Introduction: Parwez’s Interpretation of “Allah and the Messenger”
Ghulam Ahmad Parwez, a prominent figure in the Quranist school of thought, proposed an alternative interpretation for the Qur’anic phrases “Allah and the Messenger”. According to him, these terms symbolically represent the “central authority of the Islamic system” or “Markaz-e-Millat” — a collective institutional structure of Islamic governance.
Examples from his works include:
- “Allah and the Messenger mean the center of the Islamic system.” (Tafsir Maṭālib al-Furqān, Vol. 4, p. 340)
- “The phrase refers to the Qur’anic government or Islamic state.” (Tafsir Maṭālib al-Furqān, Vol. 6, p. 70)
- “It implies the central system where divine commandments are enforced.” (Mi‘rāj-e-Insāniyat, p. 318)
While this theory attempts to align divine obedience with state authority, it leads to significant theological and logical inconsistencies, which are addressed below.
Key Contradictions in Parwez’s Interpretation
❖ The Meaning of “Allah and the Messenger” Before the Establishment of an Islamic State
If “Allah and the Messenger” simply mean an Islamic government, how should one interpret the verses revealed during the Meccan period, when no Islamic state or central authority existed?
- The Qur’an repeatedly commands obedience to Allah and His Messenger even during the early Meccan phase.
- However, by Parwez’s logic, such commands would be meaningless, since the Islamic system had not yet emerged.
- Even Parwez acknowledges in Ma‘ārif al-Qur’an (Vol. 4, p. 568) that the real Islamic state began after the conquest of Makkah.
Key Question:
Were these early Meccan verses not applicable to the believers of that time?
Parwez's theory fails to answer this adequately.
❖ One “Allah and the Messenger” or Many?
If every Muslim state is to be considered the “center of the Islamic system,” then several problems arise:
- Does each Islamic state have its own “Allah and Messenger”?
- If not, and a single central authority is needed for the global Muslim Ummah, how will it be chosen? Through election? Consensus? War?
- This interpretation introduces political chaos and practical impossibility, undermining the very idea of unity it seeks to establish.
❖ Belief in “Markaz-e-Millat”?
The Qur’an commands faith in Allah and His Messenger, not just obedience:
"يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا آمِنُوا بِاللَّهِ وَرَسُولِهِ..."
(Al-Nisāʾ: 136)
"فَآمِنُوا بِاللَّهِ وَرَسُولِهِ النَّبِيِّ..."
(Al-Aʿrāf: 158)
To “believe in” a state institution is not only theologically absurd, but entirely un-Qur’anic. The phrase “Iman bi Allah wa Rasul” cannot logically or spiritually apply to a man-made structure.
❖ Risk of Absolute Authoritarianism in the Name of “Allah and the Messenger”
If the state authority itself is considered equivalent to Allah and the Messenger, then:
- Criticism of the state becomes forbidden, as opposing “Allah and His Messenger” is a sin in Islamic theology.
- This transforms the “Markaz-e-Millat” into a sacrosanct, unchallengeable entity, akin to divine authority.
- Such a model breeds religiously cloaked authoritarianism, not Islamic governance.
As Abul A‘la Maududi rightly pointed out:
“If the government issues a command against the Qur’an and Sunnah, Muslims have the right to object.”
(Tafheemat, Manṣab-e-Risālat Number, p. 171–172)
A Common Misconception and Its Refutation
Claim:
If an Islamic government can be called “the government of Allah and His Messenger,” then why can’t its head be referred to as “Allah and the Messenger”?
Response:
Calling an Islamic state “God’s government” is metaphorical — it means the state abides by divine commands.
However, calling the ruler or institution itself “Allah and His Messenger” is:
- Theologically deviant,
- Misleading, and
- Contradictory to the core teachings of Islam.
Such attribution is not only false, but it blurs the line between divine authority and human fallibility.
Serious Consequences of Parwez’s Interpretation
Parwez’s theory of equating “Allah and the Messenger” with “Markaz-e-Millat” results in:
❖ Distortion of Qur’anic meanings
❖ Erasure of the right to critique governmental decisions
❖ Introduction of a religiously justified authoritarian model
❖ Undermining of Prophethood and divine revelation
Conclusion
✔ Parwez’s interpretation of “Allah and the Messenger” as “Markaz-e-Millat” is inconsistent with Qur’anic context, especially during the Meccan period.
✔ It introduces practical contradictions and promotes an unchallengeable central authority, which is antithetical to Islamic principles.
✔ Belief and obedience in Islam are reserved for Allah and His Messenger, not institutions or political centers.
✔ The concept leads to dangerous theological deviations and must be rejected in favor of orthodox Qur’anic understanding.
وَٱللَّهُ أَعْلَمُ بِالصَّوَابِ
And Allah knows best what is correct.
