Mufti Taqi Usmani on Maulana Saad

53 comments

1. Adaabi mushoorah has always been part of the series of muthaakirah conducted by every jamaat out in the Path of Allaah. It is conducted under the ultimate decision-making authority of the appointed ameer, and the help of Allaah comes through this process. This was the system in place at the time of Rasoolulaah (s.a.w.s.) and in the times of the Khulafaa -ir Raashideen and the leaders of the Muslims after them until 1923 C.E.. It was the system of the first three ameers of Tableegh, and of every Markaz and of every local masjid where the work was taking place, and of every jamaat out in the Path of Allaah. The command of Allaah (a.w.j.) for this system is clear from text and example.

   For any of the senior elders and ‘ulemaa of Tableegh – from Hazrat ji Inaam ul Hasan (r.a.a.) onwards (and even Maulaana Ilyaas (r.a.a.) if that was actually his position) – to believe they know better, and that the system of Allaah is in need of correction or modification for the current era is so outlandish as to be almost unbelievable. Obedience to any order of an Ameer is impermissible when they order the disobedience of Allaah (a.w.j.). The sheer fact that a split has been caused in the effort should be evidence enough of their mistake for them – no matter how long that split took to occur. They need to do tawbah and return to the perfect system of Allaah (a.w.j.), or do they really expect that everyone should leave the sharee’ah and follow their way instead? Don’t they understand that putting aside a command of Allaah to follow the command of a man is a minor form of worshipping other than Allaah?

   The effect of the disgraceful violence that took place in Nizamuddin was to clear out all the individuals continuing to support the abandonment and replacement of Allaah’s system of Ameer and Shoorah. Who and whatever was left remaining is then subject to the command to obey an Ameer until he is openly a disbeliever – even if he oppresses. Imaam Ahmad’s (r.a.a.) continuing statement of allegiance to the Mu’tazilee Khaleefah of his time is sufficient as a practical demonstration of this. Every man dies, and the man who succeeds a position of authority is decided by Allaah (a.w.j.).

   Reply

   1. Yes, the decision of the 2015 Mashwara in Raiwind was to continue the Shura system with a rotating Ameer as how it has been practiced since 1995. The decider of this Mashwara was Haji Abdul Wahab Sahab. One man was unhappy with this decision and decided to break away from the Elders.

      Even if this Mashwara did not occur (or some say it was invalid) a 1995 Mashwara which decided there be no more Ameer but a Shura should supersede.

      Reply

      1. Jazaakallaah for your reply, although it saddens me that a response to Qur’aan, hadeeth, seerah and over 1400 years of history is “So-and-so decided we will do things our own way, so we will follow that rather than Qur’aan, hadeeth, seerah and over 1400 years of history.” There is no khair in such a mushoorah, as long-term events have proven, and remaining stubborn upon what is clearly contrary to Allaah’s mandated system of governance is a form of kibr – that of rejecting the truth. I personally owe Haji Abdul Wahab sahib a huge debt for the care he showed me back in 1992, which led to a complete change in the direction of my life, and I keep him in my du’aas – that Allaah (a.w.j.) accept whatever good he did, forgive whatever mistakes he may have made, and raise him with the people he aspired to emulate. Aameen. Ma’a salaam, Sulaiman.

         Reply

         1. This is a too simplistic view that cannot be the bottom line. Sadly, one cannot convince anyone who has been b__________.

            Please see a collection of Fatwas on the permissibility of Shura. Link here: https://tablighi-jamaat.b-cdn.net/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/Permissibility-of-Shura.pdf

            Our esteemed Ulema and Mufti have said Shuras with a deciding Ameer is permissible in Sharia. Why should we go against Mashwara, break away and disunite the Jama’at, when the Sharia is clear on this matter? And all this for a controversial person who wants to be Ameer at all cost?

            If anything this should be the bottom line. And the fact that there was a 2015 Mashwara decision and a prior 1995 agreement, is an even bigger bottom line.

            May Allah SWT accept your sacrifice. I am in no position to express disagreement with you. You have sacrificed your life for Tabligh compared to an “ant” like myself.

            Reply

            1. Jazaakallah for the links to the pdf’s, but I don’t speak Urdu, so have no idea what has been said by the people who gave their opinions. If you could provide accurate translations, I would appreciate it.

         2. One more point is that if shura system is impermissible and is administrating such an influential organisation like tableegh, then it would have been responsibility of and wajib on all these leading scholars and darul ulooms to write against it and refute it, just like so many of them gave a fatwa against mln saad so that public is warned regarding what’s not ok, same way they would have had to refute the shura system as well so that public is warned about shura systems impermissibility, yet none have refuted, and some have instead explicitly clarified that’s it’s permissable, while the silence of others from the likes of mufti taqi (who also wrote against mln saad as he felt it was his responsibility due to the influence he has) yet he’s not refuted the shura system one bit, him and so many others like him, who are extremely knowledgeable, leading scholars, sufis and madaris of our era, them not refuting shura system should satisfy you regarding its permissability or even it’s necessity for the time being.

            As for some less influential, less knowledgeable but highly respectable local scholars who do great effort for the deen and are with mln saad, and they regard shura system as impermissible, they too ought to have written an explanation about why they think it’s impermissible, had they written something like that on a technical share”ee basis, they would have beem refuted and completely made to look unreasonable, the proof of that is what i just mentioned that the silence of so many giants is indicative of the permissability of this system, no big scholar has yet written a detailed exposition regarding the permissability of this system because the opposition too has only used this point in their local circles, which too sort of indicates that they may understand the weakness of the point.

