Ideas of Ghulam Ahmed Perwez

Before the creation of Pakistan, Iqbal introduced Parwez to Muhammad Ali Jinnah, who recruited him to help popularize the need for a separate homeland for Muslims. Jinnah appointed Parwez to edit the magazine, Tolu-e-Islam for the purpose of countering propaganda that was coming from some of the religious corners in support of Congress.[5] Parwez's thesis was that the organizational model of the state is the basic engine which drives the implementation of the Quran, and like Muhammad in Medina, those wishing to practice Islam, as it is defined in the Quran, are required to live in a state which submits to the laws of God and not the laws of man.[6]

During the struggle for independence, Abul Kalam Azad, a prominent Indian Nationalist, opposed Pakistan by arguing for the universalism of all religions; whereas, Parwez, countered Azad's arguments in support of Iqbal, Jinnah and the concept of Pakistan.[7] Parwez stated that the consequences of universalism would be the formation of another sect, further dividing humanity. He cited the history of other such enterprises that attempted to fuse incompatible ideas into a singular ideology. He also pointed to the basic requirements for Muslims i.e. belief in one God and the prophet as His final messenger, precluded the possibility of any fusion. Moreover, Parwez highlighted contradictions between Azad’s earlier position in 1912, with the one he took to argue against the Muslim League.

After independence, Parwez disagreed with those claiming that Pakistan was supposed to be a secular state, as well as those claiming it was to be a theocracy.[8] He claimed that both concepts are against Islam and Jinnah was opposed to both systems, following his "conversion" by Iqbal. Parwez cited speeches of Jinnah, before and after independence, in which Jinnah clarified that the form of democracy he was seeking was that of Medinah under the prophet.

Parwez argued that the Quran places such strong emphasis on individual freedom that it almost overrides all forms of authority, to the point where no person has the right to compel another person to obey them, citing the verse 3:79 in support of this view.[9] Consistent with this, Parwez "adamantly opposed" slavery. He claimed that it had no justifiable basis according to the Quran and that the practice had been banned since the dawn of Islam, contrary to the opinions of his opponents who officially called for slavery to be legalized in the newly created Pakistan. Parwez argued that the words used in the Quran to refer to slavery should be correctly read in the past-tense, thereby giving a completely different meaning to the verses used by his opponents to justify slavery. He stated: "Whatever happened in subsequent history was the responsibility of Muslims, and not of the Quran."[10] W.G. Clarence-Smith includes Parwez among the "South Asian Shock Troops of Abolition," a line of rationalist thinkers who took the position that slavery is forbidden by the Quran. This position was first taken by Syed Ahmad Khan. According to Clarence-Smith, Parwez was "the most significant figure to carry the radical torch after independence in 1947."

Regarding the practical methods for the abolition of slavery, Parwez clarified that because the local economy was based on slave labor, society had to be weaned off of slavery gradually.[2] He pointed out that the main source of slaves was war, as prisoners of war were usually enslaved. So when the Quran banned the enslavement of prisoners of war, it effectively closed the door on the future of slavery. Furthermore, by highly encouraging the emancipation of slaves, the existing slaves in society were gradually freed.

Parwez also called for monogamy and rejected polygamy under normal demographic circumstances.[10] He argued that due to various forms of discrimination suffered by women, their gender has developed an "inferiority complex", which is enforced and exploited by men.[11] He claimed that the Quran liberates women from their historical "bondage" by affirming their independent existence and equality in all aspects of society that matter, leaving only a few biological differences between the genders. Parwez cited Quranic verses to show that although women have certain responsibilities emphasized, such as the upbringing of children, they are free to earn their own living just like men, and unlike men, anything they earn is for them alone, while the man's earnings are to be shared by the household.

Parwez argued that Islam challenged the validity, as well as the very conception of ‘religion’.[12][13] This idea is considered a classical claim which had more recently been popularized by Muhammad Iqbal, when Parwez undertook its systematic defense in his work 'Islam: A Challenge to Religion,' where he argues that Islam is a "protest against all religions in the old sense of the term."[14] Ismail al-Faruqi welcomed it as "representative statement of Muslim modernist thought."

Parwez distinguished between “deen” (a complete code of life) versus "madhab", which he equated with "priestcraft," or cumulative tradition. He argued that while "religion" focuses on rules and rituals, "deen" focuses on actions and permanent values. Moreover, while religion induces a "complete resignation to authority; however oppressive and unjust it may be", "deen" urges efforts to improve society and the human condition, by encouraging humanity to conquer the forces of nature, while at the same time eradicating social injustice. Parwez stated that: "Deen is not an opiate, as the Marxists contend, but a stimulant and spur to action".[15] For example, according to Parwez, the concept of "Nizaam as-Salaat" (System of Salat) in Islam is much more than simple ritualistic prayer.[3] The application of the word "Salaat" in the Quran (Parwez cites verses like 11:87) indicate a wide-ranging socioeconomic system, of which ritual prayer, is only a small part. The Quranic requirement of "Salaat," therefore, is a community based system for implementing the laws of the Quran, which is why it is usually accompanied by the command for implementing "Zakaat" (universal welfare) which is a state-based system.

