Javed Ahmad Ghamidi’s Thoughts on Islamic Ideologies & Practices New

Exploring Javed Ahmad Ghamidi’s Views on Islamic Jurisprudence

1.Ghamidi thoughts and ideologies

Javed Ahmad Ghamidi’s personality needs no specific introduction among Urdu-speaking circles. In contemporary times, he is recognized as the leader and driving force of the modernist, Mu’tazilite, and Hadith-denying groups in the Indian subcontinent.

He has diligently propagated the peculiar and isolated ideas of his predecessors, including Farahi and Islahi, along with his additional interpretations, using modern methods of dissemination and communication.

He was born on April 18, 1951, in a village called Peer Rakhiyan, Pakpattan, in the Sahiwal district of Punjab, Pakistan. His early education was completed in Pakpattan and its surrounding villages. He passed his matriculation from Islamia High School Pakpattan, obtained a BA degree from Government College Lahore, and also cleared the Honours (Part One) examination in English Literature.

Ghamidi’s original name is “Muhammad Shafiq.” The term “Ghamidi” in his name is derived from “Ghamid.” His followers assert that “Ghamid” means “someone who removes dust from something,” synonymous with “reformer.” Additionally, his grandfather, Noor Elahi, was known as the “reformer” of his village. Ghamidi adopted this association with “reformer” for himself, leading to the name Javed Ahmad Ghamidi.

One of Ghamidi’s long-time associates, Professor Muhammad Rafiq, who has authored multiple books on his ideologies, writes:

“Ghamidi pursued education up to BA and is not a certified graduate of any religious seminary. During the 1970s, he was a member of Jamaat-e-Islami (Lahore) for a few years and was greatly influenced by Maulana Maududi. Later, he developed a connection with Maulana Amin Ahsan Islahi. However, he was not a formal student of Maulana Islahi, though he did attend some of his Quranic lessons. Ghamidi uses Maulana Islahi’s name despite having significant differences with him, which are detailed at various points in this book.

During Pervez Musharraf’s tenure, he was appointed a member of the Islamic Ideology Council in January 2006 for a short period.

I had a very close relationship with Ghamidi for years, during which I observed and experienced certain traits that I feel obliged to share. Ghamidi is habitually untruthful. If someone mentions the name of an imaginary book to him, he confidently claims to have read it. The renowned Arabic Professor Khursheed Ahmad Rizvi (late) also encountered his habitual falsehood. This very habit led to his expulsion from Jamaat-e-Islami. Although there were other accusations related to violations of party discipline, the investigative committee ultimately recommended the termination of his membership due to his blatant lies. Maulana Maududi became aware of these incidents, and Professor Saleem Mansoor Khalid was among the eyewitnesses.

(Reference: “Fitnah-e-Ghamidiyyat Ka Ilmi Muhasiba,” p. 13-14)

Ghamidi is the author of several books, many of which have been translated into different languages. He is the founder and president of the research institute “Al-Mawrid” and the chief editor of the monthly Urdu journal Ishraq and the monthly English journal Renaissance, which primarily reflect his ideologies. He actively participates in discussions on social media and TV channels, presenting his unique and divergent Interpretations of Islam and addressing contemporary issues, often leading to confusion and deviation among people regarding their religious connection.

Below, some of Ghamidi’s thoughts and ideologies are briefly highlighted:

1. Ghamidi’s sources for acquiring beliefs and laws differ significantly from the mainstream sources of the Ahl al-Sunnah wa’l-Jama’ah. According to him, the sources of religion and the derivation of rulings and laws include the fundamental facts of nature, the tradition of Abraham, the scriptures of prophets, and the Quran.

He writes:
“Thus, the Quran begins its invitation with the following premises:

• The facts of nature
• The tradition of Abraham
• The scriptures of prophets

The first relates to the basic facts of faith and morality, much of which he refers to as ma’roof (good) and munkar (evil) in his terminology. These are the concepts naturally recognized as good or bad by human nature. The Quran does not provide a comprehensive list of these; rather, it acknowledges that its audience already understands them. The Quran demands that they adopt what is good (ma’roof) and abandon what is evil (munkar).” (Mizan, Fifth Edition, p. 45)

Additionally, he writes:
“The Quran’s framework requires the acceptance of the following principles for its interpretation:

(1) First Point: The entire religion is based on the facts of good and evil innate to human nature, which the Quran refers to as ma’roof and munkar. These divine commands, as outlined in the Quran, are based on these facts. Ignoring these foundational concepts results in an incomplete understanding of religion, contrary to the intent of the Quran.

(2) Second point: The Sunnah precedes the Quran, and its transmission must come through consensus and continuity. The details of the Quranic commands mentioned therein are also established based on this consensus and continuity, not through direct derivation from the Quran itself.”

(3) Third point: The specific styles of divine literature, the history of Jews and Christians, the narratives of the Prophets of Bani Israel, and other such subjects are essential to understanding the styles and references in the Quran. To elaborate on its conciseness, the primary source will always be ancient scriptures. All research and critique in this regard should be based on these scriptures. The narratives cited in the books of Tafseer, mostly based on hearsay, are not worth consideration. These narratives cannot replace the insights derived from ancient scriptures and how the Quran accepts or clarifies their details or corrects any misinformation. Such narratives neither satisfy a student of the Quran nor serve as a valid argument against the People of the Book. (Meezan, 5th Edition, p. 47)

The scholar of Al-Mawrid and close disciple of Ghamidi, Mr. Manzoor ul Hassan, summarizes this portion from Meezan, stating:
“The Quran is not the first but the last book of religion, and the sources of religion, apart from the Quran, include the truths of human nature, the tradition of Abraham, and the ancient scriptures. Detailed discussion on this subject can be found under the heading ‘The Last Book of Religion’ on page 47 of the esteemed teacher’s book, Meezan.” (Monthly Ishraq, March 2004, p. 11)

On the contrary, according to Ahl al-Sunnah wal-Jama’ah, the sources of Sharia and religion are primarily the Quran and Sunnah, followed by the consensus of the Ummah (Ijma) and sound analogy (Qiyas).

While it is undeniable that Islam fully aligns with sound human nature and reason, it is equally certain that human nature can never serve as a definitive source of Sharia. Human nature varies and is heavily influenced by the environment, society, beliefs, and ideologies, which often distort and alter it. The nature of a pious believer differs from that of a sinful Muslim, just as the nature of a Jew, Christian, Zoroastrian, or idol-worshiping Hindu differs from that of an atheist. A believer’s sound nature may demand the prohibition of alcohol, adultery, and usury, while a corrupt atheist’s distorted nature may provide arguments to legitimize these acts.

Thus, making such a mutable and inconsistent entity a source of Sharia leads to contradictions and conflicts. It is nothing but following whims and desires if something is declared permissible simply because human nature approves of it and impermissible because human nature dislikes it.

Belief in the earlier scriptures and books of Prophets is obligatory upon every member of the Muslim Ummah and constitutes one of the six pillars of faith. However, these scriptures hold no status as Sharia sources for Muslims, as the Quran explicitly affirms that alterations and distortions have occurred in all of them. The Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم stated: “Do not affirm or deny the People of the Book, for they may claim something as a verse or ruling from the Book of Allah when it is their scholars’ alteration or addition.” (Sahih al-Bukhari, 7542). Considering these altered scriptures as Sharia sources and deriving legal rulings from their contents is outright misguidance. It remains uncertain whether these are the original scriptures or merely historical documents, translations, or interpretations of the distorted texts. Moreover, when it is established that these scriptures have been altered, how can they be trusted? The verse you rely on could very well be fabricated or an addition!

Similarly, the Abrahamic tradition (Sunnat Ibrahimiya) is not an independent source of Sharia for the Muslim Ummah because Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم is the Seal of the Prophets, and his Sharia abrogates all previous Sharias. Thus, only those aspects of the Abrahamic tradition are to be followed which are confirmed in the Quran and Sunnah. Anything attributed to the Abrahamic tradition but not corroborated by these sources cannot be considered part of our religion.

2. Ghamidi rejects all Qur’anic recitations (qira’aat)

apart from the reading of Hafs ‘an ‘Asim, found in the Qur’ans of the Indian subcontinent. He denies the validity of the seven mutawatir qira’aat universally accepted across the Muslim world. These recitations, memorized, recited, and used in prayer by Muslims in different countries, are dismissed by Ghamidi as results of non-Arab conspiracies and fabrications. By doing so, he not only denies the Qur’anic status of these versions but also casts doubt on the divine promise of Qur’anic preservation.

He writes:
“It is certain that the Quran has only one recitation, which is recorded in our copies of the Quran. Other recitations mentioned in commentaries, taught in madrasas, or adopted by people in certain regions are remnants of the same conspiracies whose effects, regrettably, have not spared any branch of our religious sciences.” (Meezan, 5th Edition, p. 32)

He further writes:
“The Quran is only what is inscribed in the Mushaf and recited by the vast majority of the Muslim Ummah worldwide, except in a few regions of the Maghreb. Apart from the Qira’at (reading style) upon which this recitation is based, no other Qira’at is Quran, nor can it be presented as Quran.” (Meezan, 5th edition, p. 27)

Javed Ahmad Ghamidi rejects the well-established and unanimously accepted narration among hadith scholars, “The Quran was revealed upon seven Ahruf” (Anzal al-Qur’an ‘ala Sab’ati Ahruf), deeming it weak and unacceptable. He writes:
“This is an entirely meaningless narration that should not be given any importance in this discussion.” (Meezan, 5th edition, p. 30)

He considers these unanimously accepted and Mutawatir Qira’at (authentic modes of Quranic recitation) to be fabricated or results of error and forgetfulness. He also denies their continuity and authenticity, asserting that their chains of transmission are unreliable.

He writes:

“It is possible that their origins stemmed from insistence on certain recitations before the final ‘Ardah (the last review) or from errors and forgetfulness among the transmitters. However, due to the same motives that led to the fabrication of hadith, these Qira’at proliferated to such an extent that by the end of the Umayyad dynasty, dozens of them had emerged. It is reported that Abu ‘Ubaid Qasim ibn Salam, who passed away in 224 AH, selected twenty-five of them for his book. The seven Qira’at that are currently famous were chosen by Abu Bakr ibn Mujahid sometime toward the end of the third century. Thus, it is generally agreed that their number cannot be fixed. Any Qira’at whose chain of transmission is valid, which conforms—even potentially—to the Uthmani codices, and aligns in some way with Arabic grammar, is considered Quran by some. However, when examining the chains of these Qira’at as recorded in books, there remains no doubt that they are merely solitary reports (Ahad), most of whose narrators are deemed unreliable by the Imams of Rijal (narrators’ biographies). Thus, far from being Mutawatir Quran, any discerning individual cannot even readily accept these as authentic hadith.” (Meezan, 5th edition, p. 32).

Despite this, these Qira’at are recognized as Quran and are recited as such in many Islamic countries, similar to how the Hafs Qira’at is prevalent in the Indian subcontinent. For instance, in parts of Libya, Tunisia, and Algeria, the Qira’at of Qalun is recited. In regions of Sudan, Somalia, and Yemen (Hadhramaut), the Qira’at of Al-Duri is common. Similarly, the Qira’at of Warsh is widespread in Mauritania, most parts of Algeria, Morocco, and many African countries. Approximately forty countries predominantly use the Qira’at of Warsh.

Does this mean that these Muslims are victims of a supposed “non-Arab conspiracy,” reciting an unprotected Quran? And can they still be considered Muslims while perceiving a Qira’at that is “not Quran” as Quran? Does this imply that for fourteen centuries, all scholars and Imams unanimously misunderstood this supposed “non-Arab conspiracy” as the Quran? And is Allah’s promise of preserving the Quran—”Indeed, it is We who sent down the Quran, and indeed, We will be its guardian” (Surah Al-Hijr 15:9)—false, as it implies that a conspiracy rendered the Quran unprotected?

3. Ghamidi’s Position on Hadith vs. Sunnah

Ghamidi considers Sunnah—not hadith—as a source of Sharia and a foundation of religion. However, his definition of Sunnah differs from the traditional understanding of scholars, hadith experts, and jurists. He restricts Sunnah to the practices of the Abrahamic tradition (Sunnat-e-Ibrahimiyya), which Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم renewed, revised, and supplemented. For him, this Sunnah predates the Quran and is established by the consensus and continuity of the Muslim Ummah. It pertains solely to acts and originates not from Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم but from Prophet Ibrahim صلى الله عليه وسلم. Furthermore, Ghamidi asserts that the Quran’s rulings and details should be derived not directly from the Quran but from this Abrahamic Sunnah.

He writes:
“Sunnah, as we understand it, refers to the Abrahamic tradition renewed and reformed by Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم and subsequently implemented among his followers as religion. The Quran commands him to follow the Millat Ibrahim (the way of Abraham), and this tradition is part of it. Allah states: ‘Then We revealed to you: Follow the religion of Abraham, inclining toward truth, and he was not among the polytheists’ (An-Nahl 16:123).” (Meezan, 5th edition, p. 14).

