The double entendre By Prof Dr Sohail Ansari

An Orientalist confronts a Muslim scholar, rejecting outright the insinuations of his fellow orientalists that the Holy Quran is to an extent interpolated for his overt assertion that it is the product of the imaginations of Holy Prophet (P.B.U.H).

An Orientalist expects a Muslim scholar to go for a rebuttal.

A Muslim scholar calmly replied:

‘My dear Orientalist I need not to meet arguments head-on.  I recommend you to meet God’.

An interesting parallel

I happened to have an article (somewhat like a dissertation) authored by Syed Khalid Jami. The article projects the seamy side of the character of a ‘scholar’ Javed Ahmad Ghamidi by dubbing Oh sorry christening him a liar. This charge has serious implications as a liar cannot preach the gospel of truth.

The article of Mr. Jami underscores as well the Javed Ahman Ghamidi’s superficial grip of an Arabic language; and thus punctures his own much vaunted boast of being a well-versed scholar of Arabic language. This charge has serious implications for a man touted as the only one at the helm of efforts for the renaissance of Islam.

I wanted to have a counter-opinion provided a point-by- point rebuttal of the charges were not possible; so not to let things get out of perspective; but the reply from Ghamidi school of thought:

 ‘I do not need to go for a rebuttal. But would recommend you to meet Khalid Jami’ reminds me of the hypothetical interaction that has double entendre:

‘What is the difference between do not need to and cannot do?’

‘I don’t care and I don’t know’

 It seemed impossible to unanchor the erudite reply because: ‘I do not need to go for a rebuttal. But would recommend you to meet Khalid Jami’ was deeply embedded in me. I was awed and cowed into submission. 

Replier must have been straight-thinking in some unique way because it is known that straight-thinking people never dither over whether to say yes or no but replier did not  hesitate in saying no’

.

I believe Syed Khalid Jami would have been buffaloed, just as I was, as out of the blue, refusal for a rebuttal came but then deflated because the punch of his all arguments were gone because of the reply so cogent indeed:

‘I do not need to go for a rebuttal. But would recommend you to meet Khalid Jami’

An appeal for help

I am at a loss to say something; fumbling and groping for words; truly desperate for a string of rosy superlatives to attach to a reply:

‘I do not need to go for a rebuttal. But would recommend you to meet Khalid Jami’

My repertoire, unfortunately, is limited and need your help to extend it.

Please help.

 

A parallel that makes me happy:

A reply out of the blue got me blues so I kid myself out of it by enjoying the parallel of two funny things:

‘Meet God & Meet Mr Khalid Jami’

My heart goes out to Mr Javid Ahmed Ghsmidi

The image of Mr Javed Ahmad Ghamidi was tenderly nursed to larger than life status. The divine-right theory of Ghamidi was crafted; a doctrine of religious legitimacy asserts that Mr Ghamidi is subject to no religious precedence or assertions, deriving his right to pass judgment directly from the will of God.

Alas, one detractor denigrates and disparages the cherished credentials of his; and off he is of pedestal_ poignant indeed. But the real poignancy lies somewhere else: the person Mr Javed Ahmad Ghamidi has anointed says:

 ‘I need not to go for a rebuttal’ laying the master open to the charges and by saying: ‘I would recommend you to meet Syed Khalid Jami’ takes refuge in Ad hominem.

This denial introduces me to another facet of

Double entendre: The uses of it as a shield by violating the difference between ‘do need to’ and ‘cannot do’.

 Never say what you should:

‘I do not know what to say.

But always say what you should not:

‘I do not care’

Perhaps protégé acknowledges that the thesis of Mr Jami is insurmountable; therefore, the pursuit for counter thesis would falter in the absence of the necessary information and thus be self-defeating; further compromising integrity of Mr Ghamdi and thus acknowledges a duty of allegiance by saying:

‘I do not need go for a rebuttal’