Difference With Ghulam Ahmed Parvez In Understanding Regarding Hadith
Like traditional scholars, Pervaiz sahab doesn’t draw a distinction between Sunnah and Hadith. He considers the Quran to be the sole source of religion and rejects everything that goes against the Quran. It must also be noted that he translated the Quran himself according to his own non-standard vocabulary. Ghamidi sahab, on the other hand, considers the person of Prophet Muhammad SAW to be the sole source of religion for the humanity until the Day of Judgement. He concludes that Prophet Muhammad gave us Islam in the form of the Quran and the Sunnah. In Ghamidi sahab’s understanding, the Sunnah are those practices of prophets of God that Prophet Muhammad SAW sanctioned, and that reached us through ijma and tawatur. He doesn’t consider Hadith to be a standalone source of Islam, but a body of knowledge where Prophet Muhammad might have explained or applied the principles of the Quran and the Sunnah, in addition other things . I don’t think that it’s correct to superficially draw parallels between Pervaiz sahab’s and Ghamidi sahab’s understanding regarding Hadith in this manner. One has to understand each scholar’s viewpoint about Islam in its entirety and see how each regards the Hadith in their framework.