Parwezi School of Thought

Recently, many Muslims are propagating the western-orientated ANTI-HADITH Parwezi School of Thought. Let us look at a brief history of the origin of such a sect. Professor Habibul Haq Nadvi in his book ISLAMIC RESURGENT MOVEMENTS IN THE INDO-PAK SUBCONTINENT (page 105) says:

‘They initiated public denial of the Hadith as a legal Islamic Law and led the ANTI-HADITH movement in the Sub-continent. They formulated their own theories from the Quran and reinterpreted Quranic terminology according to their own understanding, which changed the meaning of the Quran explained by classical exegists (Mufassiroon) to a great extent.’

Writing about Al-Mashriqui in the same book, he says:
‘Al-Mashriqui, a graduate of Cambridge and a rationalist, started his movement through free interpretation of the Holy Quran. In his AT-TAZKIRAH (1924) and HADITH-AL-QURAN (1951), he explained his views on religion and politics. He abridged the teachings of the Quran to ten points that replaced the five accepted pillars of Islam. He was acclaimed by western scholars for his courage and reconstruction of Islamic Faith (AQAA’ID).’ (Note: This is in line with the conspiracy of the West against Islam).

Professor C W Smith in his book MODERN Islam IN INDIA (pages 264-276) and Professor Kramer in his article in the THE MUSLIM WORLD, an American Journal, VOL 21, No.2 April 1930, have praised Al-Mashriqui for his ANTI-HADITH views and took special interest in his AT-TAZKIRAH, which is almost non-existent for the last 40 years.

Ghulam Ahmad Parwez not only continued and carried on the message of Al-Mashriqui, but he went further and expounded his own theories. Professor Habibul Haq Nadvi in his book ISLAMIC RESURGENT MOVEMENTS on page 107 says:
‘He (Ghulam Ahmad Parwez) disowned the corpus of Hadith as well as classical Tafaaseer (commentaries of the Quran), which according to him cannot be trusted as a source for understanding the Quran by a modern man. Like Al-Mashriqui, he had to redefine and recoin Quranic terminology. Moreover, his translation of the Ouran had been mingled and fused with his personal views and reviews. The four volumes of his LUGHAAT-UL-QURAN were prepared in order to support their new messages and interpretations. They were jointly compiled and written by various authors with similar persuasions but were published under his name.’

On page 108 of the same book, Professor Habibul Haq Nadvi also says:
‘These theories, expounded by Parwez, sparked opposition among the orthodox Ulama as well as among the modernists. He was taken by many as a closer ally to Western economic thought and philosophy rather than to the Ouranic system. Dr. Aziz Ahmad, himself a modernist and a great admirer of Parwez, was very unhappy with his NIZAAM-E-RUBUBIYYAH concepts. In his book ISLAMIC MODERNISM IN INDIA AND PAKISTAN (pages 224-225), Dr Aziz Ahmad concludes that no modernist, right from the time of Sir Sayed Ahmad Khan to the present, was so close to Western thought as was Parwez.’

It is therefore not surprising that those who follow his ‘mazhab’ are causing so much confusion in explaining Quranic concepts. Recently, a special article had to be written by a Parwezi DR SAYED ABDUL WADUD trying laboriously to explain away the confusions created by the articles RELIGION AND LAW and RELIGION AND SCIENCE. These are the results of formulating one’s own theories in the Quran and reinterpreting Quranic ideologies according to one’s own understanding.

These Parwezis are still ‘BARKING’ aimlessly in their campaign to label all followers of the Hanafee, Maliki, Shafe’i and Hanbali Schools of Thought as MUSHRIKS (i.e. one who associates partners with Allah). According to their belief, all great scholars and saints in Islam are MUSHRIKS. Na’oozubillah! The Saint of all saints Sayyiduna Abdul Qadir Jeelani (RA), great scholars like Allamah ibn Taimiyyah, Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab and his son Shaikh Abdullah were all followers of the Hanbali School of Thought. Does this mean that they were MUSHRIKS? Na’oozubillah. By this principle, even they themselves are MUSHRIKS as they are blind followers of Parwez’s un-Islamic theories. Let these Parwezis get their facts right as their own logical thinking process is also failing to support them.

