The Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement Blog


New area: Miracles, Myths, Mistakes and MattersSee Title Page and List of Contents

latest, 9th July 2018: Can Muslims (-women) marry Non-Believers


See: Project Rebuttal: What the West needs to know about Islam

Refuting the gross distortion and misrepresentation of the Quran, the Prophet Muhammad and Islam, made by the critics of Islam

Read: Background to the Project

List of all Issues | Summary 1 | Summary 2 | Summary 3‎ — completed, 28th June 2013


March 8th, 2013

Ghulam Ahmed Parvez

Submitted by Rashid Jahangiri.


I came across following piece on Ghulam Ahmad Parvez. Published on Dawn.com blog

Ghulam Ahmed Parvez

A 1935 portrait of Ghulam Ahmed Parvez.

As a young teen in Batala, India, Ghulam Ahmed Parvez often wondered why all the hectic practicing of Islamic rituals and traditions by his fellow Muslims was not producing good men and a better community.

‘Why isn’t all this creating the kind of society that the Qu’ran talks about?’ He would often enquire, more than rhetorically.

Hushed by his elders and treated suspiciously by his friends, Parvez refused to stop looking for answers to the ever-increasing number of questions growing in his head.
He continued to study the Qu’ran and other Islamic literature under various religious scholars, while at the same time also attending a Missionary school in Batala. He then went on to bag a Master’s degree from the Punjab University in 1934.

After mastering the works of some of Islam’s leading scholars and texts, Parvez moved towards studying the faith’s esoteric strains such as Sufism and Tasawaaf (Islamic mysticism).

During this period he also managed to meet renowned poet and philosopher, Muhammad Iqbal. Taking Iqbal to be his mentor, he held many discussions with the poet, especially on Islamic philosophy and the Qu’ran.

His relationship with Iqbal helped the young Parvez come into contact with the head of the All India Muslim League (AIML), Muhammad Ali Jinnah.

By the time Jinnah had asked Parvez to edit and publish a pro-AIML Urdu weekly, ‘Talou-e-Islam,’ Parvez had already began to formulate and advocate his views on the subject of Islam in the subcontinent.

He claimed that Islam (unlike other monolithic faiths) was not supposed to be an organised religion. Undermining the importance of Islamic rituals, Parvez said the Qu’ran is an ideology and a philosophy beyond rituals and that anything practiced or believed by Muslims that was outside the Qu’ran was a fabrication.

Parvez was particularly harsh on the traditional Islamic institution and ‘science’ of Hadith (sayings attributed to the Prophet and his companions and reported by a chain of men years after the Prophet’s demise).

According to Parvez a majority of Hadiths (upon which a bulk of Islamic Laws in the Shariah are built and based up on), were fabrications authorised by Muslim kings to justify their tyrannies and by anti-Islam forces who wanted to portray the faith as being amoral and violent.

Parvez had become a prominent ‘Quranist’ – someone who rejected the religious authority of the Hadith or of any Islamic text that was not part of the Qu’ran.

Though he was immediately attacked and labelled as a heretic by traditional Islamic scholars and religious parties like the Jamat-i-Islami, Ahrar-e-Islam and Jamiat Ulema Islam, Jinnah insisted that Parvez was to be the one to edit ‘Talou-e-Islam’.
In a two-pronged strategy, Parvez used the magazine to propagate the implementation of Jinnah’s principle that had inspired the demand for a separate Muslim State; and to blunt the protests of the conservative Islamic forces that had dismissed Jinnah’s demand for Pakistan. They accused Jinnah and his party of being too secular and ‘modernist.’

One of the first cover features to appear in the magazine was titled, ‘Mullahs have hijacked Islam.’ In it Parvez lambasted conservative Islamic parties and the molvies as being ‘agents of rich men’ and the enemies of the well being and enlightenment of the common people.

A 1935 photo of Muhammad Iqbal (sitting centre) with some literary colleagues. Parvez is sitting on the far right.

On the eve of Pakistan’s independence in August 1947, Parvez had become a close advisor of Jinnah.

