Tasawwur-e-Sunnat: A Study and Review of Ghamidi’s Thought in the Context of Hafiz Muhammad Zubair’s Critique

Abstract

The present study critically examines Javed Ahmad Ghamidi’s concept of Sunnah (Prophetic practice) in light of Dr. Hafiz Muhammad Zubair’s scholarly critique. Ghamidi, a prominent modernist Islamic scholar, is known for his distinctive interpretation of religious sources, particularly his separation between Sunnah and Hadith. According to Ghamidi, Islam’s primary sources are only two: the Qur’an and the Sunnah Mutawatirah (practices transmitted through perpetual consensus). He views Sunnah as non-recited revelation (wahy ghayr matlu), originally part of the Abrahamic religious tradition that the Prophet Muhammad ﷺrenewed and reintroduced with certain modifications. Consequently, Ghamidi excludes Prophetic sayings and narrations (Hadith) from the direct sources of Islamic law and belief, asserting that Hadith provides supplementary historical knowledge but no binding legal or doctrinal authority. Dr. Hafiz Muhammad Zubair challenges this framework on both intellectual and theological grounds. He argues that Ghamidi’s definition of Sunnah is inconsistent with the consensus of classical scholars—from the Companions and early jurists to the major Imams of Islam—who collectively regarded the Prophet’s sayings, actions, and approvals as part of Sunnah. Dr. Zubair maintains that Ghamidi’s strict reliance on ijma‘ (consensus) and tawatur (continuous transmission) undermines the broader epistemological foundations of Islamic jurisprudence, which also recognize akhbar al-ahad (authentic solitary reports) as valid sources of law and guidance. The paper highlights that Ghamidi’s restricted definition of Sunnah reduces the practical and legal dimensions of the Prophetic tradition, creating an artificial dichotomy between Hadith and Sunnah. This approach, according to Dr. Zubair, disrupts the historical continuity of Islamic thought and weakens the comprehensive nature of the Shariah. Moreover, the article critiques Ghamidi’s selective interpretation of the Qur’anic term “Millat-e-Ibrahim” as “Abrahamic tradition,” which he uses to support his redefined concept of Sunnah. In conclusion, the study asserts that Ghamidi’s reconstruction of Sunnah is both conceptually and methodologically flawed. It departs from the established consensus of Muslim scholarship and diminishes the normative authority of the Prophetic tradition. Dr. Zubair emphasizes that the authentic understanding of Sunnah must include the Prophet’s sayings, actions, and tacit approvals, transmitted through reliable reports and consensus, to preserve the integrity of Islamic law and practice.