The anxiety of Ghulam Ahmed Pervez Sahib

and the Fundamental Disagreement!

[Hassan Ilyas] Ghamidi Sahib, we observe

that there have been many such scholars,

when their scholarly, intellectual

contributions became evident,

these were highly criticised in the past.

In fact, in a way, they

became targets of censure,

and people also express their

renunciation towards them

and also express their doubts

and suspicions about them,

and our traditional scholars,

they explain the mistake of their

thought also, with great intensity.

But I want to know from you,

that such type of people,

who have such scholarly contribution

which became the cause of criticisms,

and they created a turbulence

and tremor in the Muslim society,

their other contributions also,

some of their personal acts of goodness,

some of their other activities and

engagements also get suppressed.

So, specifically in this regard, I want

to ask you about Pervez Sahib.

Your disagreement with the thought of

Ghulam Ahmed Pervez is quite clear.

You have expressed it multiple times.

But whenever, any opinion

of yours, is presented,

people try to relate it with Pervez Sahib.

You also, in a way, express

reservations towards his thought.

But from this, it seems that the

entire personality of Pervez Sahib,
or whatever his scholarly work is, it,
all in all, gets repudiated.

So, I want to ask you that the personality

of Pervez Sahib or the work he did,

do you realize any good

aspect in any of its aspects?

[Javed Ahmed Ghamidi] You have talked

about a principle point here,

I will comment on it first.

It does not happen only among us.

Critique is always being made

in every religious tradition,

and this issue also appears

in every religious tradition,

that the people who are considered

flagbearers of the religious thought,

or are called scholars,

or are called priests,

or hold the status of being

religious leaders,

they want to safeguard that identity which

leads to the constitution of any nation,

or any group or any congregration.

[Hassan] Okay.

[Ghamidi] This is precisely interpreted

through the term, 'tradition'.

You may have heard a lot that it

is a deviation from the tradition.

That's to say, when the religious thought

is presented in its original form,

so then, it is the
invitation of the prophets.

It may be of Syedna Musa (AS),

of Syedna Isa (AS),

or of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh).

At that time, it is in its original

form, in a pure form,

and status of reference there belongs

to the Prophet of Allah.

A person who does not accept

the Prophet of Allah as a prophet,

his is a separate case.

But after accepting him, then his head

must bowed to the Prophet's words.

He is a prophet of Allah,
he is an ambassador of Allah,

a representative of Allah,
Allah has appointed him.

Whatever he will say,

it will all be truth,

and he will not claim anything of his own.

As it is said in
the Qur'an that,

"Wa ma yantiqu 'anil Hawa`

in Huwa `illa Wahyun Yooha"

One poet has explained it precisely

as "Guftey guftaye Allahu bu'ad.".

So, these issues do not rise there.

But, as soon as religious thought

crosses through its stages,

human beings get related to it.

So, there are not only such

people who are farmers,

who are artisans, who are offering

some service somewhere,

who accept some ideas,

who comment on someone,

there are such people among them also,

who specialize themselves

in this scholarship.

There are many aspects to have

specialization in this scholarship.

There will be such people who choose it

totally on basis of their personal urge.

It also happens that due to their

affiliation to an inheritance of knowledge
people join a particular sect
or hold a particular position there.

It also happens that centres

of religious power are created.

These are places of worship also,

these are religious schools also,

and the people who

hold positions in these,

it is obvious that they

have devoted their life

for the protection of

the relationship to these.

So, there are many such factors which

together form an entire class,

which you can call a class

of religious leaders,

religious scholars, experts

of the religious sciences.

If any person staying out of this class,

will present himself as someone

who is discoursing about the religion,

so it is countered.

i.e. it happens in all the traditions.

It happens among the Jews.

[Hassan] Okay!

[Ghamidi] The same situation exists

among the Christians also.

The people belonging to that particular

sect are safe up to a fairly large extent.

Anyone out there, has hardly any audacity

to hold a huge disagreement

with the already established tradition.

Even if there are disagreements,

then these are expressed through

a highly suppressed voice and,

it also happens that some people

among them take a rebelious stand.
But it rarely happens.

It is not easy to accept

a person from outside this sect.

People give many arguments about it.

But a simple psychological

fact is that collection of people,

their groups, their congregrations,

as these come into existence,

initially, these can be

purely theoretical also.

