Tablighi Jamaat Ameer List

16 comments

1. As Salam Alaikum,
   Could you please clarify the below:
   1. What is the difference between Ameer and Faisal? If an Aalami shura was made then why they had to choose a Faisal between the 10 brothers? Can the all 10 be not ameer one by one? what is the use of Faisal? and why only 3 Faisal out of 10 people that were in the shura? So if they choose 3 to be Faisal then if they only Choose 1 as an Ameer then what is the difference?

   2. If there is no concept of Ameer in Tabligh then why did we have Maualana Yusuf and Maulana Inam as Ameer?

   3. Why did muslim choose Abu Bakr (ra), Umar (ra), Uthman (ra) and Ali (ra) as Ameer Ul Momineen. Could they not just make a shura then ?

   Waiting for your respectful response.

   Jazak Allah Khair

   Reply

   1. Waalaikumsalam. A Faisal just means a decision maker which is usually the appointed Ameer. When the Alami Shura travels together or conduct any meeting, there will always be an appointed Ameer
      During all Rashidun caliphate there was a Shura.

      Reply

      1. Replying to your statement
         During all Rashidun caliphate there was a Shura- But there was an Ameer over the shura, isnt it?

         Reply

         1. Yes, it’s the same thing in Tabligh Jamat. There’s a Shura and between them there is an ameer who makes the decision.

            Reply

2. This page clearly mentions that out of the 5 Shura of Nizamuddin, only 3 will be Faisal, in the following statement:

   Those of the Shura who belong to Nizamuddin are members of the Shura for Nizamuddin and together will take care of the work there. From these five Shura, three will work as a Faisal (Maulana Izhar, Maulana Zubayr, and Maulana Saad).

   Maulana Izhar passed away in 1996 and Maulana Zubair passed away in 2014. That leaves Maulana Saad as the 1 Faisal.
   After the Nov 2015 Raiwand Ijtema, Maulana Saad created a Shura in Nizamuddin on Dec 2015 during the all India Mashwera. Naturally, even after adding a Shura, he remains the single Faisal as appointed in 1995.

   Any talk of Maulana Saad violating any agreement and starting his own group is totally baseless and those who insist on are ignoring the clear truth.

   After the death of Maulana Zubair in 2014, Maulana Saad remained as Faisal of India, Haji Abdul Wahab Sahib was the Amir of Pakistan, and together they were the Shura of the world.

   Accordingly, all the dawat affairs of India can only be decided by Maulana Saad, as per the 1995 agreement.

   Maulana Saad never claimed himself Ameer over Haji Abdul Wahab, they worked together. Maulana Saad made that very clear in his Bayan in Raiwand Ijtema 2015. In the viral audio spread about Maulana Saad declaring himself Amir, he was answering the question of brothers asking about Shura in Nizamuddin. Of course, Maulana Saad is one of the Faisal/Amir in Nizamuddin as per 1995 decision. The other Faisals passed away, so he remains the only Faisal.

   Also, during the Nov 2015 Raiwand Ijtema, the Mashwera which took place with Haji Abdul Wahab Sahib and Maulana Saad together, the audio clearly shows Haji Sahib wanted Maulana Saad to make a Shura for India, not for the world. Accordingly, Maulana Saad made a Shura of India in Dec 2015 (which included Maulana Ibrahim, Maulana Ahmad Latt, Maulana Zuhair among others) during the all India Mashwera, with all the old workers present. Again, as per 1995 agreement, even though there was a Shura of 5, the Faisal in Nizamuddin was only among 3, of whom only Maulana Saad is alive, so he is naturally the Faisal/Amir of this Shura.

   The current split is because the India old workers were insisting that Maulana Saad must rotate the Faisal with the others, which he didn’t agree, as that is not what Haji Sahib told him in 2015 Raiwand Ijtema, and it goes against the 1995 decision of Hazrat Ji Maulana Inamul Hassan’s Shura decision.

   Until now, I asked so many friends on Alami Shura view regarding the above, nobody could give me a proper answer.

