Response to Maulana Abul Lais Sahib
Azamgarh–October 24, 1962
Respected Sir,
Greetings of Peace,
I received your letter dated October 2,1962. The phrase “teaching and instructing” in connection with Maulana Jalil Ahsan Sahib’s method of correspondence, as mentioned in your letter, is not the primary reason for my reluctance. My actual concern is that he is asking very abstract questions. When I have presented an issue in clear terms, he should focus his questions specifically on that issue. In this regard, you wrote:
“Maulana Jalil Ahsan has mentioned that the questions he had sent to you are by no means irrelevant—neither the first set of questions nor the second. However, if their relevance is not apparent, you may seek clarification from him.”
With respect, his response may be valid from his own perspective. However, all I have before me is his list of questions, and it does not specify how these questions relate to the main issue. My point is not to claim that his questions may not be relevant in his own mind. My point is simply that he has not explained this connection in his list, and, naturally, I have no way of knowing what is in his mind. If he clarifies the relevance of his questions to the main issue, I will, God willing, continue the correspondence until the end. But questions that may be related to the issue only in his mind, without clarity in the questions themselves, seem unproductive to me. I find myself unable to engage in this type of abstract question-and-answer format.
I am confident that no objective third party could reasonably support Maulana Jalil Ahsan Sahib’s stance on this matter. Kindly request him to send questions that clarify their relation to the main issue so that this exchange can continue. This would fulfil his duty to guide and communicate the truth, while also allowing me to consider my situation considering his insights.
Yours sincerely,
Wahiduddin
──────────────────
Meanwhile, I received the following letter from Maulana Jalil Ahsan Sahib:
Chitrapur–September 16, 1962
Dear Brother,
Peace be upon you and the mercy of Allah,
1. I had already mentioned that I would be asking questions, and I remain committed to my method of correspondence. With each person, there is a specific way of correspondence, and after reading your writing, I concluded that this was the only way to proceed. A written exchange is most appropriate for a matter presented with such emphasis. Those who attempted to discuss this with you orally did not do well. So when this question came from some of your friends and subsequently from you, I stated that a written dialogue would be most suitable.
2. Whatever Amir Jamaat has written, the answer to that is also that only through correspondence any positive result can be expected of this discussion. And he wanted me to finish my answer to you within a few hours. That’s why, my method of correspondence, he remarked–now the Madrasa will open; classes will start, and that will take your time. And here is Waheed Sahib who is getting utterly impatient. Then he wrote from Delhi asking how long would you continue to teach? In fact, that was a comment on me, but due to the unawareness of this background these words (of teaching and instructing) become a fitna (it is important to note the difference between the explanation offered here by Maulana Jalil Ahsan with the one offered by Maulana Abul Lais Sahib)
In summary, I am firm in my way of correspondence. And the method of communication adopted by others is useless and harmful to you. As you know, I have always been involved in teaching and coaching so why should I forsake this method? If this method makes you uncomfortable and hurts your sense of superior knowledge, then it’s sad. I have only this way to contemplate and make you think on this issue. Wrongfully, you have termed this method as ‘teaching and coaching’ and have disliked it. Before, you never felt offended by my ‘schooling’ before; have you suddenly run out of things to learn now?
Jalil Ahsan
──────────────────
Azamgarh–October 25, 1962
Respected Sir, Salam,
I received your letter dated September 16, 1962. I must say I am somewhat disappointed by your approach, which now resembles those who fail to examine themselves but find every fault in others.
1. The first time you encountered my writing was in the first week of February 1962 in Rampur, through Abdul Hai Sahib. At that time, after reviewing it, you mentioned to Abdul Hai Sahib that reading this piece left you quite displeased. However, despite my inquiries, you did not elaborate on the reasons for this displeasure.
Then, in the second week of March 1962, I sent another copy of my writing to you at the address of Madrasa-tul-Islah. Again, you offered no comments, merely returning it with the irrelevant excuse that this was not the “final draft.” Subsequently, on July 21, 1962, I sent the document a third time to you at Chitrapur. Yet, up to this point, I have not received even a single sentence from you regarding the main issue, which I had sought your opinion on so that any errors on my part could be made clear to me.