            Reply

            1. We don’t replace known aspects of Islaam unilaterally. We don’t develop our own system, implement it on an international movement of millions of people, then ask for fataawa to support our unilateral actions.
               If circumstances have changed in such a way that they materially hinder or prevent the practice of a particular aspect of deen, then we request fataawa for any proposed changes before implementing them. There were and are no hinderances or preventions to implementation of the 1400+ year Islamic system of governance to the running of Tableegh.
               There is no way of saying that no-one was competent for the role of Ameer after Hazrat ji Inamul Hasan. No Ameer of Tableegh has taken on the role because they felt they were competent for it. Maulaana Ilyaas had to be reassured by the ‘ulemaa of his time that he hadn’t been told to do the work, but that work would be taken from him. Maulaanu Yusuf wasn’t fully committed to Tableegh – especially mustaraat work – before taking on the role, as his main deeni interests lay elsewhere, but once he accepted it from his father, he gave his life for the effort. He wouldn’t make decisions before consulting with the main elders of his time, even if he had to wait for their returns from journeys, but then he would determine on a course of action and fully put his trust in Allaah (a.w.j.). Hazrat ji Inamul Hasan hadn’t even spent 4 months when he was made Ameer, and again he followed the pattern of considering himself fully dependent on taking opinions from whoever he thought necessary, then relying on Allaah after making a decision.
               Every Ameer knew that any success that came during his time came from the help of Allaah (a.w.j.) only. To suggest that there was no-one in the whole of India whom Allaah (a.w.j.) would help in a similar fashion to the help he had given the first three Ameers is untenable and insulting. Similarly, to suggest that the only people available to choose from were ones who did consider themselves competent and not completely in need of Allaah, or were interested in the status of being the head of an international Islamic movement of millions of individuals, is also untenable and insulting.

2. Asslamualikum if shoorah system is wrong then what u r saying is that for so many years after the demise of maulana inamul hasan sab we were doing bidah or against dheen
   Either in shoorah it was two or three or thirteen all is called shoorah
   After demise of maulana inam sab u also say it was decided three person shoorah or some say two person some say it was two but like one but all is shoorah so u r saying till maulana saad became one ameer we were doing wrong?
   Great scholors like Maulana idharul hasan sab , maualana umer palanpuri, sab mufti zainulabideen sab all did wrong?

   And now also all darul iftas are wrong?they are not at all opposing this system

   So only maulana saad team knows dheen?

   Reply

   1. Based on His absolute knowledge of everything that will be and could be involved in the organisation, administration, results and effects of every system of governance possible , Allaah (a.w.j.) chose for us His optimum system of Ameer and Shoorah. This was mandated at every level of organisation from the Khilaafah down to three people on a journey, and to the family unit in the home. It is not optional.
      Any system other than Ameer and Shoorah is by definition inferior. In a situation where nothing prevents the implementation of Allaah’s system, firstly from just a common sense point of view: ‘Do you seek to exchange that which is inferior for that which is better?’ (Baqarah 2:61). Secondly, what makes anyone think they have right to modify or replace it?
      To modify or replace Allaah’s system in a way that is acceptable from a sharee’ah point of view, there have to material, existant reasons for doing so. There were and are no hinderences or things preventing the implementation of Allaah’s system of Ameer and Shoorah in the running of Tableegh.
      Anyone who reads the articles on this site, and the replies to my comments, can’t fail to notice that what occurred following on from Maulaana Sa’d’s “Last Man Standing” ploy is considered to be the primary cause of the problems in Tableegh. None of the commenters seem to realise that the split that has occurred is actually the effect of a previous split – a result arising from the split away from Allaah’s system to a man-made one. We can’t wilfully change Allaah’s system for no valid reason, then expect everything to come out smelling of roses.

      Reply

      1. Assalamualaikum Brother Solaiman, can you please specifically address the questions raised by brother “M” regarding our elders doing wrong by allowing Surah after the demise of Maulana imanul hasan.

         It is hard to hear that they did it wrong.

         I think there was some hikmah behind allowing Surah then but it does not apply any more after Maulana Saad sab became our Amir?

         Reply

3. Sorry i didnt get a clear answer
   Can you clearly say that?
   Whether our elders was doing wrong after the demise of maulana inam sab?
   So many years whoever went to nizamuddin we know that faizal was turn by turn so they did against quran and hadhees?

   And you mean to say no proper canditate was thr
   I dont feel maulana saad sab is a proper candidate better than all our senior ulamas like Maulana idharul hasan sab, Maulana umer palanpuri sab nd many like that
   None of the darul ifta has come against them nd said they fear they may create a wrong ideology group?

   If its so also u have to say all our elders did against quran and hadhees during that period

   Reply

   1. Any system other than Allaah’s system (a.w.j.) is deficient and has inbuilt flaws, which exhibit themselves in use. The fact that it takes time for these flaws to surface as problems is currently being taken as evidence for the validity of the initial decision to change to the Shoorah system.
      If I cut the brake pipes of my car then drive off, it doesn’t matter how far I drive safely before needing to use my brakes. Tableegh cut their connection with the system of Allaah (a.w.j.), then traveled along for a few years before the obvious deficiencies in their substitute system started to surface. It was simply an accident waiting to happen.
      From the off, inter-family political situations had to be taken into account when appointing the initial shoorah. As Haji Abdul Wahab sahib is quoted as saying on this site, Maulaana Sa’d hadn’t even spent 40 days – yet he was given his time in the chair to take decisions affecting the effort of Tableegh. There was nothing in the administrative set-up to ensure that without fail a suitable replacement was immediately put in place on the death or incapacity of an existing shoorah member. Nothing was drafted from a legal standpoint to ensure that Nizamuddin had to remain on the new system. There was a naive belief that everyone then and in the future was and would remain sincere to the spirit of the system, whereas Allaah (a.w.j.) knows the effects of authority, power and respect on every individual, and how that changes through an individual’s life. His system (a.w.j.) has safety measures in place to prevent power grabs.
      History shows that people on a man-made system can remain united against a common enemy, but once that common enemy is gone, they eventually turn on each other and fragment even further.

