Our Authentic References

Alhamdulillah, by the grace and mercy of Allah SWT, our written history of Tablighi Jamaat is strictly based on authentic sources. Most books were written before the Ikhtilaaf (aka Tablighi Jamaat Split). These books were also written by senior Darul Uloom Ulemas, whose writings are bounded by strict reviews from other Ulemas. They cannot simply write anything without being scrutinized.

Read: Full History of Tablighi Jamaat

List of References written before the Ikhtilaf

  • Sawanih Hadhratji Tsalits: Maulana Muhammad In’amul Hasan al Kandhalawi (3 Volumes).
    • Written by: Maulana Sayyid Muhammad Shahid Saharanpuri.
    • Published 1997: Maktabah Yadgar Sheikh, Saharanpur, India.
    • Download: Urdu
Tablighi Jamaat Books - Sawanih Hadratji Tsalits (Maulana Inaamul Hassan)
Sawanih Hadratji Maulana Inaamul Hassan
  • Hadhrat Maulana Muhammad Ilyas Our Unka Dini Dakwat (Life and Mission of Maulana Muhammad Ilyas)
    • Written By: Maulana Sayyid Abul Hasan Ail Nadwi,
    • Published 2009: Maktabah Mahmudiyah, Lahore, Pakistan.
    • Download: English, Urdu1, Urdu2, Bengali
Tablighi Jamaat Books - Life and Mission of Maulana Ilyas
Life and Mission of Maulana Muhammad Ilyas (Urdu)
  • Hayat Sheikh Zubair
    • Written By: Maulana Sayid Muhammad Zainal Abidin dan Maulana Ansi Ahmad Mazhahiri,
    • Publisher: Maktabah Habibiyah Rosyidiyah, Lahore, Pakistan.
  • Sawanih Hadhratji Maulana Muhammad Yusuf al-Kandhalawi
    • Written By: Maulana Muhammad Tsani Hasani.
    • Published 1993: Majelis Shahafat wa Nasyriyat, Luknow, India
    • Download: Urdu
Tablighi Jamaat Books - Sawanih Hadratji Maulana Yusuf Kandhelvi
Sawanih Hadratji Maulana Yusuf Kandhelvi
  • Hadhratji Maulana Muhammad Yusuf al-Kandhalawi (Urdu), Sheikh Maulana Muhammad Yusuf al-Kandhalawi, Hayatuhu wa Minhajuhu fid Dakwah (Arabic)
    • Written By: Maulana Muhammad Tsani Hasani
  • Aap Beeti – Autobiography of Maulana Muhammad Zakariyya Kandhlawi (2 Volumes)
    • Written By: Maulana Muhammad Zakariyya Khandhlawi
    • Download: Urdu1, Urdu2
Tablighi Jamaat Books - Aap Beeti
Aap Beeti
  • Hadhrat Maulana Muhammad Yusuf: Amire Tabligh (Biography of Hadhrat Maulana Yusuf Sahib-Amire Tabligh)
    • Written By: Maulana Mufti Muhammad Azizurrahman Bijnori
    • Purchase at: Link1, Link2
Tablighi Jamaat Books - Biography of Hadhrat Maulana Yusuf
Biography of Hadhrat Maulana Yusuf
  • Sabilul Khairat fi Jama’atil Mutanaqqibat
    • Written By: Mufti Ridhaul Haq
    • Published By: Zamzam Publisher, Karachi, Pakistan.
  • Tadzkirah Hadhrat ji Maulana Muhammad Yusuf al-Kandhalawi
    • Written By: Maulana Muhammad Manzur Nukmani and Maulana Atiqur Rahman Sinbli
    • Published By: Al-Furqan Book Depo, Lucknow, India.
    • Purchase at: Link
Tablighi Jamaat Books - Tazkira Maulana Yusuf
Tazkira Maulana Yusuf
  • Tadzkirah Maulana Zubairul Hasan al-Kandhalawi
    • Written By: Maulana Muhammad Mahmud Hasan Hasani Nadwi
    • Publisher: Sayyid Ahmad Shahid Ekdami, Raibrali, India.
  • Tablighi Jamaat Ka Manhaj Dakwat our Uski Dini, Ilmi, wa Fikri Asas
    • Written By: Maulana Sayyid Sulaiman Nadwi dan Sayyid Abul Hasan Ali Nadwi
  • Ahwal wa Atsar Maulana Zubairul Hasan al-Kandahlawi
    • Written By: Maulana Sayyid Muhammad Shahid Saharanpuri
    • Published By: Maktabah Yadgar Sheikh, Saharanpur, India.
    • Download: Urdu
Tablighi Jamaat Books - Ahwal wa Atsar Maulana Zubairul Hasan al-Kandahlawi
Ahwal wa Atsar Maulana Zubairul Hasan al-Kandahlawi
  • Tablighi Maqami ka Kam
    • Written By: Meyazi Muhammad Isa Ferozpuri
    • Published By: Rabbani Book Depo, Delhi.
  • Sirat Maulana Muhammad Yahya al-Kandhalawi
    • Written By: Muhammad Mas’ud Azizi al-Kandhalawi
    • Published By: Kutub Khanah Yahyawi, Saharanpur, India.
  • Tazkira Maulana Harun al-Kandhalawi
    • Written By: Maulana Muhammad Tsani Hasani
    • Published By: Maktabah Abul Hasan Ali, Delhi, India.
    • Purchase at: Link
Tablighi Jamaat Books - Tazkira Maulana Haroon
Tazkira Maulana Haroon

Who is Maulana Shahid Saharanpuri?

