The Reality of the Beliefs of Hadith Deniers in the Light of Quranic Verses

This excerpt is taken from the book by Fazilat-ul-Sheikh Abdus Salam Rustami From Denial of Hadith to Denial of Quran.

The Beliefs of the Deniers of Hadith Regarding Faith, Worship, and Hadith​

In the previous chapters, some beliefs of the deniers of Hadith have been mentioned at appropriate places in a scattered manner. In this chapter, all their well-known beliefs and views will be explained in detail so that the difference between the true Islam of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) and the Islam of Parvezis becomes clear.

Belief Regarding Allah Almighty​

Parvez writes:
"But one meaning of the concept of God is that which God has defined and which appears to sparkle in the letters and inscriptions of the Quran. According to this concept, the meaning of God in these places is the system that is established on the foundations of His defined eternal laws."

Reference: (Letter to Saleem, p. 226, cited in Zarbul Hadith, p. 131)

Here, it was incumbent upon Mr. Parvez to mention the verses in which God has defined the meaning and also to explain those letters and inscriptions of the Quran in which the concept of God appears to sparkle.
In this statement, he has defined the meaning of God as a system that is established on eternal laws, from which it is understood that according to Mr. Parvez, when this system is established, then at that time God will exist, and when such a system does not exist, then God’s existence will also not be there. Has any Prophet explained this meaning of God’s existence or is it mentioned in any verse of the Quran?
In one place he writes: "Since God is the expression of those exalted attributes which man wants to reflect within himself, therefore obedience to divine laws is actually obedience to the noble instincts of man's own nature."

Reference: (Maarif-ul-Quran: 420/2)

This is another strange and unusual meaning attributed to God.

The Second Belief About Allah Almighty​

Parvez writes: "The God whom religion has placed above the universe on the Throne cannot really guarantee anyone's sustenance. Despite His claim of being the Provider, millions of His servants sleep hungry and hundreds of thousands die of starvation. Despite His lofty proclamation that
وَمَا مِنْ دَابَّةٍ فِي الْأَرْضِ إِلَّا عَلَى اللَّهِ رِزْقُهَا
'There is no creature on earth but that upon Allah is its provision.'

Reference: (11-Hud:6)

(Translation by Parvez) Today, half the world does not get enough bread to fill their stomachs, so believing in the God created by man-made religion and relying on His claims cannot produce the certainty that frees a person from the worry of need."

Reference: (Letter to Saleem, p. 226, reference Zarab-e-Hadith, p. 122)

Parvez Sahib is not only a denier of Hadith but he is also an outright denier of the Quran. He attributes placing God above the universe on the Throne to religion and in the end calls Him the God created by man-made religion. May Allah protect us. Such arrogance! He did not even see that Allah Almighty said:
ثُمَّ اسْتَوَىٰ عَلَى الْعَرْشِ
"Then He established Himself above the Throne."

Reference: (7-Al-A'raf:54)

And He said:
الرَّحْمَٰنُ عَلَى الْعَرْشِ اسْتَوَىٰ
"He is the Most Merciful, established above the Throne."

Reference: (20-Taha:5)

Regarding the Most Merciful being established above the Throne, Allah Almighty Himself has clarified this in explicit verses. This is not a man-made concept but is based on the clear verses of the Quran. The explicit verse of the Quran states:
وَمَا مِنْ دَابَّةٍ فِي الْأَرْضِ إِلَّا عَلَى اللَّهِ رِزْقُهَا
"And there is no creature on earth but that upon Allah is its provision."

Reference: (11-Hud:6)

Parvez quoted this verse and mocked it. His intention is that Allah must follow a Russian system (equality) and provide equal sustenance to all, but this is not Allah's law. Rather, He said:
يَبْسُطُ الرِّزْقَ لِمَنْ يَشَاءُ وَيَقْدِرُ
"He causes to increase whom He wills and restricts [it]."

Reference: (17-Isra:30)

And He said:
وَاللَّهُ فَضَّلَ بَعْضَكُمْ عَلَىٰ بَعْضٍ فِي الرِّزْقِ
"Allah has favored some of you over others in provision."

Reference: (16-An-Nahl:71)

Meaning, the system of distribution of sustenance is not based on equality. Explaining the wisdom of this difference, He said:
لِيَتَّخِذَ بَعْضُهُمْ بَعْضًا سُخْرِيًّا
"That some of them may take service from others."

Reference: (43-Az-Zukhruf:32)

This is the obvious way to live and run the system.
After reading Parvez Sahib's mentioned writings, no intelligent person can remain unaware that he is a denier of the Quran and the Quranic Majesty of Allah Almighty. This leaves no doubt about his disbelief.

Thoughts and Beliefs Regarding Allah Almighty and the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him​

Parvez writes:
"By Allah and the Messenger, the center of the community is meant, and by Ulul Amr, the subordinate officers are meant."

Reference: (Maarif al-Quran: 626/4)

He further writes:
"Wherever Allah and the Messenger are mentioned in the Holy Quran, it means the center of the system of governance."

Reference: (Maarif al-Quran: 623/4)

He further writes:
"It is absolutely clear that by Allah and the Messenger, the center of governance is meant."

Reference: (Maarif al-Quran: 623/4)

And he writes:
"By Allah and the Messenger, the Imam of the Muslims is meant."

Reference: (Maarif al-Quran: 623/4)

Similar thoughts have also been expressed in Maarif al-Quran 630,531/4. It is astonishing that such explicit disbelief is expressed. He has removed belief in Allah’s attribute of divinity, attribute of lordship, and the attribute of names and attributes, as well as belief in the prophethood and messengership of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ. The summary of this false belief is that if there is a system of governance, then Allah and His Messenger also exist, and if there is no system of governance, then the existence of Allah and His Messenger is also negated. May Allah protect us.
Regarding belief in the Messenger, he writes:
"Belief in the Muhammadan prophethood means belief in the book which the world received through the mediation of the Prophet ﷺ."

Reference: (Firdous Gum Gushte, p. 383)

This means that after believing in the Book of Allah (Quran), there is no need to believe in the Messenger, whereas in many verses belief in the Messenger and belief in the Quran are mentioned separately.
What is meant by Messenger? About this he writes:
"For the convenience of the practical system, the Ummah appoints the best among themselves as their representative to maintain the chain of ”فيكم رسوله“. And that after the life of the Messenger, ”فيكم رسول“ means the central authority of the community."

Reference: (Tulu-e-Islam, 9 June 1959)

A member of Tulu-e-Islam, Muhammad Ali Khan Baloch BA Honors (due to some differences) states: Perhaps many of you, like us, have felt that for some time now, under the guise of cooperation, just as the Holy Prophet ﷺ invited humanity to the Quran during his life, similarly nowadays, Mr. Parvez is also inviting to the Quran at House No. 25-B, Gulberg Lahore. Mr. Parvez generally elevates himself to the high status of the Holy Prophet ﷺ in his writings and applies all the verses related to the Holy Prophet to himself.

Reference: (Hadith Dar Guzaray, p. 20, citing Aina Parveziyat, p. 807)

See! Parvez’s associates have taken the impression that Mr. Parvez wants to place himself at the rank of the Messenger.

Meaning of the Finality of Prophethood​

They write: "The meaning of the Finality of Prophethood is that now the revolution in the world will not be brought about by personalities but through ideas, and the reins of human society will be in the hands of systems rather than individuals."

Reference: (Letter to Saleem: 15, p. 250, First Edition August 1953)

In one place it is written: "You have seen, Saleem! The meaning of the Finality of Prophethood was such that now humans only need fundamental guidance. In the light of these principles, they will determine the details themselves, but among us, the belief has arisen (and Muslims have been acting on this belief) that the details of every matter of life have also been predetermined and now no change can be made in these details. This belief is contrary to the great purpose for which the revolution of the Finality of Prophethood was implemented."

Reference: (Letter to Saleem: 2,20 /103)

This is a unique interpretation of the Finality of Prophethood which no rational Muslim is ready to accept. To say that the details of every matter of life have also been predetermined, as in the Quranic verse:
لَقَدْ كَانَ لَكُمْ فِي رَسُولِ اللَّهِ أُسْوَةٌ حَسَنَةٌ
"Indeed in the Messenger of Allah you have a good example to follow."

Reference: (33-Al-Ahzab:21)

and
قُلْ إِنْ كُنْتُمْ تُحِبُّونَ اللَّهَ فَاتَّبِعُونِي
"Say: If you love Allah, then follow me."

Reference: (3-Aal Imran:31)

this is the actual meaning and the belief of all Muslims. But since the Pervezian Islam is completely different from Prophetic Islam, it has declared the purpose of these verses contrary to its alleged objective.

Regarding the Islam of All Muslims​

The Islam that is prevalent among Muslims today, whether it is a pre-Quranic religion or not, has no connection with the Quranic religion.

Reference: (Letter to Saleem, p. 252, reference: Darb-e-Hadith)

It is written somewhere:
"This is the foreign Islam, Saleem! It has penetrated our veins and marrow for a thousand years in such a way that we feel if it is removed, our life will also be taken away with it."

Reference: (Letter to Saleem, p. 123, reference: Darb-e-Hadith)

Mr. Parvez has dealt a severe blow to the Islam of all Muslims for a thousand years. Let him tell where he learned the Quran and Islam from, while he claims that not a single Muslim existed among the Muslims of the past thousand years.

The Permissibility of Change and Modification in the Shariah of Muhammad (peace be upon him)​

It is written: "The true foundation of religion is the Quran and only the Quran, which is obligatory for all times. The traditions (Ahadith) are the history of that blessed era, showing how the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, and those who believed with him (the Companions) shaped the Quranic principles in their time; this is the Shariah of that blessed era.
It is further written: Now, it is the right of only the center of the Ummah and the Shura Council, established strictly on correct Quranic lines, to arrange and compile only those details which the Quran has not explicitly specified. These details can then be changed as needed in every era; these are the Shariah for their time."

