Talk:Ghulam Ahmed Perwez

Untitled
i think G a parvez is a great scholars of subcontinent, but as the majority muslim are not educated and cant understand logical and new translation. any how his reseach may effect the well educated person like me.

Same here, Ghulam Ahmed Parvez is one of the best scholars of his age, and who presented the true essence of Islam...

Mr. Parwez, great scholar, who interpreted Islam in its true sense and passion based on the Book "Quran". He can be considered as Iqbal in prose. He is wrongly interpreted by the religious scholars who presented him a disbeliever (Kafir), though the truth is verse. People who have wrong impression about his personality are either illiterate or educated in wrong fashion. The reason why religious people are against him 1. he talks about Book and rejects the wrong narrations in Islamic books with research & reference 2. he talks about deep thinking and gaining knowledge and conducting research rather than reading stories & revelations 3. he talks about Islam as code of life like Iqbal rather than set of prays and rejects the concept of priesthood ship (mazhab parasti) devised by religious scholars to establish a parallel government as seen in history of Christianity and jewism 4. he insists to follow The Book (authority for truth and Islam), gaining the knowledge and technology of time for the betterment of society 5. he rejects those Hadith only which are contrary to Book, Stature to Almighty and His Prophet (PBUH) 6. he, like Iqbal, is against Mulla (a symbol of religion like pop in christianity) because of his wrong believes about Islam and asks muslims to contradict him, which is not acceptable by these cronies 7. he indicates, with reference, how and when Islam was misinterpreted and decline of Islam started and provides remedies to root out disbelieves about Islam

On the contrary, religious scholars wish to hold their personnel authority on innocent people in the name of Islam. Imagine a religious scholar without power as a common person of society who will have to strive for his economic matters and abided by state laws. Unfortunately, people in subcontinent want shortcuts to understand Islam, escape from hard work, dislike research work & deep thinking and hence empower Mulla and have been suffering since more than thousand years.

There is need to understand Islam according to Book of Allah rather than thousand years old and outdated narrations and jurisprudence.

Please remain objective and neutral. Wikepedia is an information portal, not an opinion portal. Poloplayers (talk) 06:23, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism by FreeatlastChitchat
I've reverted the edits by user FreeatlastChitchat who basically deleted most of the page, and inserted some biased comments into the copy of the page. This user is involved in multiple investigations and has been warned on edit wars. FreeatlastChitchat, refrain from vandalizing this article, or I will be opening a new case on the administration board WP:ANI Code16 (talk) 15:10, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * @Code16 Please give sources for the content. Unsourced material should be deleted ASAP from a biography. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 17:19, 25 August 2015 (UTC)


 * @ FreeatlastChitchat Sources are provided for everything on this page, the biographical text is copied almost verbatim from an introductory chapter of a book which is sourced. Your edits will be considered vandalism if you delete this again, and I will report you. You're already under investigation. This is your final warning. Code16 (talk) 20:13, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I am able to find the bio text in the cited ref, indeed, "copied almost verbatim". That makes it WP:COPYVIO, which must be completely and immediately removed by policy. Editors who violate this policy usually get promptly blocked. You can demonstrate that you understand this situation by removing all such content immediately. DMacks (talk) 20:52, 25 August 2015 (UTC)


 * @ DMacks Understood, I will rework the copy and summarize the text without "copying verbatim". That should clear up the copyright issue. With that said, if FreeatlastChitchat deletes the page again I'll raise a complaint on the admin board, if that situation occurs. Thank you. Code16 (talk) 23:49, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Claims of "promotional editing" Reverts by Justice007 and FreeatlastChitchat
Guys, explain why you are reverting my edits here. I created a differing opinions section with both sides of the argument already. Why are you both intent on deleting it? Also, the "major ideas" section is consistent with other scholars wiki pages. Check for example Max Weber's wiki page, you will find citations from his own works. This is a starter page, and will grow to include other scholars who have cited Parwez in the future. Let the page grow instead of killing it in the womb please, thanks. Code16 (talk) 16:31, 29 August 2015 (UTC)


 * That's not how Wikipedia works. You made an edit, your edit was reverted, and according to our rules which are clearly explained at WP:BRD, WP:TALKDONTREVERT, and WP:EW, the article stays in its previous state while the two of you discuss the issue on the article talk page. If you continue to edit war, you are likely to have your editing privileges revoked. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:58, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * There doesnt seem to be much discussion, just reverting. Please explain why you reverted the edits. AlbinoFerret  17:16, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * What part of


 * "according to Wikipedia's rules which are clearly explained at WP:BRD, WP:TALKDONTREVERT, and WP:EW, the article stays in its previous state while FreeatlastChitchat and Code16 discuss the issue on the article talk page."


 * are you having trouble understanding? --Guy Macon (talk) 17:27, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * So the reason you reverted was that there was a revert? Thats edit warring mentality. What was the problem with the material? Please be specific. AlbinoFerret  17:35, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Code16, first, you should collaborate with other editors rather edit warring, your expanding content breached the WP:NPOV and violated the WP:COI, and second Wikipedia is not a newspaper or any website to promote any subject, we do not use promotional terms even that have reliable sources, it is encyclopedia where should be the content information for the readers, not the subject's views, and you did that. I reverted your edits for the standards, and policies of the project. If you reach a consensus, I have no problems with that anymore. I hope this helps.Justice007 (talk) 17:30, 29 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Can anyone actually explain HOW I'm in breech of NPOV or COI, exactly? I added two sides of the argument, and contributed sources towards a scholar on the wiki page. Go to Max Weber's wiki and you'll find his ideas sourced from his own books, is that also a breach of wiki rules? How is this any different? And also, I'm being accused of not discussing the matter, but it was my contribution which was deleted arbitrarily without any explanation . FreeatlastChitchat has still not justified his deletion, while Justice007 is claiming I'm citing promotional stuff, ignoring the fact that I'm summarizing a scholar's views, which is INFORMATIONAL not "promotional". Also, on what basis would he delete sourced material where Parwez defending himself against the charges his sources leveled on him? I cited PTV's interview and other publications from that organization which provided the other side of the argument, without deleting the opposing viewpoint. And yet, Justice007 deleted the differing opinions section entirely and defaulted to the page to the one-sided viewpoint. How is that not against NPOV? Code16 (talk) 17:44, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * My reasons for reverting are pretty simple. Firstly this is an encyclopedia, we try our best not to put in what the subject thinks about himself/herself, for example we dont put in Mr XYZ think that he is the king of the world. Secondly we are here to make sure that 'promotional' adjectives and words are deleted from an article to make it neutral in weight and NPOV. Now Any person can see that what you want to add fall under these two categories. So basically you need to provide 'reliable third party' sources if you want to put this sort of stuff in, and even then it will have to be heavily copyedited. RegardsFreeatlastChitchat (talk) 17:55, 29 August 2015 (UTC)