Parwez argued for a revolutionary understanding of the Quran, re-interpreting the roles of prophets. He argued that the correct view of Jesus, which fits with Islam, was that he was a revolutionary liberator, whose mission was to free the Israelites from the domination of the Romans, while at the same time to build a society on ethical principles, the same as former prophets.[16] Parwez further argued that the image of Jesus as a purely spiritual character uninterested in socio-political struggles, was invented afterwards.

Parwez also emphasized a need to re-examine the role of Hadith in order to modernize Islam.[17] In his view, the authenticity of any hadith should be based solely on the principle of contradiction: "any hadith which goes against the teachings/commands of the Quran" should not be accepted.[18] Parwez therefore rejected the principle of "abrogation", part of which is based on the concept that certain hadith can supersede commands of the Quran. His position was that the Quran is the true source of Islam, since it is the only authoritative source containing the divine message.[19]

Parwez's writings are associated with modernism.[20] He supported Iqbal's enterprise of harmonizing the Quran with the natural sciences,[21] and translated those verses in the Quran which are generally associated with "miracles", "angels" and "jinn" rationally as metaphors, without appealing to the supernatural.[22][23][24]

He also questioned the virgin birth of Jesus and the miraculous interpretations of that event, arguing that the words describing the communication received by Zechariah (priest) with regards to the birth of John the Baptist are identical to the communication received by Mary concerning the birth of Jesus. Since there is no difference in the language, he asked, why would one be accepted as having been conceived via virgin-birth while the other not? He also suggested that just because the Quran does not name Jesus’ father, this is not an argument in support of virgin birth, as the Quran also omits such details regarding the history of other prophets.[25]

While Parwez admitted the limitations of human rational faculties, which can not grasp the source and nature of the Divine, he stressed that the content of revelation can be understood rationally. He argued that unlike traditional dogmas which justify their authority using blind faith, "iman" as outlined in the Quran, forbids blind faith and requires intellectual certainty, expecting the reader to think critically and use their powers of understanding.[26][27]

Parwez held the view that the Quran is the only binding force of Pakistani society;[28] and thus, its community should be in perfect alignment with the commandments of Islam in all aspects.[29] Regarding the issue of Riba, Khaled Ahmed mentions that the works of Parwez "are currently banned or under attack".[30] Parwez argued that the correct definition of this term, according to the Quran, is any excess return on a loan above the amount that was lent.[3] According to Parwez, the Quran allows a return on actual contributions and efforts, and not on pure capital investments. Even charging for a product above its actual worth Parwez saw as Ribba, claiming that the "fair price" should be decided by society, and not arbitrarily by the sellers. He also disagreed with the orthodox emphasis on the concept of "risk" in interest based lending, arguing that if risk was an important factor in making such financial transactions allowable, then gambling would be allowed by the Quran, when it is not. Parwez summarized his views on riba as follows:

"To reiterate, riba means more than simply ‘interest’. It is the singular factor that makes all human systems exploitative and thus contrary to the Qur’an. In the Divine system every citizen works to full capacity and happily keeps a minimum for him/herself whilst giving most of it to society. In a human system every individual seeks to do as little as possible and simultaneously maximise his profits through the work of others. The two system-types are so fundamentally different that the Qur’an even terms human systems as a ‘revolt against God and His Messenger’ (2:279)."[31]

Dr. Fazlur Rahman Malik and Parwez candidly recommended that for a temporary period, the state assume total direction of capital and labor.[32] Parwez's position is contrasted with the traditionalists like Mawdudi, who were criticized by Parwez on the grounds that their system is essentially the same as capitalism. Parwez's views were linked to the Quranic definition of Zakat, which he argued was a "universal development" tax collected and administered by a Quranic State.[33] Instead of a fixed rate (e.g. 2.5% as accepted by the orthodox views), the rate would be a variable, depending on the needs of the time, as determined by the state.

N. A. Jawed states that according to thinkers like Parwez, "hell" and "heaven" are not only concepts relating to the next life, but also represent socioeconomic systems in this world.[34] "Hell", according to Parwez, is a system where humans struggle to accumulate wealth. In such societies competition and enmity drives men to consume themselves, resulting in social conflict and class wars. Parwez contrasted this with "heaven", an ideal society devoid of class distinctions, characterized by justice, peace and cooperation. He also redefined the concept of "satan" allegorically; as the human impulse which drives people to use their mental faculties to oppose divine laws. Parwez found support for this view in the Quranic story of the fall of man, which he interpreted metaphorically, where the "forbidden tree" stands for the quest for acquisition and ownership.