But gradually, these may turn into

a kind of prejudice,

and it has been inhered in the

human instinct by Allah (swt) Himself.

As these are prejudices due to

which brotherhoods and nations

and parties and

groups and tribes,

these become a means of cooperation

and alliance for one another.

Making these as a foundation, we observe

that even though it is Allah's earth,

all human beings have

been created by Allah,

but there are so many nations who

want to keep their identity intact.

Just as this urge to maintain

identity happens in terms of race,

in terms of color, in terms of culture,

in the same way, it is in

terms of religious thought also.

So, first I explained

this principle

that there should be no

element of surprise in it.

Whoever will stand against the tradition,

whether he is right or wrong,

this situation will necessarily arise.
[Hassan] Okay!

[Ghamidi] Now, after that, the

personality you have talked about,

you know what type of disagreement

I hold with him.

But we will bring it into

discussion after a little while.

The first fundamental point which

should be understood is that

there has been a tradition of scholarship

and education prevalent among us,

it has been established for centuries.

whether there was an layman

or a knowledgeable person,

they came out of a single

educational system.

There was already a background of

sciences and arts present in these.

Our religious institutions are the trustee

of these up to a fairly large extent.

The people who wanted to

do some work in the world,

they also came out of the

institutions similar to these,

i.e. it was a single type of education!

As you see the modern education,

[Hassan] Yes!

[Ghamidi] Ignore this fact for a while,

that there is a separate system of

religious education present among us.

These are the modern schools of

education ultimately, from which,

all your scientists, your doctors,

your sociology experts, your

economic specialists emerge.

Disagreements happen among them also.

But they are aware of that tradition,
that tradition of scholarship,

within which they bring out

an angle to view matters.

So, this temperament got undermined

after the arrival of the British,

and the educational system, which was

prevalent here from the beginning,

it did not remain the educational

system of the common masses.

I have myself witnessed

in my childhood that

there was a particular system of

education in Masjids and schools,

through which, more or

less, all people crossed.

That's to say, many people among

my elders passed through that,

I have myself passed through it.

Persian was taught in a particular

manner in these, Arabic was taught so.

But gradually, this order

did not remain as such.

So, the system of religious institutions,

that system of Masjids and schools,

these got totally separated,

and some people selected these for

the protection of the religion,

for the protection of the tradition.

The people who came out of modern schools,

they were also Muslims,

born in Muslim families.

They were aware of the

background of the Muslims also.

They studied their history.

So, an intellectual passion

was aroused in them

that they should understand the religion.

It is not such an objectionable idea to
understand the religion by yourself.

Whenever they referred

to the religious people,

so (the era) of modern world, thoughts of

the modern world, modern philosophy,

in the same way, consequences

of the thoughts of science,

and this period, in which, Pervez Sahib,

Moulana Syed Abul A'la Sahib Maududi,

(both of them have, more or

less, the same year of birth),

these people were born, it was

a period of big turmoil.

It was a period of high anxiety.

The old culture of Muslims has been

ended, their society has come unraveled.

They have been defeated

in political terms.

The dominance of some other nations

has been established in the world.

A new paradigm of science

has come into the existence,

and at the global level, many

philosophies, for the first time,

have appeared in the form of

highly extraordinary 'isms'.

There is fascism and communism,

there's socialism and then capitalism.

In the same way, economy,

society, anthropolgy, sociology,

discussions of these sciences

were held before this also,

but their constitution led to the creation

of great schools of thought.

In this background, there were such people

who were from the modern educated class,

or you know that it was precisely the

actual background of Pervez Sahib.

[Hassan] Okay!

[Ghamidi] And, in fact, he was among the

prominent people of our bureaucracy.

He has rendered services in

big departments prior to this.

[Hassan] Even comrade of Quaid e Azam!

[Ghamidi] So, you can imagine from

it, what was his actual background.

So, questions arose in his mind due to it.

Initially, I observed that he

used to write articles in Al-Islah.

Moulana Amin Ahsan Islahi

was the editor of this journal.

His articles have been

published in Tarjuman-ul-Quran.

[Hassan] Okay!

[Ghamidi] i.e. in the journal of Moulana

Syed Abul A'la Sahib Maududi.

So, here in the subcontinent, Sir Syed

Ahmed Khan had raised many questions.

He had expressed his dissatisfaction

about some matters.