Thus, nine months have passed without a response from you regarding the core issue, yet I am astonished at the persistent effort you’ve shown in your letters to establish that my approach is not the “path of seekers of truth.” You assert that I am “impatient,” mistakenly believe myself a “true believer,” am “eager” to publish my work, am dominated by my own “self,” engage in “political manoeuvring,” have “doubtful intentions,” have “disrespected” you, and suffer from illusions of “high thinking and great knowledge.” Yet, throughout this period, you have written not a single line on the main issue about which I reached out to you, which could have clarified any errors on my part.
2. You mentioned that, after reading my “lengthy article,” you would ask questions, seek explanations, and discuss arguments. I was entirely open to this; however, when someone explicitly presents an issue, and the other responds with conditions as above, any reasonable person would expect questions relevant to the arguments provided or criticisms clarifying any flaws in the conclusions. When your questionnaire arrived, however, I found it contained mere general questions, with no clear connection, positive or negative, to the main issue. When I pointed out that this correspondence style was irrelevant and inappropriate, I received your letter dated September 16, which seems to imply that you are wholly willing to guide me correctly, but I am unwilling to understand.
3. In your letter to Abdul Hai Sahib, you mentioned that I had “disrespected” you, which is entirely false. Regarding the letter you referred to, I am confident that any third person reading it would not agree with your assessment. On the other hand, the tone of your sarcasm and disdain is such that, if I were to cite its excerpts here, this letter would overflow. Reflect on these sentences of yours:
“After all, why have you become so impatient? Is impatience the primary attribute of a ‘true believer’?” (Letter dated July 25, 1962)
“You know I am engaged in teaching and writing. Why should I abandon this approach? If this offends your sense of high thinking and great knowledge, then I am regretful.” (Letter dated September 6, 1962)
“Your nafs (not conscience) must be urging you day and night, whispering that enjoining good is obligatory, that proclaiming, expressing, and spreading the truth is necessary. If you do not do so, if you do not expose those who wear the guise of falsehood, then you will be guilty of concealing the truth and betrayal. And then, your nafs (not conscience) reminds you with full intensity about the Hereafter, telling you how on that Day you will justify yourself before God for this crime of concealing the truth, and with what words... alas, alas.”
(Letter dated August 7, 1962)
I request you to kindly reflect on these matters and consider if this attitude is indeed appropriate for you.
Sincirely
Wahiduddin
──────────────────
Chitrapur – November 7, 1962
Respected Sir,
Assalamu Alaykum wa Rahmatullah,
If all the fault lies with me, then I should ask for forgiveness. And if it is yours, then you should. But who will determine who among us is at fault? Such judgments do not occur in this world.
Regarding the method, I had outlined that I would begin by asking questions after reading your lengthy writing, and thus I proceeded accordingly. Now that the second set of questions was sent, this situation arose. Once the questions were completed, I would have discussed the remaining two parts. If I had asked you how many hairs are on your head or what the ratio of sand to clay is in the dams of Azamgarh, then certainly, these would be irrelevant to the subject of your writing. However, rest assured that no one besides you, who has read your writing, would consider my questions irrelevant.
In one of my previous notes, my mention of “impatience” was indeed appropriate. Despite my request, you did not fulfil your promise of sending a copy of Maulana Abul Lais Sahib’s letter.
Wassalam
Jalil Ahsan
──────────────────
Azamgarh – November 12, 1962
Respected Sir, Peace be upon you,
I received your letter dated November 7, 1962. I have sent a complete copy of Maulana Abul Lais Sahib’s letter to him. If you feel the need to review the entire letter, you can write to Delhi to obtain it.
You mentioned that you had already informed me that you would be raising “questions” and are now acting according to that “plan.” However, I regret to say that from what you had previously written, I never understood that you would pose such unusual and strange questions as you have done. The first letter I received from you regarding this matter was dated March 15, 1962, which you had sent from Madrasatul Islah (Sarai Mir). The contents of the letter were as follows:
“One would read such a lengthy article and then ask questions, seek clarification of the argument, and engage in discussions on the evidence.”
