Compiled by: Tawheed.com
Ghulam Ahmad Parwez, often referred to as the “Distorter of the Qur’an”, attempted to alter the Qur’anic meaning of Aakhirah just as he distorted other Islamic terms. He not only rejected fundamental beliefs such as Qiyamah (Resurrection) and Hashr-o-Nashr (Gathering for Judgement) but reduced the meaning of the Hereafter to material and worldly benefits.
In his book, explaining to his follower Saleem, Parwez wrote:
“The benefit which circulates within all of humanity and reaches individuals is called the final outcome, ultimate result, or future benefit. For this, the Qur’an has used the term Aakhirah (future).”
(Saleem Kay Naam, Vol. 1, p. 213)
Criticism:
If Aakhirah is merely human benefit, then what about those who harm humanity? Parwez’s definition excludes the corrupt and the harmful, whereas the Qur’an’s concept of the Hereafter encompasses both reward and punishment.
Parwez also included material provisions in the meaning of the Hereafter, stating:
“By provisions of the Hereafter is meant the goods that a person stores up for the coming generations.”
(Asbaab-e-Zawal-e-Ummat, p. 26)
Refutation:
If the Qur’an used Aakhirah in this sense, the Prophet ﷺ would have prioritised worldly gain for his family. However, the Qur’an clearly distinguishes between worldly life and the Hereafter:
﴿يٰٓاَيُّهَا النَّبِىُّ قُلْ لِّاَزْوَاجِكَ… وَاِنْ كُنْتُنَّ تُرِدْنَ اللّٰهَ وَرَسُوْلَهٗ وَالدَّارَ الْاٰخِرَةَ…﴾ (Al-Ahzab: 28-29)
This proves that Aakhirah refers to the next life, not worldly provisions.
Imam Raghib al-Isfahani defined it as:
“The term Dar al-Aakhirah refers to the second life, just as Dar al-Dunya refers to the first life.”
(Al-Mufradat, p. 13)
Clearly, Aakhirah means the second life (Nash’ah Thaniyah), not future worldly benefits.
Parwez denied the Qur’anic concept of resurrection:
“It is not correct to believe that those who die are kept in graves and then all will be raised together one day…”
(Jahan-e-Farda, p. 180)
He also wrote:
“He (Allah) is closer to us than our jugular vein, therefore… the concept of meeting Him after death is not Qur’anic.”
(Jahan-e-Farda, p. 34)
Refutation:
The Qur’an affirms meeting Allah ﷻ after death:
﴿اَلَّذِيْنَ يَظُنُّوْنَ اَنَّهُمْ مُلَاقُوْا رَبِّهِمْ…﴾ (Al-Baqarah: 46)
The Qur’an says:
﴿قُلِ اللّٰهُ يُحْيِيْكُمْ ثُمَّ يُمِيْتُكُمْ ثُمَّ يَجْمَعُكُمْ اِلٰى يَوْمِ الْقِيٰمَةِ…﴾ (Al-Jathiyah: 26)
This contradicts Parwez’s denial of a set Day of Resurrection.
The Qur’an states:
﴿وَيَوْمَ نُسَيِّرُ الْجِبَالَ… وَحَشَرْنَاهُمْ فَلَمْ نُغَادِرْ مِنْهُمْ اَحَدًا﴾ (Al-Kahf: 47)
This proves that Hashr is a universal physical gathering, not an ongoing process as Parwez claims.
The Qur’an describes the Day of Judgement:
﴿وَوُضِعَ الْكِتَابُ… لاَ يُغَادِرُ صَغِيْرَةً وَلاَ كَبِيْرَةً اِلَّا اَحْصَاهَا﴾ (Al-Kahf: 49)
Parwez’s theory has no place for such an actual record of deeds.
Imam Raghib explains:
“The Day of Qiyamah is the Day of Hashr, also called the Day of Ba’th and Nashr.” (Al-Mufradat, p. 120)
“The Sa’ah al-Kubra means the raising of people for accountability.” (p. 248)
This directly rejects Parwez’s metaphorical interpretation.
Parwez openly followed the views of orientalists like Whitehead:
“The Day of Reckoning is with us at every moment.”
(Insan Ne Kya Socha?, p. 413)
This is alien to the Qur’anic concept of an appointed Day of Judgement and shows how he replaced divine revelation with Western philosophy.
Parwez’s concept of the Hereafter is not only flawed but outright misguided. He replaced the Qur’anic teachings with materialistic ideas, rejected Qiyamah, Hashr, and meeting Allah, and distorted fundamental Islamic beliefs. The Qur’an and the explanations of classical scholars completely refute his views. Belief in the Hereafter — including resurrection, gathering, and accountability — is an essential pillar of faith, and denying it constitutes disbelief.
How Parwez Distorted the Concept of the Hereafter
Ghulam Ahmad Parwez, often referred to as the “Distorter of the Qur’an”, attempted to alter the Qur’anic meaning of Aakhirah just as he distorted other Islamic terms. He not only rejected fundamental beliefs such as Qiyamah (Resurrection) and Hashr-o-Nashr (Gathering for Judgement) but reduced the meaning of the Hereafter to material and worldly benefits.
