There has been a widely circulated audio clip of testimony of Wasiful Islam in English. He claims the Alami Shura is invalid and Maulana Saad is the rightful Ameer.
Here, we analyze the testimony and highlight the distorted and incorrect facts used.
Wasiful Islam is not a credible source. He has been allegedly involved in many controversies. Read more about Wasiful Islam’s money embezzlement, which was highlighted by an active worker from his own group (a strong follower of Maulana Saad in Bangladesh).
Full Audio
Below is the full Audio of Wasiful Islam’s Testimony
Transcription and Comments
Our comments are in Red
[Start of Wasiful Islam’s Testimony]
“If we go back a little, in 1993, Shaykh Inamul Hassan, Rahmatullah alayhi, he made a Jama’a of ten people. Four from Nizamuddin, four from Raiwind, one from Madinah, and one from Bangladesh. From Bangladesh was Shaykh Abdul Muqit, from Madinah was Shaykh Sayyid Ahmad Khan Sahib, and from Nizamuddin was Maulana Izhar, Miyaji Mehrab, Maulana Zubair, and Maulana Saad.
And from Raiwind was Shaykh Abdul Wahab, Mufti Zainul Abideen, Bhai Afzal Sahib, and one more, I don’t remember his name. So this was the ten people. In 1995, Shaykh Inamul Hassan died.
So far, the above facts are correct
So all these ten people, except Shaykh Afzal, nine of them gathered in Nizamuddin. And they sat in Mashwara for two days. Why they sat for Mashwara? Amir has passed away, who will be the next Amir? But, even after two days, they could not come to one person, agree on one person.
The above statement is not 100% correct. The purpose of the meeting was to “sort out” current matters. It was not “solely” to select an Amir as how Wasiful Islam is alluding. There were already talks of continuing the Shura without a permanent Amir and the fact that Maulana Inamul Hasan did not appoint his successor was a prelude to this.
Some were saying Shaykh Zubair, some were saying Shaykh Saad. So they made a compromise, and they added Shaykh Izharul Hassan, who was also the grandfather of Shaykh Saad, and Miyaji Mehrab.
Wasiful Islam is trying to paint a false story here. He claims that the Mashwara members were divided between Maulana Zubair and Maulana Saad. The 1995 Mashwara was a closed-door meeting. At that time, Maulana Saad was 29 years old, Maulana Zubair was 43, whilst Haji Abdul Wahab was 72. The claim that the Shura members were ‘divided’ between Maulana Zubair and Maulana Saad is far from reality. In reality, Maulana Saad was no where near the credibility of his seniors like Maulana Umar Palanpuri, Mufti Zainul Abidin, Haji Abdul Wahab, Maulana Said Ahmad Khan, etc. He has not spent any time in the Path of Allah and has not formally received an Ijaza as an Islamic Scholar (technically, he is not a “Maulana”). Haji Abdul Wahab, who was present at the closed door Mashwara has testified (in an audio recording) that it was Maulana Saad himself who was suggesting himself as the “possible” Amir.
He (referring to Miyaji Mehrab) read a written piece of paper, the photocopy is also with us. It says, for the time being, these three, Shaykh Izhar, Maulana Zubair, Maulana Saad, will continue with the work. This is what he announced, in front of everybody, in Masjid Nizamuddin. So for one and a half years, we saw, Shaykh Saad was on one side of Shaykh Izhar, and Shaykh Zubair was on the other side, and he was making all the Faisalas.
But after one and a half years, he (Shaykh Izhar) passed away. Then we saw for the next 17 years or so, the two Shaykhs, continued with the work. It was coming from Nizamuddin, and they were making all the decisions amongst themselves.
This is false. Nizamuddin was only making decisions for Nizamuddin. Major decisions regarding Tabligh as a whole were always made at the World Shura level. They meet several times every year at different places worldwide such as Raiwind and Tongi Ijtema. During these meetings, it was hardly Nizamuddin members who would be the Faisal (decision maker). This shows that Nizamuddin is not above the World Shura. There are many proofs of this including leading testimonies of many elders including Muft Zainal Abidin’s Son Maulana Yusuf (See his testimony here)
It also to note that the year 1995 is not that long ago. Many of those who have attended these World Mashwaras are still alive today and can testify to this.
In June 2014, Maulana Zubair passed away. From June 2014 to November 2015, which was the Ijtema in Raiwind, for almost a year and a half, Shaykh Saad was making all the decisions, all the Faisalas, and everybody was obeying him. Even Maulana Ibrahim Sahib and Maulana Ahmad Laat Sahib.
This is partly incorrect. After the demise of Maulana Zubair, Maulana Saad was only making decisions for Nizamuddin, not the whole world. Many of his decisions, such as Muntakhab Ahadith, were not implemented in many places such as in Pakistan.