Maulana Shahid Saharanpuri
Maulana Shahid Saharanpuri

Maulana Shahid Saharanpuri is the grandson-in-law of Maulana Zakariyya. Maulana Zakariyya had one son, Maulana Talha, and a daughter named Atiqa. Atiqa has 2 daughters, one who married Maulana Zubayr and another who married Maulana Shahid.

Maulana Shahid Saharanpuri is the grandson-in-law of Maulana Zakariyya. Our sources are thus credible and unbiased.

Maulana Shahid is one of the key authors of the history books of Tabligh (such as the book Ahwal wa Atsar and Sawaneh Hadratji). These books were written before the Ikhtilaaf. He has kept many letters and personal notes of Maulana Zakariyya, Maulana Inaamul Hassan, and Maulana Zubair.

Thus so, our sources are not just credible, but also unbiased in nature

Other References

  • Darul Ulum Deoband Ka MauqifThe stances/fatwas of Darul Uloom Deoband (See List of Fatwas)
  • Majmoo’a Khutoot (Collection of Letters) Dr. Aftab Alam (English Translation)
  • Inkishaf HaqiqatCompiled by Maulana Zaid Mazhahiri Nadwi
  • Jawabat Ki HaqiqatCompiled by: Maulana Zaid Mazhahiri Nadwi
  • Janab Maulana Muhammad Saad kandahlawi se Muta’alliq Darul Deoband ke Mauqif Our Fatwa ka pas ManzharCompiled By: Mufti Khidir Mahmud Qasimi
  • Darul Uloom Deoband Ka Mauqif aur Fatwa ka Pes Manzhar Compiled By: Mufti Khidir Mahmud Qasimi
  • Maulana Saad se Ulama Umat ke Ikhtilaf ki Bunyadi WujuhatCompiled By: Wifaq Ulama Hind (English Translation)
  • Maqalah Maulana SaadCompiled By: Mufti Zaid Mazhari Nadwi
  • Maulana Saad per Hone Wale I’tiradhatCompiled By: Maulana Salman Saharanpuri
  • Dakwah wa Tabligh ki Azhim Mehnat ke Maujudah Halat
  • Maujudah Ahwal ki Wadhahat se Muta’alliq Dakwat wa tabligh ka Tarikhi Pes Manzhar
  • Hadzrat Nizhamuddin Kuch Haqaaiq Kuch WaqiatCompiled By: Choudry Amanatullah (English Translation)
  • Maulana Ahmad Laat’s Testimony
Maulana Ahmad Laat’s Testimony on M Saad

NEXT: Read the Full History of Tablighi Jamaat


  1. Assalamo Alaikum
    May Allah bless you and have mercy on the whole Ummat. My dear friend sent me the link for the history of Tabligh. So, after reading the whole document, I will share with you my comments.
    First of all, the author claims that this is an authentic history of the Tablighi Jamat. I commend him for the efforts in collecting the information.
    Please note: the be considered authentic summary of events, we must convey the truth of the events exactly as they occurred. If someone distorts the facts, then this person can no longer be considered authentic, and will not be able to gain the trust and unite the Ummah.
    For my personal understanding of this subject, I have listened to audios and bayans from elders of both sides as well. I humbly present to you that many of the ‘authentic’ details presented in the article are not shared accurately, or some relevant information was missed. I have listed the details here. I would happily retract my statements if someone can provide me evidence that I am wrong.

    1995 June 10 to 12.
    It is authentically reported in a recording by Haji Abdul Wahab Sahib that Maulana Saad mentioned the following during this Mashwera:
    “If you make me the Amir, those connected with Maulana Zubair will be cut off. If you make Maulana Zubair the Amir, those connected with me will be cut off. Therefore, we will work with Mashwera”.
    Here, “we” can refer to the entire group of 10 (and hence prove that the decision was to have an Alami Shura where everyone rotated), or the “we” can refer to Maulana Saad and Maulana Zubair only (and hence prove that the system is still an Imarat system, but Maulana Zubair and Maulana Saad will share the Imarat by mashwera to keep the Ummah united).
    Other points we can confirm by the above quote:
    • The purpose of this mashwera was to decide an Amir of tabligh (otherwise, why would Maulana Saad mention such a quote?). This is consistent with the Sunnah of Umar (RA), who appointed a shura of 6 people, who were tasked to appoint 1 from among them to be Amir after he passes away.
    • This Shura of 10 people felt Maulana Saad and Maulana Zubair were both qualified to be among the faisals, confirming that both of them were highly regarded and respected by this group of elders.
    • The final decision to have 3 faisals on the Shura (Maulana Izhar, Maulana Zubair, Maulana Saad) confirms that the not everyone on the Shura is a faisal.
    • The Final decision was made by Miyaji Mahrab Sahib (RA).
    We can also consider that maybe the current difference of opinion is because Haji Abdul Wahab Sahib (RA) understood that the “we” in “we will work by Mashwera” meant all 10 (which would confirm Alami Shura), while Maulana Saad understood that the “we” meant Maulana Zubair (RA) and Maulana Saad (which would confirm Imarat), then Maulana Saad would know the truth better for the following reasons:
    • This sentence “we will work by Mashwera” was made by Maulana Saad, so he would know best what he meant by “we”
    • The final decision was made by Miyaji Mahrab Sahib, who is from India, and with Maulana Saad all the time, while Haji Abdul Wahab Sahib mostly stays in Pakistan.
    The question arises: how come Maulana Izhar was part of the Faisal, then? A very reasonable answer for this is the following:
    • Maulana Izhar was a senior Elder and relative to both Maulana Zubair and Maulana Saad. He was included as a faisal to help Maulana Zubair and Maulana Saad, in case these 2 could not agree on something
    • It has been authentically reported by Maulana Yousuf Motala (RA), Khalifa of Hazrat Shaikh Maulana Zakaria (RA), that after the death of Maulana Haroon (RA), Maulana Zakaria (RA) wrote a letter to Maulana Izhar, mentioning to him that after Maulana Inamul Hassan (RA), he would be Amir, and he should train Maulana Saad to take the place of his grandfather. So, Maulana Izhar (RA) was included as a Faisal to train Maulana Zubair and Maulana Saad for this responsibility.

