The Audacity to Impose One’s Own Interpretation on Quranic Exegetes
Refutation of the False Accusation Against the Exegete Ibn Jarir al-Tabari
A liar has to tell many lies to prove his point true. Similarly, Mr. Parvez told a big lie by using the sacred words “Allah and His Messenger” in the sense of the central government, and to prove it, he fabricated another lie that the exegete Ibn Jarir al-Tabari also explained it in the same sense. He claimed:
“This notion that wherever the words ‘Allah and His Messenger’ appear in the Holy Quran in this context, it means ‘Islamic system,’ is not our invention; this was also the view of earlier scholars, and also of the exegetes of our time, for example, the Quranic verse is:
﴿يَسْاَلُوْنَكَ عَنِ الْاَنْفَالِ قُلِ الْاَنْفَالُ لِلّٰہ وَالرَّسُوْلِ…﴾
O Messenger! They ask you about the spoils of war; say, ‘The spoils belong to Allah and His Messenger.’
The Actual Position of Imam Ibn Jarir al-Tabari
Imam Tabari (may Allah have mercy on him), whose tafsir is called Umm al-Tafasir, after narrating various opinions regarding the mentioned verse, stated his preferred opinion as follows:
”وأولى هذه الأقوالِ بالصواب في معنى الأنفالِ قول من قال هي زياداتٌ يزيدها الإمامُ لبعض الجيشِ أو جميعِهم“
That is: Among all the opinions regarding the meaning of Anfal, the most correct is the one which says that these are the additions that the Imam of the time gives to some or the entire army.
Parvez’s Distortion-Based Position
Mr. Parvez takes support from this phrase and says:
“There is no discussion here about the meaning of Anfal; the point is only that they have interpreted ‘Allah and His Messenger’ as the Imam of the time.”
Whereas the reality is that Imam Tabari (may Allah have mercy on him) not only did not interpret the words ‘Allah and His Messenger’ as the Imam of the time, but he was only explaining the meaning of “Anfal.” His words:
”قال أبوجعفر: اختلف أهل التأويل في معنى الأنفال“
That is: According to Imam Tabari (may Allah have mercy on him), there is a difference of opinion among the commentators regarding the interpretation of Al-Anfal, which he explains. According to him, there is no disagreement about the meaning of “Allah and His Messenger” that he mentions, nor do these words mean the Imam of the time or the central government.
Parvez’s Interpretations and Distortion
Mr. Parvez, upon seeing the word “Imam,” tried to interpret it as meaning Allah and His Messenger, whereas it is clear from the entire passage of Imam Tabari (may Allah have mercy on him) that the discussion is about the explanation of “Al-Anfal,” not “Allah and His Messenger.”
Distortion of Imam Razi’s Opinion
Mr. Parvez’s Claim Regarding Imam Razi
Furthermore, Mr. Parvez presents Imam Razi in support of his point by writing:
“Imam Razi, under verse ﴿اِنَّمَا جَزَاءُ الَّذِيْنَ يُحَارِبُوْنَ اللہ وَرَسُوْلَہ﴾, has quoted Imam Abu Hanifa’s (may Allah have mercy on him) statement:
﴿اِذا قَتَل واَخَذَ المالَ فالإمام مُخَيَّرٌ فیه بين ثلاثةِ اشياءَ﴾
Imam Abu Hanifa (may Allah have mercy on him) said that ‘If a rebel or robber has committed murder and also taken property, the Imam has the authority to impose any of the three punishments (killing, cutting off the hand, or crucifixion) he wishes.'”
Then they conclude that according to Imam Raziؒ, “Allah” also means the Imam of the time.
The Actual Position of Imam Raziؒ
Whereas Imam Raziؒ is strictly opposed to using the word “Allah” for any other than the Creator. His clarification:
اَطبق جميعُ الخلق على أن قولنا ’اللہ‘ مخصوص باللہ سبحانہ وتعالى وكذٰلك قولنا ’الإلہ‘ مخصوص بہ سبحانہ وتعالىٰ
“All of Allah Almighty’s creation agrees that the word Allah is exclusive to the Essence of the Exalted Creator, just as the word ‘Ilah’ is specific to Allah Almighty.”
He further explains:
”الخاصية الثانية أن كلمة الشہادة التى بسببہا ينتقل الكافر من الكفر إلى الإسلام لم يحصل فیہا إلا بہذا الإسم فلو أن الكافر قال: أشہد أن لا إلہ إلا الرحمٰن أو إلا الرحيم أو إلا الملك أو إلا القدوس، لم يَخرج من الكفر ولم يَدخل في الاسلام اما إذا قال: أشہد أن لا إلہ إلا اللّہ فإنہ يخرج من الكفر و يدخل فى الاسلام وذلك يدلّ على اختصاص ہٰذا الاسم بہذہ الخاصية“
“That is, the declaration of faith (Kalima Tauheed) by which a disbeliever enters Islam is the Kalima ”لا إلہ الا اللہ “. If a person mentions any other name instead of ’اللہ‘ and recites لا الہ إلا الرحمٰن يا لا إلہ إلا الرحيم and so on, he will neither leave disbelief nor enter the fold of Islam. He will only be called a Muslim after leaving disbelief when he recites ”لا إلہ إلا اللّہ“, and this word ’اللہ‘ is proof that it is exclusive to the Essence of Allah Almighty.”
Meaning, if in the declaration of faith the word “اللہ” is replaced by any other name, that person is not a Muslim.
Parvez’s Ignorance
Imam Razi’s position clarifies that he considers the word “اللہ” to be exclusively for the Essence of Allah. Despite this, Mr. Parvez is saying that according to Imam Razi, “اللہ” refers to the Imam of the time, which is completely ignorance and misguidance.
Misinterpretation of Imam Suyuti’s Tafsir
Parvez’s Argument from Imam Suyuti
Mr. Parvez also writes in support of his disbelief citing Imam Suyuti:
“In the exegesis of the same verse, Allama Jalaluddin Suyuti records this narration in Al-Durr Al-Manthur:
”عن سعيد بن المسيب والحسن والضحاك في الآية قالوا: الإمام مخيّر في المحارب يصنع به ما شاء“
Saeed bin Musayyib, Hasan Basri, and Dhahak (may Allah have mercy on them) said that in the matter of ‘Muharib’ the Imam has the authority to do whatever he wishes-“
Then he draws this conclusion:
“From the statements of these gentlemen, two things become clear: one is that according to them, ‘Allah and His Messenger’ means the Imam of the time…“
The Actual Reality
In the mentioned statement of Imam Suyuti (may Allah have mercy on him), the term “Imam” refers to the Commander of the Faithful, who has been given the authority to punish the criminal who rebels against Allah and the Messenger. Therefore, interpreting “Allah and the Messenger” as the Imam of the time is explicitly incorrect and contrary to the interpretation.
Result of Parvez’s Assumption
If Parvez’s claim is accepted:
◈ “Allah and the Messenger” would mean the Imam of the time.
◈ Then the Imam of the time would himself punish the criminal who rebels against him.
◈ That is, the claimant, judge, and executioner—all three roles would be held by the same person.
This practice is neither according to the Quran nor the principles of Islamic justice.
Conclusion
Mr. Parvez tried to distort the statements of the commentators according to his own wishes.
He twisted the statements of Imam Tabari (may Allah have mercy on him), Imam Razi (may Allah have mercy on him), and Imam Suyuti (may Allah have mercy on him) to present them as proof of his heretical views.
None of these commentators ever interpreted “Allah and the Messenger” to mean the Imam of the time or the government.
Parvez used their writings out of context and contrary to their method of interpretation.
