start Bay’ah as well.

      You are saying that we are causing Fitna. Are you also saying that the Ulema Institutions and all the Senior Elders like Ml Ibrahim, Ml Ahmad Lat & Hj Abd Wahab are all causing fitna too? (See fatwas from Deoband, Saharanpur, and 30+ more, the elders letters: Ml Ibrahim, Ml Yaqub’s Letter). Our deen is simple. Just follow the Ijma of the Ulema, and we are safe. InshaAllah.

      1. There was an original shura which Maulana Inamul-Hassan Saab made to decide who the next Ameer will be, they couldn’t decide an Ameer. If people wanted to make a new shura, why didn’t they come to nizamuddin and make mashwera, nizamuddin is the world markaz, any major decision need to be decided there, not in raiwind, this agenda of creating a new shura was to change the world markaz from nizamuddin to raiwind.

        Second of all, from the lives of Sahabah, can you show me where there was a shura that managed the whole world?

        In the narration discussing the scenario before the pledge of allegiance was
        “taken at the hand of Hadhrat Abu Bakr ~, Hadhrat Saalim bin Ubayd states
        that someone from the Ansaar said, “(Why do we not appoint) A leader from
        amongst us (Ansaar) and another from amongst you (Muhaajireen).” Hadhrat
        Umar ~.~ responded to this by saying, “Two swords in one sheath!? They
        will never fit.” (2)
        (2) Bayhaqi (Vo1.8 Pg.145). This was the opinion of Umar RA regarding having just 2 Ameer’s, imagine what Umar RA would say about having a whole shura where the Ameer is rotating.

        Maulana Yusuf Saab RA says that our work is according to Hayatus Sahabaah, according to Hayaatus Sahabaah, there is no basis of a shura.

        Also another thing,, this is the audio of Maulana Yusuf Motala RAH regarding making maulana saad as Ameer.

        Also, if you’re talking about deobands fatwa, the aalmi shuraa should stop masturaat effort as deoband and many senior ulama have issued a fatwa against the masturaat effort.

        1. You are very confused, brother, and bringing up so many red herrings i.e. non-issues that don’t answer the bottom line. I am not here to argue but to clarify things InshaAllah. I’m going to make this simple for you. Answer this:

          Was M Saad approved by the Shura to be the Ameer?

          1. I’m not here to argue either, yes, Maulana Saad was the only one left from the 3 Ameers that were decided, so when the 2 Ameers passed away, the only Ameer left now is Maulana Saad. Shaykh Zakariya wanted Maulana Saad to be the next ameer, maulana Yusuf Motala said this.

            anyways, please answer this: please show me from the lives of Sahabaah where a shura was managing the whole world, as our work is according to hayatus sahabah…

          2. That is wrong ya Akhi. Yes, all Shura members in Nizamuddin passed away but Haji Abdul Wahab who was part of the Shura was still alive, thus the Shura was clearly intact. In 2015, it is clear that the Shura did not approve M Saad as the Ameer.

            I will answer: Yes, Sahaba selected the Ameer-ul-mu’mineen, but it was never at the expense of going against the existing administration/Shura. The Sahaba always abide by Mashwara. Can you imagine if Ali RA revolted against the Shura and Usman RA for not selecting him as the Ameer?

            You really can’t see this, can’t you?

  5. Haji Abdul Wahab saab never gave permission for the new shura to be formed, the only shura that was done through the proper mashwera was Maulana Inam ul Hasan’s shura that he made to decide on the next Ameer.

    If Maulana Saad left nizamuddin markaz and started his own thing, that’s fitna, Maulana Saad still remains in Nizamuddin Markaz. If the elders stayed in nizamuddin markaz and agreed to be under Maulana Saad saab’s imaarat, there would be no split. And what Maulana Saad Saab is pushing towards is seerah.

    1. If you have to fabricate facts about Haji Abdul Wahab then there is nothing else we can talk about here.

      Haji Sab was the first elder who truly stood up against M Saad. He made direct claims such as M Saad has not even spent 40 days.

      My dear brother, I myself used to be a follower of M Saad but my heart did not feel right. Why should I waste my time propagating the Fitna and cause further disunity to Tabligh?
      I had to go against my pride, apologize to many people, and accept that I was wrong
      I humbly ask you to do the same. Ask Allah SWT for clear guidance. May Allah SWT guide us all.

Leave a comment

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