Then afterwards, there were

many other people also,

for instance, there is

Moulana Aslam Jairajpuri

or in the same way, Chirag Ali,

or such type of people.

So, a whole school of

thought in its entirety,

of some modern educated

people, was in the making,

which was questioning the

religious interpretations.

[Hassan] Okay!

[Ghamidi] If you read the writings

of Mashriqi Sahib, especially his Tazkirah
and then those of his writings,

which used to get published with titles

like 'First lie of the Moulvi',

'Second lie of the Moulvi'.

So in these also,

people were confronting the religious

interpretation, the religious tradition,

and they were not ready to accept to

hear and affirm whatever

religious representatives,

or you can call them, Moulvi Hazrat,

or the people who interpret

religion or the religious scholars say,

we won't simply accept it on face value.

They were raising questions,

raising objections,

and they had come forward starting to

present some of their own interpretations.

A complete tradition of it is available,

there are many people in the subcontinent.

We are specifically discussing about

the subcontinent right now.

In comparison to it, if you

look in Egypt, in Syria,

in the same way, in

many other countries, in Iran,

similarly, I realized
after visiting Malaysia,

such people also emerged there

who made entire religious structure,

religious thought, religious

tradition, religious scholarship,

the target of criticism at some instances.

They asked to view

matters through a new angle

and they were not satisfied.

That's to say, they were
not satisfied with

the opinions of the representatives

of the religious thought,

If you notice, same was the

situation of Allama Iqbal.

If you notice carefully beyond that,

then, same is the case with Moulana

Syed Abul A'la Sahib Maududi himself.

So, there are many people

who were not satisfied,

and when they were not satisfied,

then, it is obvious, if this

capability is present inside them,

that they can think something,

understand something.

So, they wrote also.

I told you that many of his articles,

in that period,

were published in other

journals, magazines,

and similarly, these were published in

Al-Islah also, Tarjuman-ul-Quran also.

So, what was all this?

Obviously, it came to be known

that he used to write quite well.

He used to voice his opinions politely,

with arguments to back him.

There were also many

forces in opposition to him.

But there were such people also,

who preached complete atheism,

clear disbelief.

Niaz Fatehpuri Sahib and many other

type of people can be named among them.

In that period, Moulana Abdul

Majid Daryabadi himself,
you know what his first phase was,
what his second phase was.

So, it is a period of great anxiety

in which such type of personalities,

such type of dawah, such

type of movements were rising,

and people were also influenced with them,

and they were stating these ideas also.

So, this background of Pervez

Sahib should be understood.

It will make you will

feel compassion and love.

That's to say, this is one angle that

we hold disagreements with

the thoughts of someone,

or make criticism on it.

At times, that disagreement

is so exceptional

that you have to make the

strongest criticism against it also.

But keep it aside for a while

and see if you can say that the causes for

this anxiety were not present after all?

Was not it problematic for people

who were thoughtful and considerate?

Must they leave their religion,

accept atheism,

rebel against Allah, the Prophet of Allah,

or create a way such that they

remain within their religion,

and those concepts which

they do not understand,

they cannot grasp, are not able

to adjust with these somehow,

then, they should do something

regarding those concepts in this way.

So, as I mentioned to you that

Sir Syed made exactly this attempt.
We make crticism on the
religious thoughts of Sir Syed.

He is a great national leader.

On the basis of him

being a national leader,

every person will

acknowledge his services.

But, criticisms are made on his

religious thoughts because,

he confronted this dilemma, he observed

that from within the western sciences,

many new ideas are emerging.

As a response to the
articles of William Muir,

he started to write
Khutbat-e-Ahmadiya on Seerah,

and you see how

exceptional is his sincerity!

[Hassan] He sold everything!

[Ghamidi] He sold everything, went

to England, collected books!

So, you will find this trait

in Pervez Sahib also.

[Hassan] Okay!

[Ghamidi] i.e. whether Pervez Sahib

or Moulana Aslam Jairajpuri

or other people,

they are not such people

who are creating some conflict

on the basis of some specific agenda.

They are basically confronting

that particular situation,

about which I told you.

They wanted to reach a right

conclusion with great sincerity.

In order to reach a right

conclusion, what should you do?
What must be your competency?
You should have access to which sciences?

If you reach to that, how will you reach?

i.e. imagine that when the

path is not clearly visible,

when even sunlight

appears somewhat fainter,

when there is fog spread everywhere,

so, a person is, sincerely,

searching a way out of it.