 * There are precedents on Wikipedia where the subject's defense and rebuttals against critics are cited clearly on their wiki page. For example take a look at the wiki page for Niall Ferguson and his many disputes with others. His wiki page cites BOTH sides of the argument, including Feruson's responses to his critics. So there's no basis for removing sources from this page like the PTV interview I cited in which Parwez was defending himself. Citing publications from his organization to present the other side of the argument is also justified I believe. And if not, you should still have discussed before deleting. Code16 (talk) 18:33, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Just add the information in the style of encyclopedia, subjects own books are not considered the reliable sources to support its article. It is not the problem to add information that covers NPOV. I tried to cooperate with you to improve and expand the article, and I did already that, but if you remain to change the work of other editors comparing yours that does not endorse the NPOV, and it is, I don't like it. Feel free to ask any assistance, we are here for that. Please discuss on the talk page of the article rather other pages. Thanks.Justice007 (talk) 18:38, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * @Code16 which of the sources on Niall Ferguson are owned by the author? And which ources does he control completely? Please be kind enough to provide those. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 18:41, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Even those types of sources can be used with some restrictions WP:SELFSOURCE. AlbinoFerret  18:43, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I see that User:AlbinoFerret has linked the selfsource policy, we should buy his ferrets some new toys for that :P. I'll just explain what went wrong with the content based on this policy just to clear up the revert and to make sure future changes are not contested.I'll remove my indent so the list appears outside.

According to policy such sources may be used with the following prerequisites I hope this will prevent further mishap and clear the air a little bit. Ty FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 18:55, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim. But here we see that most of the "peacock" terms have been migrated to this article from those sources. It is advisable to delete such terms before inserting the text into wikipedia.
 * 2) It does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities). Claims about other sects such as Quranists etc, claims about other people such as Jinnah, Iqbal, etc and other organizations should be removed before putting the source here.
 * 3) It does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject. I don't see any violation so far of this.
 * 4) There is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity. This, too, remains to be violated, so far.
 * 5) The article is not based primarily on such sources. It is advisable that every section should contain 'at least' the same number of third party sources as self sources, at least this is my interpretation of this. However, even with any large amount of margin, this has been violated greatly with Code16's edits as not a 'Single' claim of Pervaiz has been sourced to a third party source.


 * @ FreeatlastChitchat Why did you ignore the PTV interview that was deleted? That is a 3rd party source, Parwez did not "own" PTV television station. There are other interviews conducted with Parwez by 3rd parties present on Youtube that I can post as well in which Parwez defended himself. I didn't even get a chance to post them before the entire category got deleted. This is exactly why those categories should exist, so that this page can grow. And as A.F. pointed to above, even those other publications are not automatically forbidden, you and Justice007 should have discussed the matter before deleting everything. With that said, I can make concessions and we can all figure out how to present those TeI publications as per WP:SELFSOURCE. So let's agree to bring back those categories so that all of us can contribute both sides of the POVs? Code16 (talk) 19:07, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * @Code16 the BURDEN article clearly states that the person who wants 'to put in' the text needs to provide the evidence first that such text should be allowed. Youtube is generally discarded as a ReliableSource as you cannot actually 'prove' that those videos are from PTV. Try to find some academic sources then you can put in the sections. As far as your 'making concessions' is concerned, I'm afraid I'll have to ask, what kind of concessions lol? FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 19:12, 29 August 2015 (UTC)


 * @FreeatlastChitchat And do those conditions of BURDEN actually allow you to simply delete sourced content without discussing? It doesn't seem like that to me. And "generally" youtube sources may not be considered the best, but this is an interview with the scholar, it's not some random person posting a videoblog. As for concessions, if those subsections can be brought back I'll only source the interviews and keep TeI sources out of the page for now until enough of those interviews are posted to allow an equal number of TeI publications, even though a case can be made for their inclusion right now. How's that? Keep in mind, in the future as the page grows more sources from 3rd parties can be added, but if the categories simply dont exist that would inhibit growth of the page. And unless that's your actual hidden motive, you should agree with this and we can move on. If you have other conditions you want to negotiate, let me know. Code16 (talk) 19:30, 29 August 2015 (UTC)


 * p.s. also, there is simply no point in deleting the "Major ideas" section entirely. Every major thinker in wikipedia probably has sourced material from their own works. The argument that it MUST have an equal number of 3rd party sources isnt even based on any wiki rule, that's just your own demand. Code16 (talk) 19:38, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Code16, Re: "do those conditions [...] actually allow you to simply delete sourced content without discussing?". the answer is yes. Anything you add to Wikipedia can be instantly removed by any editor for any reason. At that point, you as the person who made the edit are supposed to go to the article talk page and start a discussion about the edit / revert. And the person who reverted you is supposed to join that discussion discuss why he thinks it should not be in Wikipedia. The content of the page stays in the state it was in before your edit while the two of you resolve the conflict. That is Wikipedia policy. This has been explained to you several times, yet you keep asking the same question again and again, ignoring the fact that it has been answered. Please stop doing that. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:23, 29 August 2015 (UTC)


 * That's fine, I'll focus solely on their reasons/justifications for deleting, which I don't see them having fully proved. Code16 (talk) 20:46, 29 August 2015 (UTC)


 * You remain on your point of view while we are trying to make you understand with referring the rules. Please take a look at your edits, and you fall under the words to watch. I hope you will follow that in your contributions.Justice007 (talk) 22:11, 29 August 2015 (UTC)


 * And how did I violate these rules you just quoted, specifically? All you're doing is spamming the rules, first it was NPOV, then something else, and now this, without having proven that my edits were in actual violation of any of those. I've already justified why I posted that content, to 1) provide counter arguments against the views held by Parwez's opponents and 2) to increase the informational value of the page by summarizing the major ideas of the scholar. The only actual dispute here is the self source and authenticity of the youtube interview. I'm willing to discuss this matter, but most of the charges you guys have posted are completely baseless. Code16 (talk) 23:04, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Your "justifications" are the type that do not have credence at Wikipedia.
 * At Wikipedia we represent the subject as the mainstream third party academics view the subject.
 * We do not scour through the subject's works to rebut the mainstreams critiques.
 * If there are significant  mainstream academics who have rebutted, we would include their analysis. Again, their analysis, not ours as it has been published in reliable third party sources -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  00:59, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