      Reply

      1. Your key point is that the Shura (with a rotating Ameer) is against Sunnah (i.e. a Bidah). Because of that you claim it is the root cause of the Tablighi Jamaat Split.

         But I believe your play of words is just to satisfy a guilty conscience.
         The Ulema has clarified that Shuras with a rotating Ameer is permissible. See the fatwas here. This should be enough for us laymen.

         Also, almost every Islamic Organiztion, Darul Ulooms and Masjid’s in the world are run under a board/committee/Shura. The Shura appoints and fires an Ameer; some via voting. Are ALL these Islamic Organizations, Darul Ulooms, and Masjids going against the Sunnah?

         Reply

         1. There seems to be a thirst for open, named criticism of individuals involved in this whole affair, which I have tried to avoid joining in with. Rasoolullaah (s.a.w.s.) ordered us to hold our tongues in relation to his sahaaba (r.a.a.), and I try to extend the same courtesy, and for the same reasons, to those who have given their life in the effort of Tableegh.
            For us, we have been given the gift of hindsight, so we can see how and more importantly why things have unfolded as they have – from beginning to end, not just from part way. The people involved in the initial decisions did not have knowledge of the future effects and results of their actions. We are supposed to learn from our own mistakes, and the mistakes of others.

            Reply

            1. Here’s the problem… All Ulemas, Muftis, Elders, Haji Abdul Wahab, Maulana Zubair, Mufti Zainul Abidin, Maulana Umar Palanpuri, Maulana Ibrahim, Darul Uloom Deoband, Masjids that have Committees, Darul Ulooms that are run by a Board,… all of them are WRONG in respect to the Shura… all are WRONG… except Maulana Saad. Only Maulana Saad is right…

4. Yes i didnt understnd ur view brother
   Inorder to say Maulana saad is correct you are saying all our Darul ulooms nd ulamas are wrong. And our akabirs also
   We feel they have much more ilm than you nd its not an individual view darul iftas has issued fatwa.

   This is not a good step. Our elders say whoever say bad about our accepted elders its thr first step to go outside tableegh.

   Whole world darul ulooms nd our 90% awwal saff is at one place nd Maulana saad is at other place
   So what is the difference between you and kadhiyani
   They also say the same whole world ulama dont understand the baseerath of hadhrath kadhiyani.
   If it was one we could have accepted or say hasad or less ilm but its whole world darul ulooms who accepted us, worked with us for 100 years is saying Maulana saad ideology is wrong and whole world akabir, 90% awwal saff they say we need that old work nd not new which cause much fitna

   In medical we say cognitive dissonance
   “We will be having some personal issue or view so that if we know its wrong also we dont give brain or think and say Whatever you say what im saying is correct””

   Reply

5. The system of Islaam is Ameer and Shoorah. All of the elders you mention and all of the organisations you mention – without exception – agreed with this system’s use in Tableegh up until the death of Hazrat ji Inamul Hasan (r.a.a.). The elders of Tableegh all practiced it, taught it, and worked for its adoption in every level of society. They were not wrong. They were not harboring secret doubts about the system’s applicability or effectiveness.
   None of the organisations you mention issued fataawa or continuing, repeated warnings or advice to the elders of Tableegh that Ameer and Shoorah is not something that is workable in this day and age. As far as I am aware, none of the organisations you mention have said that Allaah’s system (a.w.j.) is unworkable in Tableegh today – that Allaah (a.w.j.) will not help a sincere, humble Ameer as He has done in the past. How could they? Are any of them or you prepared to speak definitively on Allaah’s behalf?
   Allaah (a.w.j.) has already spoken on His Own behalf, and His Messenger (s.a.w.s.) has fully elaborated on that.
   As for the personal use of other systems by the organisations you mention – if you read what I said earlier: “To modify or replace Allaah’s system in a way that is acceptable from a sharee’ah point of view, there have to be material, existent reasons for doing so.” If you would care to ask them why they have the system that they do, I’m sure each would be happy to explain to you the hindrances and preventions that exist, and the exemptions to general rules that apply in their own particular circumstances.
   To give you a couple of readily available examples – many organisations operate under charitable status in the laws of the countries in which they are located, for local and national taxation reasons among others. This requires a state-mandated system of governance to comply with that status. Many educational establishments fall under the jurisdiction of the Education Ministry of their country, so have to comply with its governance rules.
   The organisations may also give you examples of the past and ongoing measures they have introduced to mitigate against the problems that arise from their system: “Any system other than Allaah’s system (a.w.j.) is deficient and has inbuilt flaws, which exhibit themselves in use.”
   As for Maulaana Sa’d, even to accept whatever you believe about him, there is still the saying that a broken clock is right twice a day. He can be right on one thing and wrong on absolutely everything else. Whatever he is or isn’t, it doesn’t change the deen of Allaah (a.w.j.) that we are obliged to follow, establish and propagate. We will be asked about what we did, not about what he did.