We invite brothers to read Ahwal Wa Atsar written by Maulana Shahid Saharanpuri who is the Khalifa and grandson of Maulana Zakariyya. Many incidents in the book has detailed out how Maulana Saad has always been a problem. Maulana Saad was a troublemaker and showed no respect to his elders. Maulana Zubair had to endure extreme patience due to his attitude (See: Page 423 of Ahwal Wa Atsar)
In 2014, in the Ijtema of Raiwind, we were asked together, Nizamuddin, Mashaikh, Raiwind and Kakrail, and Shaykh Farooq of Bangalore, he made a proposal. He said, the Shura made by Shaykh Inamul Hassan, most of them have passed away, only two of you are left, Shaykh Saad and Shaykh Abdul Wahab. So we want to complete the Shura.
Everybody give names, and then two Shaykhs, they will sit and they will decide who will be, and that Shura will continue. Shaykh Abdul Wahab Sahib, he did not say anything, he was quiet. Shaykh Saad said, look, what is the need for this? Our work is going on, we have Shuras in these three countries, we gather in Raiwind, we gather in Tongi, we gather in Hajj every two years, any important Masala, we take it at that time, so I don’t think we need to make this Shura again.
Here, Maulana Saad is rejecting the World Shura, which is ironic since being part of the World Shura is the key basis for his claim to be the next Ameer.
So at that time, they had brought some rowdy people from Delhi, we have never seen them in Raiwind or in Kakrail Mashwara. They started making shouting, so when too much shouting was being done, the Mashwara was postponed, and we all came back to our places. Next day, two brothers of Raiwind, they came to our room, Bangladesh Shura room, and they said, we want to talk to you privately.
Wasiful Islam failed to mention that the rowdy people he is referring to was Maulana Saad’s foster father himself, Haji Mumtaz. Haji Mumtaz led a group of people from Nizamuddin who were dissatisfied with the situation there. Maulana Saad had employed between 100-150 gangsters/troublemakers punishing anyone who was not in line with him (source – Chaudhry Amantullah Mewati). Haji Mumtaz confronted Maulana Saad and Maulana Saad told him to “bring the matter to Raiwind”.
Wasiful Islam’s version is trying to suggest that there was an evil scheme planned by the Alami Shura. There is no evidence for this. The Muqeems of Nizamuddin were dissatisfied with the situation in Nizamuddin. They attended the Raiwind Mashwara as Maulana Saad himself told them to bring up the matter there.
So there were three of us or four of us, we sat with them, and they took out a piece of paper, and said, these are the names, and three of you must sign this paper. What is this paper? He said, the Shura has been made. I said, there was no Mashwara, there was no Faisala, yesterday it ended, without any Faisala, how come these names are there? Who gave these names? They said, Sheikh Abdul Wahab, every name he chose.
Wasiful Islam is trying to create doubt in the appointment of the Alami Shura. There is no controversy at all with the Alami Shura appointment. It was all done through Mashwara. The Alami Shura was first introduced by Maulana Inamul Hasan (the third Ameer of Tabligh) in 1993 by Mashwara. It then helmed Tablighi Jamaat in 1995 also by the Mashwara; and in 2015, it was decided to add new members to it.., this too was by Mashwara. The Faisal (decision maker) in that 2015 Mashwara was Haji Abdul Wahab. Maulana Saad was not the Faisal.
To claim that the creation of the Alami Shura is controversial is ironic. Because, one can ask: What about Maulana Saad’s self proclamation as Ameer? That itself is even MORE controversial. There was no appointment, no mashwara and he enforced in through violence in the holy month of Ramadhan.
I said, okay, then where is the signature of Sheikh Saad? They said, we will get it. So, I felt there is something wrong here, and I said, no, we will not make signature now, we will go back to Bangladesh and make Mashwara, because half of us are here, Shura, half of them are in Bangladesh. So we did not sign.
This is one of the biggest twist in Wasiful Islam’s story. He is claiming signatures are required to approve the expansion of the Alami Shura. This is false. As mentioned earlier, the expansion of the Alami Shura was already approved and decided upon from the 2015 Mashwara. The signature is for the appointees to acknowledge their appointment into the Shura.
The next day, when we were going to come back to Bangladesh, we went to see Sheikh Abdul Wahab, RA, and I asked him, Sheikh, have you made any Shura? He said, no, I have not made any Shura. When we came out, Sheikh Saad went to meet him, and after a while, Sheikh Saad came out, and he said, we were all sitting in the Mashwara place, he took the mic in his hand, and he said, I have just met Sheikh Abdul Wahab, I asked him, if he has made any Shura, he said, he has made no Shura. So, our work will continue as it was continuing, there is no such thing as Alami Shura, yes, our Mashwara is Alami.
This claim of Wasiful Islam that Haji Abdul Wahab did not make a Shura is EXTREMELY contradictory to facts. Haji Abdul Wahab signed the World Shura letter and issued many statements and letters supporting the Shura. Maulana Saad’s voice on the Mic (claiming there was no Shura) was a lie and Haji Sahab himself denied saying this.
So after this, we all went back to our countries. After two, three days, we got a letter from Raiwind, that the Shura has been made, and these are the people in the Shura, and they will make Faisala, turn by turn. So, you know, we were surprised to get a letter like this.