Reference: (Maqam Hadith: 291/1)

It is further written:
"With the Quran, man has been granted insight, so the details of matters which the Quran itself has not explained will be determined in the light of Quranic principles through insight. This is exactly what the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, did, and for us to do the same is the objective of the Quran and the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him. In this regard, there is no distinction or specification between ethics, transactions, and acts of worship; if distinction were intended, the Quran itself would have specified the details of worship."

Reference: (Maqam Hadith: 434/1)

It is further written:
"The principle I mentioned in my article applies to both law and worship, meaning that if the successor of the Messenger of Allah (Quranic government) considers some modification in a particular form of prayer, which the Quran has not specified, necessary due to some requirement of his time, then he is, in principle, authorized to do so."

Reference: (Qurani Faislay: 15/3, Reference: Kitab Fitna Inkar Hadith)

From these writings, it becomes clear that according to the belief in Shariah Provising, every person can, at their discretion, make abrogations and changes in the Muhammadan Shariah. Even the method of prayer can be invented. When the methods of worship of Muslims, established with continuous transmission for fourteen hundred years and narrated in authentic Ahadith, and the Islamic rulings and laws present in authentic Ahadith, can be abrogated by the Quranic government of the center of the Ummah, then will this so-called Quranic government or center of the Ummah be elevated to the rank of the Messenger? This concept of Quranic government exists only in Gulberg, Lahore; it does not exist in any other region of the Islamic world. Therefore, it is a manifestation of my ignorance and foolishness.

Quran for the Transitional Period​

Parvez writes: "Now the question remains, if there is no private ownership in Islam, then why are there rulings about inheritance, etc. in the Quran? The reason is that the Quran gradually leads human society step by step to the final stage of its predetermined program, so wherever it sets principles and rulings regarding the final stage of this program, it also provides guidance for the transitional period. The rulings on inheritance, loans, charity, and alms pertain to this transitional period through which society passes to reach the ultimate stage."

Reference: (Nizam-e-Rububiyat, p. 25)

He further writes: "All the encouragements, exhortations, rulings, and regulations regarding charity and alms in the Quran relate to this transitional period."

Reference: (Nizam-e-Rububiyat, p. 167)

This is the real reality of Parvezism that Mr. Parvez not only denies Hadith because denial of Hadith is only the initial stage; he denies the rulings of the Quran and to deceive, he calls it the transitional period, meaning most of the Quran was only specific to the time of the Prophet and the Arabs. Then what would be the meaning of verses like هُدًى لِلنَّاسِ (The Quran) is guidance for the people.

Reference: (2 - Al-Baqarah: 185)

and لِيَكُونَ لِلْعَالَمِينَ نَذِيرًا so that it may be a warner to the worlds.

Reference: (25 - Al-Furqan: 1)

? It is clear that Mr. Parvez's purpose is to deny the Quran, so what doubt or hesitation remains in his disbelief?

Meaning of Faith in the Hereafter​

Parvez writes: "The Quran emphasizes looking towards the future rather than the past; its name is faith in the Hereafter, and this itself is a great revolution brought about by the Prophethood of Muhammad, meaning always keeping the gaze on the future."
وَبِالْآخِرَةِ هُمْ يُوقِنُونَ
"In this life, towards the future, and also in the life after."

Reference: (Letter 21 to Saleem 124/2, reference Fitna Inkar Hadith)

Various names for the Hereafter are mentioned in the Holy Quran. The Quran has called it the Day of Gathering, the Day of Resurrection, the Day of Reckoning, the Day of Judgment, etc. None of these indicate any worldly future, so to interpret it only as worldly future is to neglect the true meaning and reality of ايمان بالآخرة.
Further it is written: "The real questions are: According to the Quran, what is called life? What are the meanings of death? What is the concept of the Resurrection? What is the meaning of punishment and reward? وقس على هٰذا, since a Muslim has no connection with this life, he has postponed these important questions to the Resurrection, and the Resurrection is only that which will come after death. They have no relation to the Resurrection that is hidden in every breath they take."

Reference: (Qurani Faislay, p. 332)

Just consider what meaning Parvez Sahib has understood of the Resurrection! After all, what relation does breathing have with the Resurrection?

The Meaning of Paradise, Hell, and the Scale of Deeds​

Parvez writes: "In any case, paradise and hell after death are not places, but states of the human self."

Reference: (Lughat al-Quran by Parvez: 449/1 Reference Fitna Inkar Hadith)

In the Holy Quran, paradise is named مقام أمين and مقعد صدق, while hell is called مكانا ضيقا, but Parvez Sahib absolutely denies this. In this way, he denies the Quran. At one place he writes:
"A Muslim has no connection with that paradise and hell which is before him at every step, nor does he see that scale in which the deeds of nations are weighed continuously."

Reference: (Qurani Faislay, p. 332)

At another place he writes: "The Quran says that the era of capitalism is over. Now the era of the system of Lordship is coming, in which a scale will be set up according to justice.
وَنَضَعُ الْمَوَازِينَ الْقِسْطَ لِيَوْمِ الْقِيَامَةِ
"And We will set up a just balance on the Day of Resurrection."

Reference: (21-Al-Anbiya:47)

The result of this scale will be that no laborer's effort will be diminished and every particle of the laborer's work will be fruitful. The landlord or capitalist will not calculate what share the laborer has and how much is his share."

Reference: (Nizam-e-Rububiyat, p. 256)

It is deeply regrettable to mock the scale of deeds mentioned in the Holy Quran in this way! In which verse of the Quran is it said that the era of capitalism is over? From this writing, it appears that there is a scale for laborers and capitalists, so will there be no account or scale for traders, professionals, or women? This is a clear denial of those Quranic verses in which the scale, weight, and the lightness and heaviness of the scale are mentioned, and an accumulation of baseless interpretations from his side.

Belief in Angels​

Parvez writes: "It is evident from this that in these places (the event of the caliphate of Adam and the prostration to Adam), the angels refer to those psychological stimuli that leave effects in human hearts."

Reference: (Iblees and Adam, p. 195)

In one place it is written: "The question is, what does belief in angels mean? It means that the concept held about angels should be the one presented by the Quran, and they should be given the position assigned to them by the Quran. Regarding angels, the Quran states that they prostrated to Adam, meaning they bowed before Adam, as has already been explained under the title of Adam. Adam refers to man himself or humankind, therefore the prostration of angels before Adam means that these are the forces that man can subjugate. They should remain bowed before man. Leave aside those cosmic forces which are not yet known to us, and regarding those forces which have come to our knowledge, true faith would be that all of them should bow before man. Now it is clear that a nation before which cosmic forces do not bow is not even worthy of being counted among the ranks of humanity according to the Quran, let alone being called the community of believers, because the status of a believer is far higher than that of ordinary men."

Reference: (Lughat al-Quran: 244/1)

In one place, regarding Jibril (Gabriel), it is written: "The light of the disclosure of reality (means or intermediary) has been described as Jibril."

Reference: (Iblees and Adam, p. 283)

We ask Parvez and his followers to show us a verse in the Holy Quran in which the concept is presented that angels are cosmic forces or psychological stimuli. They cannot present any such verse at all.
Consider some verses about angels in the Holy Quran. Allah Almighty has said:
عَلَيْهَا مَلَائِكَةٌ غِلَاظٌ شِدَادٌ لَا يَعْصُونَ اللَّهَ مَا أَمَرَهُمْ وَيَفْعَلُونَ مَا يُؤْمَرُونَ
"There are angels stern and severe appointed over Hell; they do not disobey Allah in what He commands them but do what they are commanded."

Reference: (66-At-Tahrim:6)

Also He said:
وَجَعَلُوا الْمَلَائِكَةَ الَّذِينَ هُمْ عِبَادُ الرَّحْمَٰنِ إِنَاثًا ۚ أَشَهِدُوا خَلْقَهُمْ
"And they have assigned to the angels, who are servants of the Most Merciful, women. Were they present at the creation of them?"

Reference: (43-Az-Zukhruf:19)

Consider carefully: Allah Almighty has attributed to angels qualities like غلاظ شداد ، لا يعصون and عباد الرحمٰن. Can these qualities be related or connected to Parvez’s belief that they are psychological stimuli or cosmic forces which man can subjugate? Also, can psychological stimuli and that which man can subjugate be feminine? Thus, Parvez’s belief is close to that of the ignorant polytheists who called angels feminine. Parvez cites the Quran in such baseless matters, but he cannot present any proof from the Divine Quran for his theories. It appears that Parvez’s Quran is a different book altogether.

Denial of the Belief in Predestination​

Parvez writes: "The Magian Asawrah did all this so silently that no one could realize how the vehicle of Islam took a different path. They gave such importance to the issue of predestination that they made it a part of faith among Muslims, so the sixth part of [والقدر خيره وشره من الله تعالٰي] in our faith is included by them.

Reference: (Qur'anic Decisions, p. 190)

Predestination means that whatever hardship or comfort a person experiences in this world is from Allah Almighty, and this pain and comfort has been predetermined and written by Allah Almighty beforehand. This belief is clearly present in the Holy Qur'an. Allah Almighty has said:
وَإِن تُصِبْهُمْ حَسَنَةٌ يَقُولُوا هَٰذِهِ مِنْ عِندِ اللَّهِ ۖ وَإِن تُصِبْهُمْ سَيِّئَةٌ يَقُولُوا هَٰذِهِ مِنْ عِندِكَ ۚ قُلْ كُلٌّ مِّنْ عِندِ اللَّهِ
"And if good befalls them, they say, 'This is from Allah'; and if evil befalls them, they say, 'This is from you.' Say, 'All is from Allah.'"