So, the first point I want to mention

before I give any comment on his thought,

that we should deal with all such type

of people through this angle also.

That's to say, we should see what is

the cause behind their emergence.

What are the conditions

that they are confronting?

What is the nature of their

intellectual anxiety?

The religious mindset or the religious

tradition, when it makes criticism,

since its identity is facing a

crisis that what is this happening!

i.e. It is us people, who

are representing it.

It is us, who have achieved

status of being religious scholars.

We will comment on what is

religion and what it is not.

How are people from

outside commenting on it?

If we view through their angle, so they

are reacting to it through this point,

and that reaction, obviously,

is always extreme.

The ultimate extreme

of that reaction is that
when the great Jewish rabbis refused
to accept Syedna Isa (AS),

and it went to this limit that

they took their case to the Roman

governor to crucify Isa (A.s).

Who are these people?

Are not these religious representatives?

So, the reaction from religious

representatives, in this,

at times, due to their

particular background,

because they have been born there,

they have been awakened

in that environment,

they have been learning from those

seminaries

they have been watching

people of that tradition,

they have been brought

up watching their views,

it is not a big deal for them.

I will make some

parenthetical remarks on it.

When in Pathankot, other people

from the seminarian background

came together with Moulana

Syed Abul A'la Sahib Maududi,

then they critised Moulana's

lifestyle or other similar matters.

So, Moulana has written

a letter in response to it.

Anyway, it is not the

moment to bring

its other contents into the

discussion right now.

But in it, attention has been

specifically drawn to this fact also

that the background to which

these people belong actually,
it is even very difficult for them to
understand the matters we are confronting,

and it is valid, that's to say,

such things happen.

So, the first point I will

draw attention to is that

when you listen to such type of thoughts,

e.g. there are some dilemmas

of Allama Iqbal,

if you look at "Reconstruction", so

when he reaches to the fourth lecture,

even in the former lectures, actually

dilemmas within his mind, are mentioned.

That's to say, the first,

second, third, fourth lectures,

about the philosophical

background of the religion,

he cannot see how it coheres with his

acquired knowledge,

and when he is unable to

visualize it, he tries to search that,

"How can I, for instance, explain

for instance, prayer, human-self,

or religious or spiritual experience, or

for instance, revelation of the Prophet,

place these concepts within the knowledge

of the empirical world?

In fact, I will take the word

'explain' back,

"Where can I place these

so as to understand?"

As it is the first issue

that a sincere person faces.

Now, if you look at the first,

second, third, fourth lectures,

then, I find the principal argument

of these to be totally wrong.

I hold extreme disagreement with it.

But, the intellectual background
of Allama Iqbal,

it is actually a highly exceptional one!

i.e. a person of great intellect,

a person who has this manner of thinking

in which there is love towards religion,

great devotion towards the religion,

is undergoing such intellectual

anxiety?

What issues are the

reasons behind his dilemmas?

He wants to solve this dilemma.

So, I mentioned that with regard

to traditional religious sect,

it will easily give this

opinion about what it is.

It is misguidance!
It is deviation!

They should talk to scholars.

They should ask them.

They are not ready to put

themselves in their shoes

in order to see why they

are facing this anxiety.

What is the issue?

From where it should be approached?

And how this should be made understandable

to them?

So, their reaction is always the

reaction in the form of Fatawa,

i.e. they will say that it

is a total misguidance.

It is known that lectures of Allama

Iqbal, these lectures on "Reconstruction",

when these were translated into Arabic,

Moulana Ali Miyan who was then

one of his admirers then!
His book 'Rawa'i' Iqbal' is
in the Arabic language.

His relationship with Allama

Iqbal is like that of an 'Aashiq'.

But he was not ready to accept him.

That's to say, he made harsh

comments on the lectures.

Moulana Sulaiman Nadvi himself

gave harsh comments.

So, one fact is that he is very

polite, a very gentle scholar.

He is aware of modernity.

So, he limited himself to mild criticism.

But the traditionalists do

not remain within this limit.

They will issue Fatawa, make a mockery.

It will not be ready to understand.

It will not be ready to understand

the anxiety.

So, it will only see to it

that if the prevalent traditional

structure is being undermined somewhere.

Its reaction is always like this.