    2015 November 15
    A Mashwera was conducted in Raiwand, including Haji Abdul Wahab Sahib, Maulana Saad Sahib, and elders from India, Pakistan and Bangladesh, where the point of making an Alami Shura was presented. I have the full recording of this mashwera, and the account presented by the author, as referenced in “Maujudah Ahwal ki Wadhahat se Muta’alliq” is not accurate.
    This Mashwera, which started with Adab of Mashwera by Maulana Ahmad Bhawalpuri (RA) about the need to have 1 Amir with a Shura. The Mashwera lasted about 42 minutes, and ended without any decision, as some arguments started. There was a discussion whether the Shura to be formed is a Shura for Nizamuddin, or a shura for the World. Maulana Saad accepted that we will make a Shura for Nizamuddin as soon as he returns to India.
    After this gathering, there was no mashwera in which both Haji Abdul Wahab and Maulana Saad sat. The truth is that many elders sat together in the absence of Haji Abdul Wahab and Maulana Saad, and drafted the letter. After completing the letter, they came to Haji Abdul Wahab Sahib and asked him to sign. This much is confirmed by the audio of Maulana Tariq Jameel. Then, when they went to Haji Sahib, they told him that everyone is agreed on this letter, so Haji Sahib recited 101 times “Allumma Khirlee wakhtar lee”, and said that if everyone is agreed on this, then I also agree on this, and signed the letter (recording of Haji Sahib with Maulana Faheed answering Aabir Rashid’s question about making of the Shura). After this, they went separately to Maulana Saad, who did not agree with the letter, and did not sign. Afterwards, they went to other elders, who signed it, and published it. From the above, the following can authentically confirmed:
    • The collective Mashwera which took place with Haji Abdul Wahab Sahib (RA) and Maulana Saad Sahib finished without any decision about Alami Shura. Rather, Maulana Saad did agree that he will make a Shura in Nizamuddin when he returns to India, which he did in December 2015.
    • The letter written announcing the names and rules of Alami Shura and was written without the input of Haji Abdul Wahab and Maulana Saad
    • The authors of the letter told Haji Abdul Wahab Sahib that everyone agrees on this letter, while Maulana Saad did not agree. So, “everyone” did not include Maulana Saad, and therefore it was not a fully honest message to Haji Abdul Wahab Sahib
    • Haji Abdul Wahab Sahib signed the letter on the basis that everyone agreed on it.

    I presented clarifications from authentic sources to address my disagreement/objections with the history presented. The split among the workers is very saddening, but the determination of the truth can only be obtained when we are honest and truthful in relating events.
    Lukman (AS) advised to look at both sides of the argument before making any conclusion. For reference, among the complaints against Maulana Saad was claims that he was changing the Nehj of the work by introducing Tameer Masjid and Tajweed in home taleem, which were not practiced in the time of Maulana Inamul Hassan (RA). However, I have an authentic letter written by Maulana Inamul Hassan (RA) about 5 amal, which clearly includes Tameer Masjid as part of 2.5 hours. Another letter by Maulana Inamul Hassan (RA) directly instructs to do Tajweed of Quran in the home Taleem. So, while some respected elders mention that never saw these amal practiced before, it was clearly the Mansha of Maulana Inamul Hassan (RA) that they should be practiced, and therefore, it is not fair to blame Maulana Saad for pushing them.
    There are many other points to mention, but I hope that the above serves as an illustration that there are many important points which must be considered on this discussion. May Allah guide me and all of us towards what is best. Aameen

    1. Waalaikumsalam, Jazakallah for your polite comment. You remind me of myself a few years back. I was a follower of Maulana Saad. Like you, I too was polite and respected everyone.

      I realized my problem => I assumed a position and tried to find the slightest justification to satisfy my ego. My ego would be satisfied every time I hear the slightest argument in favor of Maulana Saad. However, I found out that every time, the story changes. Day by day, I realize these arguments don’t add up. Many of them don’t answer the bottom line.

      Now to answer your theories:

      • Whatever hearsay regarding the 1995 meeting, the 1995 agreement is the bottom line. No more Ameer and No more Bay’ah. Maulana Saad violated this.
      • The 3 Faisals were for Nizamuddin and it was increased to 5 Faisals in 1996. Regardless, the 1995 agreement is the bottom line. There is to be no more Ameer. Maulana Saad violated it.
      • It is possible that Maulana Yusuf Motala who lives in the UK may have heard such statements from Maulana Izhar and Zakariyya, which the elders that live 40 years in Nizamuddin has not (Sarcasm). Regardless, the 1995 agreement is the bottom line. Maulana Saad violated it.
      • The stated event in 2015 that you have written is yet another twisted story. Again the bottom line still prevails, the Shura was created and approved in 1993. It stood for more than 30 years. It is thus not a new Usool and therefore does not need Maulana Saad’s approval. The Shura is valid. Ameer is not.
      • Finally, sure Hadratji mentioned the importance of calling people to the masjid (Tameer) & home Tajweed but not the method. Maulana Saad invented the method. Also, there is nothing wrong with that. The problem is, he pushed it into practice without Mashwara/Approval. See more here.