He further states:
“Sunnah is not subordinate to the Quran but precedes it. Thus, it must necessarily be derived from the consensus and continuity of its carriers. The Quranic rulings whose details are mentioned in it will also be determined by this consensus and continuity, not directly from the Quran, as some self-proclaimed thinkers of this era have attempted, distorting the Quran’s intended meaning.” (Meezan, 5th edition, p. 47).

Ghamidi identifies only a limited number of practices as Sunnah and frequently changes their list. For instance, in June 1991, he recognized the beard as Sunnah (Monthly Ishraq, June 1991, p. 32), considering it established by consensus and continuity. However, in May 1998, when he released a comprehensive list of forty Sunnahs, the beard was omitted (Monthly Ishraq, June 1998, p. 35).

The question arises: If Ghamidi initially recognized the beard as Sunnah based on consensus and continuity, was this consensus and continuity invalidated when he later excluded it? Or does Ghamidi possess a unique prerogative to redefine Sunnah at will? Moreover, when he published his list of forty Sunnahs in 1998, he reduced this number to twenty-seven by 2002. Did the consensus weaken, or did Ghamidi’s dissent disrupt the agreement? In 2005, the Sunnahs were upgraded; the number remained twenty-seven, but some new Sunnahs were merged and integrated with the old ones. For instance, with the Sunnah of fasting, a new Sunnah “I’tikaf” was included, and with the Sunnah of sacrifice, the Sunnah of Takbeer during the days of Tashreeq was added… and so on.

In other words, “The pious remained pious, and Paradise was not lost from their grasp.” The issue, in reality, is that when Ghamidi Sahib denied the authority of the Prophetic Hadiths, he felt the need for a reliable and legitimate source or evidence to affirm the details of acts of worship and Islamic rulings, such as the number of prayers, the number of rak‘ahs, the method of performing prayers, the procedure for Hajj, and the issues related to Zakat. This is because the Qur’an only provides general commands, prohibitions, and indications regarding worship, transactions, and practical rulings, while the details are found in the Hadith. However, since Ghamidi Sahib does not consider Hadith as authoritative, he introduced a new term and a modern source under the name of “Sunnah” and declared it to be the strongest and most reliable Shari‘ah evidence, even superior to the Qur’an.

4. Ghamidi Sahib outright denies the authority of Prophetic Hadith and considers them merely historical documents.

He asserts that religious rulings, issues, and beliefs cannot be derived from the Prophetic Hadiths, as they are just historical records and not part of the religion. He writes:

“Our perspective regarding the ahadith (the sayings, actions, and approvals of the Prophet, commonly referred to as Hadith) is that the knowledge gained from them never reaches the level of certainty. Therefore, no addition to religious beliefs or practices can be made based on them.” (Meezan, 5th Edition, p. 15)

He further writes:

“No importance should be attached to anything attributed to the Prophet, even if it is stated in the primary Hadith compilations like Sahih Bukhari, Sahih Muslim, or Muwatta Imam Malik.” (Meezan, 5th Edition, p. 62)

Additionally, he writes:

“The narrations regarding the sayings, actions, and approvals of the Prophet (peace be upon him), which are mostly transmitted through ahad (isolated reports) and are termed as Hadith, are undeniably clear in two aspects: First, the Prophet never took measures to preserve or propagate them (except for the Farewell Sermon, where he instructed others to convey it, although only a few sentences of this sermon are recorded in narrations). Second, the knowledge gained from these reports never reaches the level of certainty. These are the two undeniable facts regarding Hadith, which necessitate the conclusion that they cannot contribute to religious beliefs or practices.” (Meezan, 2nd Edition, p. 68)

In an interview, Ghamidi Sahib said:

“What is Hadith? It is the historical record of the time of the Prophet (peace be upon him)—a historical record. After opening his eyes to this world, the Prophet lived his life, presented his message, got married, participated in battles, established governance, and interacted with people. This historical record is based on the accounts of individuals who reported their experiences with him, described what they saw, or narrated his responses to their questions. This is history, and it should always be studied as history… When you read Hadith, read it as history! If you approach it as history, the question raised becomes irrelevant. You may study a small compilation, a selection, or a major collection; it’s your intellectual pursuit. But if you read Hadith from a religious perspective, you will fall into grave misunderstanding. Understand it as history! This history was compiled by people, not authored by the Prophet or the Companions. When compiling history, errors, flaws, and reporting mistakes can occur. Many eminent scholars have worked extensively on it. You can pick a book based on their work, such as Imam Malik’s Muwatta, or larger compilations like Sahih Bukhari or Sahih Muslim. But remember, you are reading history, not revelation or inspiration. It is essentially a historical record from the Prophet’s time, compiled by researchers. They may have reported something accurately or inaccurately. Study it with this understanding, and if you encounter any issues, consult a knowledgeable scholar. This is how history is approached globally.”

Numerous books and treatises have been written to affirm the authority of Prophetic Hadith. Therefore, for a detailed refutation of Ghamidi Sahib’s flawed stance, one should refer to these comprehensive works.

5. Under the guise of “human nature,” Ghamidi Sahib grants desires and personal preferences the authority of Shari‘ah, making them the basis for permissibility and prohibition.

He considers human nature as the foundation for distinguishing between good and evil, with the Qur’an being subordinate to it. He writes:

“The entire religion is based on the awareness of good and evil inherent in human nature from the very beginning. The Qur’an terms these as ‘ma‘roof’ (recognized virtues) and ‘munkar’ (recognized evils). The explicit commands and prohibitions of Shari‘ah stated in the Qur’an are based on these known virtues and evils. Ignoring them while formulating Shari‘ah would render it incomplete and contrary to the Qur’an’s intent.” (Meezan, 5th Edition, p. 47)

He further writes:

“Among the animals God has created in this world, some are meant to be eaten, while others are not. Consuming the latter group affects human purification, which is why avoiding them is inherent to human nature. This natural guidance usually enables humans to decide what they should and should not eat without much deliberation. For instance, humans know that lions, tigers, elephants, kites, crows, vultures, eagles, snakes, scorpions, and humans themselves are not for consumption. Horses and donkeys are meant for transportation, not for culinary delight. Humans are well aware of the impurity of these animals’ waste. Although this nature can sometimes be corrupted, the study of human habits worldwide reveals that the majority of people generally do not err in this matter. God’s Shari‘ah has not addressed the permissibility or prohibition of such animals but has left humans to follow their nature, merely clarifying that all pure things are permissible and all impure things are forbidden. The Shari‘ah focuses only on the animals and their related issues, for which human intellect and nature alone cannot make a definitive judgment… Shari‘ah’s subject in this matter essentially revolves around these four things.” (Meezan, 5th Edition, pp. 36–37)

Ghamidi Sahib, in this lengthy statement, seeks to establish that Allah Almighty has entrusted the responsibility of distinguishing between right and wrong, lawful and unlawful, to human nature. Thus, the Quran only addresses the prohibition of matters that cannot be discerned through human nature. Except for a few explicitly mentioned things in the Quran, the decision-making power regarding the permissibility or prohibition and determining right and wrong is now vested in human nature. Consequently, what human nature considers good is good, and what it considers bad is bad. Similarly, what human nature deems lawful is lawful, and what it deems unlawful is unlawful. In this manner, Ghamidi Sahib has essentially elevated human nature to the level of lawgiver, parallel to Allah, which is undoubtedly outright disbelief and clear misguidance.

While discussing the prohibition of anal intercourse, Ghamidi Sahib writes:

“This is among the self-evident truths of nature and, in this respect, undoubtedly, a command of God. If someone violates it, they are violating one of God’s clear, rather clearer, commands, and they will certainly deserve punishment for this in His presence.” (Meezan, Fifth Edition, p. 432).

However, there is no explicit mention of the prohibition of anal intercourse in the Quran. Scholars have inferred it from general verses about the etiquettes and rulings of intercourse. The primary, strong, and clear evidence for this comes from authentic and reliable Hadiths, but since Ghamidi Sahib does not consider Hadiths as authoritative, he includes its prohibition within the self-evident truths of nature, declaring this demand of nature as an unequivocal and clear command of God. According to him, the source of this clear divine command is human nature.

The issue, however, is this: Ghamidi Sahib’s argument rests on his understanding of human nature, but there are many people in the world whose nature does not find anal intercourse objectionable. Many Muslims, too, do not regard it as a vice according to their nature. If they are unaware of the prohibitive Hadiths, they might consider this vile act permissible, following their nature, as their nature does not deter them from it.

So, the question arises: whose nature should be considered authoritative? Most scholars of the Ummah regard music as prohibited and undesirable based on their nature, while a few intellectuals like Ghamidi consider it permissible and lawful. Ghamidi Sahib’s nature does not deem horse meat lawful or worthy of being a table delicacy, whereas the nature of the Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم, the Companions, and the scholars of the Ummah considers it completely lawful.

In reality, Ghamidi Sahib’s concept is not novel or unique. It aligns with the same kind of thinking adopted by the Mu’tazilah during the early centuries of Islam regarding reason. They upheld the principle of al-tahsin wa al-taqbiḥ al-ʿaqliyyan (rational determination of good and evil), considering reason the standard for distinguishing between good and evil, truth and falsehood, and right and wrong. Similarly, Ghamidi Sahib’s intellectual counterparts among modern rationalist Mu’tazilites in the Arab world, such as Muhammad Abduh, Mustafa Maraghi, Dr. Muhammad Imarah, Muhammad Ghazali, Muhammad Fareed Wajdi, Mahmoud Shaltut, and others, held similar views. They claimed that aside from acts of worship and beliefs, all matters were subject to reason and public consensus. They argued that during humanity’s infancy, prophethood was necessary, but once humanity matured, governance, judiciary, and social matters were entrusted to reason and public consensus. Thus, even the Quran was subordinate to reason and human experience in these issues.

The only difference between Ghamidi Sahib and his intellectual predecessors is that they attributed this authority to reason, while Ghamidi Sahib couches it in the guise of human nature. Yet, even he often uses reason interchangeably with nature, indicating that the intent and purpose are the same—only the terminology differs. Furthermore, Ghamidi Sahib has also subordinated the Quran to human nature concerning the knowledge of lawful and unlawful and right and wrong. He writes:

“Thus, God’s Shariah has not made the permissibility and prohibition of animals its subject but has merely stated that all good things are lawful and all impure things are unlawful, leaving humans to follow the guidance of their nature.” (Meezan, Fifth Edition, p. 36).

Additionally, he writes:

“Tawasi bil-Haqq” and “Tawasi bil-Sabr” mean encouraging one another in the community to adhere to the truth and steadfastness on the truth. This is a self-evident demand of truth, which the Quran has also described as amr bil ma‘ruf and nahi ‘anil munkar—that is, instructing people in their community about matters that are inherently right according to reason and nature and preventing them from engaging in what is inherently wrong. (Meezan, Fifth Edition, p. 74).

He further states:

“The institution of prophethood ended with Muhammad, the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم. Why was prophethood terminated? Understand the purpose of prophethood: Allah says that He has placed guidance within human nature; there was no need for a prophet for this purpose. When humans failed to value the guidance present within their nature, I initiated the series of prophets to establish conclusive proof upon them so that no one could present an excuse on the Day of Judgment. This conclusive proof means clarifying the truth to such an extent that no room remains for excuses. This was achieved globally through Muhammad, the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم. Once this was accomplished, the announcement of the end of prophethood was made, thus bringing prophethood to an end in all its aspects.” (Source: YouTube).

6. Ghamidi Sahib holds the belief that if a person believes in God and the Hereafter, performs good deeds, and refrains from crimes, they will enter Paradise, regardless of whether they are Muslim or non-Muslim.

In an interview, when asked, “Will only Muslims enter Paradise, or can a righteous non-Muslim also go to Paradise?”, he replied:

“The criterion for entering Paradise is stated in the Quran: belief in God and the Hereafter, performing good deeds, and staying away from crimes. Whether one is Muslim, Jewish, or follows any other religion, they are entitled to Paradise.” (Annual Journal Musabi, 2008–2009, p. 15, Lahore).

When Ghamidi Sahib was asked:

“In Surah Al-Baqarah, verse 62, it says that whether you are Muslim, Jew, Christian, or Sabean, if you believe in God and the Day of Judgment, you will not be grieved on the Day of Resurrection. Does this mean that being Muslim is not necessary for reward or punishment in the Hereafter?”

He responded:

“Look, for reward or punishment, or the test that has been established in this world, a merit has been set, and that is what you have just stated. Allah has clarified this in the Quran, and this is one of the Quran’s unique attributes—you won’t find this verse in any other religious scripture. It is repeated twice in the Quran: once in Surah Al-Baqarah, as you mentioned, and again, with slightly different words but the same message, in Surah Al-Ma’idah. In both places, Allah answers the question: ‘Will decisions regarding Paradise and Hell be made based on the division of religions in this world—some becoming Christians, some Muslims, some Hindus, and others following different religions?’ The answer is no. A universal criterion has been established. What is that criterion? A person must recognize the reality that there is a Lord who created them and be aware that they will be held accountable to Him one day. And this accountability is based on good deeds. This is the foundation, the merit, the standard upon which Allah will make His selection from all religions: from Jews, Christians, Muslims…”

Interviewer: “And from Hindus?”