@User:AlbinoFerret, @Justice007, @FreeatlastChitchat, @User:TRPoD I'd like to call everyone's attention to a key piece of information concerning the rules at WP:SELFSOURCE, which clearly state that the restrictions (which were cited by FreeatlastChitchat) apply only in the case where the people in question are not "experts in the field". [] This invalidates FreeatlastChitchat entire argument, because: Given all of this, there should be no question of Parwez's expertise in the field. Clearly, Parwez was a recognized and highly influential scholar. Therefore, the self-sourced content I used is justified, as per the rules of wikipedia, and all those restrictions/violations FreeatlastChitchat claimed, are simply invalid. In light of all this, I now ask that I be given permission to revert the deletions by Justice007 and FreeatlastChitchat. Thank you. Code16 (talk) 01:14, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Multiple 3rd party published sources exist on the page attesting to the expertise of Parwez in the field.
 * 2) The Western scholar William Clarence-Smith has cited Parwez in his book "Islam and the Abolition of Slavery" on page 198, where he cites Parwez's argument against slavery, further attesting to Parwez's expertise in the field.
 * 3) And let's not forget, we know already (confirmed by 3rd party sources) that Parwez was directed by the founder of Pakistan himself to help in the cause of creating Pakistan by using his expertise in the field.


 * you keep not getting it. Please actually read the policies that are being linked for you:  WP:UNDUE - we do not give excessive credence to views, EVEN / PARTICULARLY THE SUBJECT'S - we present the subject how they are viewed by mainstream academia.
 * WP:OR We do not go through a prolific writer's body of work and pick out the contents and points that are presented in the article. We follow what the reliable sources have said about the subject.
 * WP:BALASPS We do not create a "False balance" by attempting to rebut the mainstream's critique of the subject.
 * Find reliably published third party mainstream analysis. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  01:21, 30 August 2015 (UTC)


 * "exessive credence" ?! The scholar is a recognized expert by mainstream academia, as I've already demonstrated clearly. I've made the case using WP:SELFSOURCE. I'm requesting that BOTH SIDES of an argument be presented (while currently one side is being completely blocked and censored) and I'm citing rules that allow me to post the expert's views. He is an established expert in the field, so please stop spamming and understand what's happening here before getting involved. Code16 (talk) 01:27, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I understand whats happening here. People are "spamming" multiple Wikipedia guidelines and policies because you are wanting to edit in violation of multiple policies and guidelines. And you are apparently refusing to read them to understand.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  02:02, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I've already demonstrated that the policy cited by FreeatlastChitchat doesn't even apply in this case, and it was he who misunderstood the policy which he himself quoted. Nor is your own quoted rule applicable here, as I've demonstrated this scholar is not fringe. So clearly, you don't understand what's happening here. Code16 (talk) 02:49, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Please dont take my adding a policy as an indication that its a foolproof way to get an edit in. At the point I added it, it was in hopes of getting the conversation going on what needs to be done to address issues. FreeatlastChitchat did that when he answered my post. Please reread the problems, and perhaps try and find different reliable sources to back up the claims. AlbinoFerret  02:58, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * User:AlbinoFerret is quite right. @ Code16, let me just explain it to you using simple examples. First of all the basic principle of wikipedia is that we try our utmost to add text which comes from a 'Reliable, published' source. see there are two words here, reliable and published. Lets discuss reliable first. According to wikipedia policy the basic things for a source to be reliable are that it is a 'secondary source'. This means that instead of putting in what the author thinks about himself we put in 'what other people think of him'. For example a person may call himself 'King' but we do not put that into the article until and unless other people have written that he is KING. For example, Nadeem, Paracha writes that this guy Pervez is a Socialist, now Paracha is a journalist with no connections to pervez so we can add what he wrote about Pervez. So to put in something, we will need a source where a person, other than Pervez has said that he is something.

Now you can say that wikipedia also allows self published sources and material can be taken if the person is called as an expert by others. Well sorry to say but you misunderstood the wording there, even though it is quite clear. That policy is for something which 'is connected to his field'. For example, Einstein can write that Massive Objects Dilate Space time and no one in thier right mind is going to go up there and remove it. why? Simply because Herr Stein was the greatest physicist in history and his 'expertise' in physics has been guaranteed. However, if someone put in Einsteins opinion from a self published source into an article about flowers, I'm sure it will take exactly 5 seconds to be reverted. I hope this explains it all. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:20, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You seem to have fixated on one particular page of guidance. Wikipedia has many pages of policies and guidance that must all be taken together. Please read the policies that you have been linked to. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  03:48, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

@FreeatlastChitchat First of all, MASS (at any scale) dilates spacetime, it doesn't have to be "massive", according to GR (leave Physics out of this, you're way out of your depth here.) Secondly, realize and accept the following fact: You cited certain restrictions which DO NOT APPLY and I demonstrated that, according to the WP:SELFSOURCE, which permits citations of self-sources of acclaimed experts, of which Parwez qualifies according to the criteria listed here[] and everything I added was within the field Parwez is an accalimed expert in. With that said, since User:AlbinoFerret has suggested I wait to make edits using different sources that are more universally considered reliable, I'll follow through on his suggestion. Code16 (talk) 04:39, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * @ Code16 Great, you can now be kind enough to close your thread at the ANI saying you have gotten the point, and you can then search for sources. Seeing the disruption already caused, it is advisable that you post your text here on the TalkPage and ping other editors before inserting it straight into the main article. That way you any disruptive editing can be bypassed with discussion. Ty for understanding. I hope you got the concept of RS now. If you need anymore help you can just ping me and I'll be happy to help. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 04:59, 30 August 2015 (UTC)


 * @FreeatlastChitchat, Fine, I've closed the thread at ANI and the RfC. I will post further edits on this talk page and ping editors before inserting into the main article, as advised. Code16 (talk) 05:08, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Reliable Mainstream 3rd Party Source list
@ AlbinoFerret, Neil N  ,Justice007