   Reply

6. Alhamdulillah, you’ve stopped digging, so I’ll summarize the issue for you inshaa Allaah.
   The problems that have arisen are a direct consequence of the introduction of a man-made shoorah system riddled with flaws from the outset. Each step of failure of the system enabled its end result. To widely condemn that end result on the one hand, then use its existence as a justification for the continued allegiance to the shoorah system that enabled it defies all logic. What has happened recently wasn’t even a mild threat during the period of Tableegh under Allaah’s (a.w.j.) Ameer and Shoorah system.
   To exaggerate the issue slightly, just so as to make things even clearer – on Monday, all Tableeghi Elders and “ordinary” participants around the world fully believe in, practice, teach and promote Allaah’s (a.w.j.) Ameer and Shoorah system. On Tuesday, a small group of individuals – not all of whom are senior Elders – jointly sign a document stating that it is no longer fit for purpose, so has to be replaced. What changed between going to sleep on Monday night and waking up on Tuesday?
   There was no change in Indian state or national law preventing Tableegh running its affairs in Nizamuddin as it saw fit. There has been no change since either. The only hindrance in choosing an Ameer is the State’s natural concern at what they would see as a possible foreign interference in a mass movement operating within its borders if a non-Indian World Ameer were appointed.
   There was no lack of Indian Elders who could have taken on the role if asked to do so for the sake of Allaah. To cite Maulaana Umar Palanpuri (r.a.a.) as one example is sufficient, with no intent of denigrating the others who were also alive at the time. After the death of the Maulaana shortly afterwards, there were still candidates who were more than suitable. To say otherwise is both insulting and an unjustifiable statement concerning Allaah’s willingness to continue helping this effort if any of those individuals had taken on the role of Ameer. Was there anyone who claimed they had been informed by Allaah (a.w.j.) that He would no longer help Tableegh under His Ameer and Shoorah system?
   Has any other valid reason been given for the change of position?
   With no valid reason from a sharee’ah point of view, then “so-and-so said so” and “so-and-so thought that…” doesn’t substitute for that. Ash-Shaari’ (The Legislator) is Allaah (a.w.j.) alone.
   An even cursory glance at the history of Islaam in its best three generations shows that power grabs, usurpations and rebellions were not uncommon occurrences, yet our ‘ulemaa of the time still guided the ummah to obedience of whoever was in power – however that power had been achieved. I mentioned the hadeeth on the limits of obedience earlier, and the case of Imaam Ahmad (r.a.a.) as an example, but in case you think this was a misrepresentation of hadeeth, or an isolated incident of one scholar, I’ll quote our ‘aqeedah on the issue as stated on behalf of the Hanafees for us by Imaam at-Tahaawee (r.a.a.).
   “We consider the prayer behind every righteous person or transgressor from the people of the qiblah – and over those of them who died – to be correct. We don’t declare any of them to be residents of Paradise or the Fire, and we don’t charge them with disbelief, nor with polytheism, nor with hypocrisy – as long as nothing of that becomes evident from them. We leave their secrets to Allaah Exalted. We don’t consider use of the sword on anyone of the nation of Muhammad (s.a.w.s.) to be correct, except him upon whom the sword became obligatory. We don’t consider rebellion against our leaders and the rulers over out affairs to be correct – even if they oppressed. We don’t supplicate against them and we don’t take our hand from obedience to them. We consider obedience to them to be part of obedience to Allaah (a.w.j.) – an obligation – as long as they didn’t order disobedience. We supplicate for them for righteousness and protection. We adhere to the Prophetic Way and the main body of Muslims, and we avoid becoming separated; conflict and disunion. We love the people of justice and trustworthiness, and we hate the people of injustice and betrayal.”
   We don’t pick and choose obedience based on whether we like or respect an individual. We do so because it is the deen of Allaah (a.w.j.).

   Reply

   1. We say in medical term cognititive dissosance for this
      Even whole world is against my view also patient try to prove my view is correct

      Hope our all darul ulooms nd ulamas got much ilm than u
      Inorder to support maulana saad ideology we have to say whole world ulama has gone wrong nd awwal saff has gone wrong
      And we have studied ilm from these darul iftas for 100 years not from a single person
      Can you bring one fatwa against shoorah system or shoorah tarteeb by any well known darul ifta??

      I can show more than 50 fatwa against the ideology of maulana saad

      So if u believ both are correct we have to choose orginal one or better one right
      Not duplicate one

      Why we need to choose duplicate?

      Reply

      1. Assalaamu ‘alaikum
         I’d hoped you’d stopped digging, but seemingly not. You keep commenting on what isn’t the topic of contention. Maulaana Sa’d isn’t Islaam. I am not talking about Maulaana Sa’d, I’m talking about Islaam. Whatever has been said about Maulaana Sa’d doesn’t change Islaam, and is completely irrelevant to what I’ve posted. Try putting Maulaana Sa’d to one side and looking at what I’ve said from the perspective of Islaam. There is no hiding behind “so-and-so-said” in matters which are ma’roof in deen. Every single Barailawee believes that Rasoolullaah (s.a.w.s.) is everywhere and aware of everything because their ‘ulemaa tell them so. Is “so-and-so-said” going to help them? Deobandi ‘ulemaa and others on similar lines of Ash’aree and Maatureedee beliefs believe that Allaah (a.w.j.) can’t speak Arabic, so the Qur’aan is muhdathah. Is “my teachers taught me this” going to help them? If Maulaana Sa’d dies tomorrow and his successor continues on the system of Ameer and Shoorah, but without all the clearly wrong things which have been rightly criticized, what are you going to say then as to why you don’t follow Allaah’s (a.w.j.) mandated system?

         Reply

         1. Subhanallah, the last comment by ‘M’ really put a word to what’s going on. I always witnessed this behaviour in Maulana Saad’s followers like yourself but I never knew there was already a scientific term for it i.e. ‘Congnitive Dissonance’.

            In simpler words, deep inside they know something is not right as there are overwhelming evidences against (Fatwas, Elders, etc).