      Anyway, I understand your pain. It was hard for me as a blind Saad follower. Many things don’t add up. When I opened up to the possibility that maybe… all elders are right and Maulana Saad alone is wrong… everything just ticked. Please read this latest article which clears many things.

      Above all, I asked Allah through many Istiqarahs to guide me to the truth. I created this website to help people like me find the truth.

      1. Assalamo Alaikum Dear Brother. JazakAllah for taking the time to answer my comments. I wanted to share some feedback on these comments. About the 1995 Mashwera and agreement.
        The Mashwera that took place between the following 10 elders after the death of Hazrat Ji Maulana Inamul Hassan (RA):
        1- Miyanji Mahrab Sahib (RA) (India)
        2- Maulana Omar Palanpuri Sahib (RA) (India)
        3- Maulana Izharul Hassan Sahib (RA) (India)
        4- Maulana Saad Sahib (db) (India)
        5- Maulana Zubair-ul-Hassan Sahib (RA) (India)
        6- Haji Abdul Wahhab Sahib (RA) (Pakistan)
        7- Mufti Zainul Abideen Sahib (RA) (Pakistan)
        8- Hajee Engineer Abdul Muqeet Sahib (RA) (Bangladesh)
        9- Bhai Afzal Sahib (Bangladesh)
        10- Maulana Saeed Ahmed Khan Sahib (Saudi Arabia)
        The Mashwera lasted for 3 days. Only these 10 people have the full knowledge of everything that was discussed during the 3 days. The public knows that it was decided that there will not be one Amir, and there will not be Bayah in Nizamuddin. The next question, was it understood by these 10 elders that this decision would remain until Qiyamat? Note that, Haji Abdul Wahab Sahib (RA) reported that during this Mashwera, Maulana Saad mentioned: ‘if you make me Amir, those connected to Maulana Zubair (RA) will be disconnected. And if you make Maulana Zubair Amir, those connected to me would be disconnected. So, we will work with Mashwera’. From this statement, it is quite evident that a factor in the decision is how Maulana Saad and Maulana Zubair will work together. In simple observation, we see that during the lifetime of Maulana Zubair (RA), Maulana Saad and Maulana Zubair managed the work together, without one of them being Amir over the other, and there was no Bayah in Nizamuddin. Then, we see after the death of Maulana Zubair, Bayah started in Nizamuddin, and Maulana Saad started operating as a single Amir. So, as you and others declare, it appears that Maulana Saad violated the 1995 agreement. However, it remains a fact that Maulana Saad was part of the 10 people in this Mashwera, and his understanding of the mashwera decision and agreement is more authentic and reliable than anyone who was not there. If Maulana Saad, who was part of the mashwera and part of the agreement, understands that “No Amir and No Bayah in Nizamuddin” was intended to remain valid only as long as both Maulana Saad and Maulana Zubair were alive, but upon the death of one, the other would be a single Amir and Bayah could restart to this Amir, then his understanding would be more authentic and valid than anyone who was not present in that Mashwera. Some may object that if the agreement was only to continue as long as both were alive, then how come Miyanji Mehrab (RA) didn’t announce this to the audience when he announced the decision. It is common knowledge that the after the death of Maulana Inamul Hassan (RA), the general community of the dawat brothers were very tense, nervous, and emotional regarding the upcoming decision about the future of the work, so you can excuse Miyaji Mehrab (RA) for avoiding discussing openly about what would happen after the death of the young new Faisals/Amirs. Still, many people present in Nizamuddin during the announcement (e.g. Iqbal Hafeez Sahib) report that Miyanji Mehrab mentioned “Filhal” (for now) when he announced the decision, which gently indicates that the decision was not intended to remain until Qiyamat.

        About 2015 Mashwera.
        As I mentioned in my comment, your presentation of the Mashwera that took place in Raiwand is not accurate. Similarly, you mentioned that the story I presented is twisted. Here is the link for the complete audio of the Mashwera that took place. Kindly listen to it. I will gladly fix any point in my story which is not confirmed by the audio and apologize for any mistakes. In fairness, I expect you to do the same if your story doesn’t match the audio.

        About the letter of Maulana Zakariya (RA) mentioned by Maulana Yousuf Motala (RA).
        We all have a great respect for the elders who lived in Nizamuddin for 40 years, and we must trust them when they relate what they have seen in Nizamuddin during those years. However, it is not fair to expect them to have knowledge of the private communications between the very senior elders. Again, Maulana Zakaria (RA), Maulana Inamul Hassan (RA) and Maulana Izharul Hassan (RA) are under no compulsion to share everything with everyone in the masjid. The letter of Maulana Zakaria (RA) to Maulana Izhar (RA) was likely known only to them, and to the Kaatib who penned it for Maulana Zakaria (RA). This Kaatib was Maulana Yousuf Motala (RA), who mentioned it during khatam Bukhari of his Madrassa before he passed away, saying he still has the letter somewhere.