Hi everyone. I've collected a list of reliable mainstream 3rd party sources, as advised, to support most of the content that was deleted, and even add a whole lot more. I would like to get everyone's opinion, so that any objections anyone might have can be discussed here regarding the reliability of these sources, before I edit the main page. I'm seeking to get a consensus established on the sources below, to avoid any disruptions etc. Furthermore, I'm also seeking advice/suggestions on the appropriate number of self-sourced citations from Parwez's own works that can be used to supplement these mainstream 3rd party sources. I know this will take you guys a while, there's no hurry, take your time, and feel free to ping any other editors or admins to analyze/discuss:


 * 1) Parwez argued that the emphasis on individual freedom is so strong in the Quran that it overrides all forms of authority to the point where no person has the right to compel another person to obey them, citing the verse 3:79 in support of this view. Liberal Islam: A Source Book, p24, By Charles Kurzman. https://books.google.ca/books?id=4n8HSe9SfXMC&pg=PA24&dq=%22Ghulam+Ahmad+Parwez%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CEIQ6AEwCDgKahUKEwi6n-GTu9bHAhVUjpIKHT_qB5M#v=onepage&q=%22Ghulam%20Ahmad%20Parwez%22&f=false
 * 2) --Parwez “adamantly opposed” slavery, claiming that it had no justifiable basis according to the Quran and that the practice had been banned since the dawn of Islam, contrary to the opinions of his opponents who officially called for slavery to be legalized in the newly created Pakistan. Parwez argued that the words used in the Quran to refer to slavery should be correctly read in the past-tense, thereby giving a completely different meaning to the verses used by his opponents to justify slavery. “Whatever happened in subsequent history was the responsibility of Muslims, and not of the Quran.” --- Parwez also called for monogamy and rejected polygamy under normal demographic circumstances. Islam and the Abolition of Slavery, p 198. W. G. Clarence-Smith. https://books.google.ca/books?id=nQbylEdqJKkC&pg=PA198&dq=%22Ghulam+Ahmad+Parwez%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAzgUahUKEwiu0enev9bHAhVIbz4KHeXqBjk#v=onepage&q=%22Ghulam%20Ahmad%20Parwez%22&f=false
 * 3) Parwez argued that Islam challenged the 'truth', validity, as well as the very conception of ‘religion’. He distinguished between “deen” (a complete code of life) versus ‘madhab’, which he equated with the prevailing definition of ‘religion’. The Political Philosophy of Muhammad Iqbal: Islam and Nationalism in Late Colonial India, p125, Jun 29 2012. Iqbal Singh Sevea. https://books.google.ca/books?id=Fk8hAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA125&dq=%22Ghulam+Ahmad+Parwez%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CBsQ6AEwADgKahUKEwi6n-GTu9bHAhVUjpIKHT_qB5M#v=onepage&q=%22Ghulam%20Ahmad%20Parwez%22&f=false
 * 4) …Parwez was the leading figure to systematically interpret Quranic themes and Iqbal’s writings in the light of Islamic Reform, with an aim to reorganize society on an economic bases, in some bearings he was even more revolutionary then Marx. Cultural and Religious Heritage of India: Islam. p238 Suresh K. Sharma, Usha Sharma. https://books.google.ca/books?id=e2yvoujPJCYC&pg=PA238&dq=Ghulam+Ahmed+Pervez&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCUQ6AEwAmoVChMI1Kz5nYXWxwIViDI-Ch39ggnF#v=onepage&q=Ghulam%20Ahmed%20Pervez&f=false
 * 5) (On Parwez's efforts in support of the Muslim League and the Pakistan movement) Maulana Azad, a prominent Indian Nationalist, argued against Pakistan by pointing to the universalism of all religions. In support of Iqbal, Jinnah and the concept of Pakistan, Parwez argued against Maulana Azad's ideas, by first stating that the consequences of Azad’s “universalism” would be the formation of another sect, further dividing humanity, as per the history of other such enterprises that attempted to ‘universalize’ and fuse different, incompatible ideas into one ideology. Parwez further argued that the basic requirements for Muslims, i.e. belief in one God and the prophet as His final messenger, precluded the possibility of any fusion. Moreover, Parwez pointed contradictions between Azad’s position while he was arguing against the Muslim League, with his earlier works written in 1912. THE WORLD OF FATWAS, By Arun Shourie. https://books.google.ca/books?id=OASNAgAAQBAJ&pg=PT33&dq=%22Ghulam+Ahmed+Parwez%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCcQ6AEwAmoVChMIxumi2a7WxwIViRs-Ch181Qp9#v=onepage&q=%22Ghulam%20Ahmed%20Parwez%22&f=false
 * 6) Parwez argued that because the prophet Muhammad did not allow his own traditions (hadith) to be recorded while he was alive, therefore the hadith cannot be considered to be a part of “Deen” or Islam, with any obligatory authority. JMS Baljon - Die Welt des Islams, 1958 – JSTOR http://www.jstor.org/stable/1570195?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
 * 7) Parwez described as a "socialst." Islam and the Everyday World: Public Policy Dilemmas, p17. Sohrab Behdad, Farhad Nomani https://books.google.ca/books?id=zVdlj3xa-7AC&pg=PA17&dq=%22Ghulam+Ahmed+Parwez%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CDcQ6AEwBWoVChMIxumi2a7WxwIViRs-Ch181Qp9#v=onepage&q=%22Ghulam%20Ahmed%20Parwez%22&f=false
 * 8) Parwez argued that the text of the Quran had a rationalist, dynamic reality. The Qur'an: The Basics, p115. Massimo Campanini  https://books.google.ca/books?id=m7BlAgAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=The+Qur%27an:+The+Basics+Massimo+Campanini&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CBwQ6AEwAGoVChMIzfbM29DWxwIVShc-Ch15BAMS#v=onepage&q=parwez&f=false
 * 9) Parwez was one of the most respected Islamic scholars of post-independence Pakistan. THE WORLD OF FATWAS, Arun Shourie. https://books.google.ca/books?id=OASNAgAAQBAJ&pg=PT404&dq=Ghulam+Ahmed+Pervez&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCYQ6AEwAjgKahUKEwjS7Zz0n9bHAhWJ2D4KHQ35DSc#v=onepage&q=Ghulam%20Ahmed%20Pervez&f=false