Next year, when we went to Raiwand Ijtema, Sheikh Saad, they did not invite him, or they did, but they put his name in number nine, or number ten.
This is a clear lie from Wasiful Islam and 100% shows his lack of credibility. Everybody knew Sheikh Saad was invited. In fact, everyone was making Du’a for him to attend and resolve these issues. To claim that he was not invited is a BLATANT LIE!! Ya Allah, save this Ummah from these type of people!
Wasiful Islam then twisted his words saying that “they probably did invite him”. He then claims that they disrespected Maulana Saad by putting his name at number nine of the invitation list. Why is this even an issue? Why must Maulana Saad’s name be on top? What difference does it make? Everybody knows that in Tabligh, we are supposed to lower ourselves down.
Anyways, we asked, Abdul Wahab Sahib, how this letter was sent, since Sheikh Saad was not agreeable to this, and you have a written document, that any important event, you ten of you must agree on it, and then it can continue. So, Sheikh Abdul Wahab Sahib, after a long time, he kept quiet, then he said, okay, then make Mashwara again, make Mashwara again, this Mashwara was never made.
The part where Wasiful Islam says that all 10 Shura members must agree before a motion can be made is incorrect. He is referring to the 1999 agreement which was understood to be changes to the “Usool/Methodology of Tabligh”. For example, if someone proposes to change from 40 days to 30 days Khurooj or from Fadhail Amaal to Muntakhab Ahadith. These are big Usool changes. The Alami Shura is not a new Usool as it was already agreed upon unanimously in 1995. Adding and replacing new members is something that is expected.
Now we can ask, what about Maulana Saad’s self appointment as the Amir? Isn’t that even more controversial? Almost all senior elders do not agree with this move. There was no appointment nor any Mashwara made for him to be Amir.
There is a strong Hadith in Bukhari about self appointed Amirs!
[Narrated by Ibn Abbas RA in a lengthy narration]… Remember that whoever gives the pledge of allegiance to anybody without consulting other Muslims, neither that person nor the person to whom the pledge of allegiance was given, are to be supported, lest they both should be killed (Bukhari:6830)
And I also asked him, Sheikh, you chose all these names? He said, no. The brothers came and told me, that everybody has agreed to these names, you just sign your name. So, I signed.
Wasiful Islam himself is saying that Haji Abdul Wahab did sign the letter! Signing the letter means that he agrees with the names. These names (such as Maulana Ibrahim, Maulana Ahmad Laat, Shuras of Pakistan, etc) are not unknowns. They are all the front runners of Tabligh. That’s why he agreed on it.
So, this is what has happened, this is the history, of the so-called Alami Shura, which never came into existence, you see.
Didn’t Wasiful Islam just say that Haji Abdul Wahab signed the letter? Saying that it never came into existence is far from reality. What is detached from reality is Maulana Saad’s claim to be Amir! He was never appointed nor approved in Mashwara.
The Alami Shura was already approved in 1995. Adding new members was a small change and there was a clear decision made by Haji Abdul Wahab Sahib who was the Faisal during the 2015 meeting. He himself ratified the Shura and the proof of this is in a letter that he himself signed.
And, about the departure of Ahmad Laat Sahib, and Ibrahim Sahib, nobody asked them to leave, they left themselves, you see. And there is a letter from Sheikh Ibrahim, who wrote in the end, that I am leaving, but I am not taking any sides.
Claiming that no one told Maulana Ibrahim or Maulana Ahmad Laat to leave is incorrect. Maulana Ahmad Laat mentions that the situation in Nizamuddin was so dangerous (due to the gangsters) that he had to leave to save his life (Read: Maulana Ahmad Laat’s testimony). Maulana Ibrahim also mentions that he had been asked to leave Nizamuddin several times. There were many testimonies to the bloodshed that happened during the 13 Ramadhan in Nizamuddin. Yes, it happened in Ramadhan. We have made a long aritcle on this. (See: Nizamuddin’s Bloodshed)
But unfortunately, we find that now he has taken a side. In the time of, when Sheikh Yusuf Rahmatullahi was made Ameer, some people, who were with Maulana Ilyas, they moved out of the Markaz. In the time of Inamul Hassan, when he was made Ameer, some people who were with Sheikh Yusuf, they also moved out of the Markaz. But they never started any parallel work, which has now divided the whole work, into two parts.
This is what we call a ‘false equivalency’. Wasiful Islam is trying to compare how Maulana Yusuf and Maulana Inamul Hasan was appointed as Ameer with Maulana Saad. There is no similarity at all. In fact, there is one VERY big difference. Maulana Yusuf and Maulana Inamul Hasan were both appointed and approved as Ameer but Maulana Saad was never appointed nor approved.
May Allah SWT, give us Tawfiq to understand this, and may Allah SWT, we make dua that, we are united, and do the work again, under Nizamuddin, and under the Faisal of Sheikh Saad.