These Parwezis believe that the Ulama in the Quran refers to the Scientists. Let us ask them one question: Does the Quran refer to westernized GODLESS scientists as Ulama or those who are firmly grounded in Faith? Every Muslim knows that the Quran does contain many scientific facts, which the Ulama are aware of. But this does not mean that the Ulama must study BOTANY, GEOLOGY, BIOLOGY, ANTHROPOLOGY, COSMOLOGY, ASTRONOMY, METEOROLOGY and NEPHOLOGY as we have them today. Such completely constructed sciences were not in existence in the time of Rasoolullah (SAW). And who can be a greater ALIM (sing. of ULAMA) than Rasoolullah (SAW)? O Allah! Help them to keep their big mouth shut until they KNOW what they are talking about. Ameen!

The Parwezis also openly reject the miraculous birth of Hazrath Isaa (AS), his miraculous ascension to heaven and his second coming into this world. The Holy Quran is very clear without any ambiguity on the miraculous birth and ascension of Hazrath Isaa (AS). But the Parwezis have played verbal gymnastics with these verses of the Quran as well. Articles such as SAVIOURS AND VIRGINS etc. are now appearing in many magazines and newsletters specifically to mock the following clear and unambiguous verses of the Quran:

SHE (MANY) SAID: ‘0 MY LORD! HOW SHALL I HAVE A SON WHEN NO MAN HATH TOUCHED ME?’ HE (THE ANGEL) SAID: ‘EVEN SO: Allah CREATETH WHAT HE WILLETH; WHEN HE HAD DECREED A PLAN, HE BUT SAITH TO IT, ‘BE’, AND IT IS!’ (Surah Ah Imraan: 47)

HE (THE ANGEL) SAID: ‘NAY I AM ONLY A MESSENGER FROM THY LORD (TO ANNOUNCE) TO THEE THE GIFT OF A HOLY SON.’ SHE (MARYAM) SAID: ‘HOW SHALL I HAVE A SON, SEEING THAT NO MAN HAS TOUCHED ME AND I AM NOT UNCHASTE?’ (Surah Maryam: 19-20)

How then can we have any confidence on such Parwezis who make changes (TAHREEF) of the Kalaam of Allah? It definitely seem that they have a completely WESTERNISED version of the Quran as well.

These Parwezis have replaced Salaah and Zikrullah with Music as the food for their soul. Nowhere in their books is there any mention of the significance of Salaah and Zikrullah as food for the soul. A true follower of Quran should NEVER forget this great pillar of Islam. This also confirms that Salaah is no longer considered an important pillar of Islam by the Parwezis. The reason being that they don’t accept the Hadith as a source of Islamic Law, so how will they read their Salaah, because the details of salaah are described only in the books of Hadith.

Let us not be misled by the stupid jokes and criticism of the Parwezis against our sincere and righteous ULAMA. Those who follow the Righteous Path of Allah are never afraid of being mocked. This mocking behaviour has always been the pre-occupation of the hypocrites and wicked ones. Allah says:

O YOU WHO BELIEVE! IF ANY FROM AMONG YOU TURN BACK FROM HIS FAITH, SOON WILL Allah PRODUCE A PEOPLE WHOM HE WILL LOVE AS THEY WILL LOVE HIM - LOWLY WITH THE BELIEVERS AND MIGHTY AGAINST THE REJECTERS, FIGHTING IN THE WAY OF Allah, AND NEVER AFRAID OF THE REPROACHES OF THOSE WHO FIND FAULTS. THAT IS THE GRACE OF Allah WHICH HE WILL BESTOW ON WHOM HE PLEASETH, AND Allah ENCOMPASSETH ALL, AND KNOWETH ALL THINGS. (Surah Al-Maa’idah: 57)

May Allah guide us all on the Straight Path, the path of those upon whom He has bestowed His favours, not of those upon whom His wrath descends nor those who are astray. Ameen.

