Maulana Iṣlāḥī held a very good opinion of Dr. Isrār Aḥmad (1932–2010). He was impressed by his religious zeal. He moved to Lahore in 1966. Prior to that, he ran his clinic in Sāhīwāl and Karachi. Maulana expressed happiness at his decision to settle permanently in Lahore. Khālid Masʿūd relates that the doctor met Maulana and expressed his resolve that he wished, in a formal manner, to sit before him as a student. Maulana welcomed him and invited him to begin an intellectual journey, along with other friends, in the Tadabbur-e Qur’an circle. At that time Maulana was delivering lessons on fiqh, but the doctor did not join the circle’s lessons. According to him, instead of that, he was interested in instruction of the Qur’an itself. Entrusting the Monthly Mīthāq to Dr. Isrār Aḥmad This was the period when, due to Abū Ṣāliḥ’s death, Maulana was afflicted by financial difficulties. The monthly Mīthāq was also in abeyance. When its publication remained continuously suspended for several months, the doctor expressed the desire to assume its responsibility. Thus its editorship and publication were entrusted to him. Now, on Mīthāq, in place of the editor, Dr. Isrār Ṣāḥib’s name began to be printed, because its proprietary rights had also come to belong to him, whereas Maulana Iṣlāḥī’s name would be written as its patron. The doctor wrote in this regard: The printing of the first volume of Tadabbur-e-Qurʾān and the serial publication in Mīthāq of Tadabbur- e-Qurʾān and the benefits derived from Farāhī was not merely on account of personal relations with Maulana Iṣlāḥī; rather, it was founded upon the profound conviction that, if the Noble Qurʾān is in the future truly to become a living book and, in reality, a source of guidance and a programme of action for humanity, then no form of this is possible except that the paths of reflection upon it be illuminated on a purely scientific method; and for this purpose, that style of Tadabbur-e-Qurʾān which Maulana Farāhī, after a lifetime of reflection, compiled, and upon which Maulana Iṣlāḥī, in practice, laid the foundation of an academic movement as well, is exceedingly important and extremely beneficial. The present writer knows, on the basis of his personal experience, that through the study of Maulana Iṣlāḥī’s invaluable works, the reader’s direct connection with the Noble Qurʾān is established. His mind begins to feel an affinity with the Qurʾān, and within the heart a state of intimacy with it comes into being. (Mīthāq, July 1967)
Dr. Isrār accepted the responsibility for publishing Mīthāq with the awareness that Mīthāq had a past, and that, keeping regard for its past, he would publish it so that it might become a means for disseminating Farāhī’s thought; but this could not happen. He himself writes: During 1968–1969, in ‘Mīthāq’ (as it continued to be published) there remained, as it were, a kind of vacuum. [That is, the same condition persisted that]… it continued to be published in the manner of: they will simply write letters, even though there be no real point— as a kind of monthly periodical that was half religious, half academic, and half political. (Mīthāq, July 1976)
With reference to this period, Khālid Masʿūd, who was among the regular writers of Mīthāq, relates that the journal’s readers would complain to Maulana about the condition of the issue, and he would also warn Dr. Isrār for its rectification, and at times even reprimand him. Dr. Isrār would reassure Maulana that soon Mīthāq would be published in accordance with its former tradition, but the situation did not improve. The confirmation of Khālid Masʿūd statement is found in Dr. Isrār’s own writing, in which he acknowledged this: There is no doubt that Maulana handled this delicate situation with great grace. But from time to time he had to face considerable anxiety, because the matter of words and modes of expression is, in any case, highly contentious; and sometimes Maulana himself would also strongly disagree with some idea or theory of the present writer. (Mīthāq, November 1972)
Maulana Iṣlāḥī’s declaration of dissociation from Mīthāq Perhaps Maulana’s restraint would have remained intact, but something occurred from Dr. Isrār which Maulana could never have tolerated. In mid-1972, Dr. Isrār founded the Anjuman Khuddām al-Qurʾān. When the proposed rules and regulations for it came to Maulana’s knowledge, he expressed severe reservations about them. In particular, consider these principles: 1. The sole condition for affiliation with the Anjuman is financial contribution, the amount of which is a lump sum of five thousand rupees, two thousand rupees, or a lesser sum; and, in addition to this, the payment of a specified amount of monthly assistance is also required.