He became part of the Muslim League government after independence, but retired in 1956 to concentrate on his scholarly work.

In 1961, Parvez attempted to popularise saying the Muslim prayers (namaaz) in Urdu, a language he said most Pakistanis understood (unlike Arabic).

In the 1930s, Turkey’s Kamal Atta Turk had attempted to introduce prayers and the call for prayer (aazan) in Turkish.

Though the move was initially supported by the secular Ayub Khan regime (1959-69), Ayub backed out when Parvez was vehemently attacked by conservative religious parties and scholars.

Ghulam Ahmed Parvez in 1962. It was during this period that he tried to advocate the saying of the Muslim prayers (namaaz) in Urdu instead of Arabic.

As an author and scholar, Parvez was most prolific. Undeterred by the continuing criticism and threats coming his way by religious parties and conservative Islamic scholars, Parvez kept emphasising and propagating his Quranist views through a number of books and lectures.

In the 1960s when a group of young leftist intellectuals led by Hanif Ramay and Safdar Mir were working on a theoretical and ideological project to fuse and merge socialism with the Quranic concepts of justice and equality, they incorporated a number of ideas first aired by Ghulam Ahmed Parvez.

The group would go on to join the Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) in 1967.

Throughout his career as a Quranist and scholar in Pakistan, Parvez not only managed to invite the wrath of the conservatives within Pakistan, but in some other Muslim countries as well.

In the 1970s his books were banned in various Arab states, especially the UAE and Saudi Arabia that were (and still are) ruled by monarchies belonging to the ‘Wahabi’ strain of Islam that adheres to the strict 8th century Hadith-centric Hannibali Fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence).

Parvez responded to the bans by accusing the monarchies of behaving like ancient Muslim Kings who had used ‘fabricated hadiths’ to justify their rule, subjugate the people, and demonise their opponents.

During the same period, Parvez even began to upset some of his supporters as well, mainly a few ‘progressive Islamic scholars’ who thought his writing style was too abrasive and arrogant and that he was too much in favour of using Quranic concepts to create a political ideology, albeit a leftist one.

It is still unknown though exactly what Parvez’s views were about the 1953 and 1974 riots against the Ahmadis, even though he maintained that Quran does not allow one Muslim to judge the beliefs of another Muslim.

Parvez’s ‘progressive’ stage lasted till about the late 1970s in which he continued to reject the Hadith; the overemphasis of Muslims on rituals; and insisted that rituals and Shariah laws based on the Hadith were contrary to the revolutionary, as well as the rational spirit of the Qu’ran.

From the late 1970s onwards (and after the fall of the left-leaning government of Z A. Bhutto in a reactionary military coup in 1977), his writings and views had already begun to move away from his Islamic interpretations of socialism.

His detractors now accused him of being ‘pro-West’ when he suggested that modern-day scientists were closer to Qu’ran’s emphasis of enquiry and progress than the ulema.

Though still related to by many labour unions as a pro-workers Islamic scholar, he was, however, attacked with shoes in 1978 during a lecture that he was delivering at a function organised by the Mughalpura Railway Workers Union.

His supporters claimed that the attack was provoked by the ‘agents of the Jamat-i-Islami’, a party that had joined military dictator Ziaul Haq’s first cabinet.
Though Ziaul Haq was an ardent follower of conservative Islamic scholar and founder of Jamat-i-Islami, Abul Ala Mauddudi, he resisted the demands of Islamic outfits to declare Parvez and his followers are heretics.

Maybe Zia had already sensed that Parvez was getting old and soft and posed no threat to Zia’s ‘Islamisation’ project.

In the early 1980s when Parvez entered the 80th year of his life, he began to rediscover the early Sufist teachings his father had taught him – though he never reverted his position and views on the Hadith.

In 1983, he decided to visit Makkah to perform Haj and he did that by refusing to wear any footwear whatsoever throughout the trip. He roamed the streets of Madina barefooted.

Parvez in 1984.

In spite of the fact that the Zia regime discouraged bookstores to sell his books and Parvez was now too old to give lectures, his previous lectures began appearing on audio-cassettes and the books were clandestinely sold, bagging him a strong but quiet following of Quranists.