 * 10) Parwez held the view that belief in the Quran is the only binding force of society in Pakistan. The Impact of Asian Powers on Global Developments. Erich Reiter, Peter Hazdr. https://books.google.ca/books?id=ZIhHBAAAQBAJ&pg=PT71&dq=Ghulam+Ahmed+Pervez&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAzgKahUKEwjS7Zz0n9bHAhWJ2D4KHQ35DSc#v=onepage&q=Ghulam%20Ahmed%20Pervez&f=false
 * 11) Parwez translates the miraculous verses rationally, as metaphors.. SENSE AND SENSIBILITY IN ISLAM: Linguistics, Context and Rationality. Abdul Elah Nazerhttps://books.google.ca/books?id=1fOv6h9c3gwC&pg=PT240&dq=Ghulam+Ahmed+Pervez&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CBsQ6AEwADgUahUKEwjJgsKzotbHAhVFaD4KHfJADDk#v=onepage&q=Ghulam%20Ahmed%20Pervez&f=false
 * 12) Parwez argued for a perfect realignment of all aspects of life to fit with the commandments of Islam.. Islamabad and the Politics of International Development in Pakistan, Markus Daechsel, P198. https://books.google.ca/books?id=grDGBgAAQBAJ&pg=PA303&dq=Islamabad+and+the+Politics+of+International+Development+in+Pakistan&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAGoVChMIoOfp5azWxwIVyRo-Ch1EWgVq#v=onepage&q&f=false
 * 13) Iqbal’s harmonizing of the Quran with the natural sciences was supported by Parwez.. Iqbal Review, Volume 36, Issues 3-4. Iqbal Academy, 1995. https://books.google.ca/books?id=Zd_XAAAAMAAJ&dq=Iqbal+Review%2C+Volume+36&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=pervez&search_plus_one=form
 * 14) i) Parwez rejected "some" hadith (this is to counter the misconception that he rejected "all" hadith). ii) Parwez reinterpreted the concepts of “angels”, “jinns” and “miracles” mentioned in the Quran rationally, without appealing to the supernatural. Islam's Quantum Question: Reconciling Muslim Tradition and Modern Science. Nidhal Guessoum. https://books.google.ca/books?id=zaL3AgAAQBAJ&pg=PT3&dq=Islam%27s+Quantum+Question:+Reconciling+Muslim+Tradition+and+Modern+Science&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CB0Q6AEwAGoVChMIxfGp8K3WxwIVyQmSCh3LVgs-#v=onepage&q=pervez&f=false
 * 15) Parwez questioned the virgin birth of Jesus and the miraculous interpretations of that event, arguing that the words describing the communication received by Zacharias with regards to the birth of John are identical to the communication received by Mary concerning the birth of Jesus. Since there is no difference in the language, he asked, why would one be accepted as having been conceived via virgin-birth while the other not? Parwez also stressed that just because the Quran does not name Jesus’ father, this is not an argument in support of virgin birth, as the Quran also omits non-relevant details regarding the history of other prophets. Women in the Qur'an, Traditions, and Interpretation. Barbara Freyer Stowasser, P79. https://books.google.ca/books?id=3YhpAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA79&dq=%22Ghulam+Ahmed+Parwez%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CDEQ6AEwBGoVChMIxumi2a7WxwIViRs-Ch181Qp9#v=onepage&q=%22Ghulam%20Ahmed%20Parwez%22&f=false
 * 16) Parwez argued that the correct view of Jesus, which fits with Islam, was that he was was a revolutionary liberator, who’s mission was to free the Israelites from the domination of the Romans, while at the same time to build a society on ethical principles, the same as former prophets. Parwez further argued that the image of Jesus as a purely spiritual character uninterested in socio-political struggles, was invented afterwards. Muslims and the Gospel: Bridging the Gap : a Reflection on Christian Sharing, p123. Roland E. Miller https://books.google.ca/books?id=BjC7K1j_AT8C&pg=PA123&dq=%22Ghulam+Ahmad+Parwez%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CDMQ6AEwBDgUahUKEwiu0enev9bHAhVIbz4KHeXqBjk#v=onepage&q=%22Ghulam%20Ahmad%20Parwez%22&f=false
 * 17) Regarding the politics of ribba (financial interest) in Pakistan, Khaled Ahmed mentions the works of Parwez, a rationalist writer, “whose works are currently banned or under attack”. Whose Islam? Pakistani women's political action groups speak out. Laird, Kathleen Fenner, Ph.D., WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY IN ST. LOUIS, 2007. https://books.google.ca/books?id=JmzSotsxnmsC&pg=PA345&dq=%22Ghulam+Ahmad+Parwez%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAzgeahUKEwj5veG5xNbHAhWDWj4KHds9DiI#v=onepage&q=%22Ghulam%20Ahmad%20Parwez%22&f=false
 * 18) Parwez emphasized a need to re-examine the role of hadith in order to modernize Islam.. Civil Society: Democratic Transformation in the Arab World, Issues 145-156, p52. Ibn Khaldoun Center for Development Studies (ICDS), 2007 - Arab countries. https://books.google.ca/books?id=11AdAQAAMAAJ&dq=Civil+Society%3A+Democratic+Transformation+in+the+Arab+World%2C+Issues+145-156&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=pervez&search_plus_one=form
 * 19) Iqbal in his last days handed over notes to Parwez relating to, what would have been his last project, but he died before it could be completed. The unofficial title of this book at the time of Iqbal’s death was “introduction to the Study of Islam.” Iqbal's Unwritten Books, Maqbool Elahi https://books.google.ca/books?id=IWQLAQAAMAAJ&dq=Iqbal%27s+Unwritten+Books&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=pervez&search_plus_one=form
 * 20) Parwez wrote against the rituals and sects, emphasizing that Islam was a religion of rationality and facts, that it is a “deen” (way of life) not a “mazhab” (dogmatic ideology). The gleams of wisdom, Maqsood Jafrī, Sigma Press, 2003. ( NOTE: I'm dubious about this source, even though it's referenced elsewhere on wikipedia. If anyone objects it can be easily excluded. ) https://books.google.ca/books?id=nsQLAQAAMAAJ&q=%22Ghulam+Ahmed+Pervez%22&dq=%22Ghulam+Ahmed+Pervez%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CEAQ6AEwCTgKahUKEwj35MCvqNbHAhWQPJIKHa_CANw

