جناب غامدی صاحب کے اصول اور ان کے فقہی مسائل کا تنقیدی جائزہ

A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF JAVED AHMAD GHAMIDI’S PRINCIPLES AND JURISPRUDENTIAL ISSUES

Abstract

This paper offers a critical examination of the interpretive principles and jurisprudential views of Javed Ahmad Ghamidi, a contemporary Pakistani Islamic scholar. Ghamidi’s distinctive approach to Qur’anic interpretation and Islamic law diverges markedly from traditional Sunni scholarship and the consensus of classical jurists, particularly the four established Sunni madhāhib (schools of thought). The study scrutinizes the foundational principles of Ghamidi’s hermeneutics—such as his assertion of the Qur’an’s self-evident nature, its exclusive authority over Hadith and ijmāʿ (consensus), his rejection of Hadith-based abrogation, and his dismissal of solitary reports (khabar al-wāḥid) as valid sources for law or creed.

The paper systematically documents 25 instances where Ghamidi’s views conflict with the agreed-upon creedal beliefs and legal issues upheld by the classical Islamic tradition.. These include his rejection of rajm (stoning), the obligation of growing a beard, the prescribed punishments for apostasy and blasphemy, the permissibility of insurance, the validity of solitary travel for women, his interpretation of jihad, and his denial of legally binding ijmāʿ. Drawing on classical Islamic legal theory and evidence from the Qur’an, Sunnah, and scholarly consensus, the paper argues that many of Ghamidi’s positions lack traditional grounding and methodological coherence. It concludes that without adherence to established interpretive principles and the authority of scholarly consensus, such interpretations risk leading to subjective and potentially misleading understandings of Islam.