Delhi, October 27, 1962

Dear Brother,

Assalamu Alaykum,

I received your letter. One of the main reasons I wrote such a detailed response was to clarify the original intent of the two phrases that seemed to have caused you distress due to a misunderstanding. I wanted to ensure that any discomfort on your part could be relieved. However, from your reply, it’s not clear how successful I was in this. It seems you might be misinterpreting my entire statement, as you believe that a phrase from this letter contradicts one from the letter I sent to Maulana Sadruddin. Even if such a contradiction exists, it concerns a completely different matter. Therefore, based on this alone, you should not have fully ignored my clarification about these two phrases. If your heart is not open to accepting this, then there is nothing more I can do.

However, I feel it’s necessary to clarify that the contradiction you mentioned does not actually exist. Here is a brief explanation: you already know that Maulana Sadruddin was officially assigned to respond to your writings. Therefore, if I had written to you what I previously asked him in my letter as a question, it would have simply indicated that the official discussion with you had ended. However, the end of that official discussion did not mean that I could not pursue my goal of having a final conversation with you myself. The official discussion was a separate matter, and my chance to talk with you personally would only come after it was over.

Thus, it was entirely possible that, after consulting with Maulana Sadruddin, I could have notified you about the conclusion of the official discussion while simultaneously, or even a few days later, inviting you to engage in further dialogue. In any case, there is no contradiction between these two statements. I kindly request that you reconsider them considering this letter; Insha’Allah, this will resolve any misunderstanding.

There is, however, another point I would like to raise. Even if it were true that there’s some contradiction between these two statements, is it necessary for you to interpret it as intentional misrepresentation and draw such harsh conclusions? First, it seems quite unusual that a private note—which you shouldn’t have read in the first place, and was written hastily—would be taken so seriously that you feel no hesitation in making the severest accusations based on it. Second, it appears as if you consider any positive interpretation unacceptable for yourself, since you don’t even consider it. Otherwise, you could easily have assumed that, when I wrote to Maulana Sadruddin Sahib, this point may simply not have been present in my mind—that I might later have further discussions with you. Or, even if it was present, I may have changed my view immediately after reading your article and decided otherwise. At most, such an interpretation might suggest I overlooked something or changed my mind. Although perhaps it was necessary for your satisfaction to go further, for instance, by accusing me of deliberate falsehood, etc.

As for a final conversation with you, I am still prepared. However, I need to know first whether you have concluded all discussions and exchanges with the individuals you were in contact with regarding this matter. Once I have this information, I will try to arrange an appropriate time for a conversation, Insha’Allah. I have previously informed you that Maulana Sadruddin is willing to comment on your views, provided that the tone of your writing is not the same as it was in the previous one. I also conveyed to you Maulana Jalil Ahsan’s opinion that the questions he asked were not irrelevant. Therefore, I suggested that, if this was not clear to you, you might consider discussing it with him.

Your letter did not clarify what decision you have made regarding my request to postpone your decision to separate from the Jamaat until you have reached full clarity in your thoughts and beliefs.

Wassalam,

Abul Lais