So, the first point I mentioned

or I will mention,

that if you have to understand

the anxiety of Allama Iqbal,

or if you have to know,

in his initial phase,

the anxiety of Moulana Syed

Abul A'la Sahib Maududi, or

you have to understand the anxiety of Syed

Rashid Raza and Mufti Muhammad Abduh,

or to understand the
anxiety of Sheikh Ghazali,

then you should first see that

while ignoring the reaction
of the religious sect,

what issues are that,

which are being faced.

That's to say, it is a
period of great turmoil.

The same situation, if you

look back into the past,

was faced when Greek

sciences were translated,

when philosophy presented some premises

as the original interpretation

of the reality.

So, similar situation was

faced during this also.

But that situation was

quite different in this regard

as during that time, Islamic

world was being ruled by Islam.

[Hassan] Yes, era of dominance!

[Ghamidi] It was a period of dominance.

They held status of being a great

super power in political terms,

and when you have political dominance,

it is said that wealth draws a veil over

thousands of defects of the wealthy.

So, same is the case with being a

political power and political force also,

that many factors end the anxiety

and then, if one or two voices

are raised, then these are silenced.

This period was such that

some freedom was also there.

The old cultural traditions

were also dropped.

That styles of writing, ways of speaking,

had become tales of the past.

Modern classes were not ready to accept

the ideas of ancient scholars in that way.

So, due to this reason, these people got

opportunities to express their views,

and they got these in that

period when it was not that easy.

Now, the world has changed a lot in

which we are talking about these matters.

So, at that time, people

who then, tried themselves,

that's to say, if they are

not satisfied with the scholars,

or the old religious interpretation

is not satisfying them,

or they are not satisfied with

the traditional scholarship,

so, they opened the Book of Allah,

to see themselves, read, study

the history, study other sciences,

So, Pervez Sahib was also a

person who studied extensively.

He used to write quite well.

He expressed his thoughts with elegance.

He was a very hard working person.

All of these qualities were present in him

and in this regard,

that's to say, I had an opportunity

to meet him also.

I have also read all of his writings

and I have listened to his ideas.

At times, I have seen

him delivering speeches.

So, he is a sincere person in my view.

He wants to understand a
concept with sincerity in his way,

and his questions are the questions of the

modern classes, of its new mindset.

After this, now, the next

stage comes into play.

That stage is this, that the field you

have yourself decided to give opinions in,

one aspect is that you are

at the place of a questioner.

you say that you are not

able to understand this concept,

these are the causes

of not understanding it,

and you are addressing the

scholars to understand that concept.

If you have gone beyond that

and now you are claiming that you

have understood this on your own.

You have stated this opinion.

So, what is the methodology you

will adopt in this?

The knowledge of which matters

is required for that?

What preparations should be

made to dive into this world?

If those preparations are lacking at

any level, then what will be the results?

These are then, very delicate

subjects which are faced.

So, if I discuss about these,

then this topic will take hours.

I will mention to you now,

as a principle, that

disagreements can be of what nature.

One kind of disagreements is

that you are not satisfied with

some particulars of a research project.

[Hassan] Okay!

[Ghamidi] For instance,

Imam Shafi' disagrees with many

opinions of Imam Abu Hanifa.
These are partial disagreements.

These are big, huge, about

what is forbidden, permissible,

that's to say, these are not petty.

Look, we were talking

in a gathering yesterday,

that in the case of Zabiha meat,

upon which Tasmiya is abandoned,

i.e name of Allah is not taken upon it,

can it be eaten?

So, Imam Shafi' claims that food to be

permissible which many other scholars,

a majority of jurists, and even

I myself claim to be forbidden.

Such a huge difference occurs.

These are partial disagreements.

That's to say, disagreement occurs

in the interpretation of some verse,

disagreement occurs in the

understanding of any Hadith narration,

disagreement occurs in the understanding

of any religious commandment.

These are of such nature.

This is one form.

The second form is as soon

as you begin doing this work,

then the nature of the disagreement

is one involving the principle approach.

The example of this is,

if you see, then, among us,

disagreements which are explained by

Ulema-e Usul (scholars of Islamic law).

I will again mention among them,

for instance, there is Imam Shafi',

or his disagreement
with Hanafi principles,

or Ulema-e Usul of the later times

who tried to create

such type of concordance,

or for instance, the way of Imam ibn Hazm,

it is the issue of approach in these.

'Approach' implies that the field or

part of scholarship you have to work in,

through which angle will

you view its origin, sources?

