Assalamo Alaikum Br TjAdmin,
I hope your Ramadan and Eid were beneficial.

Thank you for reading my lengthy comments. I’ll try to answer your questions:

You asked the following:
After the 1995 agreement, how did we suddenly become:
– The 1995 agreement has ended??
– Maulana Saad IS the Ameer??

Once again, the answer is very simple and common sense. Lets look at the 3 items of the 1995 agreement:

1. The responsibility of patronizing the work will not be on one individual; rather it will be on whole SHURA

Still Valid. Haji Sahib and Maulana Saad shared the duty of patronizing the work.
They agreed that each country (India, Pakistan, Bangladesh) will have their shuras and work accordingly. Maulana Saad respected this, and made a shura for India in December 2015 during the all India Mashwera.

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

Still Valid. Faisal in Nizamuddin rotates between these 3. if they were all alive, it would still rotate between these 3. when 2 were alive, it rotated between these 2. Now that 1 is alive, it remains with him. Shura members can be added, but 1995 decision doesn’t allow anyone else to be faisal aside from these 3. Actually, those who are forcing Maulana Saad to rotate faisal within Nizamuddin are going against the 1995 decision.

3. For time being, the Bai’at shall remain suspended in Nizamuddin
This point clearly indicates it is temporary. The obvious meaning of it is that as long as there is more than 1 faisal, Bai’at is suspended. When there remains only 1 faisal, Bai’at will not be suspended.

The answers are very clear and straightforward in light of the 1995 decision.
I remind you that Dr Khalid and others always misquote the 1995 decision by skipping the point of having 3 faisals in Nizamuddin. Their insistence to make Maulana Saad rotate faisal in Nizamuddin with others was incorrect, based on incorrect knowledge of the 1995 agreement.

You also mentioned that Maulana Saad brought this matter to Raiwand in 2015 because he wanted to be the next Hazrat Ji.
Can you give me your reference/proof showing that Maulana Saad brought this point?
Every audio from 2015 mashwera shows that this point was brought by the other elders of India without the knowledge of Maulana Saad. Forgive me, but your mentioning this point is another false information that you are spreading. Until now, in our discussions, I have pointed out many false informations conveyed by you, I hope you either provide evidence of your statements, or retract them, as again, spreading false information has consequences in dunya and Aakhira.

May Allah help me and all of us to have the correct and honest understanding of what is right. Aameen

NIZAMUDDEN IS THE SIGN OF ONESS OF UMMAH AND ALAMI IS THE SIGN OF SPLIT UMMAH MAULANA ELYAS RA. SAID DAWA AT TABLEGH IS THE SIGN OF ONESS OF UMMAH IN EVERY MUSLIM IN THE WORLD. WORKS OF MUSLIM UMMAH IS 1)DA’AWATU ILALLAH AND 2) JAULAH FOR EVERY MUSLIM TO MAKE 5-TIMES PRAYER EVERYDAY. 3) ELMO WA ZIKR 4) RESPECT EVERYONE MUSLIM KIDZMATUNNAS 5) IKLASHUNNIAH 4 ALLAH ONLY 6)KOUROGE FII SABILILLAH.. FOR 90- YEARS OF SIGN OF ONESS OF UMMAH.. THE SIGN OF ALAMI IS NO IKRAM NO SIX POINTS SPLIT THIS UMMAH.. ASTAGHFIRULLAH ONLY ALLAH CAN ANWER ALAMI SURAH EVEN MAULANA ILYAS SAID. THIS IS THE SIGN OF MUSLIM UMMAH. DA’WAT FOR ALLAH THE ONESS OF ALLAH.. NOW ALAMI THEY SPLIT. ALLAH SAY IN QUR AN WAMA TAFARRAKO ILLA MIN BA’DIMAJA AHUMOL ILM BAGYAM BAYNAHUM.. JELOUS OF KNOWLEDGE IS A SIGN DIVITION OF UMMAH THAT WHY ALAMI SPLIT OF TARTIN Wl HIKMAH (QUR-AN WAL HADITH) WA’TASIMU BILLAHI JAMIAH WALA TAFARAKU.. MAKE NO DIVITION.. AND

2 all brother an sis. My own study in tabligh jamah. Is a sigh of muslim ummah. Surah; sura al imran102. Laa ta.’mal bilhawa Wala ta’tab akhakal muslim Wala tagulla akhakal muslim Wala tasskhar bi ahadim minnan nass. So if you are truly muslim why are saying something soo bad in our bro. Muslim Allah say in surah:al maidah 105. Sigh of oness of umma from maulana ilyas RA. FOR OVER 90 YEARS UNTIL NOW SO WHAT… CAN YOU SEE THE SIGN NOW.. WE SPLIT B-COZ OF ALAMI SURAH ALL OF YOU. PREAPARE YOUR ANWER THE DAY QIYAMA.. ALLAH SAY IN SURAH AL AN’AM;153 THIS THE PATH OF PROPHET . FATTHABIU’ WALA TATTABIU’SOBOLA FATAFARRAKA IKON ANSSABILI DZALIKOM WASSAKUM BIHI LA’ALKOM TATAQUN.. PROPHET MOHAMMAD SAW. SAID NAHNO MA’SHERAL ANBIYA I AWLAD ALLATHE DINOWWAHID. MEANING: NABI SAW. WE ARE PROPHET WERE BROTHERS. AND WE ARE OF ISLAM. MAKE DAAWATU ILALLAH. SURAH YUSOPH QUL HADIHI SABILI ADU’ILALLAH.. THIS JAMAH TABLIGH ONLY IMAAN AMAL. MEANS DA’AWATU ILALLAH. JAULAS SALAMAT.. 5-AMALS. WHAT IS THE CONNECTION YOU SEPARATE FOR POWER AND SOMETHING YOU HAVE MORE KNOWLEDGE OF ISLAM ,, ASTAGHFIROLLAH ITTAATUL AMER ..WHATEVER WE DID. B-COZ AMEER WILL STAND THE FRONT OF ALLAH AN HE ASK EVERYTHING WHAT HE DID.. BUT ALAMI THEY WANT TO BE AS A AMER HOW CAN YOU ACCEPT THE VERY WORSE IN YAOMAL QUIYAMA.. RASULULLAH SAW. SAID ALL AMER EVEN 1-DAY AMER. ALLAH ASK HIN IN THE HEREAFTER.. ALLAH SAID MAN DA’A BI DA’WAL JAAHILIYA FA INAHU MIN JETHEYA JAHANNAM. FAD’UBIDA’WATILLAH ALATHE SAMMAMUM BIHAL MUSLIMIINAL MU’MINIINA I’BADALLAH. MEANS ONLY ALLAH DAAWATU.SIGN OF MUSLIM MU’MIN SERVANT OF ALLAH. WAMAN AHSANO QAULAM MIMANDAA ILALLAH EA AMILA SALIHAW QALA INANI MINAL MUSLIMIIN.. DA’WAT IS FOR ALLAH.. OUR JAULAS IS SALAMAT.. SOO WERE IS THE ALAME GROUP ASTAGHFIROLLAH.. ALLAH CAN MAKE THIS ISLAM AN NO ONE. NOT ALAMI ASTAGHFIRULLAH

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.

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

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.

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 🥰🥰🥰

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

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? 😆😆😆

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