1 – Parwez’s Definition of the Hereafter
In his book, explaining to his follower Saleem, Parwez wrote:
“The benefit which circulates within all of humanity and reaches individuals is called the final outcome, ultimate result, or future benefit. For this, the Qur’an has used the term Aakhirah (future).”
(Saleem Kay Naam, Vol. 1, p. 213)
Criticism:
If Aakhirah is merely human benefit, then what about those who harm humanity? Parwez’s definition excludes the corrupt and the harmful, whereas the Qur’an’s concept of the Hereafter encompasses both reward and punishment.
2 – Mixing Worldly Benefit with the Hereafter
Parwez also included material provisions in the meaning of the Hereafter, stating:
“By provisions of the Hereafter is meant the goods that a person stores up for the coming generations.”
(Asbaab-e-Zawal-e-Ummat, p. 26)
Refutation:
If the Qur’an used Aakhirah in this sense, the Prophet ﷺ would have prioritised worldly gain for his family. However, the Qur’an clearly distinguishes between worldly life and the Hereafter:
﴿يٰٓاَيُّهَا النَّبِىُّ قُلْ لِّاَزْوَاجِكَ… وَاِنْ كُنْتُنَّ تُرِدْنَ اللّٰهَ وَرَسُوْلَهٗ وَالدَّارَ الْاٰخِرَةَ…﴾ (Al-Ahzab: 28-29)
This proves that Aakhirah refers to the next life, not worldly provisions.
3 – Scholars’ Definition of the Hereafter
Imam Raghib al-Isfahani defined it as:
“The term Dar al-Aakhirah refers to the second life, just as Dar al-Dunya refers to the first life.”
(Al-Mufradat, p. 13)
Clearly, Aakhirah means the second life (Nash’ah Thaniyah), not future worldly benefits.
4 – Denial of Resurrection
Parwez denied the Qur’anic concept of resurrection:
“It is not correct to believe that those who die are kept in graves and then all will be raised together one day…”
(Jahan-e-Farda, p. 180)
5 – Denial of Meeting Allah After Death
He also wrote:
“He (Allah) is closer to us than our jugular vein, therefore… the concept of meeting Him after death is not Qur’anic.”
(Jahan-e-Farda, p. 34)
Refutation:
The Qur’an affirms meeting Allah ﷻ after death:
﴿اَلَّذِيْنَ يَظُنُّوْنَ اَنَّهُمْ مُلَاقُوْا رَبِّهِمْ…﴾ (Al-Baqarah: 46)
6 – Denial of the Day of Gathering
The Qur’an says:
﴿قُلِ اللّٰهُ يُحْيِيْكُمْ ثُمَّ يُمِيْتُكُمْ ثُمَّ يَجْمَعُكُمْ اِلٰى يَوْمِ الْقِيٰمَةِ…﴾ (Al-Jathiyah: 26)
This contradicts Parwez’s denial of a set Day of Resurrection.
7 – Rejection of Physical Gathering for Judgement
The Qur’an states:
﴿وَيَوْمَ نُسَيِّرُ الْجِبَالَ… وَحَشَرْنَاهُمْ فَلَمْ نُغَادِرْ مِنْهُمْ اَحَدًا﴾ (Al-Kahf: 47)
This proves that Hashr is a universal physical gathering, not an ongoing process as Parwez claims.
8 – Rejection of the Book of Deeds
The Qur’an describes the Day of Judgement:
﴿وَوُضِعَ الْكِتَابُ… لاَ يُغَادِرُ صَغِيْرَةً وَلاَ كَبِيْرَةً اِلَّا اَحْصَاهَا﴾ (Al-Kahf: 49)
Parwez’s theory has no place for such an actual record of deeds.
9 – Denial of the True Nature of Qiyamah
Imam Raghib explains:
“The Day of Qiyamah is the Day of Hashr, also called the Day of Ba’th and Nashr.” (Al-Mufradat, p. 120)
“The Sa’ah al-Kubra means the raising of people for accountability.” (p. 248)
This directly rejects Parwez’s metaphorical interpretation.
10 – Influence of Orientalist Thought
Parwez openly followed the views of orientalists like Whitehead:
“The Day of Reckoning is with us at every moment.”
(Insan Ne Kya Socha?, p. 413)
This is alien to the Qur’anic concept of an appointed Day of Judgement and shows how he replaced divine revelation with Western philosophy.
Conclusion
Parwez’s concept of the Hereafter is not only flawed but outright misguided. He replaced the Qur’anic teachings with materialistic ideas, rejected Qiyamah, Hashr, and meeting Allah, and distorted fundamental Islamic beliefs. The Qur’an and the explanations of classical scholars completely refute his views. Belief in the Hereafter — including resurrection, gathering, and accountability — is an essential pillar of faith, and denying it constitutes disbelief.