How will you view these?

What placement will you make?

What principle will you fit where?

These are all debates!

If you read Al-Risala of Imam Shafi',

then you realise that there

are two to three big issues,

which are entirely matters of principle

he is presenting argument
upon argument about these,

and then there are many debates

of him with other people.

He himself pens down that debates.

You will find these in

many of his other writings.

This is the case of the 'principles'

approach.

The third form is that the

scholarship you are engaging in,

you have adopted such an

perspective in that scholarship,

which is totally
alien in its very foundation.

That's to say, such a case also happens.

You look at it as, you might be

remembering, among us,

it is basically just a jest,

one person claimed that he

can make a car run on water!

[Hassan] Oh yes!
[Ghamidi] Now, it is obvious that many
innovations keep happening in science.

Many concepts keep appearing

in the scientific fields.

So, driving a car on the water,

our media gave attention to it.

Our people started interviewing them.

So, you must have seen what was the

reaction of the major scientists to it.

That's to say, they were

making this objection

that science is the name

of that knowledge,

in that knowledge, the principles on the

basis of which any issue is approached,

no such concept is found here.

[Hassan] This man is unaware of it.

[Ghamidi] He is unaware of it, i.e., he

does not know about that concept.

So, the sciences and arts, among us,

the language owns, more or less,

the same status as this.

Why? What is the reason?

The reason behind it is

that the way in which,

you accept the reality

of matter and nature,

as the foundation to
begin work in the sciences.

That's to say, if any

scientist is made to believe

that this matter, these laws of it,

these experiments that you

are conducting in a laboratory,

all this is just a dream!

We have such viewpoints

among us, in the philosophy,
that people give such opinions.

So, if you say such a thing to any person,

imagine, to any scientist, so the

very foundation of science gets destroyed.

So, in the same way,

the way in which here,

Nature, belief in the Nature, belief

on the facts of the Nature,

considering matter as a real

entity, you study science.

In the same way,

language holds status of being the

foundation of the religious sciences.

As I have no other means to know

commandments of Allah except

that I consult the Book

of Allah, Qur'an Majeed.

Assume for a while, that

the Prophet (pbuh) is also

present in the world,

so, even then what teachings

that reach me from Him (pbuh),

will reach me through

language only.

It is the only means of communication,

i.e. here, experiments of the laboratory

will not come under discussion.

It is the language here,

through the means of which

message of Allah has been preached.

So, the language, in itself, is

that fundamental medium,

which must be kept at the center,

in order to begin the approach.

Let me clarify it once again,

that's to say,

language must be kept at the

center to begin approaching scripture

This is the first stage, OK!

What principle will we adopt

keeping language at the center?

This is the next, second stage.

After the principle is accepted, how

will you apply it on various matters?

This is the third stage.

So, I mentioned that we keep explaining

disagreements with many scholars.

Prior to this also, you have asked

questions about other personalities.

So, while acknowledging their good

contributions,

I have expressed my
disagreements with them.

So, I admire his sincerity also.

He used to write quite well.

He expressed his opinion meticulously,

and his writings were highly influential.

He was very hardworking.

He has left a great collection of

writings and research behind him.

He gave lectures also, taught also,

delivered speeches also.

He has done all these tasks.

A generation has remained

influenced by him also.

There will be many such people who are

influenced with his thought even now.

He is an intelligent person.

He expresses his views based on

argument.

He is also aware of the modern

issues to a fairly large extent.

Although that familiarity is not of a

technical, rigorous kind.
but, anyway, he is aware.

So, when a person reads his works,

then, there are many things in

which goodness is found.

Every intellectual person

appreciates it, he understands.

But I want to tell you what is

the nature of disagreement.

That's to say, with

a very great intellect,

with a very great scholar, with some

very great expert of arts also,

you disagree on partial terms.

I just gave you an

example of disagreement,

in the limits of what is forbidden,

permissible, with Imam Shafi'.

You go beyond that, if you proceed

further, we disagree on principles.

That's to say, how to approach

a field?

In science also, among the

different schools of thought,

there is a difference
of principle or approach.

This is that difference, which you find

among the great, eminent scholars.

One last aspect that I

mentioned in this regard is,

disagreements appear in the basic

structure, in the basic content.

So, this is the foundation of

our disagreement with Pervez Sahib.