        Regarding Tameer Masjid as explained by Maulana Inamul Hassan (RA)
        Hazrat Ji Maulana Inamul Hassan (RA) introduced the 5 Amaal to the world. In the Nizamuddin Mashwera for North America in Dec 1994, he wrote the instructions of the 5 Amaal on paper, and it was distributed to everyone present. This represents the most authentic instructions of the 5 Amaal. The link to the letter is below. As you can see, Hazrat explained the method of Tameer Masjid in detail as part of the daily 2.5 hours, so I can’t find any valid reason for to object to Maulana Saad emphasizing it. Instead, we should be grateful that Maulana Saad understood and is conveying the work.
        For reference, Hazrat Ji Maulana Inamul Hassan (RA) also explained Tajweed in home Taleem, in the following letter:

        Alhamdulillah, we are all brothers, and we are all searching for the truth. In this search, we need to understand the cause of the diverging views and dig to the authentic sources to reconcile things. We can only maintain honest objectivity if we avoid dismissing alternate views as blindness, ego, or ignorance. I have presented above purely authentic evidence to shed light on key events and hopefully protect us from spreading inaccurate narratives, which instead of helping unite the Ummah, cause further splits. May Allah have mercy on the whole Ummah, and guide us all to what is best. Aameen

        1. Waalaykumsalam Brother, I respect your reasoning but again and again, it fails to answer the clear bottom line

          It is FALSE that only 10 people knew what happened in the 1995 Mashwara. There were others in there including Maulana Yaqub, who testified in his letter. The agreement itself was seen by many including Dr. Khalid, Prof Tsnaullah, etc. There was no automatic Amir clause and it was clearly stated that the 10 people Shura which Haji Abdul Wahab was part of was to be the governing body. It is remotely impossible to believe that all the elders including Haji Sab or Maulana Yaqub are lying. M Saad clearly violated the agreement. To start Bay’ah is another thing. Not only was it a violation, he never had the Bayah move approved in Mashwara!

          Regarding the letters you mentioned, you are again bringing up what we call red herrings (non-issues that do not answer the bottom line). Regardless of whatever statements or letters are flying around, the bottom line is that Shura was approved and Maulana Saad as Amir was never approved nor put in Mahswara. He also did not make Mahswara before introducing changes to the Usool which is the main point of contention for our elders.

          The bottom line is that Shura was approved and Maulana Saad as Amir was never approved nor put in Mahswara

          Also to point out, in the letter you posted, there is nothing mentioned specifically about the method of DTI as to how M Saad introduced it. Even if it was detailed, it needs to be approved in Mashwara before bringing it into practice. We can see that Maulana Saad himself signed the 1999 agreement to not change anything without the Alaami Shura’s approval.

          In summary brother, you are finding the smallest excuse to ignore the bottom line (i.e. red herrings). This is textbook brainwashing that deviant Cults use.

          You are finding the smallest excuse to ignore the bottom line. This is called a Red herring which is a textbook brainwashing method

          M Saad has no room to stand in this other than having blind followers. He has been used by the enemies of Islam.

          Also, please don’t forget all the fatwas issued against him.

          Brother, We can only unite upon the truth. Please stop doing what you are doing as it only serves to disunite the effort more. I invite you to the truth. It’s just one person (M Saad) vs all the elders.

          How can you remotely claim that all the elders are lying and Maulana Saad alone is on Haq?

          May Allah SWT open your mind.