            This causes the ‘dissonance’ (discomfort). To address this, instead of accepting the truth, they dismiss all evidences, rationalize it as part of a conspiracy, or seek the smallest information that supports their worldview. This is their way for them to reduce their deep discomfort for holding a belief that conflicts with all evidences.

            Brother, we are doing this effort for the sake of Allah SWT, for our Akhira.
            How long does it take to perform two Raka’at Salat and ask Allah SWT sincerely for guidance?

            Reply

            1. I’d say cognitive dissonance is knowing what Allaah (a.w.j.) ordered, what Rasoolullaah (s.a.w.s.), the Khulafaair Raashideen (r.a.a.), and the Caliphs up until the 1920’s practiced, and which the leaders and elders and every jamaat of Jamaa’at at Tableegh practiced until 1995 – and still insisting on something different without any quoted evidence of what change necessitated ijtihaad in the case of Jamaa’at at Tableegh. Read your replies – not a whisper of valid reasoning. Not a single quote of valid, legal reasons from any of the organizations or fataawa which you repeat constantly as being evidence and “superior knowledge” in this matter as it specifically relates to Tableegh. This mindset is described repeatedly from different angles concerning different communities and individuals – both in the Qur’aan and the seerah.

            2. So to hold the ideal “Ameer” system, you are willing to break an agreement, split the Jamaat into two, cause violence, disrupt the work of Dawa, and follow a controversial person who was never appointed as the Ameer?

               Again my question still holds. How long does it take to do two Raka’a Salat?

7. Alhamdulillaah, you’ve finally realized that it’s the system that I’m holding to, not the individual. Individuals come and go, and the system has instructions in place as to how to deal with individuals of all kinds – which as I’ve mentioned previously is not just a fiqh issue, it’s an ‘aqeedah one. I’ve also given examples from our history of the practical application of this. I’ve also directly answered your points on breaking agreements, splits, violence and disruption. What happened after the death of Uthmaan (r.a.) to Alee (r.a.) and the sahaabah as a whole, then later at Karbala is sufficient for anyone to learn what is expected of us. I’ve also answered the point about taking leadership unilaterally. All of the points I’ve answered have been from Qur’aan, hadeeth, usoolul fiqh and verified, historical responses of our ‘ulemaa and ummatees from the first generations. Review your own points and see that there is nothing more than loyalty to modern individuals, and emotional rather than fiqhi responses to what has happened. My personal loyalty will always be to Allaah (a.w.j.) and His system, irrespective of who is currently leading it within the bounds of sharee’ah. Imaam Ahmad (r.a.a.) will always be my example for this, with his unswerving allegiance to the Mu’tazilee Caliph of his time – despite being tortured almost to death by him at the same time. I would advise you against speaking for Allaah (a.w.j.) even indirectly on something which isn’t known from our sources. This is one of the objectives of Shaytaan in relation to us. If Allaah (a.w.j.) has told you something directly from your own two rakaa’a, then state it openly. Much more likely is that despite repeated requests, you have nothing to offer from a fiqh perspective on the specific question of why the Ameer and Soorah is now unworkable in Tableegh, so are using your “question” to deflect from the fact. I’ll state yet again that “so-and-so said so” is not fiqh in this day and age unless valid evidences are provided – no matter who they are – and especially when hindsight shows clearly that an unfounded decision has been a disaster after implementation.

   Reply

   1. I have provided a 13 page document containing various Fatawas that ‘Shuras with an Ameer’ is not only permissible but an established principle in Deen (Link here)
      To break the Jamaat, defy Mashwara and disrupt the work of Dawa just for one controversial Ameer is beyond all reason.

      Reply

      1. You’re still referring to general principles, which aren’t in question – as already stated. Continually answering a point which isn’t being asked. Do I have to keep repeating it? Answer the specific question of why the Ameer and Soorah is now unworkable in Tableegh.

         Reply

8. Brother why dont you understand
   This is not like a khalifa of islam , like aboobakr (r) if so whatever we have to do,we have to ask Maulana saad even if saudi arabia needs to dig oil they should ask Maualana saad. Khalifa of islam means that.
   Imarat system in tableegh or madrasas is just for administrative purpose thats clearly said in fatwas Maulana is not the khalifa of whole world people

   So for administrative purpose its clearly said in fatwas shoorah system or imarat system no. Issues

   And brother we all dont have any issue with that also if Maualana saad was doing according to quran and hadees we all dont have any issue to follow him

   Mainly people split for money nd position but u can see in whole world whoever standing with shoorah they have thrown away positions and come

   This issue araised only when he started to add neww new things nd he started to say against dheen

   Reply

   1. Straw man argument. Who has said he is equivalent to a Caliph? Also a rewriting of history. The issue of following is not because of what he says or when he started saying it. It is a fundamental position taken in 1995 that there will be no more Ameer and Shoorah. If he hadn’t said anything controversial, the issue would be the same – no following of a world Ameer of Tableegh.

