Second Phase: Informal Conversation

argument.” I asked, “Then what is the correct method to convincingly present an argument? Is it this method, or another?” He replied, “Yes, the correct method is to establish it through relevant texts.” I said, “When my writing is formatted in the same way as a genuinely reasoned argument, how can you claim it is only superficially similar and not genuinely so?” Instead of analysing a section of my work to show that a point may seem valid but is unfounded, he merely insisted without evidence that my argument was not proven. In a conversation with another individual, I explained why I considered Jamaat-e-Islami’s interpretation of Islam incorrect. I analysed certain verses often cited to support this interpretation, showing that they do not convey the intended meanings. Rather than answering my objections, he shifted the discussion to, “How does one recognize the truth?” I replied, “When both one’s intellect and heart feel assured that something is the truth—in other words when external evidence confirms it and inner conviction accepts it.” He disagreed, saying, “Intellect is highly misleading; it misguides people in various ways. The true guide is the heart. If the heart is assured, that’s a sign one has found the truth.” I responded, “That is no principle at all. Both knowledge and the Shariah reject such an approach. Taken to its logical conclusion, if a perspective you