Reference: (4-An-Nisa:78)

He also said:
قُل لَّن يُصِيبَنَا إِلَّا مَا كَتَبَ اللَّهُ لَنَا هُوَ مَوْلَانَا
"Say, 'Nothing will happen to us except what Allah has decreed for us. He is our protector.'"

Reference: (9-At-Tawbah:51)

In this verse, Allah Almighty has informed His Prophet that every hardship is predetermined and written by Allah Almighty beforehand, and He also said:
مَا أَصَابَ مِنْ مُّصِيبَةٍ فِي الْأَرْضِ وَلَا فِي أَنْفُسِكُمْ إِلَّا فِي كِتَابٍ مِّنْ قَبْلِ أَنْ نَّبْرَأَهَا
"No disaster strikes upon the earth or among yourselves except that it is in a register before We bring it into being."

Reference: (57-Al-Hadid:22)

See how explicit these verses are about the affirmation of the belief in predestination and its details. Besides these, there are many other verses in the Holy Qur'an from which this belief is clearly understood, but perhaps these verses are not in Parvez Sahib's Qur'an, so he attributed this belief of predestination to the Magians. It is evident that Parvezi's Qur'an is different and the Divine Qur'an is different.

Theory of Evolution​

Parvez's question about how the very first human came into existence has been a source of wonder and astonishment for the human mind. Consequently, in those religions where polytheism has replaced facts, strange and bizarre mythologies have been employed to explain this belief. However, what the Holy Quran has revealed about this is exactly in line with the guidance provided by modern discoveries of knowledge and insight. According to scientific discoveries, after passing through various evolutionary stages from dust particles, the human form was shaped after centuries and centuries, meaning that initially no single individual appeared in human form. Rather, a species came into existence. The details of these diverse stages are remarkably condensed in the majestic verses of the Holy Quran.

Reference: (Iblees and Adam, verses 63, 64)

Parvez's intellect is greatly flawed because it accepts the existence of a species but denies the existence of an individual. Ask the intellectuals: can a species exist without individuals? Can humans exist without individuals? Then they attributed this theory to the Quran! Let us read the Holy Quran to see what Allah Almighty has mentioned about the creation of humans and then named this human Adam. Thus, it is stated:
وَإِذْ قَالَ رَبُّكَ لِلْمَلَائِكَةِ إِنِّي خَالِقٌ بَشَرًا مِنْ صَلْصَالٍ مِنْ حَمَإٍ مَسْنُونٍ
"And when your Lord said to the angels: Indeed, I am going to create a human being from sounding clay, from black mud altered [in shape]."

Reference: (15-Al-Hijr:28)

Also, it is stated:
خَلَقَ الْإِنْسَانَ مِنْ صَلْصَالٍ كَالْفَخَّارِ
"He created man from clay like pottery."

Reference: (55-Ar-Rahman:14)

Also, it is stated:
إِنَّ مَثَلَ عِيسَىٰ عِنْدَ اللَّهِ كَمَثَلِ آدَمَ ۖ خَلَقَهُ مِنْ تُرَابٍ ثُمَّ قَالَ لَهُ كُنْ فَيَكُونُ
"Indeed, the example of Jesus to Allah is like that of Adam. He created him from dust; then He said to him, 'Be,' and he was."

Reference: (3-Aal Imran:59)

Also, it is stated:
وَبَدَأَ خَلْقَ الْإِنْسَانِ مِنْ طِينٍ ثُمَّ جَعَلَ نَسْلَهُ مِنْ سُلَالَةٍ مِنْ مَاءٍ مَهِينٍ
"And We did certainly create man from clay, from an extract of clay [water]."

Reference: (32-As-Sajda:7-8)

From all the above verses, it is clear that Allah Almighty first created the human Adam from clay. Adam is the name of a specific person and individual who is the father of the human species. Allah Almighty made him a vicegerent, taught him the names, commanded the angels to prostrate to him, settled him in Paradise, and spoke with him. All these honors are proofs of the prophethood of Hazrat Adam, therefore he is the first prophet. There is no mention in these verses of the creation of humans taking centuries and centuries. If Parvez finds such a thing anywhere in the Quran, let him show it; it is nowhere in Allah's Quran.

Denial of the Person of Adam (peace be upon him)​

Parvez Sahib writes: "It is generally understood among us that the one (Adam) whose story of being expelled from Paradise is mentioned at various places in the Holy Quran, was a Prophet. This is not confirmed by the Quran. The details of Adam's story mentioned at different places in the Quran indicate that the Adam who was expelled from Paradise was not a particular individual but rather a symbolic representative of humanity. In other words, the story of Adam is not the story of a specific individual (or couple) but the story of mankind itself, which the Quran has presented in a symbolic manner. This story begins from the state of man when he first left primitive individual life and started social life."

Reference: (Lughat al-Quran, p.214/1)

Allah Almighty has mentioned the word Adam 25 times in the Holy Quran: عَلَّمَ آدَمَ الْأَسْمَاءَ , اسْجُدُوا لِآدَمَ, يَا آدَمُ اسْكُنْ أَنْتَ وَزَوْجُكَ الْجَنَّةَ, فَتَلَقَّىٰ آدَمُ مِنْ رَبِّهِ كَلِمَاتٍ , إِنَّ اللَّهَ اصْطَفَىٰ آدَمَ وَنُوحًا , إِنَّ مَثَلَ عِيسَىٰ عِنْدَ اللَّهِ كَمَثَلِ آدَمَ خَلَقَهُ مِنْ تُرَابٍ, وَلَقَدْ عَهِدْنَا إِلَىٰ آدَمَ مِنْ قَبْلُ and the phrase Bani Adam (Children of Adam) is also used besides these 25 instances. From all these verses, show me one place where the word "example" (مثل) appears, or any word whose meaning and implication is that of a symbolic representative, or where there is any symbolic style. Despite all efforts, Parvez Sahib and his followers cannot point to any such word in the Holy Quran.
It should also be kept in mind that Adam can only be called a symbol if Adam's creation is present in reality or there is some concept of it, because for an example, the existence of some external or mental entity is necessary. Furthermore, if Adam is said to be an individual (as is the reality), then what harm comes from that? An example of this is found in the writings and beliefs of Parvez Sahib's leader Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani. Mirza Sahib gave himself the title and attribute of "Musheel Masih" (the like of Messiah) and for argument, he relied on the very hadiths that mention the descent of Jesus (peace be upon him). All these hadiths state:
ينزل فيكم عيسى ابن مريم
"You (plural) will have Jesus son of Mary descending among you."

Reference: (Sahih Muslim, Al-Iman, Chapter on the Descent of Jesus son of Mary, Hadith: 156,155)

Mirza added the word "Musheel" (like) on his own and changed the meaning of ينزل to يخلق "will be born" and concluded that a likeness of Jesus (peace be upon him) will be born among you. Mirza Qadiani did not even know that انزال is also used in the sense of "to create." The word "descent" (which is abstract) has never meant "to be born" anywhere. Neither a dictionary nor the Quran, hadith, or Arabic poetry provide any evidence for this meaning. The word "Musheel" (like) was also added by Mirza Sahib. Similarly, Parvez Sahib also could not present any evidence or indication from the Quranic verses about Adam that it is an example. It is proven that this is an invention of their own intellect.

Denial of the Miracle of Isra and Mi'raj​

Parvez writes: "In Surah Bani Israil, verse اسرای, it is said that God took His servant at night from Masjid al-Haram to Masjid al-Aqsa so that He could show him His signs there. It is thought that if this event is not a dream, then it is the narration of the Prophet's night of migration, and thus Masjid al-Aqsa means Masjid al-Nabawi, which you built there after going."

Reference: (Maarif al-Quran: 736/4)

In this interpretation, or rather distortion, there is clear evidence of Parvez Sahib's irrationality or stubbornness. He says: "It is thought," meaning that by making the Quranic purposes subject to his "thought," a great sin is being committed. First, regarding the thought, it was said that this is a dream event. If it is a dream, then what great virtue is there in it that indicates the excellence of the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him)? Even ordinary people sometimes dream of going to Makkah, sometimes to Madinah, sometimes they travel to America, sometimes to Britain. A thought is what is a creation of the mind and has no proof for its affirmation. Then he says that it is the narration of the night of migration." Now observe the relevant verse of the Holy Quran:
سُبْحَانَ الَّذِي أَسْرَىٰ بِعَبْدِهِ لَيْلًا مِنَ الْمَسْجِدِ الْحَرَامِ إِلَى الْمَسْجِدِ الْأَقْصَا
"Exalted is He who took His Servant by night from al-Masjid al-Haram to al-Masjid al-Aqsa."

Reference: (17-Bani Israil:1)

Reflecting on the verse makes it clear that this event is of one night, meaning He took him in one night from Masjid al-Haram to Masjid al-Aqsa, whereas it is known that the migration event was not of one night but the Prophet (peace be upon him) reached Madinah from Makkah in about ten nights. Therefore, Parvez Sahib's thought contradicts reality. Then saying that Masjid al-Aqsa means Masjid al-Nabawi is an expression of extreme foolishness. Was Masjid al-Nabawi built at that time? Was Masjid al-Nabawi ever called Masjid al-Aqsa at any time? Is this name linguistically suitable for Masjid al-Nabawi? Whereas on that day, Masjid al-Aqsa was present in Damascus, which is about a month's journey from Hijaz. Masjid al-Nabawi had no name or sign at that time. Furthermore, the entire theme of this Surah (Bani Israil) is like the Makkan Surahs and this Surah is Makkan. Until then, the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) was residing in Makkah. Also, Allah's command: اسري بعبده "He took His servant."