Ghamidi Sahib: “From every nation and religion in the world. Based on this standard, a selection will be made, provided the person has not committed any major crime. For example, take a Muslim who believes in Allah, the Day of Judgment, and does good deeds. Their general life is very good, but they commit an innocent murder. Isn’t that a major crime? Crimes are not listed here, but a positive merit has been stated. Now, despite all the good qualities, if a person commits murder, they will be deemed a criminal and punished for it. The Quran clearly states that murder is such a crime that killing an innocent person is equivalent to killing all of humanity, and its punishment is eternal Hellfire. This means that crimes are not detailed here. Among these crimes is also the act of rejecting a true prophet of God after knowing with certainty that they are indeed God’s prophet. Rejecting them despite this knowledge is such a grave sin that it nullifies all good deeds. Positively, the standard remains the same: there will be Jews on the Day of Judgment who did not knowingly reject Muhammad (peace be upon him). There will be Muslims who did not knowingly deny any truth. And that truth is self-evident, clear, and universally acknowledged. However, they made mistakes, fell into misunderstandings, or the message did not reach them. How many people exist today who have not received the message of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him)? How many do not know that the Quran is the word of God because the message was not conveyed to them? Hence, the positive criterion is belief in God, belief in the Day of Judgment, and good deeds. Beyond that are crimes. If you have not committed any of these crimes, the promise of Paradise applies to you, whether you are a Jew, Christian, or Muslim.”

(Source: Interview with Ghamidi Sahib)

Although Allah has explicitly declared in multiple places in the Quran that after the advent of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), anyone who abandons the religion of Islam and the following of Muhammad (peace be upon him) to follow any other religion or prophet is a disbeliever (kafir). No kafir will ever be deserving of Paradise; rather, their abode will be Hell forever and eternally.

Allah states:

“Verily, those who disbelieve (in the religion of Islam, the Quran, and Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him)) from among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians) and Al-Mushrikun will abide in the Fire of Hell. They are the worst of creatures.” (Surah Al-Bayyina: 6)

The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) said:

“By Him in Whose hand is the life of Muhammad, he who amongst the community of Jews or Christians hears about me, but does not affirm his belief in that with which I have been sent and dies in this state (of disbelief), he shall be but one of the denizens of Hell-Fire.” (Sahih Muslim: 153)

Ghamidi Sahib is of the view that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani—a liar and a deceiver who claimed prophethood and whose disbelief (kufr) was unanimously and explicitly declared by the scholars of his time and continues to be agreed upon by the entire Muslim Ummah—never explicitly claimed prophethood. He asserts that Mirza’s statements were similar to those found among Sufis. Therefore, according to him, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad and his followers cannot be declared disbelievers, just as scholars generally do not declare Sufis disbelievers. Moreover, Ghamidi Sahib does not advocate declaring anyone who professes the kalima as a disbeliever.

A renowned Qadiani scholar, Amir Aziz Al-Azhari, writes:

“In present-day Pakistan, the distinguished Javed Ahmad Ghamidi Sahib is a remarkable personality who needs no introduction. His tireless efforts for the service of religion and Islam are well-known. His testimony—that Mirza Sahib (Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani) did not claim prophethood—is the greatest truth and boldest act of honesty in this era.” (Ikhtilaf Silsila Ahmadiyya, p. 83)

In one of his lectures, while discussing the reality of Sufism and the concept of the Seal of Prophethood according to Sufis, Ghamidi Sahib said:

“The position and rank described here are exactly what Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani referred to. Fundamentally, he was a Sufi, deeply engaged in Sufism, and his practices included the usual Sufi rituals, invocations, and retreats. He described these in his writings. Gradually, he claimed to be the Promised Messiah. Then he said that by prophethood, he did not mean the terminological prophethood. He claimed to be a reflective (buroozi) prophet, a shadow (zilli) prophet, where prophethood casts a shadow upon him or reflects within him. Over time, he made statements that implied he was made a prophet for this era. However, I would like to point out that none of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s writings contain an explicit claim of prophethood. His statements are similar to those of Sufis, using their terminologies.”

Regarding the Seal of Prophethood, he said:

“Mirza believed in the Seal of Prophethood but interpreted it differently. After his demise, his followers split into two groups: the Lahori group, which considered him a reformer (mujaddid), and the group led by his son Mirza Bashiruddin Mahmood, who explicitly declared him a prophet. Had the matter remained at the level of Sufi practices, there would have been no issue.” (Lecture: The Reality of Sufism, Part 1, 25:00–28:30, YouTube link)

In another lecture, Ghamidi Sahib read Mirza’s statements in an attempt to prove that Mirza never explicitly claimed prophethood and that his statements were similar to those of Sufis. He concluded that if declaring someone a disbeliever is necessary, it should apply to all such cases, otherwise, Mirza should also be exempted.

Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s Explicit Claims:

Despite Ghamidi Sahib’s assertions, Mirza himself explicitly and loudly declared his prophethood. He wrote:

• “The true God is the one who sent His messenger to Qadian.” (Dafi‘ al-Bala’, Third Edition, Qadian, p. 11, 1946)
• “I am a messenger and a prophet, meaning that by perfect reflection (zilliyat), I am the mirror in which the Muhammadan image and prophethood are fully reflected.” (Nazul al-Masih, p. 3, Footnote, First Edition, Zia-ul-Islam Press, Qadian, 1909)
• “I swear by the God in whose hand is my soul that He has sent me and named me a prophet.” (Tamam Haqiqat al-Wahi, p. 68, Published in Qadian, 1934)
• “We claim that we are messengers and prophets.” (Akhbar Badr, March 5, 1908)
• On the day of his death, Mirza declared: “By God’s command, I am a prophet. If I deny this, it would be a sin. How can I deny it when God has named me a prophet? I will remain firm on this until I leave this world.” (Akhbar Aam, May 26, 1908)

The claimant of legislative prophethood writes:

“Except that you also need to understand what Shariah is. Whoever, through his revelation, conveys certain commands and prohibitions and prescribes a law for his followers becomes a legislator (sahib al-shariah). Thus, by this definition, our opponents are culpable because my revelation contains commands and prohibitions as well, such as this inspiration: ‘Tell the believing men to lower their gaze and guard their private parts; that is purer for them.’ (This is recorded in Barahin-e-Ahmadiyya). This revelation includes both commands and prohibitions and over thirty years have passed since then. Likewise, even now, my revelations contain both commands and prohibitions. If you argue that Shariah refers only to new commandments, this is invalid, for Allah says: ‘Indeed, this is in the former scriptures, the scriptures of Abraham and Moses’ (87:18-19), implying that Quranic teachings were also present in the Torah. If you argue that Shariah includes a complete enumeration of commands and prohibitions, this too is baseless. Had the Torah or the Quran comprehensively enumerated the commands of Shariah, there would have been no room for independent reasoning (ijtihad).” (Arba’een, 4th Edition, Published Rabwah)

7. When asked whether Qadianis are disbelievers, Ghamidi states:

“My perspective has always been that anyone who claims to be a Muslim, I have no right to deny their claim. I have just explained to you that Allah has not granted me the authority to decide people’s Islam or disbelief. I say with full confidence that neither in any Quranic verse nor in any prophetic hadith has this authority been given to me; in fact, it has been prohibited. Therefore, I am not authorized. This is not within my jurisdiction. If a person claims to be a Muslim, who am I to deny it? Similarly, I do not have the authority to decide someone’s eternal destiny, whether Paradise or Hell; this is Allah’s prerogative. My role is only to evaluate someone’s expressed religious stance and, through reasoning, demonstrate whether it is correct or incorrect.” (Source: YouTube)

Despite this, the entire Muslim world and even international non-Muslim organizations agree that Qadianis are non-Muslims and view them as a distinct religion rather than part of Islam.

8. Ghamidi, like the extreme Murji’ah, exhibits an excessive leniency by entirely denying the legitimacy of excommunicating (takfir) those who claim to be Muslims, regardless of their beliefs or actions.

As long as such individuals profess Islam, Ghamidi considers them Muslims and argues no one has the right to deny their Islam. Based on this principle, he does not regard Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani or Qadianis as disbelievers. He states:

“This is a fact that no individual, be it a scholar, ruler, judge, or anyone else, has been granted the authority to decide people’s faith or disbelief. This authority belongs solely to Allah.” (Source: YouTube)

Ghamidi writes:

“Declaring someone a disbeliever is a legal matter. A prophet, based on his divinely inspired knowledge, declares a group disbelievers. This status is no longer accessible to anyone.” (Ishraq Monthly, Lahore, December 2000, p. 54-55)

Discussing non-Muslims, he further writes:

“They are generally labeled as disbelievers, but in our writings, we have clarified with evidence that declaring someone a disbeliever requires the fulfillment of itmam al-hujjah (conveying the truth conclusively), and only Allah knows and informs us when this has occurred for any individual or group. Therefore, after the Prophet Muhammad’s passing, no individual or group possesses the right to declare someone a disbeliever.” (Ishraq Monthly, October 2015, p. 18)

Scholars, however, maintain a firmly established legal principle: anyone who does not regard an agreed-upon disbeliever as such, doubts their disbelief, or considers their religion valid, is themselves a disbeliever.

Ghamidi writes:

“Those who identify as Muslims and insist on their Muslim identity but adopt beliefs or practices generally deemed contrary to Islamic teachings, such as interpreting an ayah or hadith differently from mainstream scholars, may be considered mistaken or misguided. For instance:

• Imam Ghazali and Shah Waliullah’s belief in wahdat al-wujud as the ultimate form of monotheism.
• Ibn Arabi’s view that the finality of prophethood does not mean prophethood’s status and qualities have ended but only that any prophet will now follow the Shariah of Muhammad (peace be upon him).
• Shia belief that leadership (imamate) is divinely appointed.
• Allama Iqbal’s interpretation that Paradise and Hell are states, not places. Such views can be declared wrong or deviant, but their proponents cannot be deemed non-Muslims or disbelievers because they derive their arguments from the Quran and Hadith. God’s judgment regarding them will become evident on the Day of Judgment. In this world, they are to be treated as Muslims.” (Ishraq Monthly, October 2015, p. 19)

Ghamidi reiterates:

“My view has always been that anyone who claims to be a Muslim, I have no right to deny their claim. Neither Allah nor His Prophet has given me the authority to judge people’s Islam or disbelief.” (Source: YouTube)

Scholarly Response to Ghamidi

A scholar does not independently label someone’s belief as deviant or disbelief but merely applies the rulings found in the Quran and Sunnah. Just as a judge implements state laws, scholars provide verdicts based on divine legislation. For instance, a scholar labeling an act of bowing to others as shirk does not invent the ruling but clarifies Allah’s decree. Similarly, in cases of apostasy, mainstream Sunni scholars follow strict criteria to avoid unjust excommunication, ensuring that any pronouncement aligns with Quranic and Prophetic principles.

Secondly, someone should ask Ghamidi Sahib: What should be done about hypocrites? Should they also be considered Muslims based on their verbal declaration and outward appearance as Muslims? Or should they be regarded as disbelievers and polytheists based on the disbelief and shirk hidden in their hearts, as Allah has mentioned them in the Qur’an as a distinct category separate from Muslims and described their fate as even worse than that of ordinary disbelievers and polytheists? Similarly, what stance should be taken regarding Bohra, Babiya, Bahaiya, and the Qarmatians of ancient times? Are they all Muslims as well?

Ghamidi Sahib’s view, like many of his other opinions and thoughts, is rare and strange. This is because takfir (declaring someone a disbeliever) of numerous heretics, zindiqs, and various deviant sects have been established by the pious predecessors (Salaf al-Salih), the Companions, the Tabi’in, and the Imams and scholars of every era. This has been transmitted through continuous consensus. For instance, Abdullah bin Saba, a Jewish disbeliever, was declared a disbeliever despite claiming to be a Muslim. The takfir of Ikhwan al-Safa and Hasan al-Sabah is also a matter of consensus and continuity. The pious predecessors and the Imams of the religion declared individuals like Bishr al-Marisi, Ma’bad al-Juhani, Ibn Sina, Farabi, and Ibn al-Rawandi as disbelievers, and successive generations of Muslims accepted and transmitted these rulings. So, were all the scholars, Imams, and the entire Muslim Ummah for the past fourteen centuries in error and collectively engaging in an act that was not legally permissible for them?

Ghamidi Sahib’s position is that the punishment for apostasy (abandoning Islam) – which is the death penalty – was specific to the Muslims of the time of the Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم, upon whom the proof (Itmam al-Hujjah) had been conclusively established by the Prophet himself. After the Prophet’s demise, neither any individual, scholar, court, nor state has the authority to declare someone a disbeliever or to execute them for apostasy.