Re: Parwezi School of Thought

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Naadir: *
.....Allah says:

O YOU WHO BELIEVE! IF ANY FROM AMONG YOU TURN BACK FROM HIS FAITH, SOON WILL Allah PRODUCE A PEOPLE WHOM HE WILL LOVE AS THEY WILL LOVE HIM - ....
[/QUOTE]

That's exactly what happened in the 13th century when Abbasi behinds were struck with Mongol chappal.

The fault clearly rested with the "intellectuals" of the day who started using our peaceful religion for their nefarious purposes. Baghdadis beardos were pulling each others hair right in the middle of streets. Purely academic discussions were turned into street-side freak shows where one group of Mullahs fought with the other group of Tullahs.

They surely got punished by Allah. The same faithless mistakes were repeated in Spain, Turkey and South Asia. The result was a serious whooping at the hands of a better people aka Europeans.

Bunch of the guppies happens to be settled in the same European countries but refuse to learn from them. They all seem to enjoy the freedom of religion while we in Pakistan have been terrorized by beardos. Shias, Ahamadis, and Christians are being attacked without the fear of Allah.

I'd urge the guppies to avoid this Munazra, or Mulakhra between different groups of MAToos. What Mullah Parvez was doing to the Mullah Moe (the Moe-Doodi) or the rest of the crap is none of our business.

Being Munkir-e-Injeel (Munkee) will land you in the same hot place and so do the stance of Munkir-e-Hadees.

Down with the MAToo Munkees.

We live in an age where people of all races seem to think what is right and what is wrong based on their own thought process.

Since pre and post 9/11 Islam is blamed for all terrorist atrocities to the extent that Muslims are being called dogs by journaslists because they have faith in Islam and tawwakul in Allah (swt) to adhere to and solve their problems.

Questions need to be asked about why does the west hate Islam and Muslims?

Why is it the politicians of the many Muslim countries do not defend Muslims and Islam?

Why is it that the enemies of Islam are calling for a reformation of Islam like the reformation that France went through in the 16th and 17th centuries?

There are many think tanks in the world that are backing this concept that Islam needs reforming read this>>>Rand Corps Plan for Muslims and you will see and undertsand that not only the enemies of Islam but now Muslims are in the forefront of this attack which is not a new thing read about the truth behind why the Islamic state was destroyed by the apostate >> Mustafa Kemal Ataturk.

Like the famous Sahih hadith goes “holding onto you’re deen will be like holding hot coal”.

Re: Parwezi School of Thought

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Naadir: *
Recently, many Muslims are propagating the western-orientated ANTI-HADITH Parwezi School of Thought. Let us look at a brief history of the origin of such a sect. Professor Habibul Haq Nadvi in his book ISLAMIC RESURGENT MOVEMENTS IN THE INDO-PAK SUBCONTINENT (page 105) says:

'They initiated public denial of the Hadith as a legal Islamic Law and led the ANTI-HADITH movement in the Sub-continent. They formulated their own theories from the Quran and reinterpreted Quranic terminology according to their own understanding, which changed the meaning of the Quran explained by classical exegists (Mufassiroon) to a great extent.'

Writing about Al-Mashriqui in the same book, he says:
'Al-Mashriqui, a graduate of Cambridge and a rationalist, started his movement through free interpretation of the Holy Quran. In his AT-TAZKIRAH (1924) and HADITH-AL-QURAN (1951), he explained his views on religion and politics. He abridged the teachings of the Quran to ten points that replaced the five accepted pillars of Islam. He was acclaimed by western scholars for his courage and reconstruction of Islamic Faith (AQAA'ID).' (Note: This is in line with the conspiracy of the West against Islam).

Professor C W Smith in his book MODERN Islam IN INDIA (pages 264-276) and Professor Kramer in his article in the THE MUSLIM WORLD, an American Journal, VOL 21, No.2 April 1930, have praised Al-Mashriqui for his ANTI-HADITH views and took special interest in his AT-TAZKIRAH, which is almost non-existent for the last 40 years.