   Maulana Abdurrahman (Bayan in Mumbai), Maulana Shahid Saharanpur (Ahwal wa Atsar)
   Bhai Farooq (Bayan)
   Dr Khalid Siddiqui (letters)
   all these elders hide the fact that out of the 5 Shura of India, only 3 were Faisals, including Maulana Saad.
   This means even Miyagi Mahrab and Maulana Omar Palanpuri would not be Faisal in India over Maulana Saad or Maulana Zubair, so how can anyone else from today be Faisal while Maulana Saad is there? Until now, nobody has given me an acceptable answer to this.

   No matter how many faults Maulana Saad may have, nothing changes the above. In hadith, we are told to obey the Amir, regardless of his shortcomings. Similar advice is in the Bayans of Maulana Yousuf (RA) and Maulana Saeed Ahmed Khan (RA). This preserves the unity of the Ummah.

   May Allah guide me if I’m misunderstanding, but the above seems like common sense, and again until now, despite asking for explanations from others, nothing has convinced me otherwise. May Allah guide us all to what is right. Aameen

   Reply

   1. Haji Sahab was the Faisal of the 2015 Raiwind Mashwara (Maulana Saad accepted him as Faisal). Haji Sahab’s decision has been clearly documented in his letters: Shura was to be expanded and no single permanent Ameer.

      You said ‘Maulana Saad never claimed himself Ameer over Haji Abdul Wahab’. If he is not Ameer then why are you following him? Follow Haji Sahab’s decision then!

      I’m sorry brother MA. I respect you for the sake of Allah and my Muslim Brother. You have made your choice and given your life to a controversial man (See Fatawas). The fact that you need twists & lengthy explanations shows a shaky foundation.

      May Allah SWT guide us all. Ameen

      Reply

      1. Assalamo Alaikum Br TjAdmin,
         I’m sorry you find my arguments twisted. I’ll try to straighten them. First, I request you to do the same.

         Question 1: you claim that Maulana Saad violated the 1995 agreement by declaring himself Amir of the world after the death of Maulana Zubair. But you also confirm that in Raiwand 2015, Maulana Saad accepted Haji Abdul Wahab as Faisal. If this is true, then it proves that Maulana Saad didn’t consider himself as Amir of the world, and didn’t violate the 1995 agreement, but, as per the 1995 agreement, he remains the only Faisal of India, and 1 of 2 members of the world shura. So tell me, if Maulana Saad accepted Haji Sahib as Faisal during 2015 Raiwand Ijtema, then when exactly did he violate the 1995 agreement?

         Now, you are asking me if Maulana Saad is not the Ameer, then why don’t I just follow Haji Sahib’s decision? Here is my answer:

         I listened very carefully to the everything available from 2015 Raiwand Mashwera, and this is what I found. If any fact is not correct, please tell me what is correct with proof.

         Fact 1: during the Mashwera when Haji Sahib and Maulana Saad sat with all the elders, the adab of Mashwera was given by Maulana Ahmad Bhawalpuri, one of Haji Sahib’s most trusted companions. He said every Markaz should have a shura with 1 Ameer.

         Fact 2: during the Mashwera, when Maulana Saad asked Haji Sahib for clarification about what type of Shura he wants, Haji Sahib responded that he wants a Shura in Nizamuddin. Maulana Saad said the Shura of Nizamuddin should be made in Nizamuddin, and he will do it when he returns to India.

         Fact 3: throughout the entire Mashwera, Haji Sahib never even once mentioned he wants an Alami Shura. Everyone understood that Haji Sahib wants a shura in India, to the extent that Farooq Bhai had to clarify that we are not asking for that, but we are asking for the Shura of Maulana Inam (RA) to be completed.

         Fact 4: The letter prepared explaining the completion of the Shura of Hazrat Ji Maulana Inam (RA) and the associated rules was prepared in a meeting of India and Pakistan elders, without either Haji Sahib and Maulana Saad. They intentionally did this privately to avoid different opinions. After finishing it, they went individually to Haji Sahib, Maulana Saad, and the others who signed it. There was no sitting with Haji Sahib and Maulana Saad together with other elders to discuss this letter.

         Fact 5: Haji Sahib didn’t read the letter before signing it. Maulana Saad read it and didn’t agree with it.