He writes:

“The punishment for apostasy was only for those upon whom the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم directly established proof, and after accepting faith in him, they reverted to disbelief. ‘Whoever changes his religion, kill him’ has no connection with Muslims born after the Prophetic era.” (Maqamat, p. 280)

He further claims:

“This issue of the punishment for apostasy arose merely because of a misunderstanding of a Hadith. According to the narration of Ibn Abbas, this Hadith is recorded in Bukhari as follows: ‘Whoever changes his religion, kill him’ (No. 3017). Our jurists generally interpret this as a general command applying to anyone from the Prophetic era until the Day of Judgment who abandons Islam for disbelief. They believe that any Muslim who willingly chooses disbelief must necessarily be executed under this Hadith. The only disagreement among them pertains to whether the apostate should be allowed to repent before execution, and if so, the duration of this respite. The Hanafi jurists, however, exclude women from this ruling, while the majority agree that the punishment for every apostate – male or female – in Islamic Shariah is execution.” (Burhan, pp. 139–140)

Ghamidi Sahib contends:

“However, this opinion of the jurists is questionable. The command of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم is undoubtedly authentic, but in our view, it was not a general ruling; rather, it was specific to those individuals upon whom the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم directly established proof and who are referred to in the Qur’an as ‘mushrikeen’ (polytheists).” (Burhan, p. 143)

Ghamidi Sahib’s Assertion:

He asserts: “Our jurists erred in failing to comprehend this Hadith in the context of the relationship between the Qur’an and Sunnah, thereby interpreting it as a general ruling and adding a punishment to the Islamic penal code that has no basis in Shariah.” (Burhan, p. 143)

Ghamidi Sahib on Apostasy:

“It becomes clear upon reflection on the Qur’an and Hadith that this basis ended permanently after the era of the Companions. In our books Mizan and Burhan, we have demonstrated that the punishment for apostasy was only for those upon whom the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم directly established proof. For them, the divine decision was that if they persisted in disbelief, their punishment would be death, and if they reverted to disbelief after faith, their punishment would also be death.

The Prophet’s statement, ‘Whoever changes his religion, kill him,’ pertains only to them and aligns with the divine law mentioned in the Qur’an regarding the direct addressees of the Prophets. This has no connection to Muslims born after the Prophetic era.”
(Mizan, 5th edition, p. 338)

“According to the Qur’an, the death penalty can only be applied in cases of murder or corruption on earth, and for no other crimes.”
(Burhan, p. 143)

9.Contradictory Views on Apostasy:

In contrast, there are authentic Hadiths in Bukhari and Muslim affirming the death penalty for apostasy, and there is unanimous agreement among the scholars and jurists of the Ummah on its validity, as Ghamidi Sahib himself acknowledges.

Imam Ibn Daqiq al-‘Eid:

Imam Ibn Daqiq al-‘Eid writes:
“By ‘the group’ is meant the group of Muslims, and apostasy from the religion is the reason for the consensus permitting the blood of the apostate in the case of a man.”
(Ahkam al-Ahkam Sharh Umdat al-Ahkam, 2/217)

Imam Ibn Qudamah:

Imam Ibn Qudamah writes:
“The scholars unanimously agree on the obligation of executing the apostate. This has been narrated from Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, Ali, Mu’adh, Abu Musa, Ibn Abbas, Khalid, and others, and no one opposed it; thus, it constitutes consensus.”
(Al-Mughni, 9/18)

Imam Nawawi:

Imam Nawawi writes:
“The scholars unanimously agree on the permissibility and obligation of executing the apostate.”
(Sharh Sahih Muslim, 12/208)

Dr. Wahbah Zuhayli:

Dr. Wahbah Zuhayli states:
“The scholars agree that the apostate must be executed because the Prophet ﷺ said: ‘Whoever changes his religion, kill him.’ Moreover, the Prophet ﷺ said: ‘The blood of a Muslim cannot be lawfully shed except in three cases: a married adulterer, a murderer, and someone who abandons the religion, separating from the Muslim community.’ The scholars unanimously agree that the apostate must be executed.”
(Al-Fiqh al-Islami wa Adillatuhu, 6/186)

10. Ghamidi Sahib on the Descent of Isa (peace be upon him):

Ghamidi Sahib denies the descent of the Promised Messiah, Prophet Isa (peace be upon him), and contrary to the Qur’an, Sunnah, and consensus of the Ummah, holds that Isa (peace be upon him) has passed away. He interprets the Qur’anic reference to his ascension to heaven as referring to the lifting of his body. He writes:

“In addition to this, the emergence of the Mahdi and the descent of Isa (peace be upon him) from heaven are also considered signs of the Hour. We have not mentioned these because the narrations about the emergence of the Mahdi do not meet the standards of hadith criticism. The narrations regarding the descent of Isa, although generally accepted by hadith scholars, appear questionable when examined in the light of the Qur’an.

Firstly, Isa (Alayhi al-salām) is discussed in several aspects in the Qur’an. His mission and personality are commented upon extensively. The turmoil of the Day of Judgment is also a significant topic in the Qur’an. The event of a great prophet descending alive from the heavens is no ordinary matter, yet despite appropriate contexts, there is not even the slightest hint of this event anywhere in the Qur’an. Can reason and intellect be satisfied with this silence? This is difficult to accept.

Secondly, in Surah Al-Ma’idah, the Qur’an narrates a dialogue between Allah and Isa (peace be upon him) on the Day of Judgment. Allah will ask him about the core deviation of the Christians, whether he taught them to take him and his mother as gods besides Allah. In response, Isa will say that he only conveyed Allah’s message and remained a witness over them while present among them. Once Allah raised him, he no longer knew what they did. At this point, if Isa (peace be upon him) had returned to earth, his response would not be fitting. He would instead say that he was aware of their misguidance and had warned them about it recently. The Qur’an states:
‘Never did I say to them aught except what You (Allah) did command me to say: “Worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord.” And I was a witness over them while I dwelt amongst them, but when You took me up, You were the Watcher over them, and You are a Witness to all things.’ (This is a great admonition and warning to the Christians of the whole world).
(Al-Ma’idah 5:117)

“Thirdly, in a verse of Surah Aal-e-Imran, the Qur’an outlines the course of Isa’s mission until the Day of Judgment. This would have been the ideal moment to explicitly state, along with the events mentioned, that Allah would send him back to earth before the Day of Judgment. However, Allah does not mention this. If Isa is to return, why this silence? There seems to be no explanation for it.” (Mizan, Fifth Edition, pp. 177-179)

He further writes:
“What I understand from the Qur’an regarding Isa (Alayhi al-salām) is that his soul was taken, and immediately thereafter, his blessed body was lifted to prevent the Jews from desecrating it. This, in my view, was a necessary demand of his prophetic status. The Qur’an mentions it in these terms: ‘Indeed, I will take you [in death] and raise you to Myself.’ (Aal-e-Imran 3:55). Notice, that the term ‘tawaffa’ explicitly refers to death, and ‘rafa’ (raising) following it indicates the lifting of the body.” (Ishraq Monthly, April 1995, p. 45)

He states:
“Generally, people believe that Isa was taken alive to heaven and will descend near the end times. Some narrations suggest this will coincide with the appearance of the Mahdi. When Isa descends, he will abolish the jizya tax, break the cross, etc. This is a common belief. However, the Qur’an provides no explicit evidence for his being taken alive. The words used in the Qur’an contradict this notion, employing terms used for death. The Qur’an says: ‘I will cause you to die and then raise you to Myself.’ This sequence indicates that he was first given death and then raised. Since the Jews had decided to disrespect him, it seems reasonable that Allah’s angels gave him death and then raised him. If someone disagrees, even then, it is clear that no explicit evidence in the Qur’an supports the idea that he was taken alive. Likewise, there is no authentic hadith clearly stating this. The entire hadith corpus does not contain a narration in which the Prophet explicitly stated this.”

In contrast, the entire Ummah agrees unanimously that Isa (peace be upon him) was not given death but was raised alive. Near the Day of Judgment, he will descend upon a mosque in Damascus, slay the Dajjal, and establish justice.

There are mutawatir (mass-transmitted) ahadith confirming this with unquestionable authenticity:

Imam Abu Ja’far Ibn Jarir al-Tabari (d. 310 AH) states:
“The reports from the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) about Isa’s descent and his slaying of the Dajjal, followed by his stay on earth for a period, his death, and the Muslims performing his funeral prayer, are mutawatir.”
(Jami’ Edition, 5/450)

Allama Ibn Rushd mentions:
“The major signs of the Hour are ten, five of which are confirmed through mutawatir narrations: the Dajjal, Isa’s descent, the emergence of Gog and Magog, daabbat-ularz, and the sun rising from the west.”
(Nazm al-Mutanathir, p. 229)

Allama Abu Ja’far al-Kattani writes:
“The descent of Isa (peace be upon him) is established by the Qur’an, Sunnah, and consensus. The ahadith regarding his descent are numerous… The conclusion is that the narrations about the Mahdi, the Dajjal, and Isa’s descent are mutawatir.”
(Nazm al-Mutanathir, p. 229)

Imam Ibn Kathir (رحمه الله) writes:
“The ahadith regarding the descent of Isa (peace be upon him) before the Day of Resurrection as a just leader and a fair ruler have reached the level of tawatur.”
(Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Dar al-Ilmiyyah, 7/217)

Imam Shawkani (رحمه الله) states:
“The ahadith about the descent of Isa are mutawatir, as we have clarified in a separate work.”
(Tafsir Fath al-Qadir, 1/618)

Imam Ibn Baz (رحمه الله) says:
“The descent of Isa is an issue agreed upon by the scholars. It is established through the authentic texts from the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ), and the ahadith on this subject have reached the level of tawatur. There is no doubt about it, praise be to Allah.”
(Fatawa Nur ‘ala al-Darb, 4/276)

Summary:

The descent of Isa (peace be upon him) is an agreed-upon matter among the scholars, proven through authentic narrations from the Prophet (ﷺ). The mutawatir ahadith confirm this without any doubt, praise be to Allah.

Scholars on the Descent of ‘Isa (عليه السلام):

Scholars such as Allama Alusi (Ruh al-Ma’ani, 11/213), Nawab Siddiq Hasan Khan (‘Awn al-Ma‘bud, 11/311), Imam Muhammad al-Amin Shanqiti (Adwa al-Bayan, 7/130), and the scholar of our era Muhammad Nasir al-Din al-Albani (Silsilat al-Ahadith al-Sahihah, 7/635) also classified the ahadith about the descent of ‘Isa as mutawatir.

11. Ghamidi Sahib’s Position on Mahdi:

Ghamidi Sahib denies the concept of the Awaited Mahdi and writes:

“Besides this, the appearance of Mahdi and the descent of ‘Isa (عليه السلام) from the heavens are also considered signs of the Day of Judgment. We have not mentioned them because the narrations about the appearance of Mahdi do not meet the standards of critical scrutiny. Some are weak, and others are fabricated. There is no doubt that some narrations, acceptable in terms of their chain, speak of a generous caliph’s arrival. However, upon close examination, it becomes clear that this refers to Umar ibn Abdul Aziz, who became the caliph at the end of the best generations. The Prophet’s (صلى الله عليه وسلم) prophecy was fulfilled word for word in his case, and there is no need to await a promised Mahdi for this.” (Mizan, 5th edition, pp. 177–178)

The Sunni Perspective on Mahdi:

The appearance of Mahdi is an established truth. It is the agreed-upon belief of Ahl al-Sunnah wa’l-Jama‘ah that Mahdi will appear before the Day of Judgment. He will be from the Prophet’s family (Ahl al-Bayt), and his name will be Muhammad ibn ‘Abdullah. Muslims will fight under his leadership, establish a sovereign and just government, and fill the world with justice. Even ‘Isa (عليه السلام) will perform prayers behind him. The ahadith about Mahdi are mutawatir.

