◈ Scholarly Errors in Parwez Sahib’s Understanding of the Qur’an ◈
Ghulam Ahmad Parwez, a well-known denier of Hadith, claimed that he understood the Qur'an solely based on its own language and linguistic foundations. In this article, we shall critically examine the principles of his Qur'anic interpretation and assess whether his methodology was truly reasonable and scholarly.
In Parwez Sahib’s methodology, language holds central importance. It is certainly true that the Qur'an was revealed in a specific language, and a deep understanding of that language is essential to comprehend it. However, determining meanings solely through etymology while neglecting context (siyāq wa sibāq) and cultural usage (ʿurf) is contrary to the established principles of Qur’anic interpretation.
Parwez Sahib focused on the etymological study of words, often ignoring the necessary elements of context and customary usage—both of which are critical for grasping the intended meaning in any language.
The meanings of words in any language are derived from their contextual usage, idioms, and customary connotations—not merely from historical etymology. While etymological research can help understand the evolution of a word, it is essential to examine how the word was used in the time of revelation to determine the intended meaning of the speaker.
If someone says today, “I ate bread with shorba,” every Urdu speaker will understand the intended meaning. However, if a linguist breaks down the word historically and claims that “shor” means salt and “ba” means water—thus interpreting it as “salty water”—that would be an incorrect and absurd understanding. Such an approach would be a distortion not only of the language but also of the speaker’s intent.
If someone says, “I bought a television,” and another interprets it literally as “remote vision” based on its Latin roots, the result would be not only inaccurate but laughable.
In any language, the use of metaphor, simile, and figurative expressions is crucial to convey nuanced meanings. Understanding these elements is essential for interpreting the speaker’s intent.
Parwez Sahib, however, often insisted on literal meanings of words—even when the context clearly pointed to metaphorical usage.
Parwez Sahib excessively emphasized etymological meanings while ignoring context and usage. His famous works “Mafhūm al-Qur’ān” and “Lughāt al-Qur’ān” provide ample examples of this flawed methodology.
وَحُشِرَ لِسُلَيْمَانَ جُنُودُهُ مِنَ الْجِنِّ وَالْإِنسِ وَالطَّيْرِ فَهُمْ يُوزَعُونَ
“And gathered for Sulaymān were his soldiers from the jinn, humans, and birds, and they were [kept] in order.”
[Al-Naml: 17]
Parwez Sahib interpreted “namlah” as a woman from the tribe of Namal. However, the Qur’anic style does not support such a reference to tribes in this form, and grammatically “namlah” in Arabic clearly means “ant.”
إِذَا الشَّمْسُ كُوِّرَتْ
“When the sun is wrapped up.”
Parwez Sahib interpreted this as not a reference to the Day of Judgment, but rather a metaphorical prophecy of a new sociopolitical order where monarchy would end and a humanistic society would emerge.
Parwez Sahib's fundamental error in Qur'anic understanding was his disregard for established linguistic principles in favor of imposing etymology to serve his personal ideas.
✔ He isolated words from their context and customary usage and imposed their root meanings forcefully.
✔ He neglected the role of metaphor, simile, and symbolic expression.
✔ He distorted clear meanings of the Qur'an in light of modern assumptions and ideologies.
Parwez Sahib’s approach was not a sincere pursuit of the Qur'an’s intended message, but rather a projection of his own interpretations. His methodology lacked both traditional and scholarly legitimacy. Influenced by personal inclinations and modernist thought, his interpretations reflect a deviation from the intellectual heritage of the Ummah and represent a misuse of linguistic analysis in Qur'anic interpretation.
❖ Introduction
Ghulam Ahmad Parwez, a well-known denier of Hadith, claimed that he understood the Qur'an solely based on its own language and linguistic foundations. In this article, we shall critically examine the principles of his Qur'anic interpretation and assess whether his methodology was truly reasonable and scholarly.
❖ The Role of Language in Understanding the Qur’an
In Parwez Sahib’s methodology, language holds central importance. It is certainly true that the Qur'an was revealed in a specific language, and a deep understanding of that language is essential to comprehend it. However, determining meanings solely through etymology while neglecting context (siyāq wa sibāq) and cultural usage (ʿurf) is contrary to the established principles of Qur’anic interpretation.
