Second Phase: Informal Conversation

follows: “I read your article several times with close attention, and I admit that I can only benefit from it and am not able to critique it. He said, ‘I agree with the conclusions and doubts chapters almost entirely but disagree with the theoretical causes you presented. I consider the current objectives of Jamaat-e-Islami to be correct, though I don’t have any arguments for it right now. While I could say the same things others have said in response to your writing, I consider them to be pointless and irrelevant—they do not address your objections. I do not think that such responses refute your work.’” There were a few other individuals who agreed with my views and analysis completely or to a large extent. One respected elder who is also a member of the Shura Council read my work on two occasions but provided no comment. I repeatedly requested feedback, but he neither affirmed nor denied my points. In our last meeting, at one point in the conversation, I remarked, “This is either a great truth or a great deception.” He replied, “It could also be a small truth or a great deception.” Another elder stated, “You have invalidated our arguments in your writing, but even if an argument is invalid, it does not necessarily mean that the conclusion is wrong.” I replied, “Indeed, you are correct, but if you still believe the original claim to be correct despite