2. In the Anjuman’s meeting, the five-thousand contributors have three votes and the two-thousand contributors have two votes, whereas those who give less than this have the right to cast only one vote. …
3. The life-president of the Anjuman shall be Dr Isrār Aḥmad, and he shall have the right to reject, wholly or partially, any decision of the Executive Council.
4. After Dr. Isrār’s death, the Anjuman will not be able to work under the leadership and guidance of any one person; rather, the Executive Council of that time will discharge this duty of guidance. The president of that time will not have the right to reject any decision of the Executive Council.
5. In Dr. Isrār’s presence, the entire matter of the Anjuman’s budget and expenditures will be at his discretion, and the responsibility of the Executive Council will be only supervision. And after him, authority will be transferred entirely to the Executive Council. The president of that time will not be able to be delegated this authority. (Isrār Nāmah, Khālid Masʿūd, 8–9)
It is evident that Maulana Iṣlāḥī had resigned from Jamāʿat-e-Islāmī precisely because of authoritarian powers. He had not tolerated far lesser powers than these even for a distinguished scholar like Maulana Abū al-Aʿlā Mawdūdī, and an extremely affectionate friend; and here the principles Dr. Isrār laid down for himself are very interesting. How could they have been acceptable to him? When these rules and regulations came to Maulana’s knowledge, he explained to Dr. Isrār—both with severity and with gentleness. In accordance with his particular temperament, he also remarked: “My dear, if you had named this Anjuman ‘Dr Isrār Aḥmad and Company,’ I would have had no objection; but for establishing any collectivity for religious work, adherence to the sharīʿah is necessary.” During this affair, what efforts at reform Maulana made, and what outcome emerged, can be gauged from the letters he wrote to some of his companions and students. Consider this letter written on 17 September 1972 to Dr ʿAbd al-Laṭīf Khan, who was Maulana’s physician: With great sorrow I inform you of this tragedy: due to certain actions of Dr Isrār Aḥmad Ṣāḥib that are contrary to the sharīʿah, I have completely severed all connection with him and with the journal ‘Mīthāq.’ You will be grieved by the details of the incident; for this reason I refrain from mentioning them. I too, and other beloved ones better than I, tried greatly to make Dr. Isrār understand, but it is regrettable that there was no success. Naturally, this tragedy has had a very bad effect upon my health. Pray that this be the last tragedy of life. Now the strength to endure such a tragedy no longer remains.
The series of my lessons, praise be to God, continues, and now I am also beginning (again) the work of writing the commentary. Pray that this work continue until the final breath.” (Sih Māhī Tadabbur, July 1998)
It should be borne in mind that it was only after this incident that Maulana fell prey to a severe illness; mention of it is being made on the following pages. However, this letter makes it clear that the sudden death of his young son, and then this matter on the part of the Doctor Isrār, became the cause of his deteriorating health. Consider this letter written from Lahore to Ḥakīm Shaykh Sulṭān Aḥmad on 17 September 1972: Although, in the matter under discussion, I now have no hope of any good, yet if you see any hope of good, then do try. As far as I am concerned, I have now become completely despairing. For this reason I have conveyed that my name should be removed from the cover of the periodical and that the publication of the tafsīr should be discontinued in the periodical (Mīthāq). I think that, on my part, this will suffice for an expression of dissociation. By making any announcement in public, I do not wish to further publicize my disgrace. Accordingly, ‘Chattān’ and the like were desirous of interviewing me, but by making the excuse of ill health I have put the matter off…. Safety lies only in this: separate yourself from this fitnah in silence. Even to engage with them from any angle is not befitting of you people. In any case, the incident that was to occur has occurred. Now there is no recourse except patience. (Quarterly Tadabbur, July 1998, pp. 67–68)