Reference: (17-Bani Israil:1)

is in the past tense; it is not said that He will take him.
We say that this noble verse is part of the miracle of Mi'raj which took place during a part of the night from Makkah to Masjid al-Aqsa (Bayt al-Maqdis).
The polytheists of Makkah expressed astonishment and also denied this event. The second part of Mi'raj, i.e., the heavenly ascension, is clearly mentioned in Surah Najm. Denying the event of Mi'raj is denying the Holy Quran, which is disbelief.

Only Four Things Are Forbidden in Pervezism​

Commenting on a magazine by Muhammad Sabih Advocate in his own magazine, he praised the research and wrote: "Syed Muhammad Sabih Sahib has explained in this magazine that according to the Quran, only carrion, flowing blood, pork, and things attributed to names other than Allah are forbidden; nothing else is forbidden. This is the clear decision of the Quran, leaving no room for doubt or suspicion. The long lists of halal and haram in our prevalent Islam are all man-made, and no human has the right to declare anything forbidden. This right belongs only to Allah Almighty.

Reference: (Monthly Tulu-e-Islam May 1952)

It is true that the Quran specifies only these four items among foodstuffs, but firstly, we can necessarily say that besides these four, human and animal urine and filth, certain animals including snakes, scorpions, and lizards, and even the human body itself are forbidden. Perhaps the Pervezis consider all these things halal and use them. We have the rightful question: by what evidence have these things been declared forbidden? It may be that the cannibals in the world are also followers of Mr. Pervez.
Whereas, from a research perspective, we say that the verse mentioning these four things does not intend to list all forbidden foods but only to specify these four things which are unanimously forbidden in all heavenly religions. Besides these, each religion certainly has its own forbidden items, but due to differences among religions, these items are not declared absolutely forbidden. However, besides the above four, Allah Almighty has declared some other things forbidden through the mediation of the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, which are briefly mentioned in the following verse.
وَيُحَرِّمُ عَلَيْهِمُ الْخَبَائِثَ
"And he (the Prophet, peace be upon him) will declare unlawful for them what is impure."

Reference: (7-Al-A'raf:157)

The details of this summary are present in authentic hadiths. If the things prohibited in authentic hadiths are examined with sound reason and doctors are consulted about them, they will explain that these items contain certain impurities and harms. That is, the things declared forbidden by the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, in hadiths are also demanded to be forbidden by sound reason. So why do the blind Pervezis deny such hadiths which are exactly in accordance with reason? It appears that their enmity is only with hadiths, whether they agree with reason or not.

Misinterpretations and Ridiculousness Regarding the Pillars of Islam​

Previously, the beliefs of the Pervezis regarding prayer, fasting, zakat, and Hajj were explained. Now, other ways in which they deny the pillars of Islam will be discussed.

Pervezi Thoughts Regarding Prayer​

In the exegesis of Surah An-Nur, it is written: "It is clear from this that during the time of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), there were at least two fixed times for congregational prayer (Fajr and Isha). This is why the Holy Quran has mentioned them by name."

Reference: (Lughat al-Quran: 1043/3 Tafsir Ayah: 58)

It is further written: "If the successor of the Prophet (the Quranic government) considers it inevitable to make some modifications in any partial form of prayer, which the Quran has not specified, due to some requirement of his time, then he would be fundamentally authorized to do so."

Reference: (Qur'anic Decisions, pp. 14-15)

In response to this, observe the Divine command. It is stated:
حَافِظُوا عَلَى الصَّلَوَاتِ وَالصَّلَاةِ الْوُسْطَى
"Guard strictly the prayers, especially the middle prayer."

Reference: (2-Al-Baqarah:238)

Did Mr. Parvez not see this verse in the Holy Quran? He must have seen it. Here the word الصلوٰة is used in the plural form الصلوٰت, which in the Arabic language is genuinely used for three or more. Applying the plural to two would be metaphorical. Here Mr. Parvez unnecessarily left the reality and went towards metaphor. If the reality is accepted, then acknowledging a third prayer becomes necessary. Furthermore, it is also necessary for us to consider الصلوٰة الوسطيٰ because الوسطيٰ means "middle," i.e., the one which has equal parts on both sides. If there are only two الصلوٰت, then which one can be called the middle? Therefore, it is mandatory to accept more than two; thus, due to the requirements of Arabic words, this verse does not apply to fewer than five prayers. This topic has been discussed earlier.

Reference: (pp. 91:38-92)

Similarly, the explanation of this verse
أَقِمِ الصَّلَاةَ لِدُلُوكِ الشَّمْسِ إِلَىٰ غَسَقِ اللَّيْلِ
"Establish prayers from the decline of the sun until the darkness of the night."

Reference: (17-Al-Isra:78)

has also been discussed. Can لدلوك الشمس and غسق الليل be called Fajr and Isha prayers? Absolutely not! Because دلوك means decline or sunset. If taken as decline, then Dhuhr and Asr prayers are included; if taken as sunset, then Maghrib prayer is included.
In any case, restricting صلاة to only two times and holding the belief that only two prayers (Fajr and Isha) are obligatory is a mixture of disbelief on their part because accepting one verse and denying other verses necessarily results in أفتؤمنون ببعض الكتاب وتكفرون ببعض.
Similarly, the method of prayer is only and only transmitted from the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). Giving any successor of the Prophet the authority to alter this method is to open the door to the execution of prophethood. Alterations in worship are permanent legislative acts, and legislative acts are only the responsibility of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) by Allah's permission. Giving legislative authority to anyone other than a Prophet is pure polytheism. Allah Almighty said:
أَمْ لَهُمْ شُرَكَاءُ شَرَعُوا لَهُمْ مِنَ الدِّينِ مَا لَمْ يَأْذَنْ بِهِ اللَّهُ
"Do they have partners who have prescribed for them a religion which Allah has not permitted?"

Reference: (42-Ash-Shura:21)

And this corrupt theory of executing prophethood is actually the effect of conformity and imitation of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad.
Parvez writes: Prostration means obedience to the divine law, i.e., prostration is the rejection of obedience to any law other than the divine law; bowing means practical confirmation of the divine law and submission before it.

Reference: (Letter to Saleem, pp. 209-210)

If this is the meaning of prostration and bowing, then what is the meaning of اطيعوا الله? Which is mentioned repeatedly in the Holy Quran. Prostrating on the earth with the forehead and nose in a specific manner is obedience to Allah, and bowing with the neck and back in a specific manner is obedience to Allah. But to take the opposite meaning, that prostration and bowing are only obedience to the divine law without placing the forehead on the earth or bending the back, is completely wrong and false. That is, if a person obeys the divine law in the morning and at night, then according to Parvez's Islam, that person's prayer is complete, whereas this meaning of prostration and bowing is neither in the lexicon nor in the Shariah. Someone should ask the Parvezis: according to you, what is this obedience to the divine law?

Pervez's Thoughts on Zakat​

Parvez has written: "The Quran has commanded Zakat but left its rate and conditions undefined so that every Islamic government of every era can determine it according to its own needs. If in the early centuries, the rightly guided Caliphate considered two and a half percent appropriate according to the needs of their time, then that rate was the Shariah rate at that time. If today any Islamic government says that its needs require ten percent, then that ten percent will be considered the Shariah rate.

Reference: (Letter to Saleem, pp. 82-83)

In response to a person, it is written: "Regarding Zakat, the Quran has commanded the government to collect Zakat from Muslims, it says:
خُذْ مِنْ أَمْوَالِهِمْ صَدَقَةً

Reference: (9 - At-Tawbah: 103)

"Therefore, Zakat is nothing but a tax imposed by the Islamic government on Muslims. No fixed rate has been set for this tax because the rate of Zakat depends on the needs of the country, and in emergency situations, it can take everything that exceeds a person's needs.
وَيَسْأَلُونَكَ مَاذَا يُنْفِقُونَ ۖ قُلِ الْعَفْوَ

Reference: (2 - Al-Baqarah: 219)

Therefore, when there is no Islamic government in a place, Zakat also ceases to exist."

Reference: (Qur'anic Decisions, p. 35)

From Parvez Sahib's statement, a few points emerge:
1. The Quran has not specified the rate of Zakat. I say this is wrong; Allah Almighty has said:
وَمَا آتَاكُمُ الرَّسُولُ فَخُذُوهُ
"And whatever the Messenger gives you, take it."

Reference: (59 - Al-Hashr: 7)

This noble verse includes all the hadiths in which the rate of Zakat has been determined.
2. The rightly guided Caliphate set the amount of Zakat (two and a half percent) according to the needs of the time. The answer to this is: Did the rightly guided Caliphs deviate from the amount fixed by the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) and set any amount on their own? Absolutely not! They set exactly the same amount mentioned in the authentic raised hadiths. They did not alter these amounts, so giving anyone the authority to change these amounts after them would be a deviation from the method of the rightly guided Caliphate, and this deviation would certainly be oppression.
3. If today any Islamic government says that its needs require ten percent, then ten percent will be the Shariah Zakat rate. Parvez Sahib's corrupt theory means that the Islamic government has the authority to change the method of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) and the rightly guided Caliphs. This implies that after the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), someone else can become a lawgiver, and that can only happen if he holds the office of prophethood. Therefore, Parvez Sahib has opened the door to prophethood, and this is heresy.
4. Islamic government is necessary for the collection of Zakat. This theory is also false for many reasons. The first reason is that in the Meccan Surahs (Al-Mu’minun, Adh-Dhariyat, and Al-Ma'arij), encouragement to pay Zakat has been given, so was there an Islamic government in Makkah? The second reason is that Allah Almighty has said:
‏ وَالَّذِينَ فِي أَمْوَالِهِمْ حَقٌّ مَّعْلُومٌ ‎﴿٢٤﴾‏ لِّلسَّائِلِ وَالْمَحْرُومِ ‎﴿٢٥﴾‏
"And those are the ones who have a right on their wealth for the beggars and the deprived."