Imam Abu al-Hasan al-Abarri (d. 363 AH) writes in his book Manaqib al-Shafi‘i:

“Reports about the Mahdi have reached the level of tawatur and proliferation from the Messenger of Allah (صلى الله عليه وسلم). These narrations state that Mahdi will be from his household, rule for seven years, fill the earth with justice, assist ‘Isa (عليه السلام) in killing Dajjal, and lead the Ummah in prayer, with ‘Isa (عليه السلام) praying behind him.” (Al-‘Arf al-Wardi fi Akhbar al-Mahdi, 2/85; Al-Manar al-Munif, p. 142)

Allama Safarini (رحمه الله) writes:

“The correct view held by the people of truth is that Mahdi is distinct from ‘Isa. Mahdi will appear before the descent of ‘Isa (عليه السلام). The narrations about his appearance are so numerous that they have reached the level of mutawatir ma‘nawi. This belief is so widespread among the scholars of Ahl al-Sunnah that it has become part of their creed. Therefore, believing in Mahdi’s appearance is obligatory as established among the scholars and recorded in the creed of Ahl al-Sunnah wa’l-Jama‘ah.” (Lawa’ih al-Anwar al-Bahiyyah, 2/84)

Allama Abu Ja‘far Kattani writes:

“Scholars have mentioned that the descent of ‘Isa is established by the Qur’an, Sunnah, and consensus. There are numerous ahadith about his descent… The conclusion is that the ahadith about the Awaited Mahdi, Dajjal, and the descent of ‘Isa ibn Maryam are all mutawatir.” (Nazm al-Mutanathir min al-Hadith al-Mutawatir, p. 229)

Imam Ibn Baz (رحمه الله) states:

“The matter of Mahdi is clear and well-known. The ahadith on this topic are numerous, widespread, and even mutawatir. Several scholars have documented their tawatur. These narrations are mutawatir ma‘nawi because they have numerous chains, narrators, and variations in wording, leaving no doubt about the reality of Mahdi and the truth of his emergence.” (Majmu‘ Fatawa Ibn Baz, 4/98)

Similarly, scholars like Allama Muhammad Barzanji (Al-Isha‘ah, pp. 87, 112), Allama Shawkani (Al-Idha‘ah Lima Kan wa Ma Yakun Bayna Yaday al-Sa‘ah, p. 112–113), Nawab Siddiq Hasan Khan (Al-Idha‘ah, p. 112), and Hadith scholar Shams al-Haqq Azimabadi (‘Awn al-Ma‘bud Sharh Sunan Abi Dawud, 11/243) have classified the ahadith on the appearance of Mahdi as mutawatir.

12. Ghamidi Sahib’s Views on Allah’s Transcendence (`Uluww):

Ghamidi Sahib denies the attribute of Allah’s transcendence (`uluww) and considers Allah to be beyond time and space. He interprets the attribute of istiwa (establishment) as Allah assuming sovereignty on the throne of governance. He states:

“Allah is an entity above time and space. Just as it is inappropriate to say Allah is in a particular place, it is equally inappropriate to say that He is everywhere. The Quran states that there was never a time when you could say Allah did not exist (He is the First); there will never be a time when you can say Allah will cease to exist (He is the Last). There is no entity you can claim Allah is above (He is the Manifest), nor any entity you can claim Allah is beneath (He is the Hidden). This indicates that Allah’s being transcends time and space. We, as humans, perceive things in terms of time and space because we cannot detach ourselves from these dimensions. However, regarding Allah, such a notion must not be imagined. Nothing is hidden from His knowledge, nor is anything beyond His awareness. It must be said that Allah’s existence transcends space and time. He did not specify the seventh heaven but declared that He created the universe, and this visible universe is just one among seven. He governs it from His throne. Where that throne is, we do not know. It is not a physical concentration of presence. When it is said Allah is omnipresent, overseeing everything, it refers to His all-encompassing knowledge, not His being. We do not know His essence. The moment you say He is everywhere, it implies a location filled with Allah’s presence. No entity exists above which Allah can be claimed to be, nor any entity below.”
(Source)

Refutation of Ghamidi Sahib’s View:

This statement is entirely false. Numerous places in the Quran explicitly affirm that Allah is established above the Throne, over the seven heavens, distinct from His creation, and is characterized by transcendence and elevation (uluww) in rank, dominance, and even physical location (uluww makani). Allah Himself declares His transcendence over creation, stating:

• “And He is the Most High, the Most Great.” (Al-Baqarah: 255)
• “And He is the Most High, the Most Great.” (Saba: 24)
• “Knower of the unseen and the witnessed, the Grand, the Exalted.” (Ar-Ra’d: 9)
• “Exalt the name of your Lord, the Most High.” (Al-A’la: 1)

“Except only the desire to seek the Countenance of his Lord, the Most High.” (Al-Lail: 20)

He is above His servants, as stated:

• “And He is the Subjugator above His servants.” (Al-An’am: 18, 61)
• “They fear their Lord above them and do as they are commanded.” (An-Nahl: 50)

He is above the heavens, as mentioned:

• “Do you feel secure that He, Who is over the heaven (Allah), will not cause the earth to sink with you, then behold it shakes (as in an earthquake)?” (Al-Mulk: 16)

His commands and decrees descend, while virtuous deeds and angels ascend to Him, as stated:

• “He arranges (every) affair from the heavens to the earth, then it (affair) will go up to Him, in one Day, the space whereof is a thousand years of your reckoning (i.e. reckoning of our present world’s time).” (As-Sajda: 5)
• “Verily We: It is We Who have sent down the Dhikr (i.e. the Quran) and surely, We will guard it (from corruption).” (Al-Hijr: 9)
• “Verily! We have sent it (this Quran) down in the night of Al-Qadr (Decree).” (Al-Qadr: 1)
• “To Him ascends good speech, and righteous work raises it.” (Fatir: 10)
• “The angels and the Ruh [Jibrael (Gabriel)] ascend to Him in a Day the measure whereof is fifty thousand years.” (Al-Ma’arij: 4)

These references to descending and ascending indicate that Allah is characterized by `uluww makani (transcendence in location) and a distinct superiority above all creation, from where commands descend and to whom good deeds and angels ascend.

Imam Malik (may Allah have mercy on him) said: “Allah is above the heavens, and His knowledge is in every place. No place is devoid of His knowledge.” (Masail Al-Imam Ahmad narrated by Abu Dawood, p. 353)

Imam Al-Awza’i (may Allah have mercy on him) said: “We and the Tabi’un, who were numerous, would say: Indeed, Allah, the Mighty, and Majestic, is above His Throne, and we affirm the attributes mentioned in the Sunnah.” (Al-Asma wa As-Sifat by Al-Bayhaqi, 2/304)

Imam Qutaybah ibn Sa’id (may Allah have mercy on him) said: “This is the statement of the Imams in Islam, Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jama’ah: We know our Lord to be above the seventh heaven, over His Throne, as He stated: ‘The Most Merciful established Himself upon the Throne.'” (Bayaan Talbees Al-Jahmiyyah, 3/733)

This has been the consensus of the Companions, Tabi’un, and all scholars of Ahlus-Sunnah, as detailed in works like Al-Ibanah by Ibn Battah and Sharh Usool I’tiqad Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jama’ah by Al-Lalaka’i.

To deny Allah’s transcendence or claim that His essence is everywhere aligns with the deviant beliefs of the Hululiyyah (those who claim Allah is physically present in all places), a sect whose hearts have deviated from the truth. May Allah protect us from such misguidance.

Imam Ibn Abi Zayd al-Qayrawani (may Allah have mercy on him) writes: “Among the matters of religion upon which the Ummah has consensus, and the Sunnah, whose opposition is innovation and misguidance, is that Allah is above His heavens, on His Throne, not on the earth, and that He is in every place by His knowledge.” (Al-Jami’ fi al-Sunan wal-Adab wal-Maghazi wal-Tarikh, pp. 107–117)

In matters of religion and creed, one of the agreed-upon points by the Ummah and the Sunnah, which opposition constitutes innovation and misguidance, is that Allah is above His heavens, on His Throne, and not on earth, and that He encompasses everything with His knowledge.

Imam Abu Nasr as-Sijzi (may Allah have mercy on him) writes: “According to the people of truth, Allah, glorified be He, is distinct from His creation by His essence, above the Throne, without any modality (kayfiyyah).” (Risalatu as-Sijzi ila Ahl Zubaid fi al-Radd ala Man Ankar al-Harf wal-Sawt, p. 193)

The stance of the people of truth is that Allah is separate from His creation and is, by His essence, above the Throne without specifying a modality.

Imam al-Dhahabi (may Allah have mercy on him) writes: “The evidence that Allah is on the Throne, above His creation, distinct from them, and not contained within any of them, while His knowledge is everywhere, is established by the Book, the Sunnah, the consensus of the Companions, the Tabi’un, and the Imams of the religion.” (Al-Arsh by al-Dhahabi, vol. 2, p. 5)

Summary:

In summary, when Ghamidi claims that Allah is neither above nor below, transcending time and space, it entails the rejection of Allah’s attribute of elevation (‘uluww), which contradicts the explicit statements of the Qur’an and Sunnah, the consensus of the Ummah, and the natural beliefs ingrained in common human nature.

13. On Ghamidi’s Views on the Prophet’s Authority

Ghamidi asserts that the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) had no authority to abrogate, specify, or modify any command of the Qur’an, nor can the Sunnah specify or abrogate the Qur’an. He writes:

• “No hidden or manifest revelation outside the Qur’an, not even the Prophet upon whom it was revealed, can specify, restrict, or alter any of its commands. The decision regarding acceptance or rejection in religion will only be based on its clear verses.”
  (Meezan, 5th edition, p. 25)
  
• “The claim that the Qur’an was abrogated, specified, or restricted by Hadith is merely a misunderstanding and lack of reflection. Such abrogation or specification has never occurred, nor could it, as it would render the Qur’an’s status as a criterion (Furqan) doubtful.”
  (Meezan, 5th edition, p. 35)
  

In contrast, the Qur’an explicitly grants the Prophet (peace be upon him) absolute authority to decide in matters, commands unconditional obedience to him, and affirms that his words in religious matters are divinely inspired:

1. “Say (O Muhammad SAW): ‘Obey Allah and the Messenger (Muhammad SAW). But if they turn away, then Allah does not like the disbelievers.'”
   (Al-Imran: 32)
   
2. “And whatsoever the Messenger (Muhammad SAW) gives you, take it, and whatsoever he forbids you, abstain (from it), and fear Allah. Verily, Allah is Severe in punishment.”
   (Al-Hashr: 7)
   
3. “But no, by your Lord, they can have no Faith, until they make you (O Muhammad SAW) judge in all disputes between them, and find in themselves no resistance against your decisions, and accept (them) with full submission.”
   (An-Nisa: 65)
   
4. “Nor does he speak of (his own) desire. It is only an Inspiration that is inspired.”
   (An-Najm: 3-4)
   

14. On Ghamidi’s Criticism of the Companion Ma’iz al-Aslami

Ghamidi portrays Ma’iz al-Aslami (may Allah be pleased with him) as unworthy, immoral, and guilty of heinous crimes. He accuses him of sexual misconduct and following women in a frenzy of lust for months.
(Refer to Burhan, pp. 83–87)

Criticizing a Companion is a grave matter, as Imam Abu Zur’ah al-Razi (may Allah have mercy on him) states:

• “If you see a man criticizing any Companion of the Prophet (peace be upon him), know that he is a heretic. This is because the Qur’an is true, the Messenger is true, and what he brought is true. All of this was conveyed to us by the Companions. Thus, those who wish to discredit them aim to invalidate the Qur’an and Sunnah, but they are more deserving of criticism and are heretics.”
  (Al-Kifayah fi Ilm al-Riwayah, pp. 46–49; Ulum al-Hadith, p. 264)

15. On Ghamidi’s Rejection of Consensus (Ijma)

Ghamidi rejects Ijma as evidence, calling it an innovation and a baseless addition to religion. He writes:

• “When the era of jurists began, a fourth source was added—Ijma. Since then, it has been generally accepted as a source of Islamic Shariah. This addition to the sources of religion is undoubtedly an innovation. It has no foundation in the Qur’an or Sunnah. Reviewing its effects reveals that it undermines the eternal relevance of Islamic Shariah.”
  (Maqamat, 6th edition, p. 169; Ishraq, October 2011, p. 2)

In contrast, Qadi Abu Ya’la (may Allah have mercy on him) writes:

• “Ijma is definitive evidence; adhering to it is obligatory, and opposing it is prohibited. It is impossible for the Ummah to unanimously agree on error.”
  (Al-Udda fi Usul al-Fiqh, vol. 4, p. 1058)

Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him) states:

• “Ijma, in general, is agreed upon by all Muslims, including jurists, Sufis, hadith scholars, theologians, and others, though some sects like the Mu’tazilah and Shia have denied it.”
  (Majmu’ al-Fatawa, vol. 11, p. 341)

Rejecting Ijma altogether, as Ghamidi does, is a deviation from established Islamic scholarship. Shaykh Salih al-Fawzan says:

• “Denying Ijma outright is disbelief and apostasy from Islam. To claim that there is no such thing as Ijma at all is kufr.”
  (Source: al-fawzan.af.org.sa)

16. On Ghamidi’s Views on Jihad

Ghamidi Sahib confines jihad to only defensive jihad, which is undertaken for protection against oppression and tyranny, as well as to prevent the oppressors and rebels. He considers offensive jihad against disbelievers and polytheists as abrogated. He views such jihad as divine punishment upon those who reject the truth after it has been conclusively conveyed through the prophets.