But Parvez was slipping into gloominess, and in 1985 he quietly died at the age of 83. The news of his death was only briefly reported in the press.

24 Responses to “Ghulam Ahmed Parvez”

  1. March 8th, 2013 at 8:41 pm
    From Zahid Aziz:

    Ghulam Ahmad Parvez once compiled an article consisting of fatwas of various Sunni groups against each other of being kafir to show that every sect had been called kafir. This was published in the August 1969 issue of his magazine. We presented this article in the Cape Town court case in 1985, and added to it fatwas against Parvez himself given by some Ulama. Please see this link.

    Parvez introduces this article by saying that after he stated in an earlier issue that every sect had been called kafir his statement caused surprise among people and he was asked to prove it. Hence he compiled this article.

    I acquired a copy of this issue of Tulu‘-i-Islam from the late Hafiz Sher Muhammad sahib marhoom when the case finished and have just checked that I still possess it. The same issue also contains a short article by Parvez congratulating the Apollo 11 astronauts for the first manned moon landing which took place in July 1969. He links it with a couple of verses of the Quran.


  2. Some Ahmadis have attempted to outline the events regarding the Split. Please check the events and respond accordingly http://cultgirlahmadiyya.blogspot.co.uk/2012/10/refutation-of-allegations-regarding.html


  3. March 10th, 2013 at 5:54 pm
    From Zahid Aziz:

    The whole matter is quite simple. The basic issue of disagreement at the time of the Split was whether Muslims who do not accept Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad remain Muslim or are kafir. It can be confirmed from Mirza Mahmud Ahmad’s book The Truth about the Split, especially the section where he gives a summary of his earlier article Kufr-o-Islam (starting at p. 134 of the online pdf edition, pdf file page number 148), that he openly declared other Muslims as kafir and expelled from Islam, while Maulana Muhamamd Ali and his co-thinkers regarded them as Muslim.

    So what is the Qadiani Jamaat belief now? Go to their new http://www.askahmadiyyat.org website and read the answer on this page:

    http://askahmadiyyat.org/q_category/islam-and-infidelity-issue-and-ahmadiyya/

    It quotes Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad as writing: “I do not call anyone who recites the kalima as kafir, unless they make themselves kafir by calling me a kafir and liar…”

    Reading the rest of that reply shows that the Lahore Ahmadiyya position is being expressed. You can compare this reply with the position taken by the Qadianis at the time of the Split by reading The Truth about the Split on the alislam.org website.

    The above quotation from Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad is taken from his book Tiryaq-ul-Qulub, as stated after the quotation. Yet when the Lahore Ahmadiyya leaders presented this very quotation, the Qadiani Jamaat leaders gave very detailed arguments, including sworn testimony of the scribes and printers of the book, to claim that this book had been written in 1899 (though published in 1902) and that Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad had changed his beliefs about such matters later in 1901. So this quotation was not valid as being his belief!

    The whole question boils down to this: Did the beliefs of Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad expressed in Tiryaq-ul-Qulub remain his beliefs till the end of his life or did he change them?

    We don’t need to go through an extensive article such as the one Ahmad has referred to, although detailed refutations of that account are available. Please just answer the above question.


  4. Your answer is unsatisfactory as it is clear you haven’t read the article as you have failed to answer a single point raised by it.

    Anyhow, if you cannot answer that one then at least try to answer this one: http://cultgirlahmadiyya.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/belief-questions-for-lahori-ahmadis-p1.html

    Please do so after actually reading the article and by addressing the points it raises directly, rather than addressing the points you imagine it raises.

    Thank you and Wasalaam.

    PS. It may be best if Mr. R. Jahangiri looks at these questions too, as he is the one who has initiated this debate – that we never asked for – by constantly spamming the blog with extracts from LAM articles.


  5. March 10th, 2013 at 9:02 pm
    From Zahid Aziz:

    I have never had to answer a numeral before, but I suppose there is a first time for everything.

