Correspondence with Maulana Abul Lais Islahi Nadwi

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