Thanks everyone, much appreciated. Code 16  ... Logic Bomb !  20:45, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

My opinion on this is as follows.
 * Comments by FreeatlastChitchat:
 * 1) Parwez argued that the emphasis on individual freedom ......
 * Source is good. should be inserted in a subsection "Pervaiz's views on Freedom/Slavery" or something like that.


 * 1) Parwez “adamantly opposed” slavery,............
 * Source is good. Should be added in the same subsection as above statement.


 * 1) Parwez argued that Islam challenged the 'truth', validity, as well as the very conception of ‘religion’.
 * It can be inserted into a section, "religious views"


 * 1) Parwez was the leading figure to systematically interpret Quranic themes and Iqbal’s writings....
 * ❌ doesn't appear to be anything important. His being a socialist and a an academic has already been taken care of I think in the lede. Perhaps this citation can be used as an addition reference.


 * 1) (On Parwez's efforts in support of the Muslim League and the Pakistan movement).......
 * The source appears to be in order but this information is already in the article that he argued 'For' Pakistan against the Mullahs. Adding this much detail is a bit much in my opinion.


 * 1) Parwez argued that because the prophet Muhammad did not allow his own traditions (hadith) to be recorded....
 * It can be added where we mention his being a Quranist, instead of making a new section.


 * 1) Parwez described as a "socialist."
 * ✔️ Already in the article


 * 1) Parwez argued that the text of the Quran had a rationalist, dynamic reality
 * ❌ Appears to be intricate detail, not yet required.


 * 1) Parwez was one of the most respected Islamic scholars of post-independence Pakistan
 * ✔️ Already in the article. although we can use the citation.


 * 1) Parwez held the view that belief in the Quran is the only binding force of society in Pakistan.
 * It can be added where we mention his being a Quranist. This and number six should be used together to form cohesion.


 * 1) i) Parwez rejected "some" hadith (this is to counter the misconception that he rejected "all" hadith). ii) Parwez reinterpreted the concepts of “angels”, “jinns” and “miracles” mentioned in the Quran rationally, without appealing to the supernatural.
 * ❌I cannot find the bracketed text in the said book. '(this is to counter the misconception that he rejected "all" hadith)' Seems to have been added by Code16 as an interpretation(OR) I think. Otherwise we can add the actual text where we have mentioned that he promoted understanding Islam in the context of modern science.


 * 1) Parwez questioned the virgin birth of Jesus
 * 2) Parwez argued that the correct view of Jesus, which fits with Islam
 * Both sources are good. Could be inserted in a subsection "views about Jesus"


 * 1) Regarding the politics of ribba (financial interest) in Pakistan....
 * ✔️ We have already mentioned that he is not liked by the Mullahs.


 * 1) Parwez emphasized a need to re-examine the role of hadith in order to modernize Islam.
 * If someone insists we can use this with his Quranist views, but I think a balance has been reached. There is not enough material to create anew section "Quranist views", but adding everything about his being a Quranist will muddle up the article with too much detail, so what has already been added should suffice.


 * 1) Iqbal in his last days handed over notes to Parwez relating to, what would have been his last project, but he died before it could be completed.
 * ❌ I don't think this is needed. Perhaps in Iqbal's Bio this will find a place?


 * 1) Parwez wrote against the rituals and sects
 * Add to "religious views" I think.

Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 05:27, 2 September 2015 (UTC)


 * @ FreeatlastChitchat Regarding the 'red flag', I added the comments in the parenthesis for editors checking the source, not to insert in the article. Only the actual text will be inserted into the article. My argument is that there is no reason to not include the cited fact that he only rejected "some hadith". It will serve as a valuable clarification I think. We can change the leading sentence to something like the following: Parwez has been called a Quranist[3rd part source] because he rejected some hadith[3rd party source] although he himself rejected that title[primary source]. Do any other editors have an objection with this reasoning? Also, I need to know how many primary sources I can add to compliment and clarify the content sourced from 3rd party sources? Code 16  ... Logic Bomb !  11:23, 2 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree with FreeatlastChitchat's view, but it still depends on you that how you write all that that must not violate the neutrality, and puffery. You can add both views. I will copy edit if it is necessary.Justice007 (talk) 12:11, 2 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you for contributing and I understand your concern. In the spirit of adding both views, as you said (and I completely agree), can you please check if the following sentence will work: Parwez has been called a Quranist[Secondary source] because he rejected some hadith[Secondary source] although he did not agree with this label [primary source]. Code 16  ... Logic Bomb !  14:11, 2 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I am glad that you have turned to the article's talk. These are the sources we need for an article like this. Generally, the sources are good, and I agree to the analysis by . Regarding his rejection of the Hadith, we can clarify that he "rejected some hadith". The article should be expanded through third-party reliable sources in an encyclopedic tone. Faizan (talk) 16:23, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you sir for the encouragement, as well as the input regarding the "some hadith" issue. Looks like we all agree on this point now, which is great. I'd just like to clarify a point regarding the use of primary sources: should all primary sources be excluded from the article? Or can a few be used to supplement the major ideas of this scholar which are sourced from 3rd party sources? Side note: When I used to write papers during undergrad, the use of primary sources to supplement points was encouraged (even required in certain cases.) But is this bad-practice for encyclopedic articles? If yes, I'll exclude primary sources completely, to help improve the rating class of the page. C Ө de1+6 LogicBomb!  17:07, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Good Job. Regarding your question on policy on primary sources, read WP:PSTS. "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. " and "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." Faizan (talk) 17:18, 2 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Perfect, thank you. So in short: Only cite primary sources where secondary sources have already confirmed the interpretation. I'll also rely on secondary sources for the majority of the weight of the content. Thank you again sir for your input. c Ө de1+6 <i style="color:black"> L o g i c B o m b ! </i> 18:58, 2 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Some more references from one of the books on my shelf that I totally forgot about Islam's Political Culture: Religion and Politics in pre-divided Pakistan, by Nasim Ahmed Jawed:


 * Parwez's writtings are associated with modernism. p55
 * Doctrinal acceptance of contemporary concepts of equality is relatively easy for modernists like Parwez, commenting on verse 17:70, Parwez stated "As human beings, all men are equal, every one possess that precious jewel, the human self", p77
 * Parwez called an "Islamic socialist".... Elaborating on Parwez's ideas, Jawed states that according to thinkers like Parwez and F. M. Bugti, "hell" and "heaven" are not only concepts relating to the next life (as the traditionalists have claimed), but the socio-economic systems in this world as well. Where "hell" is a system where humans struggle to accumulate wealth. In such societies the competition and enmity drives men to consume themselves, resulting in social conflict and class wars. Whereas "heaven" in this world is a system devoid of class distinctions, characterized by justice, peace and cooperation... Social conflict and class wars are seen as the work of "satan", another concept understood allegorically by Parwez and Bugti. They define "satan" as the human impulse which drives humanity to use its mental faculties to oppose the divine laws. Parwez and Bugti find support for this view in the Quranic (and biblical) story of the fall of man, which they interpret allegorically, where the "forbidden tree" stands for the quest for acquisition and ownership........ [It goes on for a bit, I'll have to see what else to put in from this section of the book] p107
 * Dr. Fazlur Rahman Malik (former director of Islamic Research Institute of Pakistan) and Parwez are the only two "writers of importance" who candidly recommend - on Islamic grounds - although for a temporary period - that the state assume total direction of capital and labor. This position is contrasted with those like Mawdudi, who were criticized by opponents that their system is essentially the same as capitalism. p123-126 c Ө de1+6 <i style="color:black"> L o g i c B o m b ! </i> 00:47, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Please review this content before I insert it
Hi everyone,