According to Ghamidi Sahib, since the final conclusive communication of truth (itmam-e-hujjat) is only possible through prophets, such a jihad is exclusive to them. It is not a general law but serves as divine punishment for deniers of truth. He writes:

• “Prophethood was sealed with the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). Consequently, the right to wage war against people merely on account of their disbelief, resulting in killing or imposing jizya and subjugation, ended forever after the Prophet (peace be upon him) and his companions departed this world. Henceforth, no one has the right to attack any nation in the world for this purpose or impose jizya upon the defeated.”
  (Maqamat, p. 203, 3rd Edition, July 2014)

He further elaborates:

• “The Qur’an has ordained jihad and fighting in two circumstances:
  
  1. Against oppression and tyranny.
  2. Against the deniers of truth after the conclusive communication of truth (itmam-e-hujjat).
• The first case is an eternal command of Shariah and is carried out for the reasons stated earlier. The second case, however, is not part of Shariah but relates to Allah’s law of conclusive communication of truth. It is executed directly by Allah’s command through those appointed to the office of prophethood. In history, this was last entrusted to Muhammad (peace be upon him):
  
  And for every Ummah (a community or a nation), there is a Messenger; when their Messenger comes, the matter will be judged between them with justice, and they will not be wronged.
  (Yunus: 47)
  
  Once the message was conclusively delivered by the messengers, the deniers would face punishment in this world, which could come from the heavens or through the swords of the faithful. Consequently, the truth would triumph fully. The Prophet (peace be upon him) and his companions were thus commanded to fight against injustice and to carry out divine punishment on the deniers of truth. This must be understood as a divine act executed through human hands, distinct from human ethics. The Qur’an states: ‘Allah will punish them through your hands’
  (Surah At-Tawbah: 14).”
  (Mizan, 5th Edition, p. 577-578)
  rganized.

Ghamidi Sahib’s Perspective on Warfare:

Ghamidi Sahib concludes:
“For Muslims, the only remaining type of warfare is against oppression and tyranny. Fighting in Allah’s way is now limited to this purpose. No other form of war in the name of religion is permissible.” (Mizan, 3rd Edition, p. 601)

He asserts:
“Islam does not permit warfare for any religious objectives—neither against shirk, disbelief, nor apostasy. The directive for Muslims is to fight against oppression. If a nation acts tyrannically or criminally, then Muslims are instructed to use state power to restrain the wrongdoing.”

The Divine Injunction:

However, Allah says:
“Fight against those who (1) believe not in Allah, (2) nor in the Last Day, (3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger (4) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islam) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.” (At-Tawbah: 29)

This divine injunction does not limit fighting to cases of oppression. Instead, it commands war against Jews and Christians for their disbelief and refusal to accept the truth, compelling them to either embrace Islam, pay jizya in humiliation, or face annihilation.

Thus, Ghamidi Sahib’s perspective is utterly flawed, contrary to the spirit of Islam, and against the foundational principles of the religion. His view negates the concept of offensive jihad, which is integral to Islam. Defensive jihad is instinctive, as even animals fight for survival. The real jihad is against disbelief and polytheism, while resistance to oppression is an instinct even in animals.

The Legitimacy of Offensive Jihad:

The legitimacy of offensive jihad is established not only through the Qur’an and Sunnah but also by the consensus and continuous practice of Muslims. For instance, during Abu Bakr’s caliphate, the companions fought the apostates. During Umar’s era, the companions and followers fought and conquered Persia and Rome because their rulers rejected the Prophet’s invitation to Islam. Similarly, the conquest of Constantinople and the Crusades were instances of offensive jihad to eradicate disbelief and establish Islam.

17. Ghamidi Sahib’s Opinion on Punishment for Adultery:

Ghamidi Sahib denies the punishment of stoning (rajm) for married adulterers, equating their penalty to 100 lashes, as with unmarried adulterers. He writes:
“According to the Qur’an, the punishment for both married and unmarried adulterers is flogging.” (Burhan, p. 91)
“Even a married woman who commits adultery is punished with 100 lashes, just like an unmarried girl.” (Mizan, May 1985, Vol. 1, p. 183)

This opinion contradicts the scholarly consensus. Imam Ibn Abdul Barr states:
“The consensus of Islamic jurists and scholars from the time of the companions to the present is that the punishment for a married adulterer is stoning to death.” (Al-Tamhid, Vol. 9, p. 79)

Imam Ibn Rushd adds:
“Muslims unanimously agree that the punishment for a free, married adulterer is stoning.” (Bidayat Al-Mujtahid, Vol. 2, p. 356)

Imam Mawardi writes:
“The obligation of stoning is proven by consensus to the extent that it has reached the level of tawatur (continuous transmission).” (Al-Hawi Al-Kabir, Vol. 13, p. 192)

Imam Nawawi writes:
“The scholars unanimously agreed on the obligation of flogging a virgin fornicator with 100 lashes and stoning the adulterer who is married or previously married. None of the people of Qibla disagreed on this except what Qadi Iyad and others narrated about the Khawarij and some Mu’tazilites, like Nizam and his followers, who did not accept stoning.” (Sharh Sahih Muslim 11/189)

There is a consensus among scholars that it is obligatory to flog a virgin fornicator with 100 lashes and to stone a married adulterer. None of the people of Qibla disagreed with this, except what Qadi Iyad narrated from the Khawarij and some Mu’tazilites, such as Nizam and his followers, who did not accept stoning.

Imam Ibn Taymiyyah writes:
“Stoning is established by the Mutawatir Sunnah and the consensus of the Companions (may Allah be pleased with them).” (Majmoo’ al-Fatawa 20/399)

Similarly, this consensus has been reported by Imam Ibn Al-Mundhir, Abu Bakr Al-Jassas, Ibn Battal, Ibn Hazm, Qadi Iyad, Ibn Qudamah, Ibn Al-Qattan, Abu Al-Abbas Al-Qurtubi, Ayniy, Ibn Al-Hamam, Ibn Nujaym, Khateeb Al-Shirbini, Manawi, Mulla Ali Qari, Zarqani, Shawkani, Shanqeeti, Ibn Ashur, and others from the scholars. (Refer to: Mawsu’at al-Ijma’ fi al-Fiqh al-Islami 9/380-384)

18. Ghamidi Sahib’s View on Testimony:

Ghamidi Sahib does not accept any restriction on the number of witnesses for matters other than proving the accusation of adultery, which requires four witnesses. He gives the court the authority to determine whose testimony it accepts or rejects. Thus, the court may reject the testimony of ten people and, based on assurance, accept the statement of one woman. Moreover, according to Ghamidi, there is no difference between the testimony of men and women or between Muslims and non-Muslims. If the judge is convinced, all testimonies are equal. A woman’s testimony cannot be deemed inferior to a man’s just because she is a woman, nor can a non-Muslim’s testimony be disregarded solely because of their religion. (Refer to Ghamidi’s book: Burhan, pp. 25-34)

He writes:
“Apart from these two exceptions, Islamic Shari’ah does not bind the court to any specific method for proving a crime. Therefore, whether it is the evidence for Hudood crimes or other crimes, in our view, it is up to the judge to decide whose testimony he accepts or rejects. There is no distinction between men and women in this. If a woman testifies clearly and without confusion, her testimony should not be rejected just because no other woman or man accompanies her. Conversely, if a man’s testimony is ambiguous and unclear, it should not be accepted merely because he is a man. If the court is convinced based on the witnesses’ statements and other evidence that the case is proven, it will undoubtedly confirm it. If it is not convinced, it has every right to reject even the testimony of ten men. The same applies to the testimony of non-Muslims.” (Burhan, p. 27)

The Qur’anic Stipulation:

In contrast, Allah says:
“And get two witnesses out of your men. And if there are not two men (available), then a man and two women, such as you agree for witnesses so that if one of them (two women) errs, the other can remind her.” (Surah Al-Baqarah: 282)

The Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم said:
“The testimony of two women is equivalent to the testimony of one man.” (Sahih Muslim: 79)

By unanimous agreement, the witness must be just, as stated in the Qur’an:
“O you who believe! If a rebellious evil person comes to you with news, verify it, lest you harm people in ignorance, and afterward you become regretful to what you have done.” (Surah Al-Hujurat: 6)

Thus, if the mere report of a sinful Muslim cannot be accepted, how can the testimony of a disbeliever regarding rights, wealth, lives, and Hudood be accepted?

In the aforementioned verse, “And call to witness two men from among you,” Allah made it a condition that witnesses must be Muslim by saying “from among you.” Additionally, by saying “whom you accept,” He made it a condition that they must be just. By mentioning two women in place of one man, He differentiated between the testimony of men and women, clearly stating that one woman’s testimony is half of a man’s testimony.

Furthermore, scholars have unanimously agreed that the testimony of a non-Muslim against a Muslim will not be accepted. (Mawsu’at al-Fiqhiyyah al-Kuwaitiyyah 37/185)

Sheikh Ibn Uthaymeen (may Allah have mercy on him) writes:
“Based on the Qur’an, reason, and sound observation, the witness must be Muslim, as a disbeliever is prone to betrayal and cannot be trusted.” (Al-Sharh al-Mumti’ 15/419)

19. Ghamidi Sahib’s View  on growing beard:

Javed Ghamidi denies the Sunnah of growing a beard and its obligation, not considering it a part of the religion at all. According to him, the beard was merely a custom among Arabs practiced during the Prophet’s time, and thus the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم and his companions kept beards. However, they did not grow beards as a religious act or form of worship.

He writes:
“Men keep beards. The Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم also kept a beard. If any of his followers keep a beard to express their devotion or to follow him, they should consider it a blessing. However, this is not a religious injunction. Therefore, if someone does not keep a beard, we cannot say that they have abandoned a religious obligation or committed a forbidden act.

What the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم said regarding this matter is not a command to grow a beard but a prohibition against adopting an arrogant style of keeping a beard and mustache. Arrogance is a major sin, evident in one’s demeanor, speech, appearance, dress, and posture. This applies to the beard and mustache as well. Some people shave or trim their beards but grow their mustaches excessively. The Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم disapproved of this and instructed such people not to adopt the style of the arrogant. If they want to grow their beards, they should do so but must keep their mustaches trimmed.

The guidance from the Prophets is centered around acts of worship, purification of the body, purification of food and drink, and purification of morals. Whatever the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم said about the beard was aimed at the purification of morals. This advice regarding the beard has been misunderstood as a command to grow it, introducing something into the religion that has no connection to it.” (Maqamat, 6th edition, pp. 295-296)

“Keeping or not keeping a beard is a matter of love and devotion; it is neither obligatory, nor mandatory, nor Sunnah. It is not a religious command at all.” (Source: https://youtu.be/axe_OWoKsrw?si=24LdS5HbOd3MsMVU)

20. On the Issue of the Blessings and Torment of the Grave:

Ghamidi Sahib, contrary to the general and agreed-upon belief of Ahl al-Sunnah wal-Jama’ah, holds that people fall into three categories regarding this matter:

1. The Rebellious and Defiant:
   Those who have reached the pinnacle of rebellion and disobedience, such as Pharaoh, Nimrod, Abu Jahl, and Abu Lahab, among others. Such individuals do not require accountability, and they will face punishment in their graves.
   
2. The Exceptionally Righteous:
   Those who have proven their unwavering commitment to Allah’s promise, such as the Prophets, the Siddiqeen, and the Martyrs. Examples include the Prophet (peace be upon him), Abu Bakr, and Umar (may Allah be pleased with them). Such individuals will begin receiving blessings in their graves.
   
3. The Ordinary People:
   The majority fall into this category—those who perform both good and bad deeds and require accountability. After death, such people will be put to rest and will be awakened on the Day of Judgment to undergo accountability, after which decisions regarding Paradise or Hell will be made.
   

Furthermore, Ghamidi Sahib asserts that this blessing or torment will affect the soul rather than the body.

For references, see:
YouTube1
YouTube2
YouTube3

Reasoning Behind Ghamidi Sahib’s Position:
Ghamidi Sahib has posited this view due to a query he could not resolve: how can blessings or torment be given before accountability when the Day of Judgment establishes such records? As a result, he has almost entirely dismissed the concept of punishment in the grave, only affirming it for a select few based on explicit mentions in the Qur’an.

The View of Ahl al-Sunnah wal-Jama’ah:
Scholars from Ahl al-Sunnah wal-Jama’ah maintain that every person will either experience torment or blessings in the grave after death, which will affect both the soul and the body.

Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah writes:
“The belief of the Salaf and the Imams of the Ummah is that the soul and body of the deceased both experience blessings or torment.” (Al-Ikhtiyarat al-Fiqhiyyah, p. 94)

Ibn al-Qayyim explains:
“When asked about this issue, Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah responded: ‘Blessings and torment affect both the soul and the body. This is a consensus of Ahl al-Sunnah wal-Jama’ah. When a person dies, they are either blessed or tormented in the grave. This applies to both the soul and the body. Sometimes the soul is joined to the body, and they experience the blessings or torment together.'” (Al-Ruh, pp. 51-52)

21. On Diyat (Blood Money):

Ghamidi Sahib does not believe in a fixed standard for Diyat. Instead, he deems it subject to societal norms and customs. He denies distinctions in Diyat based on intentional or unintentional murder, gender (male vs. female), status (slave vs. free), or faith (Muslim vs. non-Muslim).