          1. Assalamo Alaikum Dear Brother,
            First of all, Eid Mubarak to everyone, I hope everyone had a beneficial Ramadan. Once again, thank you for taking the time to read and respond to my comments. In Shaa Allah, discussion is healthy, maybe I will learn something new which will satisfy me regarding your comments.
            You are correct that we can only unite upon the truth, and you are also correct that the bottom line is the 1995 mashwera. My only request is that we make sure that our sources when we convey about this mashwera are 100% authentic. A hadith is considered Saheeh (authentic) when it is confirmed that everyone in the chain of narration is 100% reliable. If there is any evidence of weakness in the memory or ability of any narrator, then the hadith becomes weak. You can use a hadith from such a narrator for fazail (virtues), but not for masail (rulings, jurisprudence).
            Commentor Mohamed has shared a document on March 14, 2023 called “Collection of Letters, a.k.a. Majmoo’a Khutoot”, which presents a very accurate collection of information on the subject. On page 18, the exact text of the 1995 Mashwera decision is presented, which I am copying here for convenience.
            Hazrat Maulana Inamul Hasan sb رحمۃ ہللا علیہ performed Hajj in 1995 along with all the members of ‘SHURA’. On returning from Hajj he passed away on 10 th June 1995. The ‘SHURA’ members gathered in Bangle wali Masjid, Nizamuddin to nominate the next AMEER but they could not agree upon any single name. After three days of long discussions, on 12th June 1995 they unanimously decided the following and Miyanji رحمۃ ہللا علیہ read out this conclusion to the masses. This decision with the signatures of all ten SHURA members is still in record.
            1. The responsibility of patronizing the work will not be on one individual; rather it will be on whole SHURA.
            2. Those who belong to Bangle wali Masjid from among this SHURA they are the members of SHURA of Nizamuddin. They together will take care of work of Nizamuddin. For any further decision in Nizamuddin from amongst these five SUHRA members, following three will work as a FAISAL by sequence.
            A. Maulana Izharul Hasan sb رحمۃ ہللا علیہ
            B. Maulana Zubairul Hasan sb رحمۃ ہللا علیہ
            C. Maulana Sa’ad sb
            3. For time being, the Bai’at shall remain suspended in Nizamuddin
            I would like to point out a few things.
            Point 2 clearly mentions that out of the 5 Shura members of Nizamuddin, only 3 will be faisal. Now, on your website, you have posted the letter of Dr Khalid Siddiqui. In his letter, he states the following:
            “This Shura carried the work on after the death of Maulana Inaamul Hasan in 1995. Unanimously they decided that the work will continue under the shura and not under one Ameer. Furthermore, it was also decided that 5 members were to carry out the work specific for Nizamuddin Markaz: Miyanji Mehrab Sahib, Maulana Umar Palanpuri, Maulana Izharul Hasan, Maulana Zubairul Hasan, and Maulana Saad. These 5 were decided in rotation as Faisal of Mashwara.”
            So, Dr Khalid Siddiqui mentioned that all 5 shura members are supposed to rotate as Faisal, instead of 3, which is an important mistake and inaccuracy. We respect Dr Khalid Siddiqui for all his efforts and sacrifices, but the above mistake in his letter (and other letters included in Majmoo’a Khutoot) render his narrations as weak (Daeef). We can take fazail of the work of Dawat from him, but not masail of the work of dawat.
            The next thing I want to highlight is the wording of Point 3:
            “For the time being, the Bai’at shall remain suspended in Nizamuddin”. Here, the wording is explicitly stating that the unanimous decision of the shura that they are suspending Bai’at for the time being only (not stopping it permanently), which is confirmation that a time will come when Bai’at will be restarted. The decision does not explicitly say when that time is, but definitely a time will come when the Bai’at will be restarted, and the people involved in this decision know what that time is. From the practice, we can see that the Bai’at restarted after Maulana Zubair (RA) passed away, so the clear conclusion is that Point 3 of the unanimous decision of 1995 was that Bai’at will be suspended for the time being meant that Bai’at will be suspended as long as more than 1 of the Nizamuddin Shura members is alive. When there is only 1 person left, Bai’at will restart. I request you to think about this point without bias, the wording of the decision is clear, and I am not presenting a blind argument to unfairly favour Maulana Saad.
            The next item to point out is that, once we understand and accept the fact that the 1995 decision confirms that Bai’at will restart in the future, this also leads to another conclusion. The practice in Nizamuddin since the time of Hazrat Ji Maulana Inamul Hassan (RA), and maybe even before his time, was that in Nizamuddin, Bai’at was only done to the Amir of Nizamuddin. So, if the decision confirms that after a certain time, Bai’at will start again, then it also means that at that time, Nizamuddin will have 1 Faisal/Amir. Effectively, Point 3 in its full meaning, indicates the automatic Amir clause, that was explicitly included in the agreement and agreed upon unanimously. Maulana Saad was part of the 3 day discussion with the rest of Hazrat Ji Maulana Inamul Hassan’s (RA) Shura, so he would know the interpretation best. Maulana Yaqoob (RA) is our respected elder, but he was not part of those 10 shura members, and he was not in the room discussing with them for 3 days. He heard the final decision from Miyanji Mahrab (RA) like everyone else. The implications of the exact wording of Point 3 are subtle, and it is not blameworthy that Maulana Yaqoob (RA) forgot the “For the time being” preface of Point 3. But again, with all due respect to him, his insistence that there is no Amir in Nizamuddin is not correct and a reflection that he didn’t properly understand the 1995 decision.
            I hope this discussion addresses the bottom line that you were looking for.

            Also, you reminded me about all the fatwas against Maulana Saad. You are correct that there are many Ulema who issued fatwas against him. They discuss points which he mentioned in his bayan. You should also know that many great Ulema support him. I personally visited Maulana Rabay Nadwi (RA) in 2017 in Nadwatul-Ulema in Lucknow, India. He told me that after the first rujoo, there should be no issue against Maulana Saad. I interviewed many senior Ulema at Nadwa, they all have no issues with Maulana Saad, and don’t agree with the fatwas against him. Many other high profile Ulema are supporting Maulana Saad, and disagree with the fatwas. Finally, Maulana Arshad Madani, Principle of Deoband, told Maulana Saad the following: “You are the Amir of the jamat.. Who can challenge your Imarat? Whether anyone calls you Amir with their tongue or not, you are the Amir”. I have this recording also. So, maybe Maulana Arshad Madani doesn’t know about these fatwas, or maybe these fatwas aren’t relevant to the imarat discussion according to him. I’m sure nobody would think that Maulana Arshad Madani a blind follower, so maybe we should be consider that there is more to this subject which we don’t understand.

          2. Wa’alaikumsalam,

            First of all, I am sorry to say this, but you are very confused. I can only conclude that this was how you were brainwashed.

            You have to resort to lengthy explanations, in order to divert the clear bottom line which could not be answered

            This brainwashing technique is called a Red-herring. I prefer to ignore them all but for the sake of other readers, I will address your points here:

            1. It is not true that Dr Khalid Siddiqui made a mistake. Dr Khalid was referring to the 1996 Resolution, which expanded the 3 Shuras of Nizamuddin to 5
            2. The 1995 agreement states that Bay’ah was to be ceased in Nizamuddin. Regardless of whether it is temporary or not, M Saad NEVER obtained Shura’s approval to restart Bay’at in Nizamuddin. This is the clear violation, and I don’t understand why you can’t see this.
              I am surprised that you as an old worker do not understand the importance of following Mashwara!
            3. I doubt the validity and context of Ml Arshad Madani’s statement. Regardless, he is not in the Shura of Tabligh. His statement does not make M Saad Ameer. You are just confusing yourself more.

