Response:

Azamgarh–December 27, 1962

Respected Maulana Abul Lais Sahib,

Assalamu Alaykum,

I received your letter dated December 19. I regret that each time, instead of addressing the main issue, you write things that, while legally covering your response, still leave the core problem unresolved.

I called Maulana Sadruddin’s condition a refusal because he has not explained precisely what flaw in my approach prevents him from responding to my commentary. I even wrote to him asking for clarification, but his reply addressed other matters without explaining the supposed flaw in my approach. When I tried to determine it myself, I concluded that my comments likely refuted his points based on reasoning. If this constitutes a flaw in my approach, it’s clear I cannot abandon it. If it’s something else, then he should clarify it.

Regarding the questions from Maulana Jalil Ahsan, you wrote in your letter dated October 20:

“Maulana Jalil Ahsan Sahib has written that the questions he sent to you are not irrelevant. However, if their relevance is unclear to you, you may inquire about this from him.”

This suggests that, in your view, it’s not enough for these questions to be relevant only in Maulana Jalil Ahsan’s mind. It’s also essential that I understand how they relate to my issue. Despite my insistence, Maulana Jalil Ahsan has not clarified this. Nevertheless, in your latest letter, you write as though the questions’ relevance in Maulana Jalil Ahsan’s mind is sufficient, regardless of whether I understand their relevance.

In such a situation, I respectfully state that if you truly address my concerns, I will certainly consider them. However, if your response remains as it has been, I echo your own words: “In such a case, it truly seems that prolonging this conversation serves no purpose. Therefore, it would be best to end this matter here.”

Considering this, it would be better if you accept my resignation and release me from this entanglement.

Sincerely,

Wahiduddin