This is a big chunk of content, so I thought I'd post it here since it's a lot to edit into the main page all at once (as advised previously). So please take a look and suggest any changes, before I insert into the main page. Some of the information that already exists on the page is incorporated here, so this will serve as a replacement as well. Take a look:

Support for Pakistan's Independence
Before the creation of Pakistan, Iqbal, introduced Parwez to Muhammad Ali Jinnah, who recruited Parwez to help popularize the need for a separate homeland for the Muslims in the sub-continent. Jinnah appointed Parwez to edit the magazine, Tolu-e-Islam for the purpose to counter propaganda that was coming from some of the religious corners in support of Congress. Parwez's thesis was that the organizational model of the state is the basic engine which drives the implementation of the Quran, and like Muhammad in Medina, those who wish to practice Islam, as it is defined in the Quran, are required to live in a state which submits to the laws of God, and not the laws of man. During the struggle for independence, Abul Kalam Azad, a prominent Indian Nationalist, argued against Pakistan by pointing to the universalism of all religions; Parwez, in support of Iqbal, Jinnah and the concept of Pakistan, countered Azad's argument by stating that the consequences of universalism would be the formation of another sect, further dividing humanity, citing the history of other such enterprises that attempted to ‘universalize’ and fuse different, incompatible ideas into one ideology. He argued that the basic requirements for Muslims i.e. belief in one God and the prophet as His final messenger, precluded the possibility of any fusion. Moreover, Parwez pointed contradictions between Azad’s position while he was arguing against the Muslim League, with his earlier works written in 1912.

Islam and Individual Liberty
Parwez argued that the Quran places such strong emphasis on individual freedom that it almost overrides all forms of authority, to the point where no person has the right to compel another person to obey them, citing the verse 3:79 in support of this view. . Consistent with this, Parwez “adamantly opposed” slavery, claiming that it had no justifiable basis according to the Quran and that the practice had been banned since the dawn of Islam, contrary to the opinions of his opponents who officially called for slavery to be legalized in the newly created Pakistan. Parwez argued that the words used in the Quran to refer to slavery should be correctly read in the past-tense, thereby giving a completely different meaning to the verses used by his opponents to justify slavery. “Whatever happened in subsequent history was the responsibility of Muslims, and not of the Quran.”.

Religion vs. "Deen"
Parwez argued that Islam challenged the 'truth', validity, as well as the very conception of ‘religion’. He distinguished between “deen” (a complete code of life) versus ‘madhab’, which he equated with the prevailing definition of ‘religion’. He contrasted religion with "deen" and He argued that the while "religion" focuses on rules and rituals, "deen" focuses on actions and permanent values, and while religion induces contentment and a "passive resignation and complete resignation to authority; however oppressive and unjust it may be", "deen" urges efforts towards improving society and the human condition, by encouraging humanity to conquer the forces of nature; while at the same time eradicating social injustice. Parwez stated that: "Deen is not an opiate, as the Marxists contend, but a stimulant and spur to action".. He argued for a revolutionary message of the Quran, re-interpreting the roles of prophets. He argued that the correct view of Jesus, which fits with Islam, was that he was was a revolutionary liberator, who’s mission was to free the Israelites from the domination of the Romans, while at the same time to build a society on ethical principles, the same as former prophets. Parwez further argued that the image of Jesus as a purely spiritual character uninterested in socio-political struggles, was invented afterwards.

Rational Interpretation of the Quran
Parwez's writings are associated with modernism. He supported Iqbal's enterprise of harmonizing the Quran with the natural sciences. Parwez translated verses in the Quran dealing with "miracles", "angles" and "jinns" rationally as metaphors, without appealing to the supernatural. He questioned the virgin birth of Jesus and the miraculous interpretations of that event, arguing that the words describing the communication received by Zechariah (priest) with regards to the birth of John the Baptist are identical to the communication received by Mary concerning the birth of Jesus. Since there is no difference in the language, he asked, why would one be accepted as having been conceived via virgin-birth while the other not? Parwez also argued that just because the Quran does not name Jesus’ father, this is not an argument in support of virgin birth, as the Quran also omits such details regarding the history of other prophets. While Parwez admitted the limitations of human rational faculties, which can not grasp the source and nature of the Divine, he stressed that the content of revelation can be understood rationally. He argued that unlike traditional dogmas which justify their authority using blind faith, "iman" as outlined in the Quran, forbids blind faith and requires intellectual certainty, expecting the reader to think critically and use their powers of understanding.

Economic Re-organization
Parwez held the view that the Quran is the only binding force of society in Pakistan, and that that its community should be in perfect realignment, in all aspects, with the commandments of Islam. N. A. Jawed states that according to thinkers like Parwez, "hell" and "heaven" are not only concepts relating to the next life, but also represent socioeconomic systems in this world. "Hell", according to Parwez, is a system where humans struggle to accumulate wealth. In such societies the competition and enmity drives men to consume themselves, resulting in social conflict and class wars. Parwez contrasted this with "heaven", an ideal society devoid of class distinctions, characterized by justice, peace and cooperation. Parwez also redefined the concept of "satan" allegorically, as the human impulse which drives humanity to use its mental faculties to oppose the divine laws. Parwez found support for this view in the Quranic (and biblical) story of the fall of man, which he interpreted metaphorically, where the "forbidden tree" stands for the quest for acquisition and ownership. Dr. Fazlur Rahman Malik and Parwez candidly recommended, that for a temporary period the state assume total direction of capital and labor. This position is contrasted with the traditionalists like Mawdudi, who were criticized by Parwez on the grounds that their system is essentially the same as capitalism. Regarding the issue of Riba Khaled Ahmed mentions that the works of Parwez “are currently banned or under attack”.

