Correspondence with Maulana Sadruddin Islahi

fault in its tone or style that justified your unwillingness to engage with it. Instead, your reply merely stated, “You have already said all that needed to be said; there is no further need to say anything.” What is even more surprising is that, while you wrote nothing about the actual issue, you took a legalistic stance regarding Amir Jamaat’s letter, devoting seven lines to this matter. Your objection is akin to a scenario where I accuse someone of behaving inappropriately towards me, which he denies. Later, if a signed document of his on the matter were to come into my possession, I might present it as evidence of my claim. In response, rather than acknowledging his error or addressing the core issue, he would argue, “You had no right to read my private letter.” Such statements usually reveal one’s own weaknesses rather than discredit the other person. I am genuinely puzzled by your approach: I presented clear, conclusive points in my brief commentary, yet you offered no response and, instead of addressing the core issue, deflected with other unrelated points. Is your conscience truly satisfied that adopting such a stance absolves you before God and humanity? I wish you would consider that this is not a matter you can simply dismiss and assume it is resolved. It will return to confront you eventually; will you remain silent then as well? Sincerely, Wahiduddin