The stance which Doctor Isrār Aḥmad himself adopted before the public regarding this becomes clear from the editorial written in Mīthāq: During the past two or three months, this situation has arisen with unusual intensity regarding the organizational structure of the Markazī Anjuman Khuddām al-Qurʾān. Lahore, and Maulana had to face severe anxiety because of it. The following solution to this complexity has been sought: that for the future it be made clear to the readers of Mīthāq that Maulana is neither accountable nor responsible with respect to the policy of Mīthāq. His responsibility is only to the extent of the Tadabbur-e Qurʾān, or else with respect to any writing that is published under his name. For further clarification and emphasis of this very point, the aforementioned words [‘patron’] are also being deleted from the cover of Mīthāq. (Mīthāq, November 1972)
Despite all this, Maulana’s relationship with Mīthāq and with Doctor Isrār did not come to an absolute end: the installments of the Tadabbur-e Qurʾān continued to be published, and friends also remained attentive toward improving relations; and the first two volumes of Tadabbur-e Qurʾān were also published by the Anjuman Khuddām al-Qurʾān itself. But then another incident occurred. Dr. Isrār moved beyond this association being formed under the name Anjuman Khuddām al-Qurʾān, and in 1975 he established a regular organization for Islamic revolution. He also named it Tanẓīm-e Islāmī. This was the very same name under which an effort had previously been made, but its objectives and its organizational structure were entirely different, and it was a classical example of religious autocracy. Observe what Dr. Isrār was for this organization! Dr. Isrār Aḥmad will have the status of ‘Dāʿī ʿUmūmī’ of Tanẓīm-e Islāmī, and, to the extent of this transitional period, without any determined Majlis-e Shūrā or Majlis-e Muntazimah, he will also run the affairs of the organization under the broader principle of ‘amruhum shūrā baynahum’. He will also be authorized to nominate a determined Majlis-e Shūrā, but he will possess the right of final determination.
All powers regarding expenditure from the organization’s bayt al-māl will belong to the Dāʿī ʿUmūmī. For the provision of capital for daʿwah-related and organizational expenditures, in connection with infāq fī sabīl Allāh each companion will strive to ensure that he pays to the organization at least around one-tenth of his total income. (Mīthāq, August 1976) After this, Doctor Isrār also declared it necessary, for joining the organization, to pledge bayʿah to him. He also began making certain claims which could not be acceptable not only to Maulana Iṣlāḥī, but to any cautious Muslim. Although there is a long list of these, here it will suffice to reproduce one excerpt by way of specimen: I am by no means a claimant to being a religious scholar; rather, I take pride in my being ‘unlettered’ (ummī). As it were, in the words of the late ʿAllāmah Iqbāl: I am neither a gnostic, nor a renewer, nor a muḥaddith, nor a jurist. My entire standing is that of a humble student of the Qurʾān and a humble servant of the religion. However, from the study of the Qurʾān I have certainly come to know what is prior in the religion and what is posterior; who possesses primacy and whose rank is secondary; which things have the status of root and foundation and which have the status of branches. As it were, from this branch of the wisdom of religion, God Most High has granted me a share. (Mīthāq, November 1974)
It should be clear that here Doctor Isrār is, God forbid, declaring himself ‘ummī’, because in his view the Messenger of God (PBUH) also had not studied under any teacher, and he too is similarly not anyone’s student. Upon many such errors, he also wrote and sent an apology letter to Maulana Iṣlāḥī. While mentioning it, Khālid Masʿūd Sahib writes: One of Maulana Iṣlāḥī’s students took him to task in the monthly ‘Shams al-Islām’ Bhera (District Sargodha) and exposed some of his misstatements. As a result, Doctor Isrār wrote an apology letter to Maulana Iṣlāḥī, which Maulana did not accept. (Isrār Nāmah, Khālid Masʿūd, p. 20)
Despite this intense disapproval and heartache on Maulana’s part, the publication of Tadabbur-e Qurʾān continued in Mīthāq. But the incident that severed this series was also disclosed by Dr. Isrār Aḥmad himself. [To be continued]