[“Nuqta-e-Nazar” is a column reserved for writings by various thinkers.
Agreement with its content is not necessary for the institution.]
Javed Ahmed Ghamidi has described the Quran in terms of content as “an account of a Messenger’s warning.” An objection raised against this is that calling the whole Quran a historical narrative undermines its universality. It makes it a tale locked in history (asatir al- awwalin), and an ordinary reader cannot relate to it, as it does not directly address him anywhere.
This objection arises from ignoring the distinction between the subject of the Quran and its content. The subject of the Quran is the universal guidance from God and warning of the Hereafter, but its presentation has come in the form of a Messenger’s account of warning. This is its content. This feature of the Quran is a historical reality. Among exegetes, the emphasis placed on the reports of circumstances of revelation (shan-e-nuzul) reflects acknowledgment of this historical character.
The Quran: A Messenger’s Account of Warning
Rather than the word “narrative,” attention should be given to the full phrase: “an account of a Messenger’s warning.” The Quran is not merely a narrative; it is not merely the biography of a Messenger—it is the account of a Messenger’s warning, in which various human groups are addressed with the divine message brought by the Messenger. It is within this context that religion and Shariah are presented.
Because it is an account of a Messenger’s warning, it does not remain just a biography or a historical report. A Messenger comes bearing God’s religion, which by nature is universal. The Quran records the Messenger’s efforts to convey this religion and the circumstances he faced. In this account, one can observe how the Messenger fulfilled the duty of preaching, how his people responded—whether in acceptance or rejection. Those who accepted the message, what they endured for purification of their souls, how they became worthy of divine approval; how the deniers faced completion of proof (itmam al-hujjah) and were consequently deemed deserving of punishment. One sees how religion was taught through a gradual, wise process; how believers remained patient in obedience and hardship, admitted their weakness, sought God’s help, gave thanks for victories, received warnings for lapses, repented, reformed, and were rewarded by God. On the other hand, others denied manifest truths, persisted in arrogance, became slaves to self-interest, blind and deaf in prejudice and enmity, adopted hypocrisy, were exposed, and faced punishment.
In essence, it is as if God’s court is set up—people’s deeds are being weighed, and their reward and punishment are being decided. Thus, this book is not only a teacher of ethics and Shariah, but emerges as a living book, which transmits not just abstract teachings of religion, but also the human responses and behaviours that accompany them. Through the Quran, an ordinary reader gains not just religious knowledge, but also human models of practice, which encompass every dimension of human psychology. In this way, the Quran becomes fully relevant to every individual—and this is the most effective way to teach religion.
This also clarifies how, in that era of divine warning, God’s manifest intervention was revealed in fulfillment of His claims and challenges, establishing irrefutable testimony for God’s existence, His oneness, and the reality of the Hereafter. All these events were then preserved in the form of a book for later generations, so that its recitation would establish God’s proof upon humanity until the Day of Judgment: that there is one God of this universe, who has expectations of human beings, and will hold them to account just as He held one nation to account in this world.
In the introduction to his exegesis Al-Bayan, where Javed Ahmed Ghamidi writes that “in terms of content, the Quran is an account of a Messenger’s warning,” he also writes:
“As a result of the Prophet’s mission, the judgment of God that was established in the land of Arabia has been preserved in this book with such beautiful order that it proves—at the highest level—the fundamental religious truth that one day, God’s judgment will likewise be established for the entire world.” (Al-Bayan, 1:12)
This is the very foundation on which the case of religion stands; it is the motivation that creates a demand upon the individual to live according to the religion. Once the certainty of accountability in the Hereafter takes root, one begins to worry about self-purification, and the Quran tells him that this purification will be achieved in the same way that it was achieved by those who lived by this religion in the past.
Unlike a general narrative, describing it as an “account of a Messenger’s warning” should not lead to the presumption—or concern—that the guidance and commands in it are specific and not general unless additional proof of generality is found. A Messenger brings God’s message for all humankind, so every matter in his narrative is potentially universal. Hence, it becomes necessary to identify what aspects are specific to the audience of that Messenger’s warning, and are no longer applicable to others. Those few rulings which are determined to be specific due to the law of Messengership or the law of completion of proof (itmam al-hujjah) have been precisely defined by Javed Ahmed Ghamidi. There is no room for confusion or misinterpretation after that, and thus the allegation that there is a scheme to fossilize religion in a certain historical era holds no substance.