            In summary, you are going in circles trying to find the weakest argument to favour M Saad

            The bottom line is that M Saad was never approved to be Ameer by the Shura. Whatever hadith on the importance of obeying Ameer does not apply here. This diversion technique only serves to misdirect/brainwash the weak-minded

            Similarly, another bottom line is the many fatwas issued on Maulana Saad as a Deviant
            Alhamdulillah, thanks to these Fatwas, Allah SWT has made it easy for simple-minded people to distinguish between Haq and Baatil.
            Yes, there are a few Ulema that supports M Saad, but we are talking about the majority here.

            Also, I do notice that you guys are sometimes confused between Ulemas that support M Saad vs those who prefer not saying anything. Just because some Ulema visited M Saad, does not render them supporting M Saad, they are just neutral. There are extremely few Institutions that have openly written fatwas in favor of Maulana Saad.

            You guys are confused between Ulemas that ‘support M Saad’ vs Ulemas that are ‘neutral / not saying anything’

            Anyway, Eid Mubarak to you too. I hope you are in the best of health. From your IP address, I can presume you are from Canada and it must be getting warmer there at the moment. I do enjoy this discussion. InshaAllah I too hope to learn something from you. As of now, I’m just seeing weak inductive arguments, which is why you have to resort to lengthy explanations. Please keep it short and give a clear bottom line or compelling reason to support M Saad and denounce all the other elders.

            I make Du’a that Allah SWT bring you to the correct path. Why waste our time and energy propagating a fitna and causing further disunity to Tabligh?

          3. Assalamo Alaikum Br Tjadmin,
            Thank you for taking the time to read and respond to my comments, and forgive me for the length. I’ll try to keep it short, I just have a few more thoughts to share, if you permit. It is my weakness that my answers/points were not acceptable to address your questions. Actually, you are right that I am confused about the position you are presenting. I just have one question, which if you can answer, my confusion would be removed, and I would content my heart about your position.
            You mention that when Maulana Saad was never approved by the Shura as Ameer of Nizamuddin, nor to restart the Bai’ah in 2014. I would just like you to give me a list of the names of the people of the Shura who he should have consulted, and who should have approved this move.

          4. Waalaikumsalam WRT,

            As an old worker yourself, do you not understand the concept of doing things with Mashwara? The Shura was still valid as Hj Abdul Wahab Sab was still alive. Did Ali RA revolt against the Shura when Usman RA was appointed Ameer?

            • First key point is that M Saad was never appointed as Ameer in any Mashwara with Hj Sab
            • Second key point is the 1995 Agreement which M Saad signed. M Saad treacherously violated it.
            2 Key points: M Saad was never appointed as Ameer in any Mashwara with Hj Sab; and M Saad treacherously violated the 1995 agreement

            These are the key aspects. The other aspect looks at the credibility of M Saad if he was to be Ameer, such as the fatwas, not spending time in Jamaat, violence, lack of tarbiyyah (his Childish Strike in 2015). Almost all senior elders (Ml Ibrahim, Ml Yaaqub, Khalid, etc) do not support him. All these are redflags if he were to lead the Jamaat.

            The way you have been brainwashed is by looking at side issues while ignoring the bottom line. When M Saad goes against Mashwara, you will find the slightest reason to justify him. Yet for him, he just does things without Mashwara.

            Whenever M Saad goes against Mashwara, you will find the slightest reason to justify him

            Anyway, I sincerely apologize if I have hurt you in any way. At the end of the day, despite the differences, we are still Muslim Brothers. I make dua that you stop doing what you are doing as it is only propagating Fitna and disuniting Tabligh.