    The issue of the Split is fully covered at this link of ahmadiyya.org

    The link you have now given discusses the claim of Mirza Mahmud Ahmad to be the Muslih Mauood. That claim was made in 1944. Before that, no person was under an obligation, not even his own followers, to believe this claim or consider it as an argument. So it is completely irrelevant to the Split.

    The plain fact is you have abandoned those of your beliefs which brought about the Split, the beliefs clearly stated in The Truth about the Split, and have substituted Lahori beliefs which you rejected at the Split.

    You can’t answer even a simple question: Do you consider Tiryaq-ul-Qulub to be a correct and valid representation of Ahmadiyya beliefs which Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad held till the end of his life?


  6. March 11th, 2013 at 3:26 am
    From Abid Aziz:

    Few years ago a similar paragraph from the book tiryaq ul qulub was quoted on the official website of Qadiani Jammat http://www.alislam.org. Later it was removed from that website. It gives me pleasure to note that Qadianis have now started the process of rationalizing their beliefs. I think we should let them do this. We should not make this process difficult for them by pointing out that their forefathers had a different belief. If they believe that these were the same beliefs of their forefathers then let them believe so, at least they are correcting themselves so we should help them doing so. If we keep saying that their elders had different beliefs then they might go back to the same old beliefs by saying that 'if our elders believed that Non-Ahmadies are Kafir then they must be correct'.


  7. March 11th, 2013 at 3:38 am
    From Zahid Aziz:

    Dear Abid sahib, the problem is that the Qadiani Jamaat leadership is expressing these beliefs because of pressure of circumstances, such as Mirza Mahmud Ahmad did at the Munir court of enquiry in 1954. As soon as the pressure is removed, they go back to their old beliefs (as Pharaoh used to do). And as to the ordinary members, experience shows that they blindly follow their leadership in doing opposite things at different times. So if their leadership goes back to their former beliefs, their followers will immediately accept those.


  8. March 11th, 2013 at 6:23 am
    From Rashid Jahangiri:

    PLEASE NOTICE QADIANIS ARE SCARED TO USE THEIR REAL NAMES ON LAM FORUM. THEY ARE WORRIED THEY WILL GET REPRIMANDED BY QK5 MIRZA MASROOR AHMAD, AND MOST PROBABLY A GAG ORDER WILL ISSUED BY HIM.


  9. March 11th, 2013 at 6:32 am
    From Rashid Jahangiri:

    @610:

    Rashid Jahangiri11 March 2013 06:31

    @Batman:
    You want me to debate with you whether QK2 Mirza Mahmud Ahmad was a Promised Son or not. I WOULD SUGGEST YOU TO FIRST SETTLE THIS ISSUE WITH ATLEAST CURRENT THREE QADIANIS WHO MAKE CLAIM OF THE TRUE 'PROMISED SON' i.e. 1-Jumba of Germany, 2-Munir of Mauritius and 3-Dumon of Mauritius.
    Personally what i and other Lahori-Ahmadis think of QK2 Mirza Mahmud Ahmad, YOU WOULD NOT LIKE TO LISTEN. I give you ONE HINT: Read 'Mirza Mahmud Ahmad RASPUTIN OF RABWAH' by Tahir Rafiq. He is a former Qadiani and had put his life into danger to protect life of QK2 Mirza Mahmud Ahmad.


  10. I am in agreement with the Ahmadi Jamaat in Rabwah that the split occurred on the issue of Nubuwat of Hazrat Mirza Sahib. It is clear in Islam that when one calls a Muslim a kafir then he appears to man as a kafir as occurs in Islam nowadays. There is no compulsion in this issue that as Muslims we are correct if we accept Quadiani's as a similar faith to ours as long as they consider us Muslims like them. If we take the Hadith of prophet Mohammad into consideration then as long as they have the same Qibla as other Muslims and eat the food we eat while propagating Islam as their religion they should be our brethren.