He writes:
“Islam has not permanently fixed a specific amount for Diyat, nor has it obligated any difference between male and female, slave and free, or believer and disbeliever in this regard. The law of Diyat existed before Islam, and the Qur’an instructed its payment for both intentional and unintentional murder based on the same principle. The Qur’an’s directive is that societal norms should dictate its specifics. During the Prophet’s (peace be upon him) time, Diyat decisions adhered to Arab customs, which were documented in Fiqh and Hadith books. These customs reflected Arab societal and cultural realities. Given the passage of 14 centuries, societal norms and traditions have dramatically changed. Today, camels are no longer a practical form of Diyat. The Qur’an’s guidance applies to all times and societies, which is why it directs adherence to societal norms. Accordingly, societies are free to choose the standard for Diyat.” (Burhan, p. 18)

Regarding specific issues like gender, Ghamidi Sahib disagrees with the consensus of classical scholars who maintain that the Diyat for a woman is half that of a man.

22. On Hijab and Pardah (Veil):

Ghamidi Sahib argues that no explicit Shariah ruling on Hijab or Purdah exists. He claims these were temporary measures to protect Muslim women from harassment. Therefore, he contends these commands are no longer applicable today.

He writes:
“Women must be made aware of the boundaries dictated by their culture. The dupatta (scarf) is a cultural symbol among Muslims and not a Shariah requirement. It should be promoted as a cultural value, but presenting it as a religious obligation is unjustified. The real purpose is to cover the chest and avoid displaying adornments. If this can be achieved by other means, the dupatta is not necessary.” (Monthly Ishraq, May 2002, p. 47; Maqamat, p. 249)
He also interprets the Qur’anic verse in Surah Al-Ahzab (33:59) as a temporary measure for distinguishing Muslim women from others and protecting them from harassment, not as a perpetual commandment.

For references, see:

• YouTube Link

This verse (Al-Ahzab: 59) has no relation to the women’s veil (purdah), and this command is no longer applicable today. (March 2008, from the discussion on the topic of purdah in a Geo TV program)

The Islamic Position on Hijab (Purdah):

In contrast, Allah commands women to observe the veil, stating:
“And tell the believing women to lower their gaze (from looking at forbidden things), and protect their private parts (from illegal sexual acts, etc.) and not to show off their adornment except only that which is apparent (like palms of hands or one eye or both eyes for the necessity to see the way, or outer dress like veil, gloves, head-cover, apron, etc.), and to draw their veils all over Juyubihinna (i.e. their bodies, faces, necks, and bosoms, etc.) and not to reveal their adornment except to their husbands, their fathers, their husband’s fathers, their sons, their husband’s sons, their brothers or their brother’s sons, or their sister’s sons, or their (Muslim) women (i.e. their sisters in Islam), or the (female) slaves whom their right hands possess, or old male servants who lack vigor, or small children who have no sense of the shame of sex. And let them not stamp their feet to reveal what they hide of their adornment. And all of you beg Allah to forgive you all, O believers, that you may be successful.” (An-Noor: 31)

How foolish and nonsensical it is that on the one hand, Allah forbids women from striking their feet on the ground lest the sound of their jewelry tempts men into fitnah, yet on the other hand, supposedly gives them free rein to leave their heads and necks uncovered, or to wear or not wear a dupatta or scarf! Which is more attractive and likely to cause fitnah: the jewelry worn on the feet or the flowing hair, the structure of the neck, and the face, which is the center of beauty and charm?

Furthermore, Allah says:
“O Prophet! Tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks (veils) all over their bodies (i.e. screen themselves completely except the eyes or one eye to see the way). That will be better, that they should be known (as free respectable women) so as not to be annoyed. And Allah is Ever Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.” (Surah Al-Ahzab: 59)

This verse commands women to draw a portion of their outer garments over themselves to ensure they are recognized and protected from harm.

On the Dress Code for Elderly Women:

Allah also says regarding elderly women:
“And as for women past child-bearing who do not expect wed-lock, it is no sin on them if they discard their (outer) clothing in such a way as not to show their adornment. But to refrain (i.e. not to discard their outer clothing) is better for them. And Allah is All-Hearer, All-Knower.” (Surah An-Nur: 60)

Here, Allah permits elderly women to relax their dress code by removing their outer garments, provided they do not display their adornments. Does this mean (God forbid) that Allah is allowing them to live immodestly? Certainly not! The specific allowance for elderly women implies that wearing an outer garment or covering is obligatory and necessary for younger women.

23. Democracy as the Qur’anic System

Ghamidi Sahib considers the democratic system, even with its un-Islamic elements, as entirely Islamic and Qur’anic. He grants the parliament the authority to legislate and make decisions, declaring it supreme over all state institutions, including religious scholars. For instance, even if scholars unanimously issue a fatwa to ban alcohol based on the Qur’an and Hadith, it can only become law in an Islamic state if the parliamentary majority approves it. Otherwise, it remains unenforceable. Ghamidi Sahib writes:
“The system of governance suggested by religious scholars and jurists involves making the judiciary supreme and subordinating it to scholars because they are the experts of Islamic law. However, the Qur’an does not accept this perspective. According to my understanding, the governance system outlined by the Qur’an is democracy.” (Maqamat, 6th Edition, pp. 240–343)

Ghamidi further asserts that an Islamic state can only mandate two religious obligations: Salah (prayer) and Zakah. Beyond these, religious matters are personal, and the state has no right to interfere. For instance, the state cannot make hijab mandatory, prohibit listening to music, or prevent non-Muslims from displaying their religious symbols. (Maqamat, 6th Edition, pp. 238)

24. Riba (Interest)

Ghamidi Sahib diverges from the traditional stance on riba (interest) and permits certain forms of interest, such as banking interest, under specific conditions. He claims that interest given by governments through saving schemes or loans with a fixed profit is permissible. He writes:
“There is no objection to paying interest, as its prohibition stems from consuming wealth unjustly. However, the one paying interest is not consuming others’ wealth unjustly but is paying from their lawful earnings.” (Maqamat, 6th Edition, pp. 272–274)

25. Blasphemy Laws

Ghamidi Sahib denies that the Qur’an and Hadith prescribe capital punishment for blasphemy. Regarding Pakistan’s blasphemy laws, he writes:
“The blasphemy law enforced in Pakistan cannot be traced back to any source in the Qur’an or Hadith.” (Maqamat, 6th Edition, pp. 328–340)

26. Music and Arts

Ghamidi Sahib permits listening to music and asserts:
“Music is an adornment of sound, and who can forbid the adornments Allah has created for His servants?” (Maqamat, 6th Edition, pp. 267–268)

He claims that the Qur’an does not condemn music, poetry, or other forms of art but allows them as legitimate expressions of beauty and aesthetics. However, traditional scholars like Imam Tabari and the majority of classical jurists have unanimously ruled against the permissibility of music. Imam Ibn Jarir Tabari states:
“There is a consensus among scholars on the prohibition of singing and its forbiddance.” (Tafsir al-Qurtubi, 14/56)

27. Authority of the State Regarding Zakat

Ghamidi Sahib grants the authority to the state and government to set aside the teachings of the Quran and Sunnah and exempt any wealth from Zakat at their discretion. They can also impose a specific rate of Zakat on wealth based on their desires. He writes:
“If the state desires, it can exempt certain assets from Zakat considering the circumstances, and for the assets on which it collects Zakat, it can set any rate according to general rules.” (Mizan, 5th edition, p. 351)

28. Moon-Sighting and Scientific Advancements

Ghamidi Sahib’s stance is that it is not necessary to see the moon to determine the beginning and end of a month. Therefore, after scientific advancements, instead of moon-sighting, reliance should be placed on astronomical knowledge and scientific data. He writes:
“It is not necessary to sight the moon to determine the beginning of a month… The advancement of knowledge has now enabled us to definitively ascertain when the moon will be born for any region of the world. Thus, if a lunar calendar is developed based on the moon’s birth while keeping Makkah as the central reference, and all religious festivals are observed accordingly, there is nothing to prevent this. The intent of religion is the determination of months. If this could be achieved through moon-sighting, it adopted that method, and if now it can be achieved through another means, it has no objection to it. Just as we no longer rely on observing the sun’s rise and set for prayers after the invention of clocks, similarly, we are not bound to sight the crescent moon for determining lunar months.” (Monthly Ishraq, January 2009, p. 3; Maqamat, 6th edition, October 2021, pp. 291-292)

Ghamidi Sahib’s stance contradicts the Quran, Sunnah, and the consensus (Ijma’) of the Muslim Ummah. For instance, just one year before expressing this view, he wrote in his book Mizan:
“The law of fasting is established through the consensus and continuous practice of Muslims. The Quran also provides detailed instructions on this matter. The clarifications made through the knowledge and actions of the Prophet (peace be upon him) are presented below in an orderly manner:
(1) The beginning of Ramadan should be determined by moon-sighting, and its end should also be based on it. The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: ‘Fast upon sighting the moon and break your fast upon sighting it. If the sky is cloudy, complete thirty days of Sha’ban.'”
(Mizan, 3rd edition, May 2008, p. 369)

A group of scholars has reported a consensus on the prohibition of relying on astronomical calculations for determining the start and end of the month. This includes Ibn al-Mundhir, Abu Bakr al-Jassas, Abu al-Walid al-Baji, Ibn Rushd al-Jadd, Ibn Rushd al-Hafid, and Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah, among others. (Refer to the book: Al-Ahillah: A Comprehensive View and Astronomical Studies)

The question arises: On what basis does Ghamidi Sahib revoke a religious ruling after acknowledging the existence of consensus and continuous practice? Has the consensus been invalidated, or has the continuous practice ceased? Or does Ghamidi Sahib have the authority to alter religious rulings at his discretion?

29. Women Leading Men in Prayer

Contrary to the consensus of the Ummah and the continuous practice of Muslims, Ghamidi Sahib’s fatwa states that a woman can lead men in prayer.
(https://youtu.be/n0kOZK9Re3g?si=c43Bs2QYi49jV3Z7)
Also, refer to the magazine Ishraq published under Ghamidi Sahib’s supervision, May 2005, pp. 35-46.

Allama Ibn Hazm writes:
“The scholars agree that a woman cannot lead men in prayer. If men knowingly perform prayer behind a woman, their prayer is invalid by consensus.”
(Maratib al-Ijma’, p. 27)

Imam Nawawi (may Allah have mercy on him) writes:
“Our scholars agree that it is not permissible for any adult man or child to perform prayer behind a woman. This is the view of the majority of scholars from the early and later generations. Imam Bayhaqi has transmitted this from the seven jurists of Madinah among the Tabi’un.”
(Al-Majmu’ Sharh al-Muhadhdhab, 4/152)

The authors of the Kuwaiti Fiqh Encyclopedia write:
“A condition for leading men in prayer is that the Imam must be a man. A woman leading men in prayer is not valid, and this is unanimously agreed upon among the jurists.”
(Al-Mawsu’ah al-Fiqhiyyah al-Kuwaitiyyah, 6/205)

30. Ghamidi Sahib’s Views on Dajjal and Yajuj wa Majuj

Ghamidi Sahib holds contradictory views about Dajjal and Yajuj wa Majuj, none of which align with the beliefs of Ahl al-Sunnah. He writes:
“Our view is that the Prophet (peace be upon him) referred to the emergence of Yajuj wa Majuj as Dajjal near the end of times… By Yajuj wa Majuj, Western nations are intended.”
(Monthly Ishraq, January 1996, p. 61)

“The emergence of Yajuj wa Majuj has begun, and it is gradually moving towards its peak.”
(Mizan, 5th edition, p. 177)

In several lectures, he reiterated that Yajuj wa Majuj refers to the advanced Western nations of the present age.

“Dajjal is a descriptive term meaning a great deceiver and fraudster. It is also mentioned as ‘al-Masih al-Dajjal,’ referring to someone who will falsely claim to be the Messiah near the end of times. In some narrations, it is stated that he will be one-eyed, and believers will recognize his deception so clearly that they will see the word ‘kufr’ written on his forehead.”
(Mizan, 5th edition, p. 177)

The Belief of Ahl al-Sunnah Regarding Dajjal and Yajuj wa Majuj:

Dajjal will be an extraordinary human with remarkable powers who will initially display piety and righteousness, then claim prophethood, and eventually declare divinity. Using his astonishing and miraculous acts, he will mislead people until Isa (peace be upon him) descends and kills him.

Yajuj wa Majuj are descendants of Adam (peace be upon him). They will emerge after the descent of Isa (peace be upon him) near the Day of Judgment. They will be vast in number, with an overwhelming ratio of 999 to 1 compared to ordinary people. They will be extremely dangerous and terrifying. Ultimately, Allah will destroy them all at once through a disease.