          5. Assalamo Alaikum Br Tjadmin
            Thank you for taking time to respond. I read your answers very carefully multiple times but must admit that your responses still don’t address my questions. We all understand that this work requires mashwera. You mentioned 2 key points, but I still have questions/confusions regarding it. Please follow my explanation, and tell me where I am wrong.
            First of all, the 1995 Mashwera decided that the responsibility of the work globally will be on the Shura of 10 people. It also decided that the Shura in Nizamuddin would be 5 people, and they will take care of the work of Nizamuddin together. For any further decision in Nizamuddin, 3 among these 5 will work a faisal by sequence.
            So, there are 2 levels being addressed: global level, and Nizamuddin Level. At the global level, 10 people were responsible. They rotated being faisal at for mashweras in global gatherings. At the Nizamuddin level, there was a shura of 5 people, of whom 3 were faisals. They rotated being faisal for mashweras in Nizamuddin.
            So, in 1995, on a global level, there were 10 responsibles, and if they rotated being faisal, then each of these 10 responsibles were faisal 10% of the time.
            In Nizamuddin, in 1995, Maulana Izhar, Maulana Zubair, and Maulana Saad, were rotating faisal, so each was faisal 33% of the time.
            By 1999, 5 of the 10 Shura members had passed away. The remaining 5 continued to operate on the same pattern. So, globally, each of the 5 shura members were responsible faisal 20% of the time, and in Nizamuddin, only 2 members (who are both faisals) remained, so Maulana Zubair (RA) and Maulana Saad were each responsible faisal 50% of the time. The entire world is witness to how Maulana Saad and Maulana Zubair managed the work in Nizamuddin together all those years.
            By 2005, Mufti Zainul Abideen and Bhai Afzal passed away, so there remained 3 shura members on a global level, and 2 at the Nizamuddin level. From 2005 to 2014, globally, the 3 were each responsible faisal 33% of the time, and at Nizamuddin, Maulana Saad and Maulana Zubair were responsible faisal 50% of the time. These 3 shura members continued on this pattern for 9 years, until Maulana Zubair passed away, without ever deciding any change to this pattern.
            So, upon the death of Maulana Zubair in 2014, the pattern of this shura which was followed since the 1995 decision would naturally have the following result: Globally, Haji Abdul Wahab Sahib (RA) and Maulana Saad are responsible 50% each, and at the Nizamuddin level, as the only remaining Nizamuddin shura member and faisal alive, Maulana Saad is responsible 100%.
            Note: Maulana Saad never claimed to be Amir over Haji Abdul Wahab Sahib (RA). In the famous audio which you have on your website about Maulana Saad claiming to be Amir, the context is that the workers addressing him were asking about Shura of Nizamuddin, and Amir of Nizamuddin. Maulana Saad told them that he is the Amir of Nizamuddin (which he is, after the death of Maulana Zubair, as per the 1995 decision and the pattern followed by the shura ever since).
            So, to me, both of your key points are not correct. Haji Abdul Wahab Sahib (RA) and the rest of the 10 Shura of Hazrat Ji Maulana Inamul Hassan (RA) unanimously approved Maulana Saad to be one of 3 faisals of Nizamuddin. When the other 2 faisals passed away, there is 1 faisal left, what is this faisal supposed to do?
            Also, I asked you about who Maulana Saad should have consulted before starting Bayah in Nizamuddin. Remember, this is a point of Nizamuddin, not a global point. Did Haji Abdul Wahab Sahib (RA) need to get approval from Maulana Saad for points related only to Raiwand? If not, then same would apply for Maulana Saad needing approval from Haji Abdul Wahab Sahib (RA) for points related to Nizamuddin. Even then, the 1995 decision of entire Shura of 10 mentioned that the suspension of Bayah in Nizamuddin was temporary, leaving the door open for it to be restarted in the future.
            So, to summarize, I am not trying to unfairly justify Maulana Saad’s position, and I am not looking at side issues. To me, Maulana Saad’s position is the natural way to fulfill the 1995 decision, after the death of Maulana Zubair (RA). I am discussing with you in good faith, trying to understand your position. Until now, nothing you have presented has convinced me that Maulana Saad violated the 1995 decision. Also, you mention the credibility of Maulana Saad being Amir. Only Allah knows everyone’s inner qualities, but if the 10 Shura of Hazrat Ji Maulana Inamul Hassan (RA) unanimously agreed in 1995 that Maulana Saad should be 1 of 3 faisals of Nizamuddin, then for any of us to debate his credibility is to challenge/question the unanimous decision of the Shura of Hazrat Ji Maulana Inamul Hassan (RA). I also apologize if what I am saying is hurting anyone, but my intention is to either understand why I am wrong in supporting Maulana Saad, or to help clarify misconceptions which are causing people to unfairly go against him. May Allah guide us to what is right, and protect us from all sides. Aameen

          6. Waalaikumsalam Br, I’d like to repeat 3 simple reasons why we should leave M Saad. You have a complicated mind but simple minded people can easily see it.

            1. Many established Darul Ulooms (Not individual Ulemas) have issued Fatwas on M Saad being out of Ahlus Sunnah
            2. Many seniors elders including Haji Sab have issued statements against him.
            3. The violence that he orchestrated in Nizamuddin sealing any hopes of peaceful mediation.

            You claim that M Saad did not violate the 1995 agreement since he is the natural Ameer of (ONLY) Nizamuddin. Here’s the problem, Haji Sab, a signatory of the agreement did not approve what M Saad did and made claims of his violation. Many other elders too. How can you remotely claim that all elders are wrong and M Saad alone is right on this?

            You also claim that M Saad never said he is Ameer while we have recorded proof for it. Now let’s assume what you say is right i.e. M Saad NEVER claim himself as Ameer of the Ummah or Ameer of Dawa. He is only the Ameer of Nizamuddin. Raiwind should not be meddling with the affairs of Nizamuddin. My question:

            If you claim he is not the Ameer of Dawa, then why follow him in the first place?

            You have clearly defeated your main premise => M Saad is the rightful Ameer and we must follow him no matter what! (Fatwas, elders statements, etc).

            Please, I humbly request you. Think! and ask Allah SWT. It’s okay to be wrong sometimes. It’s okay to lose sometimes. We are human beings, we make mistakes. Jannah is not cheap and to humble oneself to the truth is a great sacrifice.

            Anyway, I appreciate your calm demeanor and apologize if I offend you in any way. I hope I have made it clear to you. At the end of the day, we are all Muslim brothers. May Allah SWT guide us all.

  2. Excellent info.
    I didn’t go through everything, but quite a bit. A good source for people to understand the history of current times.

    1 point though…
    All our Akaabireen were totally against photography as it is clearly Haraam. Hence to use their photos will be a great disrespect to them and a source of punishment in the Hereafter.
    Ml Ibrahim Sb also made mention of this, I think, in the last Raiwind Ijtima or Old Workers Jor 2022.

Leave a comment

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