Reference: (70 - Al-Ma'arij: 24-25)

In this verse, the word حق معلوم is used. In Quranic terminology, "ma'loom" (known) means that which is known through revelation, and through revelation, the amounts fixed are those present in the hadiths of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). If any government changes these amounts, it changes حق معلوم, which is in clear contradiction to the Holy Quran.
5. The Islamic government can take everything according to necessity.
This theory contradicts the Quranic verses in which the word مِن (min) is used. The word مِن indicates differentiation (it expresses the meaning of some), meaning to spend some wealth, to give some charity. For example, it is said:
وَمِمَّا رَزَقْنَاهُمْ يُنفِقُونَ
"And they spend from what We have provided them."

Reference: (2 - Al-Baqarah: 3)

And العفو does not mean that all wealth should be spent or all wealth given in charity because the meaning of this word is "in excess of necessity," that is, surplus. So what evidence does Parvez Sahib have for determining the amount of wealth exceeding necessity? And if the word مِن is used in reasoning, then necessity and differentiation mean the amount fixed by Shariah because there is necessarily a difference in human needs. If someone says that he has nothing in excess of his needs, then what will be said to him? Therefore, "in excess of necessity" means that which Shariah has called excess, i.e., spending more than the fixed Nisab.
The Parvezian belief regarding fasting, Hajj, and sacrifice has already been explained.

Denial of Individual Ownership and Parvez's Arguments​

➊ قل العفو"Say that which is beyond necessity." The response to this argument has already been given; moreover, this verse is evidence in favor of personal ownership because the question arises whether the things that fulfill a person's needs are not that person's personal property? Why not! They certainly are.
‏ وَاللَّهُ فَضَّلَ بَعْضَكُمْ عَلَىٰ بَعْضٍ فِي الرِّزْقِ ۚ فَمَا الَّذِينَ فُضِّلُوا بِرَادِّي رِزْقِهِمْ عَلَىٰ مَا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُهُمْ فَهُمْ فِيهِ سَوَاءٌ
"And Allah has favored some of you over others in provision. So those who have been favored do not give their provision to those whom their right hands possess so that they become equal therein."

Reference: (16-An-Nahl:71)

Mr. Parvez has distorted its translation by writing: The summary is that provision means the capacity to earn, due to which there is a difference in output; then those who have economic superiority do not return their surplus production to those with lesser capacity because these people deny equality in society.

Reference: (Qanoon-e-Rububiyyat, p. 139)

Comment:​

This verse explicitly establishes individual ownership, indicating that in society there are people who possess surplus wealth and there are those who are poor. Both are from Allah Almighty. However, Mr. Parvez has expressed a complaint in explaining the meaning that the wealthy do not give their surplus wealth to the poor to eliminate class disparity. But as a response to this complaint, it is not said that the government is obliged to seize more wealth from the wealthy and take all the wealth into its possession. Rather, the Quran states:
خُذْ مِنْ أَمْوَالِهِمْ صَدَقَةً
"Take charity from their wealth."

Reference: (9-At-Tawbah:109)

It does not say to take all their wealth.

Secondly, the meaning that Mr. Parvez has derived from this verse is outright distortion. If you carefully study the context of the verse, Allah Almighty, while refuting the polytheists, says that by human nature, the owner does not make his employee an equal partner in capitalism, and it is not even possible because then the literal difference between owner and employee would be meaningless. If the owner and employee cannot be equal partners in a business, then how do these polytheists believe that Allah Almighty has given some of His servants so much power and authority that they become partners with Allah in His attribute of absolute power and fulfill the needs of creation? If the verse meant equality as Mr. Parvez thinks, then why would the polytheists be considered blameworthy?

The conclusion is that in the verse where the denial of polytheism is intended, Mr. Parvez proves the correctness of polytheism from this verse.

Thirdly, Mr. Parvez says that the Quran does not mention the personal ownership of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), but it is mentioned in the Hadith:
إنا لا نورث نحن معشر الأنبياء لا نورث ولا نورث ما تركنا صدقة
"We, the group of Prophets, neither inherit nor are inherited; rather, what we leave behind is charity."

Reference: (Although this Hadith is present in Sahihain, its words are brief there, and I could not find the exact words of Mr. Parvez. (Nasser) Sahih al-Bukhari, Al-Maghazi, Chapter: Battle of Khaybar, Hadith: 4241, and Sahih Muslim, Al-Jihad, Chapter: The Prophet's Saying (We do not inherit), Hadith: 1758)

Comment:​

Allah Almighty has mentioned the personal property of the Noble Prophet ﷺ in the Holy Quran:
وَاعْلَمُوا أَنَّمَا غَنِمْتُم مِّن شَيْءٍ فَأَنَّ لِلَّهِ خُمُسَهُ وَلِلرَّسُولِ
"And know that whatever thing you obtain as booty - then indeed, for Allah and for the Messenger is the fifth of it."

Reference: (8-Al-Anfal:41)

He also said:
مَا أَفَاءَ اللَّهُ عَلَىٰ رَسُولِهِ مِنْ أَهْلِ الْقُرَىٰ فَلِلَّهِ وَلِلرَّسُولِ
"And whatever the Messenger has given you - take; and what he has forbidden you - refrain from. And fear Allah; indeed, Allah is severe in penalty."

Reference: (59-Al-Hashr:7)

So does not the phrase وَلِلرَّسُولِ "for the Messenger" in these two verses prove the personal ownership of the Noble Prophet ﷺ? This is the Quran which explicitly proves the personal ownership of the Prophet, and the hadith does not negate personal ownership but rather negates inheritance, and this is a special characteristic of the Prophets, because for the Ummah there are verses of inheritance in the Holy Quran.

Similarly, the garden of Fadak, which is famous among both Ahl al-Sunnah and Ahl al-Shia, was also under the control of the Noble Prophet ﷺ. After the death of the Prophet ﷺ, Fatimah (may Allah be pleased with her) considered it as inheritance and demanded her share from it, while Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) explained through hadith the special status of the Noble Prophet ﷺ that the Prophets do not leave inheritance for their heirs; rather, what they leave is charity.

Quranic Evidence in Support of Individual Ownership​

➊ Allah Almighty said:
وَهُوَ الَّذِي جَعَلَكُمْ خَلَائِفَ الْأَرْضِ وَرَفَعَ بَعْضَكُمْ فَوْقَ بَعْضٍ دَرَجَاتٍ لِّيَبْلُوَكُمْ فِي مَا آتَاكُمْ
“Allah is the One who made you successors on the earth and raised some of you above others in ranks, to test you by what He has given you.”

Reference: (6-Al-An'am:165)

This verse contains two sentences. The first sentence states that Allah Almighty settled humans on the earth and created various means for their livelihood. The second sentence explains that Allah has given some people superiority over others in terms of understanding, wisdom, wealth, and honor, and by granting these things, He tests them. This test is only possible if these things are in the possession of the person.

➋ Allah Almighty said:
وَكَذَٰلِكَ فَتَنَّا بَعْضَهُم بِبَعْضٍ لِّيَقُولُوا أَهَٰؤُلَاءِ مَنَّ اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِم مِّن بَيْنِنَا
“And in the same way, We have put some people through trials by means of others, so that they may say, ‘Has Allah chosen some of us over others in grace?’”

Reference: (6-Al-An'am:53)

From the context of this verse, it is understood that the disbelievers were wealthy while most of the Companions were poor. The disbelievers said: How is it that Allah has favored these poor people (with the blessing of Islam)? Allah Almighty attributes this trial to Himself, as indicated by the phrase فتنا “We have tested.”

➌ Allah Almighty said:
وَاللَّهُ فَضَّلَ بَعْضَكُمْ عَلَىٰ بَعْضٍ فِي الرِّزْقِ
“And Allah has favored some of you over others in provision.”

Reference: (16-An-Nahl:71)

The explanation of this verse was given a few pages earlier. In fact, the verse itself contrasts the owner and the owned, so the owned is a personal possession of the owner.

➍ Allah Almighty said:
ضَرَبَ لَكُمْ مَثَلًا مِنْ أَنْفُسِكُمْ ۖ هَلْ لَكُمْ مِنْ مَا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُكُمْ مِنْ شُرَكَاءَ فِي مَا رَزَقْنَاكُمْ
“He has set forth for you an example from among yourselves: Is there any of the slaves whom you own who has a share in the provision We have given you?”

Reference: (30-Ar-Rum:28)

This verse also presents the owner and the owned as an example, where the owned is that which is the personal property of the owner (master).

➎ Allah Almighty said:
أَهُمْ يَقْسِمُونَ رَحْمَتَ رَبِّكَ ۚ نَحْنُ قَسَمْنَا بَيْنَهُم مَّعِيشَتَهُمْ فِي الْحَيَاةِ الدُّنْيَا ۚ وَرَفَعْنَا بَعْضَهُمْ فَوْقَ بَعْضٍ دَرَجَاتٍ لِّيَتَّخِذَ بَعْضُهُم بَعْضًا سُخْرِيًّا
“Do they wish to divide the mercy of your Lord? We have apportioned their provision among them in the life of this world, and some of them have preferred others over others in provision, so that they may take mutual benefit from one another.”

Reference: (43-Az-Zukhruf:32)

At the beginning of the verse, the objection of the polytheists is refuted. They objected to the prophethood of Muhammad (peace be upon him) saying that he is a poor man, and instead, a wealthy person from Ta’if or Mecca should have been given prophethood. Allah replied that prophethood is the mercy of Allah, and Allah Himself distributes His mercy; no one else has the authority to distribute it. As for worldly resources and means, Allah has kept their distribution in His hands and has favored some over others. Explaining the wisdom of this preference, He said: wealthy people can employ laborers for service. This proves that Allah has granted some people wealth and the right of personal ownership.