      Reply

9. I’ll do a (hopefully) final walk-through in the hope that you can follow it. “Today, I completed your religion for you, and I perfected My favour upon you, and I approved Islaam for you as religion.” (5:3) Administration of deen is part of deen, and it is the Ameer and Shoorah system. We are not permitted to change any aspect of deen just on a whim. Aside from this, no-one is capable of coming up with any aspect of deen which is superior to, or even equal with what Allaah (a.w.j.) designed, so to replace what is better with what is worse, just based on whim, is the act of a fool, and also lays the changer of deen (and the ones who simply follow his change) open to being questioned by Allaah (a.w.j.) on the matter. The Ameers of Tableegh knew this, and adopted the Ameer and Shoorah system. As an organisation whose aim is to bring the complete deen into every individual and society, how could they choose anything else?
   We are permitted to make changes to aspects of deen when circumstances necessitate it. The group of individuals who decided to leave the Ameer and Shoorah system were neither acting upon whim, nor were they fools, so they did so based on what they considered to be circumstances which necessitated it. We, as followers of their decision, have an absolute right to know what those circumstances were, and decide for ourselves whether they are, or at least seem, valid or not. We are all liable to be questioned for the decisions we make on what and whom we followed. The two most obvious, possible reasons – no-one suitable, and a change in the national laws – even I can see have no basis, and I have stated reasons why.
   There is no legal obligation upon us to participate in the effort of Tableegh, so when the decision was made to change the administration system we had the choice to accept it and remain (whether we agreed with it or not), or reject it and leave. There was no second, break-away Tableegh group operating under an Ameer and Shoorah system.
   People such as yourselves are now giving the impression that the choice of administrative system is one of preference – choose whichever you like. This is foolish, and not in the spirit of the 1995 decision. If you are following the 1995 decision in the spirit in which it was made, the circumstances which necessitated it, or changed circumstances, must still be in operation. You refuse point blank to state what those circumstances are, so individuals can make a decision as to whether they are, or seem valid. Blind trust and blind allegiance seem to be expected in following the Shoorah system. Blind trust and blind allegiance will not form part of the accounting of anyone with sense. Taqleed is something different.
   The lack of basic safeguards in the Shoorah set-up, and a naiive expectation that everyone involved would “play nicely” permitted what happened to happen. There is now someone claiming to be the world Ameer of Tableegh in Nizamuddin, operating under the Ameer and Shoorah system again. It’s working as a system for the people who accepted the takeover – negating the claim that it can’t. He doesn’t exhibit open kufr, and as long as he doesn’t order me to sin, Islaam clearly, with absolute certainty, permits obedience. Blind trust is based, by definition, on not knowing, so cannot be certainty – only doubt. Rasoolullaah (s.a.w.s.) ordered us to to leave what makes us doubt for what doesn’t make us doubt.

   Reply

   1. My dear respected brother, I have only been in this effort for a small 20 years and am considered a junior by any standards. You have far more experience than me and I respect you for that. That is why there is no point for me to convince you since the age gap renders it useless.

      Do you not see that your main premise is that Shura is impermissible or non-ideal; and because of this you are suggesting we go all out to promote a self-declared-controversial Ameer who’s seniors don’t even endorse his leadership?

      That is why we have produced the fatwa document which sets the permissibility of Shura. These are written by Senior Ulema higher than you and me.

      This is my last reply and let’s end this as there is much suffering within the Ummah at the moment, especially with the events in the Middle East.

      How I wish the Ummah understand that the destruction of the work of Da’wa impacts the whole world!

      May Allah unite us all back.

      Reply

      1. Brother Muhammad Suleiman is correct. I’ve read both of your comments and can see that tjadmin is blindly following darul ulooms. But Muhammad Suleiman is giving proof from Quraan and Sunnah. This is the issue, people follow blindly, and they don’t follow Quraan and Sunnah.
         Tjadmin is saying that “let’s end this as there is much suffering in the ummah”: well why don’t you close this fitnah website for a start? That’ll help things calm down won’t it? This website is full of criticism and negativity

         Reply

         1. As mentioned in our comment thread here (https://tablighi-jamaat.com/en/maulana-saad/#comment-2381), a Shura system is permissible in Islam and not a Bid’ah due to the criterias mentioned.
            What is definitely impermissible is Maulana Saad’s violation of the 1995 agreement and causing bloodshed during Ramadhan inside a Masjid.

            Reply

            1. Something that is permissible, and something that is Sunnah, cannot be compared. Maulana Saad was left as Ameer, he didn’t self appoint himself. You’re following elders that weren’t even selected by Maulana Inamul-Hassan Sahab. If they were worthy, why didn’t Maulana Inamul-Hassan Sahab select them in the shura? If Maulana Saad wasn’t worthy, why was he selected by Maulana Inamul-Hassan Sahab?

            2. Ok, good that you agree Shura is Mubah (مباح) i.e. halal/perimissible because by this you have just defended the Shura. Now answer me: To change something that is already permissible, is it permissible to initiate an impermissible action? (breaking Agreements, attacking worshippers in Ramadhan, disuniting the Jamaat).

            3. How is a shura with rotating Ameers permissible? It’s not the way of Sahaabah. It’s a nafsaani system so that everyone can fulfill their desire of being Ameer

            4. You yourself said it is. I have also provided fatwas and reason for it (See comment thread here)

            5. No one cares about a Fatwa. We want proof from the Qur’aan, and lives of Sahaabah. Please prove that a shura is permissible from Qur’aan and Lives of Sahaabah and I’ll agree. Go on? I’m waiting, now please don’t reply with another fatwa, like I said, Qur’aan and lives of Sahabaah, I’m giving you time, go do your research and try and find something

            6. Ya Allah! So now you are back saying Shura is impermissible or a Bid’ah… It’s true what they say about arguing with ignorant people… but I will answer this for the readers, not for you. Because honestly you really have NO idea what you are talking about. But I’d like to say not having detailed knowledge is fine….. because that’s what the Ulema is for. They are the ones to guide us in matters of Sharia. This is why we should stick to the Ulema and their advices and Fatawas. Have you forgotten the third point Ilm and Zikr?

               But sadly the way this is going is that you despise the Ulema because according to you they don’t to Gasht and don’t go Khurooj 🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️… This statement alone makes a person a Bid’ati and out of Ahlus Sunnah by assuming Gasht and Khurooj (Tablighi Jamaat Style) being a necessity… SubhanAllah, it is true what the Deoband fatwas have been warning us about the extermism of Maulana Saad’s Ideology.