    What I mean by the above passage is they are in Islam as we are, other than the fact they call Hazrat Mirza Sahib a prophet like we call prophet Mohammad as our prophet. While that extrudes them as Muslims in the eyes of man, they are Muslims if they follow Kalima Tayyiba, explained as belief in one God and Mohammad as his messenger. There is no compulsion to believe in this matter as it my personal opinion, not shared by the majority of scholars including Maulana Mohammad Ali or Hazrat Mirza sahib.

    Omar Ahmad


  11. This is my understanding of our aqueedah that we live as one nation in Islam.

    Omar

    If we recite the edict of our faith La Ilaha Illal la, Mohammad ar rasool Allah, then we are Muslims in the eyes of our Prophet Mohammad as indicated from the teachings of our Prophet. The Qadiani group has explained their viewpoint as it acceptable to them, while our Islam is inclusive in that we consider people who fulfill our edict of faith, the kalima tayibba to be Muslims, as indicated of the Hadith of Bukhari, when the son of the Prophet's favorite companion Zaid Ibn Harith killed a warrior against Muslims in a battle, who professed belief in Islam before he died, he was ostracized for not confirming his Muslim aqueedah before he killed him. He was asked can you look into his heart and see if he is truthful in his aqueedah.


  12. Where and when did parvez said that  namaz  be performed in Urdu, I have been reading parvez for fifty years and never came across such things, Fear Allah and don't  say lies. People may have thrown shoes at him but that does not mean he is wrong, you know better that people threw rocks at prophet, did that make him false prophet? Parvez from the very beginning said that any HADITH which contradict Quran is fabricated and I if any one does not have the same belief than at least I am not one of them. Parvez had laid out hunderstanding and repeatedly said that his understanding of Quran is not the final after all he said that he is a human being and he was always open to correct himself but no maulanas could ever do that but labeling him of munkrehadiths , kafir and so on so forth. Badi Muskil say hota hai chaman May deed award paideia. And that was Parvez, May Allah give him a lofty place in Jannah, AAMEEN, and as far as  Gulam Qadiyani goes, he was fake, pervert, and a crazy lier.


  13. July 14th, 2014 at 12:03 pm
    From Zahid Aziz:

    Mr Lalaji: The statement that you object to was made in an article on a blog on the dawn.com website. The post above merely quotes that article, and that post begins by saying:

    "I came across following piece on Ghulam Ahmad Parvez. Published on Dawn.com blog".

    We are not responsible for proving the accuracy of that article. Here is the link to that blog on dawn.com. Please go down about a third of the way down that page and read under the heading "Ghulam Ahmed Parvez".

    In your comment you have told us that Parvez was condemned by the Ulama as kafir etc. But then you yourself go on to apply the same invective to the founder of our Movement! You need to consider if you are any better than the Ulama who called Ghulam Ahmad Parvez as "deviant, apostate and deceiver".


  14. Mr. Aziz. If you want to accuse someone than first find out whether it's right or not, you just can't  assume things, Read Quran and you will find that Allah says that don't go and spread falsehood without proper knowledge., My friend, who ever wrote on this side I responded to that person, I don't claim my self to be an aalim nor do I issue fatwas like ulema, only Allah judges us all, please read Quran and you will find that only Allah has the right to issue fatwas, no one else has that right. Of course I need a teacher to teach me make me understand, discussions are welcome and like to stay away from arguments, if I see or read somewhere something wrong than I feel it is my duty to correct it. Calling someone apostate,deceiver and kaffir is Ulemas' job which they enjoy.


  15. July 15th, 2014 at 8:20 am
    From Zahid Aziz:

    Dear Mr Lalaji: If you read the article, you will see that it is not presenting any accusation against Parvez. The author appears to have compiled facts without judgment, and we presented it here for that reason.

    I can't see any "accusation" in the statement:

    "In 1961, Parvez attempted to popularise saying the Muslim prayers (namaaz) in Urdu, a language he said most Pakistanis understood (unlike Arabic)."

    His intention is here stated to be good, to popularize the saying of namaaz. Lalaji, you are unaware that it has been an issue of discussion in Islam, even in Hanafi Fiqh, whether a Muslim who doesn't know Arabic can be allowed to say salaat in his own language, and some people are said to have allowed it.