➏ Allah Almighty said:
وَآتَى الْمَالَ عَلَىٰ حُبِّهِ ذَوِي الْقُرْبَىٰ وَالْيَتَامَىٰ وَالْمَسَاكِينَ
“And whoever gives wealth in charity, desiring Allah’s pleasure, and to strengthen the ties of kinship, and whoever gives in charity, then it is better for him.”

Reference: (2-Al-Baqarah:177)

In this verse, Allah mentions good deeds and says that a person gives some part of his wealth to relatives, orphans, and the poor. This makes it clear that the person who gives wealth is the personal owner of that wealth. If the wealth were not his personal property, how could he spend it? It also shows that in society, according to Allah’s distribution, some people are wealthy and some are needy.

➐ Allah Almighty said:
وَعَلَى الَّذِينَ يُطِيقُونَهُ فِدْيَةٌ طَعَامُ مِسْكِينٍ
“And those who can afford it should feed a poor person for the ransom.”

Reference: (2-Al-Baqarah:184)

This shows that the one who pays the ransom has personal ownership, and there are poor people in society who deserve to receive the ransom.

➑ Allah Almighty said:
فَكَفَّارَتُهُ إِطْعَامُ عَشَرَةِ مَسَاكِينَ
“So the expiation for that (breaking an oath) is to feed ten poor people.”

Reference: (5-Al-Ma'idah:89)

In society, oaths are taken and sometimes broken. In case of breaking an oath, expiation is prescribed, and the first form is to feed ten poor people. If a person does not have personal ownership, how will he pay this expiation?

➒ Allah Almighty said:
فَمَنْ لَمْ يَسْتَطِعْ فَإِطْعَامُ سِتِّينَ مِسْكِينًا
“But if he cannot afford that, then he should feed sixty poor people.”

Reference: (58-Al-Mujadila:4)

This verse also proves personal ownership. If there is ownership, then sixty poor people will be fed and the expiation for Zihar will be fulfilled.

The Holy Quran commands Zakat, which is one of the pillars of Islam, although in Pervez’s Islam it is called a government tax. Zakat will only be paid when a person is the personal owner of some wealth. If the concept of personal ownership did not exist in Islam, then the command of Zakat would seem pointless, whereas no command of Allah is pointless. Islamic history records that Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) waged jihad against those who denied Zakat.

Hajj is also one of the pillars of Islam, and denying it is disbelief, as Allah Almighty said:
فِيهِ آيَاتٌ بَيِّنَاتٌ مَّقَامُ إِبْرَاهِيمَ ۖ وَمَن دَخَلَهُ كَانَ آمِنًا ۗ وَلِلَّهِ عَلَى النَّاسِ حِجُّ الْبَيْتِ مَنِ اسْتَطَاعَ إِلَيْهِ سَبِيلًا ۚ وَمَن كَفَرَ فَإِنَّ اللَّهَ غَنِيٌّ عَنِ الْعَالَمِينَ ‎﴿٩٧﴾‏
“And Hajj to the House (Kaaba) is a duty that mankind owes to Allah, those who can afford the journey. And whoever disbelieves, then indeed Allah is free from need of the worlds.”

Reference: (3-Al-Imran:97)

The meaning of “those who can afford” is that the person intending to perform Hajj has enough wealth to cover his travel expenses and those of his family. This is only possible if he is the personal owner of that wealth. If the concept of personal ownership is abolished, then the pillar of Hajj will be nullified because no individual will be able to possess enough wealth for his travel and family expenses.

Inheritance is fully operative in Islam. Shares of inheritance are fixed for the heirs of the deceased. The details are given in Surah An-Nisa (4), verses 11, 12, and 176. This proves that a person can be the personal owner of every property, so that after his death, his wealth is distributed among heirs. It also proves that the theory of equality in individual ownership is wrong. These arguments prove that denying individual and personal ownership is denying the Holy Quran and the pillars of Islam. Therefore, Pervez’s Islam is certainly completely opposed and contrary to the Prophetic Islam.

Denial of Hadith and Mockery of Them​

Since this issue is the basis of Pervezism, there are countless distortions and statements by Ghulam Ahmad Pervez regarding it. We will suffice with quoting some of them.
➊ It is written: "The first link in the conspiracy to keep Muslims away from the Quran was to create the belief that the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, was given another revelation besides the one preserved in the Quran, which is exactly equal to the Quran. This revelation is found in the hadiths, therefore hadiths are the very religion. This belief was created and along with it the process of fabricating hadiths was started, and soon a pile of hadiths was accumulated. In this way, alongside the religion that Allah had given, another written religion was compiled and by declaring it the following of the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah, the Ummah was entangled in it."

Reference: (Source of Hadith: 421/1 from Pervez)

Comment:​

It has already been proven that revelation (non-recited) is explicitly established from the verses of the Holy Quran, so this belief is not a conspiracy of others but denial of it is a satanic conspiracy. Saying that the chain of fabrication of traditions started, Mr. Parvez has declared all the hadiths in this excerpt as fabricated, even though he himself has admitted that he accepts and acknowledges those hadiths which are in accordance with the Quran or reason. Such contradictory statements are the work of falsehood worshippers, and their claim that another religion was compiled through revelation is also nonsense because the non-recited revelation is not opposed to the Quran but is its explanation and detail, as has been proven in previous chapters.
➋ It is further written: "In any case, the lie was told under the first conspiracy or later the mosque people supported this lie for good deeds; the result is the same in both cases, that is, this lie became the religion of the Muslims. It was named non-recited revelation and equated with the Quran."

Reference: (Maqam-e-Hadith: 122/2)

In this excerpt, Mr. Parvez has specified that the religion of Muslims (hadith) is a lie. He has addressed the scholars of hadith as mosque people. It is shameful that the bearers of religion are called mosque people and the corrupters and deniers of hadith are called reformers. This person fits the description of the following noble verse:
وَإِذَا قِيلَ لَهُمْ لَا تُفْسِدُوا فِي الْأَرْضِ قَالُوا إِنَّمَا نَحْنُ مُصْلِحُونَ
"And when it is said to them, 'Do not cause corruption on the earth,' they say, 'We are but reformers.'"

Reference: (2-Al-Baqarah:11)

➌ Read Mr. Parvez’s book Maqam-e-Hadith and you will realize how much mockery has been made of hadiths. Consider a few examples:
"And (the hadiths) which are becoming part of our religion due to the cleric’s wrong perspective and shortsightedness, see how cheaply the same paradise, whose attainment is mentioned in the Quranic way, is obtained? Now, according to the traditions, tickets to paradise have been bought, see how cheaply it is going."
"First say As-Salamu Alaikum and shake hands, paradise is obtained."
In Abu Dawood’s narration, the Prophet (peace be upon him) said: "When two Muslims shake hands, Allah forgives them before they separate."

Reference: (Sunan Abi Dawood Al-Adab, Chapter on Handshaking, Hadith: 5212)

Now go to the mosque and perform ablution, paradise is present. Muslim’s hadith states that all sins of the one who performs ablution flow away with the water until the last drop of water drips carrying the last sin of every limb.

Reference: (Sahih Muslim, Al-Taharah, Chapter on sins flowing away with ablution water, Hadith: 244)

Say, how cheap paradise is! You performed ablution and all sins flowed away with its water, and if you also prayed two voluntary rak’ahs, you reached paradise ahead of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him).
Even easier is Muslim’s hadith that "Whoever repeats the words of the adhan in response to the mu’adhdhin will enter paradise."

Reference: (Sahih Muslim, Al-Salat, Chapter on the recommendation of saying what the mu’adhdhin says, Hadith: 385)

What is called a crime in legal terms is called sin in the language of religion. A crime is not small even once, but for a habitual criminal, there is no place in society. On the contrary, the cleric’s religion has given such a license for crimes that you can commit crime after crime from morning till evening but keep praying, all crimes will be forgiven. Tirmidhi’s hadith states:

Reference: (Jami’ at-Tirmidhi, Al-Salat, Chapter on the virtue of the first takbir, Hadith: 241)

Whoever performs congregational prayer with the first takbir for forty days is saved from both hell and hypocrisy. Take a full forty days and do whatever you want for life, you can never go to hell.

Reference: (For these statements see, Maqam-e-Hadith: 2/96-100)

O followers of the Prophetic Islam! Look! How the hadiths of the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) have been mocked. Study the following verses of the Holy Quran.
Allah Almighty said:
وَمَا نُرْسِلُ الْمُرْسَلِينَ إِلَّا مُبَشِّرِينَ وَمُنذِرِينَ ۚ وَيُجَادِلُ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا بِالْبَاطِلِ لِيُدْحِضُوا بِهِ الْحَقَّ ۖ وَاتَّخَذُوا آيَاتِي وَمَا أُنذِرُوا هُزُوًا ‎﴿٥٦﴾
"We send not the messengers except as bringers of good tidings and warners. And those who disbelieve dispute by [using] falsehood to dismiss thereby the truth and to ridicule My verses and that which they have no knowledge of."

Reference: (18-Al-Kahf:56)

Also He said:
ذَٰلِكَ جَزَاؤُهُمْ جَهَنَّمُ بِمَا كَفَرُوا وَاتَّخَذُوا آيَاتِي وَرُسُلِي هُزُوًا
"This is Hell, which the criminals deny. They went astray in it and refused to hear."