               As for your opening statement… claiming there is no proof of Shura from the Quran and Sahaabah… I can give you proof from the Quran itself! Have you not heard of the ayat 42:38, which is from a Surah name ‘SHURA‘? Also, didn’t Umar Al Khattab RA made a Shura as well? and what about the old Nizamiyya Institutes/Masajid in Islamic Golden Ages? were they not governed by a Shura/Waqf board? Seriously you are either trolling or super trolling. Anyway, I don’t want to play this Salafi game of yours because that’s not how our Sharia works. Quran, Hadith and Seerah is a source of ruling, and not the ruling itself. The ULema derive rulings by looking at Quran and Sunnah, and their method of deriving rulings must be CONSISTENT, something you don’t seem to understand.

               Next you claim a rotating Faisala system has no proof in Sharia. We say from a Sharia point of view that it is permissible as there is nothing explicit that says it is wrong. This is based on a consistent principle of explicitness called Qai’datul Saraha (قاعدة الصراحة). Without this principle there will be so many things we can’t do and our Sharia will be inconsistent. For example, let me ask you this: Is Maulana Saad’s Ameer System where he is a dictator, appoints his own Shura, and makes his own son his successor… is this system permissible and has any basis in Sharia? And not to mention he did this by breaking an existing (1995) agreement, disobeying (2015) Mashwara decision, and by bloodshed during Ramadhan! Dare I ask you to show me proof that the Sahaba did all of this?

            7. You’re saying that a surah in the Qur’aan is named surah shuraa which is correct. You also mentioned that Hazrat Umar RA made a shura, which is also correct. But Umar RA was the only fixed Ameer of the shura. A shura has a fixed Ameer that doesn’t rotate. What the Aalmi Shura is doing, is that they’ve made a shura, but not a fixed Ameer. They’re rotating the Imaarat which is against the system that Sahabaah worked in. You mentioned that I’m a bidati, you’ll have to give jawaab on the day of qiyaamah in front of Allah about this. Let this not get personal, control your emotions. Give me proof from the life of sahabaah where the Ameer rotated? The issue is that the Ameer is not fixated. Maulana Saad was left as Ameer, he didn’t self appoint himself. He was the only Ameer from the shura, and he didn’t authorise the new aalami shura. But the other elders were so adamant, that they forced this new shura and disobeyed the Ameer, and left Nizamuddin markaz, which caused a split in the ummah. Maulana Saad didn’t leave the original structure of the effort of daawat, he’s still in nizamuddin markaz. I’m not saying I’m better than Maulana Ibrahim saab because they are our elders, so please don’t misunderstand me.

               Until 2014, no Fatwa or objection against anything related to Maulana Saad was
               publicly raised by anyone in any Darul Ifta globally or at any Social media network. In
               fact since 1995 Hazrat Maulana Saad has been giving Bayanaat and making executive
               decisions related to the work of Dawat and Tabligh throughout the world (including
               South Africa) and we are yet to find any scholarly writings anywhere against Hazrat
               Maulana Saad Khandehlwi until that point.
               This type of character assassination in the form of targeted warning messages has
               never existed within the Ulamai Deoband historically. Unfortunately it first came to
               surface within the Deobandi halqa through a lobby of businessmen who were
               described as “Babu Sahibaan” by Shaikh Zakaria ra in his Aab Beeti in which Similar
               warnings were issued against Qari Tayyib Ra when there was a power struggle over
               Darul Uloom Deoband which eventually resulted in the split of Darul Uloom Deoband
               in 1982. Likewise a similar approach was taken by the Ulama of Karachi in Pakistan
               where in late 2006 an entire book was compiled against Islamic Banking through the
               assistance of a signature of Hazrat Maulana Saleem Ullah khan Ra to obtain a similar
               warning against some approaches taken to justify the permissibility of Islamic banking
               by Shaikul Islam Mufti Taqi Uthmani
               Hundreds of Ulama from within the Tabligh Jamaat have nevertheless clarified most
               of the misunderstandings that have been deliberately twisted out of context to باهلل نعوذ
               accuse Hazrat Maulana Saad of dishonouring the Sahaba or Musa As. A simple
               example can be taken from the statement of Hadhrat Umar bin khattab ra where he
               equated the earning of those teaching the Quran for money with the earnings of an
               Adulteress as collected in Hayatus Sahaba. This statement was deliberately
               misconstrued and attributed to Maulana Saad in a negative context. There is no doubt
               that any recording or Statement taken out of context can be used to label anyone as
               misguided which unfortunately is far from the trait of Ulamai Deoband but rather the
               historical approach of the Brelwi school which until today uses such methods to accuse
               Hakeemul Ummah Shaikh Ashraf Ali Thanwi Ra with blasphemy.
               The Khandehlwi family has a 300 year blemish free track record of service to the Deen
               from the time of Mufti Ilahi Bakhsh ra. It is bitterly disappointing that accusations are
               being made against Maulana Saad of disrespecting the Sahaba. It is a completely
               dishonest approach that has become a trait of a small camp influenced by regular
               visits to South Africa in extreme weather conditions to fuel the heat of this
               Fitnah.Maulana Saad himself has been promoting the globally accepted Hayatus
               Sahaba which is a compilation of his grandfather Hazratji Ml Yusuf ra and through
               this has been consistently promoting the status of Ulama all over the world.
               Likewise within the work of Dawah and Tabligh since the appointment of Hazrat
               Maulana Yusuf Ra as the Ameer and then later Hazrat Maulana Inamul Hasan Ra,
               many senior Ulama raised objections against thier Amaarat and left the Nizamuddin
               Markaz and at times prominent Ulama wrote letters in which objections were raised
               against the Bayanaat of Ml Yusuf Ra such the famous letters of Ml Manzoor Nomani
               ra etc. Most of these objections were defended by the likes of Mufti Kifayatullah Ra
               and Shaikh Zakaria ra and later by Mufti Mahmudul Hasan Ghanguhi Ra . The fact
               that there are Fatawa till this day within the archive of the Fatawa of Darul Uloom.