    We believe that the prescribed words of Namaaz must be said in Arabic, but that doesn't mean that if someone holds a different opinion we are "accusing" him of committing a sin.

    Please note also that we don't regard Parvez sahib as kafir on account of any of his interpretations of Islam.

    It was surprising that in 1974 he assisted the anti-Ahmadiyya campaign by writing a book (yes, I have seen it) to try proving that Ahmadis should be declared as non-Muslim. So I am pleased that you write:

    "Calling someone apostate, deceiver and kaffir is Ulemas' job which they enjoy."

    They do this to us as well.


  16. July 15th, 2014 at 4:12 pm
    From Mohammed Iqbal:

    Zahid Aziz Sahib, If only such Hadiths can be considered true which are in compliance with Quranic teachings, what guarentee is there that other ahadith are true which don't contradict Quran apparently? Much confusion regarding Hazrath Aysha's age at the time of her marriage occured due to reports in Bukhari. Her young age at the time of marriage is not something which Quran contradicts or confirms.


  17. July 15th, 2014 at 4:47 pm
    From Zahid Aziz:

    Iqbal sahib: There are other tests also applied to the acceptance of a hadith. In his book The Religion of Islam, Maulana Muhammad Ali lists conditions (from classical scholars) as to when a reported hadith can be rejected, and one of them is: "If it was opposed to recognized historical facts". He adds:

    "But the question arises as to whether all the collectors paid equal regard to the above canons of criticism. It is clear that they did not…. Indeed, they sometimes intentionally relaxed the rules of criticism, both as regards the examination of the narrators and the critical tests. They also made a distinction between traditions relating to matters of jurisprudence and others, such as those having to do with past history or with prophecies, or with other material which had no bearing on the practical life of man. We are told that they were stricter in matter of jurisprudence than in other traditions. Thus in his Kitab al-Madkhal Baihaqi says: "When we narrate from the Prophet in what is allowed and what is prohibited, we are strict in the chain of transmission and in the criticism of the narrators, but when we relate reports on the merits of people, and about reward and punishment, we are lax in the line of transmission and overlook the defects of the narrators." And Ahmad ibn Hanbal says: Ibn Ishaq is a man from whom such reports may be taken (i.e., those which relate to the life of the Prophet), but when the question is about what is allowed and what is forbidden, we have recourse to a (strong) people like this, and he inserted the fingers of one hand amid those of the other," conjoining the hands, and thus pointing to the strength of character of the transmitters."

    I have placed in bold the words "the merits of people" because the report about Hazrat Aishah's age in Bukhari occurs in the book entitled Merits of the Ansar.

    This shows that there are hadith reports relating to events purely of historical interest, which have been included in Hadith collections, even though they would not have been included if they were related to some practical aspect of a Muslim's life. The report about the age of Hazrat Aishah is attributed to her, and is not a saying of the Holy Prophet. Also there are other hadith which conflict with this being her age.

    There is another interesting point. Our traditional Ulama, on the basis of this report, teach that nikah at such an early age is allowed in Islam, despite knowing that even if this did happen it was at Makkah before the Islamic teachings on marriage were revealed.

    However, when you put to the traditional Ulama that since Hazrat Khadija proposed her own marriage to the Holy Prophet, this means a Muslim woman may approach a man asking him to marry her, they respond that Hazrat Khadija's marriage took place before the Islamic teachings on marriage were revealed, and therefore this example is not a valid argument!


  18. Aziz Bhai,Assala mo alaikum, The statement of the author does not seems to you as an accusation,but to me it is clearly an accusation,  The  author is saying that area ". Attempted to popularize" the author did give any reference of his writing or proof of his lectures,  All parvez said was reciting Quran either in Salat or just reading is of no benefit( you can disagree with that) but he never even implied as the author says, parvez also said that Quran is the only book in the world read without understanding that does not mean parvez is saying that namaz should be performed in Urdu, I am sure that a learned man like yourself will never twist his writing and make assumption like the Author you mention. Dearest son let us not lengthen this any more or perhaps we will get into the argument which you know better than me that we achieve nothing. Let us change this particular topic and perhaps discuss something else. In the meantime let us make Dua for each other that May Allah forgive our sins and reward the best in both worlds AAMEEN. W/S


  19. 20 Century m 2 Ghulam Ahmed ek Ghulam ahmad qadiani aur dosra ghulam ahmed parvaiz fitna ky roop m samny aye aur ummat ko gumrah kiya aur apny sath bht s logo ko b jahanam m ly kr jaye gy.