Parwez Sahib focused on the etymological study of words, often ignoring the necessary elements of context and customary usage—both of which are critical for grasping the intended meaning in any language.
❖ Limits of Lexical Research in Language
The meanings of words in any language are derived from their contextual usage, idioms, and customary connotations—not merely from historical etymology. While etymological research can help understand the evolution of a word, it is essential to examine how the word was used in the time of revelation to determine the intended meaning of the speaker.
Example ①: “Shorba”
If someone says today, “I ate bread with shorba,” every Urdu speaker will understand the intended meaning. However, if a linguist breaks down the word historically and claims that “shor” means salt and “ba” means water—thus interpreting it as “salty water”—that would be an incorrect and absurd understanding. Such an approach would be a distortion not only of the language but also of the speaker’s intent.
Example ②: “Television”
If someone says, “I bought a television,” and another interprets it literally as “remote vision” based on its Latin roots, the result would be not only inaccurate but laughable.
❖ Importance of Metaphor, Simile, and Figurative Language
In any language, the use of metaphor, simile, and figurative expressions is crucial to convey nuanced meanings. Understanding these elements is essential for interpreting the speaker’s intent.
- If someone says, “There is fire in my chest,” the word “fire” is metaphorical and signifies a burning sensation—not literal flames.
- Likewise, calling someone a “lion” does not imply they are a zoo animal; rather, it signifies bravery.
Parwez Sahib, however, often insisted on literal meanings of words—even when the context clearly pointed to metaphorical usage.
❖ Parwez Sahib’s Principles of Qur’anic Understanding
Excessive Emphasis on Lexical Research
Parwez Sahib excessively emphasized etymological meanings while ignoring context and usage. His famous works “Mafhūm al-Qur’ān” and “Lughāt al-Qur’ān” provide ample examples of this flawed methodology.
❖ Examples of Parwez Sahib’s Lexical Misinterpretations
Example ①: Sūrah al-Naml – “Jinn” and “Ṭayr”
وَحُشِرَ لِسُلَيْمَانَ جُنُودُهُ مِنَ الْجِنِّ وَالْإِنسِ وَالطَّيْرِ فَهُمْ يُوزَعُونَ
“And gathered for Sulaymān were his soldiers from the jinn, humans, and birds, and they were [kept] in order.”
[Al-Naml: 17]
- Conventional Meaning: Jinn refers to unseen beings; ṭayr refers to birds.
- Parwez Sahib’s Interpretation: Jinn means desert dwellers; ṭayr means fast horses.
Example ②: “Qālat Namlah”
Parwez Sahib interpreted “namlah” as a woman from the tribe of Namal. However, the Qur’anic style does not support such a reference to tribes in this form, and grammatically “namlah” in Arabic clearly means “ant.”
Example ③: Interpretation of Sūrah al-Takwīr
إِذَا الشَّمْسُ كُوِّرَتْ
“When the sun is wrapped up.”
Parwez Sahib interpreted this as not a reference to the Day of Judgment, but rather a metaphorical prophecy of a new sociopolitical order where monarchy would end and a humanistic society would emerge.
❖ Conclusion: The Core Error in Parwez Sahib’s Methodology
Parwez Sahib's fundamental error in Qur'anic understanding was his disregard for established linguistic principles in favor of imposing etymology to serve his personal ideas.
✔ He isolated words from their context and customary usage and imposed their root meanings forcefully.
✔ He neglected the role of metaphor, simile, and symbolic expression.
✔ He distorted clear meanings of the Qur'an in light of modern assumptions and ideologies.
❖ Summary
Parwez Sahib’s approach was not a sincere pursuit of the Qur'an’s intended message, but rather a projection of his own interpretations. His methodology lacked both traditional and scholarly legitimacy. Influenced by personal inclinations and modernist thought, his interpretations reflect a deviation from the intellectual heritage of the Ummah and represent a misuse of linguistic analysis in Qur'anic interpretation.