Correspondence with Maulana Sadruddin Islahi
In this matter, Maulana Sadruddin Islahi was the first person appointed specifically by the Amir and the entire Shura Council to prepare a response to my writing. He was instructed that, if necessary, he should take the full four months to write a comprehensive and detailed response. Accordingly, on the morning of April 22, 1962, I handed over a copy of my work to Maulana Sadruddin in Rampur.
On July 29, 1962, at eleven o’clock, I was sitting in the Jamaat-e-Islami Hind’s central library in Rampur, engrossed in my study, when I heard a voice from behind: “Here is your trust.” I looked back and saw Mr. Afzal Hussain Khan (1918–1990), the director of Darsgah-e-Islami, Rampur, was standing there, holding an envelope out toward me. This was the very envelope I had been eagerly waiting for several months. Inside was Maulana Sadruddin’s written response, prepared in accordance with the Shura Council’s decision, along with a brief letter from the Amir, Maulana Abul Lais, which read as follows:
“Maulana Sadruddin’s article is being sent for your consideration. After reading it, please let us know how much you agree with it in principle. If necessary, I will either come to Rampur myself for a personal discussion, or I may ask you to come to Delhi. May this article bring you satisfaction, and may we continue our journey together in mutual companionship.”
When I opened the envelope, I saw the title of Maulana Sadruddin’s response, which read, “A Brief Analysis of Tabeer ki Ghalati (The Error of Political Islam).” I felt inclined to start reading immediately, but I remembered a promise I had made to God. I immediately stood up, put the books back on the shelves, locked the room, and went to a nearby mosque, where I performed ablution. I offered two units of prayer, then prayed with flowing tears:
“O God, reveal to me whatever is the truth in Your sight. I seek refuge in You from straying after my own reasoning. Surely a day will come when Your angels—angels I will have no power to resist—will come to me and take me into Your presence. O God, whatever You will demand of me on that day, make it known to me today. Whatever realities will be unveiled then, let me behold them now.”
I had vowed that when I received Maulana Sadruddin’s review, I would first offer two units of prayer and supplicate to God, and only then begin to study it. After fulfilling this vow, I read the text carefully, finishing it at the first opportunity. I then read it again and again, prepared notes, and checked the references it contained. By the fourth day—August 2—I had concluded that the work (response) was seriously inadequate. My confidence in my own views grew stronger, and I thanked God that, through this review, He had granted me greater clarity of mind and further confirmation of my ideas.
On August 10, I wrote to the Amir Jamaat to inform him that Maulana Sadruddin’s response had not changed my original perspective. In reply, I received a letter dated August 13, 1962, which is included in the Amir Jamaat’s correspondence. Following this, I sent a summary of my thoughts on Maulana Sadruddin’s response to the Amir, which was also shared with Maulana Sadruddin through Amir Jamaat. Despite this, he (Maulana Sadruddin) remained steadfast in his belief in the validity of his response and continued to view my position as mistaken. Thus, I wished to send him a detailed commentary on his response and asked that he provide the reasons he found my arguments refutable. This way, both of us would have a greater opportunity to consider each other’s viewpoints in more detail.
I wrote to the Amir Jamaat, suggesting that if Maulana Sadruddin was willing to comment on my response, I would send him a detailed reply regarding his commentary. The Amir Jamaat forwarded my request to Maulana Sadruddin, who replied that if my detailed response maintained the same tone as my previous brief comments, he would be unable to respond. (This brief comment is included in the Amir Jamaat’s correspondence.)
I was informed of this by the Amir Jamaat’s letter dated October 13, 1962. Consequently, I sent a letter to Maulana Sadruddin on October 20, 1962, with reference to this matter, beginning as follows:
Azamgarh–October 20, 1962
Respected Sir,
Greetings.
In response to your letter, in which I mentioned my intention to send a full copy of the second document I prepared, I informed Amir Jamaat that I wished that upon reading it, you would kindly share your feedback with me. The Amir Jamat’s reply was as follows:
“I inquired about this from Maulana Sadruddin, and he stated that if he feels that providing commentary on the response would be beneficial after reading it, he would do so, God willing. However, if the response follows the same approach as the brief response Mr. Wahiduddin Khan had previously provided, he will excuse himself from offering commentary on it. This stance is reasonable; whatever decision you make regarding this, please inform him directly.”
I regret that I cannot agree with Amir Jamaat’s view that your stance is “reasonable.” What exactly was the tone of the brief letter that led you to consider it unworthy of a response? I have not employed rhetoric but presented factual points that deserve some response. For example, regarding the verse aqeem-ud-deen (Establish the Faith), I wrote that “Al-Deen” here refers to the core of religion, not the entirety, and there are clear indications in the Quran supporting this, which has been unanimously agreed upon by the commentators. In response, you wrote:
“While the scholars’ view on this point is valid the verse’s purpose does not entirely exclude the notion that, following the core tenets of faith, detailed adherence to which particular Shariah would also be mandated. By using the specific relative pronoun al-ladhi (that which), Allah has pointed to this answer as well. Accordingly, scholars who recognized this aspect also clarified that the command to establish the faith includes the detailed rulings of Shariah—entirely and comprehensively.”
You cited two commentators on Jalaalayn as support for your claim that they include the entire Shariah in this command of aqeem-ud-deen. However, when I reviewed the original sources, I discovered that both references you provided were entirely incorrect. In my response, I included the complete relevant passages from both commentaries and demonstrated that you incorrectly connected the statement made about al-ladhi auhaina elaik, that is, ‘that which We revealed to you’ with aqeem-ud-deen instead. In the main text of Jalaalayn and in both commentaries, it is clearly stated that generality is not intended in the latter phrase.
You are left with two choices: either admit that you were wrong in your reference or dispute my interpretation of these commentaries. It’s surprising that you haven’t spoken up about such a serious matter. If even these points seem not worth responding to, I don’t see what would be considered deserving of a reply.
My approach in my brief writing was simple: I found your arguments incorrect based on evidence and communicated this directly. If you find this approach unsuitable, the only option would be for me to accept your statements without reason. But if I could do that, there would have been no need for this discussion in the first place.
I request once again that you reconsider your decision and let me know if you are willing to review my full response and provide your feedback so that I may send you a complete copy.
Sincerely,
Wahiduddin