[Hassan] Well, okay!

[Ghamidi] Now, this point has

been clarified that it is not partial.

It happens that person may

give examples of partial disagreement.
I have just given you an
example of partial disagreement

that Imam Shafi' claims some food

permissible, something which is edible.

That's to say, we have to

decide about it everyday.

The majority of jurists and

I claim it to be forbidden.

So, this a huge disagreement!

Many other examples can be given,

similarly, there are disagreements

on the principles.

Just a few days before, I drew attention

of people to my dear friend,

Moulana Ammar Khan Nasir

Sahib wrote a very good book,

about the mutual relationship

between Qur'an and Sunnah,

about what have been

the principle approaches,

in the complete scholarship

of the entire Muslim Ummah.

So, you estimate from it what

these approaches are.

Therefore, the moment you

read Al-Ahkam of Amidi,

or you read Al-Ahkam of Ibn Hazm,

or you look at Usul of Bazdavi

or you look at the works of Imam Shafi',

or you look at Mustasfa of Ghazali,

so, these are the differences

in the 'principles' approach.

These are well-known in

the world of scholarship.

These are present in every field

of science and art in the world.

The language, Arabic

language, its basic content,
i.e. you look at it as if
a person tells you that,

this world which appears

to you made of matter,

it is not a world of matter at all!

(Take it) as an example.

So now, the principle here, with

which to initiate the approach,

is encumbered with dispute!

So, Pervez Sahib also, had to

do work on the religion,

then in it, it was the first stage which

was to be faced, that the Arabic language,

in which Qur'an has been revealed,

from which angle does he view it?

For instance, when I am disagreeing,

so from which angle does Imam

Shafi' view the Arabic language?

How does Imam Abu Hanifa view it?

How does Shatibi view it?

From which angle do

Zamakhshari and Farra' view it?

From which angle do I view it? From

which angle Imam Farrahi views it?

We all do from the same angle!

Pervez Sahib does not

view it through this angle!

And when he does not view it so,

then exactly that situation arises

of which I gave you an example,

i.e. if you say, that

you run a car on water,

then what will be

the reaction of science?!

So, this is our reaction in his case, with

great honour, with great respect.

Moulana Amin Ahsan Islahi, who is my

eminent teacher, has commented,
that the Arabic language,
which he foregrounds while

making exegesis of the Qur'an Majeed,

he has constructed it anew

while sitting in his armchair!

It is not the Arabic found in

the world.

This one line is

sufficient enough to explain.

But, despite of all this,

I will definitely say that, despite

such a huge disagreement,

we should hold his anxiety,

his work in high regard only.

and we should explain this

disagreement of ours, politely,

even though it is of a fundamental nature!

In fact, fundamental,

i.e., even the term 'fundamental', is

perhaps, too small a word for it!

So, it must not be viewed like that,

in some partial matter, this is

his approach, this is my approach.

This is the difference of principle.

[Hassan] or is just a difference

of this interpretation.

[Ghamidi] That's why, when people talk

so, other than praying for him.

what else can one say!

The disagreement of the Farahi

school of though does not begin from here.

It is a disagreement of
some other kind,

and you can call it the disagreement

of the 'principles' approach

about which I talked in the second point.

This is altogether another world!

That's to say, for instance, if you

construct a new English language,

then what can be done now?

That's to say, how Shakespeare

will is to be read, will come later.

So, it is the disagreement

of a very basic kind,

which is present between us and him!

It is obviously, not appropriate

to talk more about it, right now.

If there are other questions,

then we will see.

[Hassan] OK, thanks a lot Ghamidi

Sb, you have explained in detail,

and definitely, many questions will be in

the minds of those who are listening,

that how do you view different

interpretations of Pervez Sahib?

I will, InSha Allah, bring it

into discussion, time to time,

and your Tafsir has also been published,

people can read

it juxtaposing Pervez Sahab's.

One last question, we

have some minutes left,

I will ask you in this regard,

you talked about these anxieties,

this mental dilemma,

in a specific background,
in a specific period,

arose in the minds of the people

on an intellectual plain,

and many great geniuses, gems

of scholars expressed these also.

You mentioned Iqbal.

My question to you is that

when people like Pervez Sahib
used to express this anxiety,

and they presented, for instance,

one wrong approach also,

exceeding the approach, even that

fundamental point of view was upended.

So, we also see the response given

to them, in that society, in that period.