            8. “The Khandehlwi family has a 300 year blemish free track record of service to the Deen from the time of Mufti Ilahi Bakhsh ra” 🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️
               I really don’t have to answer anything else…

            9. You not wanting to reply shows that your argument has no basis in terms of dalaa’il

            10. Ya Allah….. really? Do you not see anything wrong with that? first you are assuming the Kandhlawi family as infallible nauzubillah 😖then this argument itself contradicts cause what about Maulana Zubair and Zuhairul Hassan Kandhlawis? Are they also infallible? Oh wait .. they can’t be cause they are with the Shura aren’t they? 🤦‍♂️

            11. Brother, I’m not saying they’re free from sin or anything like that, they’re humans too, I’m just stating the facts about the family. You’re avoiding my question, show me from the lives of Sahaabah, that they had an Ameer rotating. From the lives of sahaabah please

            12. I have already answered it here but you don’t seem to understand how Sharia works. Ok, let me ask you: Show me proof of 2 times a week Gasht…

            13. show me from the lives of Sahaabah, that they had an Ameer rotating. From the lives of sahaabah please

            14. I have already answered it here but you don’t seem to understand how Sharia works. Let me ask you: Show me proof of 2 times a week Gasht…

      2. show me from the lives of Sahaabah, that they had an Ameer rotating. From the lives of sahaabah please. You’re saying that a surah in the Qur’aan is named surah shuraa which is correct. You also mentioned that Hazrat Umar RA made a shura, which is also correct. But Umar RA was the only fixed Ameer of the shura. A shura has a fixed Ameer that doesn’t rotate. What the Aalmi Shura is doing, is that they’ve made a shura, but not a fixed Ameer. They’re rotating the Imaarat which is against the system that Sahabaah worked in

         Reply

         1. At this point I know you are just trolling but I will answer for the readers especially those who just skim through the comment section.

            It is called ‘Usool of Fiqh’ (أصول الفقه) which the Ulema/Mufti use to make rulings. Like the various Ameer/Shura implementations, there are so many things we cannot find exact 100% practice in the lives of the Sahaba. This includes the rotating Shura Faisala system and Maulana Saad’s Family Dictatorship. Also, all the methodology in Tabligh like weekly Gasht, 3 days monthly Khurooj, etc, there is no exact practice of the Sahaba on this.

            However, all these are permissible as the Ulema derive rulings based on consistent principles (see comment here). The end result are (generally) 5 rulings: Compulsory/Fardh, Recommended/Sunnah, Permissible/Mubah, Disliked/Makrooh and Forbidden/Haraam. There are slight differences between Madhabs but all of them are consistent in their methodology of ruling. Modern Salafis on the other hand are inconsistent. Your constant questioning of ‘Where is Daleel’ mimics their behaviour.

            Since Shura is permissible, it is therefore impermissible to go against an existing administration and cause disunity like what Maulana Saad did by breaking the shura agreement and causing bloodshed inside a masjid.

            But obviously you don’t care cause you are either a fanatic supporter or simply just choose a blind affiliation. Tabligh is not the purpose of your life. You live in the UK, a western country. You make good money and have a good job. Tabligh is just your side ‘thing’. Therefore you care less about what happens with Tabligh as long as your Duniya is ok and your pride is upheld. This is my final reply and that’s all I have to say.

            Reply

            1. Hadhrat Abdullah ibn Mas’ood RA said that when you leave the sunnah, you will become misguided. The sunnah of management is having 1 fixed Ameer (Leader). Islaam is easy to understand. Stop making it complicated with mubah, makrooh and all these different terminologies that didn’t exist in the time of Sahaabah. We always say in our 6 sifaat, our success is in the way of Rasulullah ﷺ, any other way will lead to failure

   2. I agree, you’re a legend! I was with shoorah before, but then I realised, people are blind following elders and darul ulooms, and not questioning everything. This rotating Ameer system is a nafsaani system where everybody can fulfil their desire of being Ameer

      Reply

      1. You contentions against the Darul Ulooms is really troubling. Is this the end result of this Personality Cult? Just because of one person, you disconnect yourself from the Instituitions that have been safeguarding our Deen? You ignore all evidences and fatwas?

         Reply

         1. These darul ulooms are not the same as before. Their evidences are not from Quraan and Sunnah and life of Sahaabah, so why should I follow them? These same darul ulooms that you’re talking about, how many of them do gusht daily? How many of them go out in jamaat? Don’t be fooled brother. Follow those that give you evidence from Qur’aan, Sunnah, and Hayatus Sahabah. Otherwise you’ll fall into the ditch

            Reply

      2. You’re saying a rotating Ameer is permissible. Can you back it up from the lives of Sahabaah? You explained about the different mathaahib, and usool of fiqh which I completely understand, I follow the hanafi school of thought myself. But even the different school of thought, they have given their evidences from the Qur’aan, Sunnah, and lives of sahaabah. So all I’m asking for, is to provide evidence from the lives of Sahaabah that a rotating Ameer is permissible, this will end the discussion. You’re getting emotional and letting this get personal. I’m just asking 1 simple question, but you’re not answering it.

         Provide us with the evidence from the lives of sahaabah that a rotating Ameer is permissible….

         Reply