31. Ghamidi Sahib on the Permissibility of Pictures and Statues

According to Ghamidi Sahib’s ruling, making pictures or statues of living beings is permissible; only those pictures and statues that lead to shirk (polytheism) are prohibited. He states:
“In ancient times, pictures and statues were worshipped. You know that in Islam, shirk is a grave crime, and that is why the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) prohibited such images. This prohibition has no connection with the pictures that are drawn or taken today, published in newspapers, or kept in homes—whether it’s a picture of one’s mother or father. These pictures are entirely permissible; Islam has no issue with them. The pictures that have the potential for worship or could lead to shirk are the ones that have been prohibited.”
[Source: https://youtu.be/hfdb0t-qYRk?si=i-rjD8qCbl65JN6b]

He also says:
“Only those pictures were declared prohibited that became a source of shirk.”
[Source: https://youtu.be/N5vtN1neaPo?si=d9GE_HQuqJ0Byzom]

Additionally, he states:
“Pictures, music, poetry—all these are fine arts. None of these are inherently impermissible. Sometimes they are misused, and one should avoid such misuse. Other than that, none of these are prohibited.”
[Source: https://youtu.be/cNUxypzBgtQ?si=t5Sz2cnE_9y4dpnI]

32. Ghamidi Sahib’s Stance on Halal and Haram

Ghamidi Sahib’s stance is that, apart from food and drink, Islam only prohibits five things. Therefore, everything other than these five is lawful unless one of the five prohibited elements is found in it. Based on this principle, he declares music, drawing pictures, and getting tattoos permissible. He explains:
“Allah Almighty has declared in the Quran that only five things are prohibited aside from food and drink: obscenity, injustice, transgressions against life, property, and honor; shirk; and attributing something to Allah which He has not said. These are the prohibited things. If any of these is found in pictures, poetry, or music, they become prohibited. Even in our conversations, if any of these elements exist, they become impermissible.”
[Source: https://youtu.be/N5vtN1neaPo?si=d9GE_HQuqJ0Byzom]

He writes:
“The question arises: What exactly is prohibited in God’s law? The Quran answers this in Surah Al-A’raf, stating that, apart from food and drink, only five things have been declared haram: obscenity, injustice, unwarranted transgression, shirk, and innovation. These are the only five things prohibited in God’s law. Beyond these, nothing is forbidden. This is God’s declaration regarding halal and haram, and no one has the right to declare anything else haram. If something is to be prohibited, it will only be because one of these five elements is present in it. Narrations, traditions, hadiths, and statements from previous scriptures will all be understood in light of this Quranic teaching. Anything contrary to or outside of this is not acceptable.”
[Source: Maqamat, Sixth Edition, October 2021, p. 270]

Ghamidi Sahib also states that Allah has only prohibited four types of animals, leaving the rest to human discretion. He writes:
“Pigs, blood, carrion, and animals slaughtered in the name of someone other than Allah are impure and must be avoided. The topic of the permissibility and prohibition of animals in the Shariah essentially revolves around these four categories. Thus, the Quran, with absolute clarity, declares in some places ﴿لُق لّ َ ُِجد َ َما أِفي و ِحی ُ أ ﴾and in others “ماَ َِن إ “that these are the only four categories of animals prohibited by Allah regarding dietary law.”
[Source: Meezan, Fifth Edition, p. 38]

33. Ghamidi Sahib declares the buying and selling of insurance permissible. 

He writes:
“Insurance is a type of cooperative contract where people pay a fixed amount in installments so that if any of them suffers a loss of life or property, it can be compensated according to a pre-determined rule from the collected amount. These funds are not returned, but the individuals or institutions managing the contract are given the right to use the collected funds as they see fit in return for their service. This is an extraordinary scheme for compensating losses and assisting people in difficult times. Its utility is now universally recognized. With the decline of tribal and community systems, this has become a modern alternative provided by contemporary economics. There appears to be no issue with this, yet scholars generally declare it haram… It is a cooperative scheme, and dismissing it without considering its reality is not appropriate.”
[Source: Maqamat, Sixth Edition, October 2021, pp. 275, 278]

Despite acknowledging that most scholars deem it impermissible, Ghamidi Sahib, using his legislative authority, declares it lawful.

34. Ghamidi Sahib rejects the imposition of jizya on non-Muslim citizens (dhimmis) and considers the ruling specific to the time of the Prophet. 

He writes:
“The right to wage war against people solely for their disbelief, to kill the conquered, or to impose jizya on them and subjugate them, ended forever after the departure of the Prophet (peace be upon him) and his companions. No one has the right to attack any nation for this purpose or to subjugate the conquered and impose jizya on them.”
[Source: Maqamat, Third Edition, July 2014, p. 203]

However, the imposition of jizya on non-Muslim citizens is explicitly stated in the Qur’an and is unanimously agreed upon by scholars such as Imam Ibn Abdul Barr (Al-Istidhkar, 3/249) and Imam Ibn Qudamah (Al-Mughni, 13/202).

35. Ghamidi Sahib denies any fixed share of war spoils for soldiers in jihad. 

He writes:
“The wars during the Prophet’s time were mostly fought under Allah’s law of completion of proof (Itmam al-Hujjah), and the fighters were essentially instruments carrying out Allah’s command, assisted directly by His angels. Thus, they had no inherent right to the spoils of war, as Allah did not establish any such right.”
[Source: Meezan, Fifth Edition, p. 605]

36. According to Ghamidi Sahib, there is no prescribed Shariah punishment for drinking alcohol. 

He argues that the lashes given by the Prophet (peace be upon him) for alcohol consumption were not as a legislator but as a ruler to admonish and deter.
He writes:
“It is certain that the Prophet (peace be upon him) punished alcohol offenders not as a legislator but as a ruler. Similarly, his successors (caliphs) prescribed 40 lashes or 80 lashes in this capacity. Therefore, we can say with complete confidence that this is not a hadd (fixed punishment); it is merely ta’zir (disciplinary action) which the Muslim community can modify according to their circumstances.”
[Source: Burhan, Fourth Edition, p. 139]

However, the consensus of scholars establishes that the hadd for alcohol consumption is obligatory. Prominent scholars like Imam Ibn Daqiq al-‘Eid, Imam Ibn Taymiyyah, and others confirm this through the Prophet’s Sunnah and unanimous agreement.

37. Ghamidi Sahib’s fatwa is that congregational prayers can be performed online. 

For example, if prayers are being held in a large mosque in the country, people can follow the imam by watching live broadcasts on television or mobile devices, such as following the Imam of the Kaaba during Taraweeh prayers by watching on a mobile device.
(Source)

38. Ghamidi Sahib holds the view that Friday prayers cannot be established in non-Muslim countries, 

as Friday prayers are performed under the authority of Muslim rulers in Muslim governments. If someone does this, it is akin to committing a form of innovation. He states:
“Friday prayer is held only in Muslim governments, and the ruler should make arrangements for it. It will be performed and led by the ruler or his representative. The Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) never organized Friday prayers until he formally acquired governance. Friday prayers were never offered in Makkah. The first arrangement for Friday prayers was made in Madinah when the Prophet acquired governance. This prayer was essentially mandated to connect the state with the mosque. It is conducted only under the leadership of the ruler. No scholar can deliver its sermon, stand on its pulpit, or lead its prayer; the presence of a ruler is a necessary condition for it. The Muslims of Pakistan, who follow the esteemed jurist, Imam Abu Hanifa, can look into any book of his jurisprudence. It is written that the presence of a ruler or authority in Friday prayer is among ‘the conditions of Friday prayer.’ Friday prayer is not an ordinary prayer; it is organized by state authorities. In the early history of Muslims, during the time of the Rightly Guided Caliphs, the Umayyads, and the early Abbasids, there was no concept of anyone other than the ruler organizing it. Neither Imam Abu Hanifa, Imam Shafi’i, nor Imam Malik ever led Friday prayers. This was simply out of the question. Thus, Friday prayer is held under the arrangement and authority of the ruler.”
(Source)

39. Ghamidi Sahib’s Views on Inheritance:

• Ghamidi Sahib believes that a Muslim can inherit from a non-Muslim, and a non-Muslim can inherit from a Muslim (Mizan, 2nd edition, p. 171).
• An orphaned grandson is entitled to his grandfather’s inheritance (Monthly Ishraq, March 2008, p. 63).
• The will of a deceased person is not limited to one-third of the estate; they can bequeath as much as they wish (Maqamat, 6th edition, October 2021, p. 283).
• Wills in favor of heirs are also valid (Maqamat, 6th edition, October 2021, p. 284).

40. Ghamidi Sahib’s Views on Prohibition and Impurity of a Pig:

• According to Ghamidi Sahib, the prohibition and impurity of a pig are restricted to its meat; the use and trade of its skin, bones, and fat are not prohibited (Monthly Ishraq, October 1998, p. 79).
• After mentioning the prohibition of dead animals, pork, blood, alcohol, animals slaughtered in the name of others besides Allah, and animals that die from strangulation, falls, or blows, he writes:
  “All these things, as is clear from the verses of the Quran, are forbidden only for consumption. As for their other uses, they are entirely permissible, and a believer should have no hesitation in this matter. According to a narration from Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with him), the Prophet (peace be upon him) himself explicitly stated this on one occasion.” (Mizan, 5th edition, p. 637)

41. Ghamidi Sahib’s Views on Prophets and Messengers:

• Observe Ghamidi Sahib’s unusual point of view. While differentiating between a Prophet and a Messenger, he exhibits unnecessary erudition, asserting that Prophets can be killed, but Messengers cannot. Prophets may fail in their mission, but Messengers do not. He writes: “The outcome of this special arrangement for Messengers is that they come to their people as God’s complete proof on earth. They shine on the horizon of their nation like the noonday sun, and no intelligent person can deny them based on any evidence or argument. This is why Allah does not allow their deniers to overcome them. Prophets, as we see, are often denied and even threatened with death by their people. But from the Quran, it is evident that Allah’s law is different in the case of Messengers.” (Monthly Ishraq, August 1988, p. 68; Mizan, May 1985, Vol. 1, p. 21)
  
  “A Prophet may fail (in worldly terms) against his people, but a Messenger always prevails over his people.” (Burhan, 3rd edition, p. 148)
  
  “A Prophet may fail in his mission against his people, but a Messenger is destined to prevail.” (Mizan, May 1985, Vol. 1, p. 23)
  
• However, contrary to this, Allah explicitly mentions in the Quran that Messengers can be killed and may also fail. Regarding the Children of Israel, it is clearly stated that they killed many Messengers. Allah even mentions the possibility of Muhammad (peace be upon him) being killed: “Muhammad (SAW) is no more than a Messenger, and indeed (many) Messengers have passed away before him. If he dies or is killed, will you then turn back on your heels (as disbelievers)? And he who turns back on his heels, not the least harm will he do to Allah, and Allah will give reward to those who are grateful.” (Al-Imran: 144)
  
  “Verily, We took the covenant of the Children of Israel and sent them Messengers. Whenever there came to them a Messenger with what they desired not – a group of them they called liars, and others among them they killed.” (Al-Ma’idah: 70)
  

42. Ghamidi Sahib’s Views on Retreats:

• Ghamidi Sahib states:
  “People should be encouraged to establish such retreats where possible, where they can periodically leave their worldly routines, benefit from the company of scholars and the righteous, learn about religion from them, and dedicate a few days to focused worship and remembrance for purifying their hearts and minds.” (Maqamat, 6th edition, p. 45)

43. Ghamidi Sahib’s Views on Ablution (Wudu) and Nail Polish:

• Regarding the issue of performing ablution (wudu) while wearing nail polish, Ghamidi Sahib writes:
  
  “The third (opinion) is that it should be analogized to wiping over socks. Therefore, if nail polish is applied after performing wudu, there is no need to remove it; one can perform wudu over it. However, if it was applied without performing wudu, it should be removed before performing wudu.
  
  In our view, this third opinion is preferable. It is an approach of precaution, involves no undue hardship, and is closer to the objective of purification and cleanliness. Hence, women should adopt this practice as a preparation for presenting themselves before their Lord.” (Maqamat, Sixth Edition, p. 308)
  

Summary:

Ghamidi Sahib is an extremely deviant and misguided individual, outside the fold of Ahl al-Sunnah wa al-Jama’ah and guilty of committing serious innovations and misguidances. The religion he presents differs significantly in numerous theological and jurisprudential matters from the religion agreed upon by the Messenger of Allah (صلى الله عليه وسلم), the Companions, the scholars, and the consensus of the past fourteen and a half centuries. Since his sources of learning, methods of deduction, and principles are entirely different, disagreements in derivative rulings are inevitable. For this reason, I have ignored many of his divergences in subsidiary issues and, in refuting several of his deviations, have relied on evidence from consensus (ijma’) and practical continuity (tawatur amali) rather than prophetic traditions (hadith). This is because Ghamidi Sahib does not accept hadith as a binding authority, rendering it futile to cite hadith before him.

Note: This article is not written as a direct refutation of Ghamidi Sahib but aims to inform and caution general students of knowledge about the dangerous ideas and ideologies he holds so that they may stay away from his toxic statements and writings. Consequently, many of Ghamidi Sahib’s views have not been pursued in detail, and several issues have been left without a comprehensive response.