         Fact 6: When Maulana Saad afterwards came to Haji Sahib to ask him clarification if this is what he wants, Haji Sahib told him no, there is no need for this. He just wants a Shura in Nizamuddin. Each Markaz will have their shuras, and they will do their work. For Global points, they will be decided when everyone gets together at Raiwand, Tongi or Hajj. Accordingly, Maulana Saad gave a bayan to the old workers telling them this is what he discussed with Haji Sahib, so this is what they will do.

         So, every direct discussion between Haji Sahib and Maulana Saad shows the decision was to make a shura in India. The letter sent around the world with all the signatures is not what Haji Sahib and Maulana Saad agreed with each other.

         I have audio proof for all the above. So, I am fully confident that I am following Haji Sahib and Maulana Saad’s unanimous decision. Those who prepared the letter and spread it in the world betrayed the trust of the workers of the world by claiming this is what Haji Sahib decided and this is what he wanted.

         Another important point to highlight. In this page of your website, you explain the appointment of the previous Ameers:

         For Maulana Yousuf (RA):
         Maulana Yusuf was appointed as the Ameer by Maulana Shah Abdul Qadir Raipuri after consultation (making Mashwara) with other senior members of Tabligh. Maulana Zakariyya ceremoniously put Maulana Ilyas’ turban on Maulana Yusuf’s head.

         For Maulana Inamul Hassan (RA):
         Maulana Inaamul Hasan was the third Ameer of Tabligh. He was appointed in 1965 April 12 following a Mashwara that was conducted by Maulana Zakariyya. From that Mashwara it was decided that Maulana Inaamul Hasan was to be appointed as the third Ameer. The result of the Mashwara was announced by Maulana Fakhruddin Deobandi, after Maulana Umar Palanpuri’s Bayan(Talk).

         For major decisions like this, the decision maker makes the announcement in front of a big gathering to ensure that everyone is clear.
         However, Haji Sahib didn’t make any announcement of this decision during or after the 2015 Raiwand Ijtema. On the other hand, Maulana Saad, who is with Haji Sahib part of the Shura of the world, announced the result of his discussion with Haji Sahib, which is to make a shura for India when he returns. So, this is the official decision of 2015 Raiwand Ijtema.
         However, after the people of India and Bangladesh left Pakistan, the letter circulated everywhere in the world announcing the alami shura decision. There was no announcement in Raiwand about the alami shura, but still the letter was distributed. Such a decision is never announced by letters alone…

         In conclusion, maybe it is true that Maulana Saad is controversial, and valid objections can be made about some of his bayans, but the facts I presented are undisputable. I am taking the time to explain it all so that no Muslim falls into the trap of making unjust accusations against another Muslim, in this case Maulana Saad, because of false information. The punishment for spreading false information is very serious, may Allah protect us all from this. Aameen

         Reply

         1. Waalaikumsalam.

            So sorry, again it seems that you have to make a lengthy explanation and keep twisting words.

            The main premise of your long reply is that “Maulana Saad is the legitimate Ameer of India (but never claims to be the Ameer of the world)”.

            If that’s the case then why are you taking him as your Ameer? Do you live in India? Haji Sahab has many mentioned that this work will and has worked under a global Shura since 1995. Maulana Ibrahim and Maulana Yaqub also mentions this. This was the decision of the 2015 Raiwind Mashwara.

            Yes, the punishment for spreading false information is serious so we should all refer to the source before spreading misinformation. The sources are the Fatawas and our elders (like Haji Sahab) testimonies. Your premise relies on people not wanting to read the source and simply hear a fabricated version of the story.

            Reply

            1. Dear Brother MA,

               I have been reading this interesting conversion.

               1- You say controversial Saad never claim to be the Ameer of the World.

               2- And then you say we should accept his mistakes (ignore fatawas) because in Islam we have to follow the Ameer?

               Sounds like you just defeated your own argument…..

            2. Assalamo Alaikum Br TjAdmin and Br Fahad,
               JazakAllah for your feedback. I’m sorry that you consider my responses long, but considering you made an entire website to explain your point, you should be open to detailed responses as well.
               So, it seems that you may accept that Maulana Saad is the Ameer of Nizamuddin and India, but not the Ameer of the World. And the work must be done according to the Global Shura. Based on your message, if we accept the above, then there is still no need to listen Maulana Saad, and we don’t need to accept if he makes any mistakes. I.e. we have the right to reject him if he makes a mistake.

