❖ Introduction
The leader of the Hadith-rejecters, Mr. Parwez, adopted the concept of religious clericalism from Hindu Brahmanism and Christian Papacy and introduced it into Islamic history, presenting it as an established reality. However, upon closer inspection, clear contradictions and falsehoods in his claims become evident.
❖ Mr. Parwez’s Stance on Religious Clericalism
◈ Allegation of Religious Clericalism
According to Mr. Parwez, the religious class has always colluded with the rulers. In his own words:
"اربابِ شریعت سے، اربابِ حکومت و سیاست کا ساجھا ہے”
(Tolu-e-Islam: January 1952, page 11)
◈ Allegation Against Jamaat-e-Islami
Mr. Parwez considered Jamaat-e-Islami as the greatest manifestation of religious clericalism and referred to Maulana Maududi as the “leader of the clergy.” He claimed that this group provides religious validation to rulers and supports their interests.
❖ The Contradictory Stance
On the other hand, he also accuses Jamaat-e-Islami of consistently opposing every government and branding rulers as indulging in immoral activities in clubs:
"یہ جماعت ہر برسراقتدار حکومت کے خلاف مسلسل پراپیگنڈہ کرتی چلی آرہی ہے”
(Tolu-e-Islam: March 1967, page 16)
These two claims—of collaboration with rulers and constant opposition to them—clearly contradict each other.
❖ The Self-Made Contradictions of Mr. Parwez
The two contradictory claims by Mr. Parwez (that Jamaat-e-Islami aligns with the rulers and simultaneously opposes them) negate one another. The reality is:
➊ Jamaat-e-Islami has always spoken the truth and opposed every un-Islamic government.
➋ Mr. Parwez himself remained close to rulers, received financial aid from them, and supported them with his advice.
❖ Mr. Parwez’s Relationship with Rulers
Despite claiming to speak the truth, Mr. Parwez maintained cordial relations with those in power. For instance:
➊ "Mr. Parwez maintained good relations with every ruler, from Quaid-e-Azam onward"
(Tolu-e-Islam: January 1974, page 23)
➋ Ayub Khan took interest in Mr. Parwez’s literature and offered financial assistance:
"President Ayub offered financial assistance for the publication of my book"
(Tolu-e-Islam: January 1984, page 47)
❖ The False Allegation of Religious Clericalism in History
Mr. Parwez accused that throughout the fourteen centuries of Muslim history, there has been an alliance between the religious class and political power, yet he failed to present any historical evidence for this.
In fact, he himself admitted:
"In fourteen centuries, Muslims have never handed over power to the clerics"
(Tolu-e-Islam: August 1981, page 29)
This clearly indicates that the accusation of “religious clericalism” is nothing but propaganda, aimed at defaming scholars and distancing the public from those who offer a true interpretation of religion.
❖ The Myth of the ‘Ajami Conspiracy
Mr. Parwez attempted to cast doubt on the intellectual heritage of Muslims under the label of an “Ajami Conspiracy.” The objectives of this myth were:
➊ To target Islamic rituals and religious culture with criticism and mockery.
➋ To degrade Islamic scholars in public opinion by using the term “Mullah” in a derogatory manner.
❖ The Need for Youth to Guard Against Parwez’s Ideology
Modern educated youth should:
➊ Speak based on research and reasoning, not on hearsay.
➋ Avoid blindly following Orientalists and the ideology of Parwez.
➌ Study religious sciences themselves and try to understand the arguments presented by scholars.
❖ Conclusion
Mr. Parwez’s concept of religious clericalism is a fabricated notion that has never existed as a reality in Muslim history. His own actions and contradictions clearly reveal that his struggle was, in fact, opposition to Islam based on the Qur'an and Sunnah.