Ghulam Ahmad Parwez not only continued and carried on the message of Al-Mashriqui, but he went further and expounded his own theories. Professor Habibul Haq Nadvi in his book ISLAMIC RESURGENT MOVEMENTS on page 107 says:
'He (Ghulam Ahmad Parwez) disowned the corpus of Hadith as well as classical Tafaaseer (commentaries of the Quran), which according to him cannot be trusted as a source for understanding the Quran by a modern man. Like Al-Mashriqui, he had to redefine and recoin Quranic terminology. Moreover, his translation of the Ouran had been mingled and fused with his personal views and reviews. The four volumes of his LUGHAAT-UL-QURAN were prepared in order to support their new messages and interpretations. They were jointly compiled and written by various authors with similar persuasions but were published under his name.'

On page 108 of the same book, Professor Habibul Haq Nadvi also says:
'These theories, expounded by Parwez, sparked opposition among the orthodox Ulama as well as among the modernists. He was taken by many as a closer ally to Western economic thought and philosophy rather than to the Ouranic system. Dr. Aziz Ahmad, himself a modernist and a great admirer of Parwez, was very unhappy with his NIZAAM-E-RUBUBIYYAH concepts. In his book ISLAMIC MODERNISM IN INDIA AND PAKISTAN (pages 224-225), Dr Aziz Ahmad concludes that no modernist, right from the time of Sir Sayed Ahmad Khan to the present, was so close to Western thought as was Parwez.'

It is therefore not surprising that those who follow his 'mazhab' are causing so much confusion in explaining Quranic concepts. Recently, a special article had to be written by a Parwezi DR SAYED ABDUL WADUD trying laboriously to explain away the confusions created by the articles RELIGION AND LAW and RELIGION AND SCIENCE. These are the results of formulating one's own theories in the Quran and reinterpreting Quranic ideologies according to one's own understanding.

These Parwezis are still 'BARKING' aimlessly in their campaign to label all followers of the Hanafee, Maliki, Shafe'i and Hanbali Schools of Thought as MUSHRIKS (i.e. one who associates partners with Allah). According to their belief, all great scholars and saints in Islam are MUSHRIKS. Na'oozubillah! The Saint of all saints Sayyiduna Abdul Qadir Jeelani (RA), great scholars like Allamah ibn Taimiyyah, Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab and his son Shaikh Abdullah were all followers of the Hanbali School of Thought. Does this mean that they were MUSHRIKS? Na'oozubillah. By this principle, even they themselves are MUSHRIKS as they are blind followers of Parwez's un-Islamic theories. Let these Parwezis get their facts right as their own logical thinking process is also failing to support them.

These Parwezis believe that the Ulama in the Quran refers to the Scientists. Let us ask them one question: Does the Quran refer to westernized GODLESS scientists as Ulama or those who are firmly grounded in Faith? Every Muslim knows that the Quran does contain many scientific facts, which the Ulama are aware of. But this does not mean that the Ulama must study BOTANY, GEOLOGY, BIOLOGY, ANTHROPOLOGY, COSMOLOGY, ASTRONOMY, METEOROLOGY and NEPHOLOGY as we have them today. Such completely constructed sciences were not in existence in the time of Rasoolullah (SAW). And who can be a greater ALIM (sing. of ULAMA) than Rasoolullah (SAW)? O Allah! Help them to keep their big mouth shut until they KNOW what they are talking about. Ameen!

The Parwezis also openly reject the miraculous birth of Hazrath Isaa (AS), his miraculous ascension to heaven and his second coming into this world. The Holy Quran is very clear without any ambiguity on the miraculous birth and ascension of Hazrath Isaa (AS). But the Parwezis have played verbal gymnastics with these verses of the Quran as well. Articles such as SAVIOURS AND VIRGINS etc. are now appearing in many magazines and newsletters specifically to mock the following clear and unambiguous verses of the Quran:

SHE (MANY) SAID: '0 MY LORD! HOW SHALL I HAVE A SON WHEN NO MAN HATH TOUCHED ME?' HE (THE ANGEL) SAID: 'EVEN SO: Allah CREATETH WHAT HE WILLETH; WHEN HE HAD DECREED A PLAN, HE BUT SAITH TO IT, 'BE', AND IT IS!' (Surah Ah Imraan: 47)

HE (THE ANGEL) SAID: 'NAY I AM ONLY A MESSENGER FROM THY LORD (TO ANNOUNCE) TO THEE THE GIFT OF A HOLY SON.' SHE (MARYAM) SAID: 'HOW SHALL I HAVE A SON, SEEING THAT NO MAN HAS TOUCHED ME AND I AM NOT UNCHASTE?' (Surah Maryam: 19-20)

How then can we have any confidence on such Parwezis who make changes (TAHREEF) of the Kalaam of Allah? It definitely seem that they have a completely WESTERNISED version of the Quran as well.