The following is a list of such specific rulings:
Fighting against the Messenger’s people in response to their rejection of Islam was in fact a divine punishment issued after completion of proof. Ordinary Muslims do not have the right to take up arms against any people due to their rejection of Islam after preaching.
However, jihad against oppression and injustice is a general obligation, because the operative cause—oppression—is general.
1.
All ties and treaties with the disbelievers were annulled after the Prophet’s completion of proof. The prohibition of friendship with disbelievers and the People of the Book was a result of this boycott. There is no general prohibition on befriending non-Muslims.
2.
Differentiating between the testimony of Muslims and non-Muslims was also specific to the Prophet’s time and related to the boycott following itmam al-hujjah. There is no reason to maintain this distinction now.
3.
Separation between Muslim and non-Muslim spouses was also a result of this boycott and cannot be taken as a general command.
4.
Inheritance between Muslims and non-Muslims was also disallowed during the Prophet’s time for the same reason. This too is not a general rule.
5.
Apostasy in itself is not a distinct crime. In that era, it was essentially the same as disbelief (kufr), and the punishment of death, as mentioned in Surah al-Tawbah for idolaters, applied to apostates as well. This cannot be considered a general rule.
6.
It should be clear that on the matter of hijab for the Prophet’s wives, Javed Ahmed Ghamidi stands with the understanding of the Companions and early scholars. The view that the hijab of the Prophet’s wives should be generalized emerged in later periods. In contrast, with regard to the verse of jilbab, there is no involvement of the law of Messengership or completion of proof, contrary to what one critic has assumed. The issue there pertains to linguistic connotation: it has been explained that the cause of the command to wear a cloak was the prevention of harm from wrongdoers—something Allah Himself mentioned. Therefore, based on that cause, the ruling can only be applied to that specific context or similar situations. It is not a general directive for all circumstances.
Javed Ahmed Ghamidi’s Discourse: A Review of Select Critiques
1. On the General and Specific Commands in Religion
In Javed Ahmed Ghamidi’s discourse, the distinction between general and specific commands of religion is not arbitrary. The matter of linguistic indication (dalalah), the nature of legal causes (illah), their identification, and their application is an entire science, which Javed Ahmed Ghamidi has elaborated in his books and lectures. It is true that when an ordinary reader is told that the Quran does not address him directly, but rather addresses its primary audience through the narrative of the Messenger’s warning, it somewhat disheartens him from what he had hoped would be a direct miraj-like experience. However, the fact is that viewing oneself as the direct addressee of the Quran can at times lead to serious misinterpretations.
For example, the phrase “Ya ayyuha alladhina amanu” was directed toward sincere Companions, weak believers, and even hypocrites who claimed belief. If an average reader assumes every such verse to be addressing him personally, he will often encounter confusion.
The Quran tells the Prophet that he will triumph over his opponents, that he will make the religion prevail over Arabia. Promises of divine help and worldly leadership are made to the Companions. If an ordinary Muslim then associates those promises with himself, he may stir up a Badr-like spirit, charging into battle unarmed and unprepared, expecting angels to descend in rows. When that doesn’t happen and failure results, he doesn’t know whether to doubt his own faith or God’s promises.
Similarly, when God tells the Prophet that relief will surely come after hardship, a businessman starts hoping that ease will follow his financial difficulties. Sometimes it happens, sometimes it doesn’t.
God declares that truth shall prevail. Meanwhile, a Muslim spends a lifetime waiting for justice in the courts, but his “truth” never triumphs. A long cycle of complaint and counter-complaint ensues.
It reached a point where the Prophet, at God’s command, challenged the deniers of truth to a mubahalah (invoking divine curse), and here Muslims also began issuing mubahalah challenges —but no divine punishment came down upon the opposing party.
The message of the Quran, as conveyed through the account of the Prophet, the signs of truth it establishes, the centrality of accountability in the Hereafter, the program of self-purification it offers—all this is lost. And then Muslims blame the Quran and Islam for their failures in worldly matters.
2. Classification of Religious Sciences
One objection raised against Javed Ahmed Ghamidi’s thought relates to his classification of religious sciences. It must be understood that in the evolution of knowledge, a stage comes when systematic classification refines a discipline. This is a crucial milestone in scholarly development.