Other Ideas
Parwez argued that the role of hadith should be re-examined in order to modernize Islam. In 1961, Parvez established a platform proposing that the Muslim prayers (namaz) should be in Urdu rather in the Arabic language. His books were banned in some Arab states in 1970. ​

Thanks c Ө de1+6 <i style="color:black"> L o g i c B o m b ! </i> 14:37, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Discussion
@User:Code16 you seem to have messed up the sections to be frank. There is no mention of his Quranist vies which should be the most important part. He was a prominent Quranist although he was very much against the Ahle-e-Quran sect from within the Quranists, his own sect/organization w/e was also against them. Secondly we should not give his "Ideas" with his "accomplishments". There is only one thing in his contributions and that is tolou-e-Islam arguments for pakistan, which has been mentioned otherwise in his career. Anyway, I'll alter the sections and their headings and let them make sense later in the evening. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 04:15, 5 September 2015 (UTC)


 * @User:FreeatlastChitchat The scholarly sources don't connect his ideas with "Quranism" at all. So you can't take their content and put it into a "quranist" category. I've categorized his ideas according to how the sources themselves describe it (liberalism, religion vs deen, rationalism and economic.) And why should his "Quranist" title be the "most important"? It's certainly not what the scholarly sources are emphasizing (or even mentioning at all.) That weight would be inaccurate and also in breach of Neutral point of view. The introduction already states that he has been labelled as a "quranist by some" (mostly journalists, not scholars anyway), that should be enough. And you haven't actually explained how/why the categories "dont make sense" or are "messed up". Also, I can split the "Ideas" And the "support for Pakistan" sections up but it would be better for layout/style if it was one section. I would like to get the opinion of and  as well if possible.  c Ө de1+6 <i style="color:black"> L o g i c B o m b ! </i> 13:46, 5 September 2015 (UTC)


 * First,I guess I should say I am coming into this discussion from other discussions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion, Talk:Ahmadiyya, and a discussion on my user talk page. Anyone interested is free to look at them. I have to agree that, from what I see, it might be at best dubious for us to describe the subject as a "Quranist" without attribution, along the lines of "he has been called a Quranist by [x]". And I very much doubt that such a description is among the most obvious or important ways to describe him. He seems to have from what I have been able to see associated with questioning some hadith, but questioning some hadith is nowhere near the same as saying he is a Quranist. Also, if, as Code16 says above, the label has been applied to him primarily by journalists, presumably in material written by them, as opposed to in their quoting or paraphrasing academics or other experts, it would logically have a low priority for inclusion in the article, because journalists are not experts in what is and is not Quranist. I agree that it would however be a good idea to separate his thinking from his accomplishments or life.
 * In general, we tend to take as the best indicators of what to say and how much weight to give it other existing high-quality reference sources, particularly if they are so recent that it is unlikely that things would have changed substantially since their publication. From what little I have been able to see from such in a quick google search, I am not seeing anything which leads me to believe that he is thought of or described in the sources I have been able to find in a significant way as a "Quranist." I am assuming some other editors, particularly from the area, might have access to more such sources, and, if they do, it would be a good idea to look at what they say. If access is limited, one can always as at WP:RX for any information they might have, and, honestly, that is generally a good idea anyway.
 * I do note that the article, as is, seems remarkably short regarding details of his biography per se, and in general that is one of the primary topics to be discussed in articles with titles like this one, which by the title indicates it is first and foremost of biographical article. It certainly is possible for a widely discussed thinker to have a separate page summarizing his thinking and positions, if there is sufficient established notability for such. And, as it is the primary reason he is known, it certainly should be discussed to some extent here. Expanding the coverage of his biographical content would certainly be a good idea. John Carter (talk) 19:19, 5 September 2015 (UTC)


 * @John Carter, thank you sir for your detailed input and suggestions regarding this matter. You have highlighted multiple important aspects. For one, all of the details of this scholar's views should indeed be on another dedicated article, instead of the biography. I'll begin work on this and hopefully other users will join and contribute in this effort. And as for the biographical details which this page is lacking, thank you for pointing out WP:RX as a valuable source, I was not aware of this resource at all. Finally, regarding your input on the "Quranist" matter, I completely agree with your analysis and unless anyone has a valid objection, I think we should follow through on this. Unless there is a scholarly source which backs up the disputed label of "Quranist" (and we can make use of WP:RX to solicit said sources) we should not give the "Quranist" label much importance, if any at all. c Ө de1+6 <i style="color:black"> LogicBomb! </i> 20:34, 5 September 2015 (UTC)


 * agree with Code16. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  21:21, 5 September 2015 (UTC)


 * @ TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom Thank you sir for your input as well, much appreciated. Seems like we have a solid consensus now, so I'll start working on the new page. Also, I'll try and use a model like Friedrich Nietzsche for the split. His bio article has a brief mention of the ideas/accomplishments but redirects are posted at the top of the categories to pages like Philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche for a high level of detail and abstraction, and an inversely proportional bio content. Obviously, Nietzsche has so much secondary content produced on his works that it can easily fill multiple detailed encyclopedic articles; the couple of Parwez pages won't be nearly as extensive (it's probably best to just have a single category with a summary of all his ideas on this bio article, and the multiple categories on the secondary page), but it'll be a start, and hopefully will grow naturally with the help of others in the future... Thanks again everyone.  c Ө de1+6 <i style="color:black"> LogicBomb! </i> 05:39, 6 September 2015 (UTC)


 * It is the discussion on the sources reliability, editors seem to agree on that, but the question remains the question that what will be your frame of the writing that would endorse the neutrality. A large content can be summarised within the few lines too. I would like to see that that passes the encyclopedic writing frame.Justice007 (talk) 15:45, 6 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Sir, I will not add any words of praise used by the sources and frame it similar to the language used in introduction which you approved after I edited. I'll only add the scholarly technical elaboration. I think there's enough content to start a new page as suggested. The content will be what I listed above (the new categories and content). I'll ping you once the page is up and linked, and you can review everything for neutrality. Also, I'll reduce the weight of the "Quranist" and "namaz in urdu" claims in this bio article, based on the lack of scholarly citation for both of these, I'll add that these claims were made by x columnist. c Ө de1+6 <i style="color:black"> LogicBomb! </i> 19:30, 6 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Sir, I've made the edits here as discussed and linked to the newly created page Ideas and Contributions of Ghulam Ahmed Pervez. Please review when you have some time. Thank you. c Ө de1+6 <i style="color:black"> LogicBomb! </i> 03:54, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 16:13, 29 April 2016 (UTC)