               You also wanted to know why I should follow Maulana Saad if I am not from India.

               I will try to answer you.

               1- FACT: In 1999, the Global Shura agreed that nothing should be official until everyone in this Shura agrees to it.
               FACT: After the death of Maulana Zubair, the Global Shura consisted of 2 people:
               Maulana Saad and Haji Abdul Wahab.
               So, following Global Shura means following these 2, and nothing can be official until they both agree to it. So, you can’t claim to follow Global Shura without following Maulana Saad as well.
               FACT: I’ll note again that what Haji Sahib and Maulana Saad agreed to was to have a shura in Nizamuddin, not an extension of the Global Shura. All the direct audio from Haji Sahib in the 2015 Raiwand Ijtema confirms this . The Global Shura letter distrubuted in the world after Raiwand is not an accurate summary of official decision of the Global Shura (Haji Sahib and Maulana Saad).

               2- As Maulana Saad is the rightful Ameer of Nizamuddin and India, all the elders of India are obliged to follow him. This includes Maulana Yaqoob, Dr Khalid Siddiqui, Bhai Farooq, and everyone else who has been spreading that Maulana Saad is not the Ameer of Nizamuddin are guilty of disobeying their Ameer, and everything which goes along with this. Their continued insistance on rejecting his legitimate authority in Nizamuddin created lots of tension there. These elders are all from India, they must follow the Ameer of India. Their breaking off from Nizamuddin, for any reason, is breaking from the jamat.

               Regarding the mistakes of Maulana Saad, while Darul Ulooms have every right to say that they disagree with statements of Maulana Saad, it is worth noting that many of the top scholars of the world, including Maulana Arshad Madani (Head of Deoband), Mufti Raabi Hassan (head of Nadwa), Peer Zulfiqar Naqshbandi, Mufti Naeem (Head of Binori Town Karachi), Maulana Fazlur Rahman (South Africa) all disagree with these fatwas. In a particular Ijtema, Maulana Saad may speak for 9 hours. People can find one point they disagree with from these 9 hours of bayans, and make a big issue of it. The big scholars I mentioned above consider Maulana Saad’s bayans very beneficial, and don’t reject him due to a particular statement that they may not disagree with. So, if I am not rejecting Maulana Saad and ignoring fatwas, I am just following the example of some of the greatest scholars of the world.

               If there is a particular point which you find twisted, please identify that point. I have listed many facts and asked you to tell me if any fact is not correct. If you are unable to do so, then you will need to concede to those points.

               For reference, my premise is not based on hearing a fabricated version of the story. I have presented solid proofs of every point. I have also explained the weaknesses of your references in the other discussion. I can accept if I am wrong, but only if you give proofs stronger than what I have presented to you.

               May Allah guide me and all of us to the correct understanding. Aameen

   2. Wa alaykum as-salaam.

      I understand the argument being presented, but with respect, the conclusion being drawn does not logically follow from the 1995 decision itself.

      As per the 1995 mashwara, the system was Shura-based, not a permanent single-Ameer system. Three individuals were appointed as Faisal together, not independently, and the very purpose of appointing three was to avoid concentration of authority in one person. The arrangement functioned on collective decision-making, not on survivorship.

      This is the key point that is being overlooked:

      The 1995 decision never stated that if two Faisals pass away, the remaining one automatically becomes a permanent sole Faisal or Ameer.

      If that were the intent, there would have been no need for three Faisals in the first place. The structure itself proves that rotation, consultation, and balance were intended, not succession by default.

      When Maulana Zubair passed away in 2014, the correct implementation of the 1995 principle would have been:
      • Either appoint additional Shura members who could share and rotate Faisal responsibility, or
      • Reconstitute the Shura in a way that preserves collective Faisal, exactly as was done previously after deaths.

      What did not logically follow from the 1995 decision is:
      • One surviving Faisal continuing indefinitely as the sole authority,
      • While a Shura exists but has no effective decision-making power.

      A Shura where:
      • One person is permanently Faisal,
      • Others cannot rotate Faisal,
      • And disagreement leads to exclusion,

      …is not the Shura system established in 1995, even if the word “Shura” is used.