  20. The above post translates to:

    "In the 20th century, two Ghulam Ahmads, one Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani and one Ghulam Ahmad Parvaiz, arose as two evils and they misled the umma, and besides themselves they also took many other people to hell."

    My response:

    Muaf karain, magar 1974 main ummat ne Ghulam Ahmad Parvaiz ki madad hasal ki Mirza Ghulam Ahmad aur Ahmadion ko kafir qarar denay main. Yani, ap logon ne ayk jahannami ko doosray jahannami ke khilaf istimal kia. To kam az kam ap ke nazdeek Parvaiz ko to jannat mein jana chahia!

    Translation:

    Excuse me, but in 1974 the so-called umma sought help from Ghulam Ahmad Parvaiz to get Mirza Ghulam Ahmad and Ahmadis declared as kafir. That is, you people used one hellish man against another. At least according to you Parvaiz should go to Jannat!


  21. And what a different world it was when Ghulam Ahmad's teachings were being presented from the Woking Mosque and Muhammad Ali's Qur'an was ascendant Stateside. Islam was a respected, life giving teaching.

    Compare that to what happened post the 1970s when extremist mullas claimed leadership of the umma –  suicide bombings, stonings, murder and mayhem – just a saturation of fitna.

    So who misled the Ummah and who brought Islam into disgrace?


  22. March 4th, 2015 at 7:09 am
    From Tahir Mahmood:

    Allama Parvez always opposed the saying of prayer in urdu. Instead he stressed to say prayer in arabic only. His video interview can be watched to verify this in which he clearly expressed that he never supported the saying of salat in urdu. Actually it was someone else (perhaps Masood Khadarpoosh) who said that but due to some misunderstanding it was attached to alama Parvez and after knowing that he (Alama Parvez) published papers to eliminate such misunderstanding.

    Everyone has the right to agree or disagree with anyone but we should be very careful to quote anything without proper verification.


  23. March 4th, 2015 at 1:53 pm
    From Zahid Aziz:

    "…we should be very careful to quote anything without proper verification." Except of course when attributing some view to Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. Then "proper verification" is not required!


  24. Dear all

    We all Muslims states that islam is a religion of common  sense  but I haven't found any common sense in almost most of them.

    But "……..I found it bit in Pervaz sahib and then almost all in only one person that is Javed Ahmed Ghamdi sahib.

    You all know Quran was complied as a book during very early time of islam why there was no hadith book was compiled ? Have you ever thought about that ? "……there was no need as Common sense says that If Our Prophet Saw had done something openly every one would knew and would be transfered as Ijma like Namaz and Roza  ,haj,zikkat etc but if he said some thing to some one in private how it can be Deen if it is not in Quran .Can he tell about Deen to only  one person any common sense in that ..?So if any Hadith which bring new Deen or contradict Quran would be weak and cannot make any Siriah on that base

    Allah is the only one who can say Kafir to someone through his Prophet after that no one has any right to say Kafir to anyone .You have a right to have opinion about someone but have no right to declare it and make any rule at stae level .

    If you keep doing then After Ahmadis  now Shias in PAK and other Sunni states then sunnis in Iran and other Shia states will be called kafir and it will carry on .

    Now I give you example of common sense if in some country Ahmdies are in majority and they declare all of us Kafir and make rule that we cannot write Allah cannot keep name of mosque of our prayer place and cannot write quran on our homes what will happen to us ……..by God think from common sense it is very easy to make rules when u are in majority but you really feel the utter biterness of thes nasty rules when u are in minority.


Leave a Reply