Reference: (18-Al-Kahf:106)

Reflecting on these two verses shows that Parvez is the embodiment of these divine admonitions. The first verse states the role of the messenger as bringing glad tidings and warning of punishment. The hadiths mentioned by Mr. Parvez all fall under the category of glad tidings, yet he ridiculed these hadiths, gave false interpretations, and mocked them so that these hadiths would not be proven true.
In this verse, the words وما أنذروا come after آيتي, so these words refer to hadiths because آيتي means "My verses" and ”وما انذروا“ means "by which they were warned." Now, My verses are the Holy Quran, and what they were warned by is certainly the hadiths, so these people mock the Quran and hadith. Furthermore, Mr. Parvez can also be asked that these hadiths are not even contradictory to the Quran or reason, while you claim that a hadith which is not contradictory to the Quran and reason is authentic, then these glad tidings hadiths are authentic because according to your own established principle they are authentic. The same meaning is clear from the Holy Quran. Allah Almighty said:
إِن تَجْتَنِبُوا كَبَائِرَ مَا تُنْهَوْنَ عَنْهُ نُكَفِّرْ عَنكُمْ سَيِّئَاتِكُمْ وَنُدْخِلْكُم مُّدْخَلًا كَرِيمًا ‎﴿٣١﴾‏
"If you avoid the major sins which you are forbidden, We will remove from you your lesser sins and admit you to a noble entrance."

Reference: (4-An-Nisa:31)

Also He said:
إِنَّ اللَّهَ لَا يَغْفِرُ أَنْ يُشْرَكَ بِهِ وَيَغْفِرُ مَا دُونَ ذَٰلِكَ لِمَنْ يَشَاءُ
"Indeed, Allah does not forgive association with Him, but He forgives what is less than that for whom He wills."

Reference: (4-An-Nisa:116)

Also He said:
وَأَقِمِ الصَّلَاةَ طَرَفَيِ النَّهَارِ وَزُلَفًا مِنَ اللَّيْلِ ۚ إِنَّ الْحَسَنَاتِ يُذْهِبْنَ السَّيِّئَاتِ
"Establish prayer at the two ends of the day and at the approach of the night. Indeed, good deeds erase bad deeds."

Reference: (11-Hud:114)

Allah Almighty in the first verse has set the condition of abstaining from major sins for the forgiveness of minor sins, that is, Allah says that if a person abstains from major sins, then I will forgive his minor sins and admit him to paradise. In the second verse, He says that except for shirk, He forgives whoever He wills, while in the third verse He says that good deeds (prayer, ablution, handshaking, etc.) are expiation for sins. Mr. Parvez has presented these hadiths, which contain glad tidings, as mockery, so they should (God forbid) also mock the related noble verses because the glad tidings in the hadiths are the same as in the verses. These verses and hadiths indicate that true Shariah faith is so beloved to Allah Almighty that He forgives sins because of it sometimes anyway and sometimes because of a single good deed and grants easy paradise, but for those who do not have true Shariah faith, like Parvez, these glad tidings are not easy, so they cannot obtain easy paradise.
That is why they mock such texts.
➍ At one place he writes, "But it cannot be presented as evidence in religion; the greatest harm has been done by making it (hadith) the religion that the Holy Quran, which is the entire life, has come under a veil."

Reference: (Maqam-e-Hadith: 168/1)

Mr. Parvez means that the details compiled by the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) (hadith) are not religion, Shariah, or faith but are a veil over the Quran, and according to Parvez’s theory, the collective system of Muslims of every era (Imam of the time) who compiles details according to Quranic principles is Shariah and obligatory. From Parvez’s theory, it is proven that he makes people suspicious of the Quranic explanation of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) and tries to exclude them from religion, while he considers the interpretation of the ruler of the time as religion and faith. As a result of this theory, there will be thousands of Shariahs in Islam because every era’s ruler (Imam) will bring new interpretations.
➎ At one place he writes: "The correct place of hadith is religious history; historical benefits can be obtained from it but it cannot be presented as evidence in religion."

Reference: (Maqam-e-Hadith: 168/2)

Mr. Parvez means that religious rulings, such as prayer, fasting, Hajj, and zakat, etc., will not be taken from hadith but the ruler of the time (center of the nation) will do this work. Will Mr. Parvez tell us if in fourteen hundred years any (Muslim) ruler of the time has introduced a method of prayer that is not in the Prophetic hadith? Which time of Hajj was fixed other than Dhu al-Hijjah? He cannot present the name or example of a single Imam or ruler. Then according to him, all the prayers Muslims have offered and Hajj they have performed in fourteen hundred years will fall under irreligion. If anyone thinks that religion is with Mr. Parvez, then this thought is impossible and madness.
➏ Mr. Parvez’s teacher Hafiz Muhammad Aslam Girajpuri says: "We neither have faith in hadith nor have we been commanded to have faith in it."

Reference: (Tulu-e-Islam, December 1950, p. 17)

Mr. Parvez wrote:
Hadith is the name of the collection of sayings and actions of the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him).

Reference: (Maqam-e-Hadith: 44/1)

In this statement, there is explicit denial of faith in hadith and the reason given is: "We have not been commanded to have faith in it."

Reference: (Maqam-e-Hadith: 44/1)

In the chapter of faith in the Messenger, we have proven that faith in the Messenger means that during the time of prophethood, obedience and following of all his sayings and actions (except characteristics) is obligatory upon us and we are responsible for it. If this is not so, then what is meant by the Quranic verses related to following the Messenger: قُلْ إِنْ كُنْتُمْ تُحِبُّونَ اللَّهَ فَاتَّبِعُونِي,

Reference: (3-Al-Imran:13)

لَقَدْ كَانَ لَكُمْ فِي رَسُولِ اللَّهِ أُسْوَةٌ حَسَنَةٌ,

Reference: (33-Al-Ahzab:21)

وَمَا آتَاكُمُ الرَّسُولُ فَخُذُوهُ,

Reference: (59-Al-Hashr:7)

?
➐ Mr. Parvez wrote: As far as hadiths are concerned, we consider every hadith authentic which is in accordance with the Holy Quran or which does not tarnish the character of the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) or the companions (may Allah be pleased with them).

Reference: (Purpose and Creed of Tulu-e-Islam, Clause No. 14)

Mr. Parvez has set these three criteria for authenticating hadith, and his teacher Hafiz Aslam, mentioning the narrations of Abu Hurairah (may Allah be pleased with him), wrote: "There are many hadiths among them which have been or can be challenged by knowledge and reason. Therefore, our conscience does not accept that such narrations were stated by him or Abu Hurairah (may Allah be pleased with him)."

Reference: (Maqam-e-Hadith, p. 82)

In this statement, two more criteria are mentioned, knowledge and reason. Due to these five criteria, Parvez often denies the treasure of hadith.

Critical Discussion on Pervez's Standards​

➊ Compatibility with the Quran: If compatibility means that there should be no difference in content between the Quran and Hadith, then what is the need for Hadith since accepting the Quran alone would suffice. Also, if compatibility means that the content of Hadith should not contradict the Quran, then that Hadith will be authentic, and this is known when the meaning of the Quran is understood, and the meaning of the Quran is clarified by the principles of the Imams of Tafsir and the Imams of Hadith, which do not necessitate the rejection of any authentic Hadith. However, the meaning of the Quran cannot be fixed according to the method of the rise of Islam. It keeps changing all the time. According to this method, sometimes a Hadith will be considered authentic and sometimes not.

Furthermore, if a Hadith apparently contradicts the Quran, it does not necessarily mean it should be rejected because there are many verses that apparently differ from other verses. In such a case, what decision should be made? If the verses are abandoned, this is the method of the Jews who create contradictions in divine verses and reject them. The other option is to reconcile the verses or decide on abrogation and abrogated verses. Therefore, if a Hadith appears to contradict the Quran, an attempt should be made to reconcile it in the same way as is found in the books of scholars, commentators, and Hadith experts, for example:

Allah Almighty says:
إِنَّكَ لَا تُسْمِعُ الْمَوْتَىٰ
"Indeed, you cannot make the dead hear."

Reference: (27-An-Naml:80)

This verse proves that the dead do not hear, whereas the Hadith states that the disbelievers killed in the Battle of Badr were thrown into the well of Badr, and the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) spoke to them, and when asked, he also said that they hear.

Reference: (Sahih al-Bukhari, Funerals, Chapter on Punishment of the Grave, Hadith: 1370, and Sahih Muslim, Funerals, Chapter on the Dead being Punished by Crying, Hadith: 932)

There is an apparent contradiction between the mentioned verse and the Hadith about the well of Badr. The reconciliation between them will be that the verse's meaning is general that the dead do not hear, while the hearing of those killed in the well of Badr will be attributed to a miracle. Similarly, many other examples can be presented. Sometimes, reconciliation is made based on multiple meanings, i.e., one meaning of a word is taken in the verse and another meaning of the same word in the Hadith. The conclusion is that the Quran being the standard does not necessitate the rejection of Hadith. However, Mr. Parvez, due to his misunderstanding, rejects many Hadiths by declaring them contrary to the Quran.

➋ No stain on the life of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him): Regarding this standard, an obligatory question arises: if a verse of the Quran apparently casts a stain on the life and status of the Prophet (peace be upon him), should that verse be rejected? As Allah Almighty said:
عَبَسَ وَتَوَلَّىٰ ‎﴿١﴾‏ أَن جَاءَهُ الْأَعْمَىٰ ‎﴿٢﴾
"He frowned and turned away because there came to him the blind man."

Reference: (80-Abasa:1-2)

This verse points to a moral behavior of the Prophet (peace be upon him).
At one occasion, it was said:
إِنَّا فَتَحْنَا لَكَ فَتْحًا مُّبِينًا ‎﴿١﴾‏ لِّيَغْفِرَ لَكَ اللَّهُ مَا تَقَدَّمَ مِن ذَنبِكَ وَمَا تَأَخَّرَ وَيُتِمَّ نِعْمَتَهُ عَلَيْكَ وَيَهْدِيَكَ صِرَاطًا مُّسْتَقِيمًا ‎﴿٢﴾‏
"We have given you a clear victory so that Allah may forgive your past and future faults."