It was in the form of Fatwa from scholars,

calling names, ridicule,

calling him a munkir and essentially to

discredit him.

Moulana Syed Abul A'la Sahib

Maududi is a big name of that era.

We see that he wrote

'Sunnat ki Ayni Haisiyat', other books.

The response to the disagreements

of Pervez Sahib was also

then tackled by modern

educated class only.

Do you see any scholarly

refutation by our Ulema in this matter?

[Ghamidi] It is obvious that no such

approach can be presented at that level.

Their attitude, is generally,

like this only.

Even in the current times, you see,

Ulema will approach exactly like that,

that it is against the opinion of all.

All Ummah has been

stating this opinion only.

They are not ready to

understand this case,

that the people they

are addressing right now,

what is the background

of their intellectual anxiety?

That's to say, will you satisfy

them by giving this opinion?
You will have to tell them

that the statement they

are giving in relation to Allah,

or saying in relation
to the Prophet of Allah,

they are facing a problem

with that statement.

So, from where should it be approached?

So, scholars always

adopt this methodology.

But the people who emerged to understand

the modern educated sect,

a big example or a great

name among them is of,

Moulana Syed Abul

A'la Sahib Maududi,

or before that, it is of
Moulana Abul Kalam Azad.

So, if you look at them, they have

adopted a right approach in this matter,

that's to say, they gave a response to it.

Although, on all the discussions

of 'Sunnat ki Ayni Haisiyat',

my fundamental disagreement
is that it is not the issue of Hadith.

It is not the issue of the

constitutional status of the Sunnah.

It is the issue of the Arabic language!

That's to say, if you have constructed

a new English language altogether,

so then, what could be discussed with

you about interpretations of Shakespeare?

[Hassan] Okay!

[Ghamidi] So, first of all, you have

to say exactly that this language,

I will mention to you, once again,

I told you about the line of

Moulana Amin Ahsan Islahi,
that is exactly the
abstract of the whole disagreement,

that you have fabricated a new Arabic

language while sitting at your home.

i.e. either we may use that Arabic

which the Arabs speak right now,

or that one, spoken during Prophethood,

in the times of Prophet (pbuh).

If you invent a new type of Urdu language

while sitting at your home,

so then, how can we hold

a discussion between us,

to understand Ghalib
or to understand Iqbal?

[Hassan] Right!

[Ghamidi] It is that big

issue which was faced!

[Hassan] Okay!

[Ghamidi] And despite of this,

I will not make it a target

of any criticism or satire.

That's to say, it is an issue which should

be clarified in a polite manner.

I have ended this discussion

as we have no time left now.

At some instant, I will clarify it

and I will tell that

how big a matter this is,

which exists between him and us.

[Hassan] Okay Ghamidi Sahib!

One last, brief comment,

I want to bring these

topics of technicality,

In Sha Allah, into detailed discussion.

This question, often, appears

from our scholars' end,
that the people who are influenced with
your thought or school of thought,

a huge number among these,

is of those who were influenced

with Pervez Sahib at one time.

So, this transition of those

influenced by Pervez Sb

towards this school of thought,

what is the reason behind it,

if you can explain it briefly?

[Ghamidi] Actually, I did not have

that leisure in my life till now,

that I take a survey of those I've

influenced.

My task is to understand the religion,

I have to make it
understandable, explain it.

That's to say, if you view my case also,

in terms of the background,

it is the same.

I have my own anxieties.

I have my own questions.

I have my own matters

of contentions in my field,

and when I bring those under discussion, I

try to understand the matter myself first.

After that, I express it.

My mindset is not actually like this

that I will look upon who

are influenced by me?

Who are not? Where are they influenced?

What are their groups?

What is their nature?

I love the whole Ummah, and hold this

same opinion about all

that may Allah (swt) give this

opportunity to everyone
that they listen to and understand
a right statement seriously.

Right now also, I have tried to

draw attention to this fact that

one personality, with whom I hold such

a huge fundamental disagreement,

I am not ready to adopt any ridicule,

any sarcasm about him also!

He is a well educated person,

he writes well.

Many people have got influenced by him.

That's why, his mistake should be

explained in a serious, scholarly way.

I am saying this to scholars also

that instead of looking out

for such trivial resonances,

they should understand

the matter in its depth.

But the reaction of the traditional

class is always like this!

[Hassan] Right!