      Regarding obedience to an Amir: obedience is conditional upon a valid, agreed-upon leadership structure. The discussion here is not about personal shortcomings, but about whether the leadership model itself remains faithful to the agreed principles. Unity is preserved by justice and process, not by redefining agreements after the fact.

      So the real unanswered question remains:

      If the 1995 decision rejected a single permanent Ameer and established collective Faisal, why was that principle not maintained after 2014 by appointing or rotating additional Faisals?

      Until this question is answered directly, simply repeating “1995 decision” does not resolve the contradiction.

      May Allah guide us all to truth, justice, and sincere unity. Aameen.

      Reply

      1. Assalamo Alaikum Br Kamran
         jazakAllah for your comment. I respect that you are trying to present the true path to follow based on the 1995 decision. You listed the key points of that mashwera, and the point which I am overlooking.
         I want to explain that while we are both looking at the 1995 decision, we are coming to different conclusions. I will highlight the differences in our logic, and then suggest the fair way to resolve these differences, basing on universally accepted facts.
         1. You mention that the 1995 mashwera was shura based, not Ameer based, and the reason for appointing 3 Faisal’s instead of 1 confirm this. While I recognize that this is the main message that the Elders of Alami Shura explain, let us look at the evidence from those who were involved. Haji Abdul Wahab (RA) explains it like this: During the mashwera, Maulana Saad said that “if you make me Amir, those connected with Maulana Zubair will be cut off. And if you make Maulana Zubair Amir, those connected with me will be cut off. So, we will work by Mashwera, and won’t do bai’at here”. This confirms the following points:
         a. The choice of Amir of the work came down either Maulana Saad or Maulana Zubair
         b. The reason for not selecting 1 Amir was to avoid creating a split between the followers of Maulana Saad and Maulana Zubair. It is well known that after the death of Maulana Inamul Hassan (RA), the worker’s emotions were very high and one group of workers were announcing that they would fight if Maulana Saad was not appointed Amir, while another group of workers was announcing that they would fight if Maulana Zubair was not appointed Amir. The elders were trying to find a solution to keep the work stable
         c. The opinion, which lead to the decision, was given by Maulana Saad, so he would know the best meaning of what this decision entailed.
         2. Maulana Izhar (RA) who was close relative of Maulana Inamul Hassan and Maulana Zubair (RA), and the maternal grandfather of Maulana Saad, suggested to Miyangi Mahrab, that he would take both Maulana Zubair and Maulana Saad under him, to help them handle the responsibility.
         3. Miyanji Mehrab agreed with this suggestion of Maulana Izhar (RA) and made the final decision.
         4. So, the purpose of appointing 3 people, regardless of what anyone says, was not to avoid concentrating the authority on one person. Rather, it was to avoid a fight between workers regarding the decision.
         5. The people who have the most authentic understanding of the 1995 decision was Maulana Saad and Haji Abdul Wahab. Between them, the decision was made by Miyanji Mahrab, who is from India, considering the opinion of Maulana Saad. So in case of a difference of understanding between Haji Abdul Wahab and Maulana Saad, Maulana Saad’s understanding of the 1995 decision would be preferred over Haji Sahibs as well, as he is always with Miyanji Mehrab in India. Regardless, in 2015 Haji Sahib himself never asked for a global shura, but only to make a shura for Nizamuddin, which Maulana Saad agreed to. There was no difference between their understandings.
         6. You also mention that there was no statement in the 1995 decision that if 2 faisals pass away, the remaining one becomes permanent sole faisal or Ameer. However, even in this, the following facts explain otherwise:
         a. When Maulana Izhar (RA) passed away in 1996, there remained a shura of 4 with 2 faisals. It was never decided to add any faisals to replace Maulana Izhar (RA). Maulana Saad and Maulana Zubair continued as 2 faisals for 18 years without discussion of adding a faisal. Maulana Omar Palanpuri (RA) passed away in 1997, and Miyanji Mahrab in 1998, but they were never faisal over Maulana Saad or Maulana Zubair.
         b. The exact wording of the 1995 decision is the following (Majmooat Khutoot p18):
         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