Reference: (48-Al-Fath:1-2)

This verse indicates that the Prophet (peace be upon him) had some fault which could be considered a stain on his life and status. Similarly, it was said:
وَلَوْلَا أَن ثَبَّتْنَاكَ لَقَدْ كِدتَّ تَرْكَنُ إِلَيْهِمْ شَيْئًا قَلِيلًا
"If We had not strengthened you, you would have inclined a little toward them."

Reference: (17-Bani Isra'il:74)

This verse shows a weakness in the steadfastness of the Prophet (peace be upon him) in the absence of Allah's support. The question arises whether these verses can be rejected because they cast a stain on the personality and character of the Prophet (peace be upon him)? No, absolutely not! Rather, the Imams of Tafsir have provided such interpretations of these verses that no shadow of a stain remains on the life of the Prophet (peace be upon him). The same applies to Hadiths. Even if a Hadith raises suspicion of a flaw in the life of the Prophet (peace be upon him), the Hadith scholars have provided such interpretations that completely remove that suspicion. Therefore, if suspicion of disrespect to the Prophet is not a criterion for rejecting the Quran, then why should it be a criterion for rejecting Hadith?

➌ Stain on the lives of the Companions: The same applies here as with the previous standards. There are verses in the Quran that point to some weaknesses of the Companions and the Pure Wives, for example: Allah Almighty said:
إِن تَتُوبَا إِلَى اللَّهِ فَقَدْ صَغَتْ قُلُوبُكُمَا
"If you both repent, it is better for you, for indeed your hearts have inclined."

Reference: (66-At-Tahrim:4)

Also, He said:
يَا أَيُّهَا النَّبِيُّ قُل لِّأَزْوَاجِكَ إِن كُنتُنَّ تُرِدْنَ الْحَيَاةَ الدُّنْيَا وَزِينَتَهَا فَتَعَالَيْنَ أُمَتِّعْكُنَّ وَأُسَرِّحْكُنَّ سَرَاحًا جَمِيلًا ‎﴿٢٨﴾
"O Prophet! Tell your Pure Wives: If you desire the life of this world and its adornments, then come, I will provide for you and let you go in a good manner."

Reference: (33-Al-Ahzab:28)

Also, He said:
حَتَّىٰ إِذَا فَشِلْتُمْ وَتَنَازَعْتُمْ فِي الْأَمْرِ وَعَصَيْتُم مِّن بَعْدِ مَا أَرَاكُم مَّا تُحِبُّونَ
"Until you lost courage and disputed about the matter and disobeyed after Allah had shown you what you love."

Reference: (3-Aal Imran:152)

Also, He said:
عَلِمَ اللَّهُ أَنَّكُمْ كُنتُمْ تَخْتَانُونَ أَنفُسَكُمْ فَتَابَ عَلَيْكُمْ وَعَفَا عَنكُمْ
"Allah knows that you used to betray yourselves, so He turned to you in forgiveness and accepted your repentance."

Reference: (2-Al-Baqarah:187)

وَإِذَا رَأَوْا تِجَارَةً أَوْ لَهْوًا انفَضُّوا إِلَيْهِ وَتَرَكُوكَ قَائِمًا
"And when they saw trade or amusement, they rushed to it and left you standing."

Reference: (62-Al-Jumu'ah:11)

Were the Companions and the Pure Wives not admonished for their shortcomings and wrong behavior in these verses? Should these verses then be abandoned according to Parvez's standard? No, absolutely not! And there is no need for their interpretation either because the Companions were not infallible. Their repentance acceptance is also mentioned in these very verses. Similarly, if there is a Hadith mentioning a weakness of any Companion, why should we abandon that Hadith?

From the above discussion, it is clear that setting these three standards for the authenticity of Hadith is sheer deception.

➍ Hadith should not contradict knowledge: What is meant by this knowledge? If it is a person's own knowledge, then where did he acquire this knowledge and what is its proof? Often a person considers himself knowledgeable while he is ignorant. Regarding such scholars, Allah Almighty said:
وَلَمَّا جَاءَهُمْ رَسُولٌ مِّنْ عِندِ اللَّهِ مُصَدِّقٌ لِّمَا مَعَهُمْ نَبَذَ فَرِيقٌ مِّنَ الَّذِينَ أُوتُوا الْكِتَابَ كِتَابَ اللَّهِ وَرَاءَ ظُهُورِهِمْ كَأَنَّهُمْ لَا يَعْلَمُونَ ‎﴿١٠١﴾‏
"And when there came to them a Messenger from Allah confirming what was with them, a party of those who were given the Scripture threw the Book of Allah behind their backs as if they did not know."

Reference: (2-Al-Baqarah:101)

Also, He said:
أَلَا إِنَّهُمْ هُمُ السُّفَهَاءُ وَلَٰكِن لَّا يَعْلَمُونَ
"Remember, they are the fools, but they do not know."

Reference: (2-Al-Baqarah:13)

That is, such people are compounded ignoramuses, so their knowledge can in no way be a criterion for accepting Hadith.

If knowledge means observational knowledge, then it means that those Hadiths which contradict observation are not accepted by the deniers of Hadith. But then the miracles of the Prophets (peace be upon them) and even modern scientific knowledge contradict observations, so will they not accept those either? If they do accept, then they make strange interpretations that contradict knowledge and reason. So how can they reject Hadith based on observational knowledge?

➎ Hadith should not contradict reason: The topic of examining verses or Hadiths by the measure of reason has been elaborated in the eighth chapter. Here, it is intended to inform readers that commentators and Hadith scholars do not deny the use of reason. We have already mentioned many verses about the use of reason, but there is a vast difference between the use of reason by Hadith scholars and the use of reason by Hadith deniers. Hadith scholars use reason subordinated to revelation. They read the verses and Hadiths, follow them, and then also use reason, reflection, and contemplation. Whereas Hadith deniers do not subordinate reason to revelation but consider reason the ultimate criterion for distinguishing truth and falsehood, good and evil. This was the method of all sects of the Mu'tazila.

Regarding the rise of Islam, in point number 14, Mr. Parvez also clarified:
"Human reason alone cannot discover the solution to the problems of life; it needs revelation for guidance just as the eye needs the light of the sun." But despite this, practically Mr. Parvez is not bound by his own statement and rejects many authentic Hadiths by the measure of his reason.

He has presented, in his view, a proof from the Quran to establish the intervention of reason in revelation, that Allah Almighty said:
‏ وَالَّذِينَ إِذَا ذُكِّرُوا بِآيَاتِ رَبِّهِمْ لَمْ يَخِرُّوا عَلَيْهَا صُمًّا وَعُمْيَانًا ‎﴿٧٣﴾
"And those who, when presented with the verses of their Lord, do not fall upon them deaf and blind but accept them with understanding and reflection." (This is Mr. Parvez's translation)

Reference: (25-Al-Furqan:73)

Mr. Parvez translated ذكروا as "presented," whereas its translation is "when they are admonished by the verses of their Lord." And the phrase لم يخروا is used idiomatically, meaning when they are explained by the verses of their Lord, it does not mean that they are not affected by them or do not act upon them, rather they are affected by this admonition and act upon it. It does not mean that they test this admonition by the criterion of reason, accept it if it agrees with reason, and reject it if it does not. This way of thinking and acting is that of the disbelievers. Muslims are prohibited from using reason against the texts of Shariah. Allah Almighty said:
وَمَا كَانَ لِمُؤْمِنٍ وَلَا مُؤْمِنَةٍ إِذَا قَضَى اللَّهُ وَرَسُولُهُ أَمْرًا أَن يَكُونَ لَهُمُ الْخِيَرَةُ مِنْ أَمْرِهِمْ ۗ وَمَن يَعْصِ اللَّهَ وَرَسُولَهُ فَقَدْ ضَلَّ ضَلَالًا مُّبِينًا ‎﴿٣٦﴾
"It is not for a believing man or a believing woman, when Allah and His Messenger have decided a matter, that they should have any choice about their affair. And whoever disobeys Allah and His Messenger has certainly gone far astray."

Reference: (33-Al-Ahzab:36)

This verse rejects those who use their opinion and reason against the texts of the Quran and Hadith. Such thinking leads to innovations, and those who hold it are completely misguided.

So far, we have presented the important beliefs of Parvez's Islam taken from his writings. Besides these, there are many other details including denial of sacrifice, denial of punishment in the grave, denial of multiple wives, denial of stoning, etc., although there are texts in the Quran and Sunnah affirming all these matters, and they have been accepted by the Ummah for fourteen hundred years.

In all the above beliefs and views, you must have felt a clear difference between Prophetic Islam and Parvez's Islam. Allah Almighty has completed the religion of Islam. There is no room for any amendment or addition, nor does anyone have the authority for it. Allah Almighty said:
الْيَوْمَ أَكْمَلْتُ لَكُمْ دِينَكُمْ وَأَتْمَمْتُ عَلَيْكُمْ نِعْمَتِي وَرَضِيتُ لَكُمُ الْإِسْلَامَ دِينًا
"This day I have perfected for you your religion and completed My favor upon you and have approved for you Islam as religion."

Reference: (5-Al-Ma'idah:3)

Allah Almighty completed the religion of Islam during the life of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) and approved this religion for you, whereas Parvez's religion is completely different from the Muhammadan religion. With this contradiction, what doubt remains about the disbelief of Ghulam Ahmad Parvez?

Note:​

All the scholars issued a fatwa of disbelief against Parvez Sahib during his lifetime based on the aforementioned beliefs and the denial of Hadith, which are about 39 beliefs. Do all these scholars not understand religion? One should also use reason and avoid Parvezi misguidance.