In religious studies, the task of clear classification was ultimately achieved through Javed Ahmed Ghamidi. He has ended confusion in the discourse of religion and refined the foundations of argument. Scholars are recognizing the significance and subtlety of this framework.
Dr. Ammar Khan Nasir has summarized the implications of this classification in Javed Ahmed Ghamidi’s thought as follows:
A clear distinction between the religion given by the Prophet and the subsequent intellectual constructs built upon it (thereby correcting the error of conflating tradition with revelation). 1.
A continuous critique of traditional outcomes and intellectual trends based on the primary sources of Islam. 2.
Rediscovery of the lost distinction between the Prophet’s Sunnah (as a practice of the community) and solitary reports (akhbar ahad), and consequently, affirming the historical certainty of foundational religion.
3.
Establishing interpretive principles with greater precision for engaging the Quranic text, thereby curbing the trend of forcing any and every notion onto the Quran. 4.
3. The Single Interpretation of the Quran
Some critics object to the concept in Farahi thought of a tawil wahid (single interpretation) of the Quran based on textual coherence (nazm). The importance of context in interpreting speech is a well-established principle. Javed Ahmed Ghamidi strongly recommends adhering to this principle when interpreting the Quran. As a result, the intended meaning of the divine speech emerges clearly and singularly. That is the very goal of interpretation.
Yet the critics insist that while this principle may be used in all other discourse, it should be avoided in the case of divine speech, so that no definitive meaning can be established—and everyone remains free to project their own meanings onto it. This insistence, if you think about it, is extremely dangerous for both knowledge and faith.
Nazm al-kalam closes the door to interpretive chaos and highlights the Quran’s role, as it describes itself, in resolving religious disagreements. If no definitive understanding can be reached from the Quran, its own claim becomes meaningless and its utility nullified.
Even classical exegetes, when facing multiple possible meanings, establish a rationale for preferring one over the other. Javed Ahmed Ghamidi’s methodology does the same through the principles of coherence and linguistic indication. However, it remains possible that the meaning one has derived may not be correct—but the validity of an alternative interpretation will also have to be established through coherence and linguistic analysis. In the end, however, the interpretation remains one.
4. Certainty in Javed Ahmed Ghamidi’s Arguments
Another objection raised is that Javed Ahmed Ghamidi presents his arguments and conclusions with undue certainty or dogmatism. In truth, the degree of certainty Javed Ahmed Ghamidi expresses falls within the normal academic bounds observed by all scholars. The kind of certainty he is accused of is, upon closer inspection, present in every scholar’s discourse — including those who critique him.
5. The Relationship between the Individual and Society
Questions have also been raised about Javed Ahmed Ghamidi’s views on the relationship between the individual and the collective. An individual is not a separate entity from society; rather, society is composed of individuals. When individuals form a collective, the social commands of religion also address them collectively. These commands can be found in Javed Ahmed Ghamidi’s book Mizan, under headings like “Law of Governance,” “Law of Jihad,” and “Law of Economics.”
In Javed Ahmed Ghamidi’s thought, religion moves from the individual to society—it does not impose itself from society onto the individual. That is why, in his approach, situations cannot arise where, for example, state power is used to force men to grow beards or women to wear the hijab.
6. Indifference toward Muslim Political Dominance
Javed Ahmed Ghamidi is also criticized for not supporting efforts aimed at Muslim political dominance. His position is that if Muslims wish to form a political bloc and achieve honour in the world, there is no harm in that. The only point of contention is when such desires are presented as religious obligations—because they are not. Religion does not concern itself with this matter. Javed Ahmed Ghamidi has presented detailed critiques on this subject.
To oppressed Muslims, he advises: you are not in a position to defeat your far more powerful enemies through armed struggle. Muslim nations are neither capable nor brave enough to help you. In such a situation, your only viable option is to resist with dignity, remain peaceful, and focus on improving your educational and economic condition.
Javed Ahmed Ghamidi too wants Muslims to regain honour—but in his view, the path to honour is through knowledge and peaceful development, not through wandering lost in valleys of blood and dust.
[1] Surah al-Ahzab 33:59: ’َُی ۡؤ َذ ۡی لَف اَ َُّی ۡع َر ۡف َۡا َا ۡد ٰۤنی َٰذ ِل‘،