These Parwezis have replaced Salaah and Zikrullah with Music as the food for their soul. Nowhere in their books is there any mention of the significance of Salaah and Zikrullah as food for the soul. A true follower of Quran should NEVER forget this great pillar of Islam. This also confirms that Salaah is no longer considered an important pillar of Islam by the Parwezis. The reason being that they don’t accept the Hadith as a source of Islamic Law, so how will they read their Salaah, because the details of salaah are described only in the books of Hadith.

Let us not be misled by the stupid jokes and criticism of the Parwezis against our sincere and righteous ULAMA. Those who follow the Righteous Path of Allah are never afraid of being mocked. This mocking behaviour has always been the pre-occupation of the hypocrites and wicked ones. Allah says:

O YOU WHO BELIEVE! IF ANY FROM AMONG YOU TURN BACK FROM HIS FAITH, SOON WILL Allah PRODUCE A PEOPLE WHOM HE WILL LOVE AS THEY WILL LOVE HIM - LOWLY WITH THE BELIEVERS AND MIGHTY AGAINST THE REJECTERS, FIGHTING IN THE WAY OF Allah, AND NEVER AFRAID OF THE REPROACHES OF THOSE WHO FIND FAULTS. THAT IS THE GRACE OF Allah WHICH HE WILL BESTOW ON WHOM HE PLEASETH, AND Allah ENCOMPASSETH ALL, AND KNOWETH ALL THINGS. (Surah Al-Maa'idah: 57)

May Allah guide us all on the Straight Path, the path of those upon whom He has bestowed His favours, not of those upon whom His wrath descends nor those who are astray. Ameen.
[/QUOTE]

Assalam Aleekum
and I thought they were Quranites. Although they don't deserve this name.
I had a half an hour discussion with these
I asked a friend(not any more) of mine to take me to
Islamic gathering. And I landed at this place.
And these people don't do purdah, don,t believe in Arabic dictionaries.
Pick out just one Ayat(S) and base everything on It.
According to them interest is halal and Katal means struggle
against Nufs. And Yahood means blessing.
But I must say they are very good at quoting Ayats
with the proper number and they learn It by heart.
All hadith books are man made. That's their main idea.
take care

Re: Parwezi School of Thought

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Naadir: *
These Parwezis are still 'BARKING' ...
[/quote]

.. i was with the article till i came across this line.. I thought i'd get some objective insight into the thinking and history of this "Pervezis" group.. but alas.. antiOBL is right MAToos will stay MAToos.. . the whole article seems like .. anyone who disagrees with us is a kaafir.. and that is what i see prevalent across Gupshup.. u disagree.. and baqol Ibn-eInsha.. "Chal nikal Islam kay dairay say"..

Whoever denies the authority of hadith denies the existance of Quran, hence out of Islam baqol Ibn-e-Insha "Chal nikal Islam kay dairay say"

it wud be nicer rehman1 if u used better language than u did in this post....

PA, tomorrow someone will come out and say 'i am a muslim but i do not believe in the Quran" and u will still be with ur same line "since he disagrees with u, u call him a kafir"....

ofcourse u have to put things right and tell the world that these people who deny the fundamentals of islam r clearly not deserving to be called muslims....

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by armughal: *
PA, tomorrow someone will come out and say 'i am a muslim but i do not believe in the Quran" and u will still be with ur same line "since he disagrees with u, u call him a kafir"....

ofcourse u have to put things right and tell the world that these people who deny the fundamentals of islam r clearly not deserving to be called muslims....
[/QUOTE]

i'm all for telling the world and the sort.. but is that what's done? current Muslim states and mainstream Muslims are all about religious thuggery.

tell me.. how insecure are you guys? what if someone raises a new line of thought or questioning.. why not battle it out in the arena of thoughts and ideas rather than burn their homes or threaten them with death?