I understood these words to mean that, since you disagreed with the matter, I had presented to you and considered it erroneous, you would, through correspondence, attempt to reveal my mistake to me. The approach would involve requesting further clarification on points as necessary, critically analysing my arguments, and raising evaluative questions to highlight any errors in my deductions and conclusions.
It was under this assumption that I agreed to this method of commentary. However, when I received your letter dated September 6, 1962, I found that it differed from the understanding I had derived from your previous words. In this letter, there was no discussion on my arguments or reasoning. Instead, it contained questions of a purely abstract nature, with no indication of their relevance to the core issue, critique of my argument, or the specific point of mine to which they were related and why. Clearly, if I do not consider such questions irrelevant, what else can I call them?
You mention that if I asked how many hairs are on your head or what the ratio of sand to soil is on the embankment at Azamgarh, that would be entirely unrelated to the topic of your writing. I would say that this isn’t the only kind of irrelevant question. Another type of irrelevant question is this: for example, if I say that the idea of the Islamic mission presented by Jamaat-e-Islami isn’t based on the Quran, and that the verses cited in support of it don’t, in my view, serve as its foundation. Instead of addressing this claim, you respond with abstract questions like, ‘Tell me, what type of laam is in li-yaqoom, or what is the grammatical attachment of the waaw in wa kazaalik?’ In such cases, at least in terms of the wording, these questions are unrelated to the main issue.
Your approach has been deeply surprising to me. For the past nine months, since I brought up this issue before you, you have remained completely silent on the actual subject matter, engaging instead in irrelevant matters. And this approach is not exclusive to me. As I was informed by Jalaluddin Ansar Sahib and Abdul Hai Sahib in Rampur, they made several attempts to get you to share your thoughts on my writing and discuss my reasoning. Yet, despite their repeated efforts, you refused to respond. I am at a loss to understand what interests or considerations might be driving this approach.
Sincerely,
Wahiduddin
──────────────────
Chitrapur – November 21, 1962
Respected Sir, Peace be upon you,
I received your letter dated November 12.
1. You had yourself promised that if desired, you could send a complete copy of Maulana Abul Lais Sahib’s letter. Where is that promise?
2. When I requested the copy from you, you chose to remain silent in response, with not even a word about it in your card. So, I reminded you again.
3. In reply, you wrote on your card that you had sent the complete copy to Maulana Abul Lais Sahib, and if I feel the need to review it, I could write to Delhi to obtain it. When I term this as “piety,” you get annoyed. People of piety should reflect upon such pious acts.
Brother, the questions, then clarification of the subject, and discussions on evidence were to be in a particular order. Now, if my questions differ from your perspective and understanding, how is that my fault? Am I supposed to formulate my questions after obtaining your approval? Rest assured; my questions are not abstract.
“Without learning and writing, one knows nothing!”
Regards, Jalil Ahsan
──────────────────
Azamgarh–November 24, 1962
Respected Sir,
May peace be upon you,
I received your letter dated November 21. I regret to say that you have now descended to a level where, for me, the only appropriate response is to maintain silence. My final request is to please return my writings in your possession.
Regards, Wahiduddin
──────────────────
In response, I received the following letter from Maulana Jalil Ahsan Sahib, and subsequently, on December 22, I received my writings back.
Chitrapur–December 1, 1962
Dear Brother, may Allah protect you.
May peace and blessings of Allah be upon you.
Your card, dated November 24, reached me on November 29. You wrote quite plainly: “The reply to the ignorant is silence.”
Plainly indeed—yet if anyone were to look for those words in your card, they would not find them! You see, I could never write in such an eloquent style, nor could I aspire to such a “noble and elevated level.”
You spoke harshly, yet I am content—may God pardon you—for you spoke well.
As for the writing whose return you requested, I shall, God willing, send it back to you by registered post on Thursday.
Postscript: It’s quite possible that the series of questionnaires may begin again. After all, it is only a kashf (inspiration)—it can be mistaken.
──────────────────