         c. The exact wording of point 3, which most of the Alami Shura elders misquote, explicitly states that stopping of Bai’at is temporary, i.e. a time will come when it will be started again. Bai’at is also reserved for the single Amir of Nizamuddin, as seen in the time of Maulana Ilyas (RA), Maulana Yousuf (RA) and Maulana Inamul Hassan (RA). So, the 1995 decision did intend for the last remaining faisal to be the single Amir. If Maulana Saad had passed away before Maulana Zubair, then Maulana Zubair would be the single Amir today.
         7. Other comments:
         a. You mentioned that when Maulana Zubair passed away, the correct implementation of the 1995 decision would have been to add more shura people and rotate faisals. However, if this was the intent, then this would have been done after the passing of Maulana Izhar (RA) as well. The fact that it was not done confirms that this was not the intent.
         b. A shura is to advise the Amir. In the 2015 mashwera, Maulana Ahmad Bhawalpur gave the adab of Mashwera and specifically mentioned that each place should have a strong shura with 1 Ameer.
         c. A shura doesn’t become weak due to the members not getting turns to be Faisal. The Amir will consult his shura on the Umoor, and will decide. This is the fundamental principle of Mashwera.
         So, to answer your final question, if the 1995 decision rejected a single permanent Ameer, the answer is that the 1995 decision did not reject having a permanent Amir. Making 3 Faisals instead of 1 was the need of the time to avoid chaos among the workers. In 1995, Maulana Saad was offered the chance to be Amir of Tabligh, but he refused, to ensure that the followers of Maulana Zubair don’t get turned off from the work.
         In 2015, if you listen to the Mashwera audio, you will hear that Haji Abdul Wahab only wanted Maulana Saad to make a Shura in Nizamuddin, which he did in December 2015. Also, Maulana Saad and Haji Abdul Wahab discussed directly about this, and Maulana Saad explained in a bayan this discussion, that Haji Sahib said there is no need for a world Shura. Instead, we have a world Mashwera, during Raiwand Ijtema, Hajj and Tongi Ijtema, when the workers are all together.
         I hope you consider my argument fairly and without bias. The Shura of Maulana Inamul Hassan (RA) understood the 1995 decision best because they were part of it. Everyone else, including Maulana Yaqoob, Maulana Ibrahim, Maulana Ahmad Latt, Dr Khalid Siddiqui, Farooq Banglore, or any other elder, were not involved, so their understanding can’t be taken over the understanding of Maulana Saad or Haji Sahib. Again, as per Haji Sahib, the 1995 decision was based on Maulana Saad’s opinion, so nobody else can understand it better than Maulana Saad. Unfortunately, some people insisted that they know better, and forced their understanding everywhere, causing the spit in the work.
         I am open for any correction in my argument. This is the requirement of truth, justice, and sincere unity. May Allah give me and all of us tawfeeq. Aameen

         Reply

         1. Wa alaykumus salam. What you have established in your lengthy explanation is:

            • The 1995 agreement is temporary
            • Maulana Saad ‘should’ be the Ameer

            But How did that suddenly jump to:

            • The 1995 agreement has ended??
            • Maulana Saad IS the Ameer??

            In Tabligh, every major decision should be made through Mashwara, and an Ameer should also be appointed. Going against an already established administration is against the principles of Sharia.

            Maulana Saad knows this, and he brought this matter to the 2015 Raiwind Mashwara as he wanted to be the next Hadrtaji. We know very well what happened there and the outcome of that Mashwara was to continue the existing Shura.

            Reply

3. 🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️ MA Bhai…….

   1- First you say Saad never claim to be World Ameer

   2- But now you say Saad is the World Ameer

   So who is right? is Saad right or you are right? 😆😆😆

   Reply

   1. Salam Br Fahad,
      the bottom line is that on a world level, after the death of Maulana Zubair, Maulana Saad and Haji Abdul Wahab are together responsible for the world. Nothing can be decided without both of their approval. Everyone else in the world is under them.
      I think I have made the point fully clear with every proof required, so I don’t feel the need to continue this discussion further. I presented many facts which until now nobody refuted. You have not presented anything. The readers will make their own conclusions.

      May Allah purify our hearts and guide us all to what is the best. Aameen

      Reply

      1. Waalaykumsalam,

         🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️ Ok… again I repeat… first you say Saad is NOT Ameer.. then you say Saad IS Ameer… and now you say Saad is part of World Shura… ???

         Looks like you just argued against yourself brother 🥰🥰🥰

         Reply