If their ideas are so loony and way out there, everyone will reject them anyways... what compels the majority to imediately assume a hostile stance against any criticism of their position and accepted interpretations? is it the fear of losing "ajaraadaree" over religion?

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by armughal: *
it wud be nicer rehman1 if u used better language than u did in this post....

PA, tomorrow someone will come out and say 'i am a muslim but i do not believe in the Quran" and u will still be with ur same line "since he disagrees with u, u call him a kafir"....

ofcourse u have to put things right and tell the world that these people who deny the fundamentals of islam r clearly not deserving to be called muslims....
[/QUOTE]

Ok, I made some adjustments...........

PA,

That is a generalization at best and you know that. Islam has progressed through studying the truth and the facts, this is how its always been. Religious thuggery is probably existant in a lot of places but it certainly hasn't contributed to Islam in any way.

Pervezi thought is rejected primarily because it has been refuted a lot. An ordinary person, especially one living in the west, is very inclined to this thought because it allows him to "fit in". The refutations are harsher there because many of these people try to fool the general public by saying stuff like "So the quran says its complete. .what else do you need?" and not mentioning verses which imply the necessity of the Sunnah.

Anyway the purpose is not to discuss pervezi thought here, but to simply say that speaking out against anti-islamic agenda is a must. Majority, if not all of the pervezi sites that I have seen employ the same agenda.

All refutations that i have seen so far of pervezies have been knowledge based and not based on any other reason, hence i fail to see the point of your post. Burning houses and death threats.. first time i've heard that..

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by PakistaniAbroad: *

i'm all for telling the world and the sort.. but is that what's done? current Muslim states and mainstream Muslims are all about religious thuggery.

tell me.. how insecure are you guys? what if someone raises a new line of thought or questioning.. why not battle it out in the arena of thoughts and ideas rather than burn their homes or threaten them with death?

If their ideas are so loony and way out there, everyone will reject them anyways... what compels the majority to imediately assume a hostile stance against any criticism of their position and accepted interpretations? is it the fear of losing "ajaraadaree" over religion?
[/QUOTE]

bhaiyon, why assume that everyone else needs to use your massive intellect and understanding of religion to save themselves from being misguided in their life? surely those who stumble across 'bad' websites would also be equally likely to stumble across the 'good' ones. as much likely as reading your gems about propaganda and whatnot.

dafa karo.

and PA, if we r supposed to leave people who try to spoil religion just like this, then why was masjid dhiraar brought down????

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by armughal: *
and PA, if we r supposed to leave people who try to spoil religion just like this, then why was masjid dhiraar brought down????
[/QUOTE]

o bhai mairay how do I know if and why some thing was done to any masjid by that name.. I can only go by the instructions that I get in my Holy Book.. there is no masjid-e-Dhiraar there and there's no mention of killing or beheading anyone just because they challenge or criticize established interpretations.

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by armughal: *
and PA, if we r supposed to leave people who try to spoil religion just like this, then why was masjid dhiraar brought down????
[/QUOTE]

mughal Bhai, the masjid was brought down after Allah revealed to AnHazoor (saw) in a wahi about it’s demolition. Even though it was crystal clear what the plans of the hypocrites were & what the mosque was being used for, AnHazoor (saw) took their word for it & didn’t claim that he knew what was in their hearts, unlike some of the self-righteous Muslims of today.

Also to be noted that the masjid was being used as a place to conspire against the political state of Medina, not as a place of worship for people who hold different religious beliefs. All such activities, even in any modern day state would be considered treason & have severe penalties. It wasn’t that they wanted to worship differently, or didn’t want to believe in angels or anything heretic like that, instead they wanted to undermine the state of Islam by not following the state laws upon which they agreed before hand.

^
so shud we wait for a wahi from Allah before we take action????

I think the main problem is discussed HERE