Their last and biggest objection is on the condition of “Taqwa” (Fear of Allah, Piety, and Abstinence from evil- doings). According to them “Taqwa” like “knowledge” is not essential for interpreting the Qur’an. We do not understand what apprehension they have against it. According to them the complication in this regard is:
“The condition of “Taqwa” is a condition that, every scholar can reject the judgement of another scholar, because everyone has his own standard for Taqwa”. (Fikr-o-Nazar Nov.67, p.326)
We may be allowed to say that ignore for a while your individual apprehension and there will be no complication in this matter. The same ‘Multitude’ (Jamhur) whom they want to give the status of legislators is equally entitled to decide which of the scholar fulfils this condition of taqwa? Collectively the conscience of multitude of Muslims is never wrong. Their opinion is the will of Allah. Why should there be any hesitation in entrusting the job of interpretation of the Qur’an and traditions to a person whose Taqwa is accepted by the multitude?
It should be thoroughly understood that ‘Taqwa’ is not an ambiguous and unsettled term which can be given any meaning by anyone according to his individual liking. In Islam “Taqwa” is a legal Phrase and countless religious injunctions depend on it. Whenever it is used in a legal sense it would mean “practising the permissibles, abstaining from major sins and not insisting on minor sins.” In the phraseology of the Qur’an it is the opposite of “Fujur” (Apparent Sins, Immorality). The Qur’an says:
“Then inspired it (with conscience of) its wickedness and its piety.”
Hence anyone abstaining from “Fujur” is a man of Taqwa, and therefore the people shall have no difficulty in deciding about the piety and devotion (Taqwa) of a person. With this in view, one can easily conceive that there can be no complexity or difficulty arising from imposing the condition of knowledge and Taqwa for interpretation, explication or exegesis of the Qur’an and Prophetic tradition.”
In the end we would again like to humbly request the modernists that the use of Street slogans and propaganda weapons would neither render any service to the country or the nation nor can any problems be solved with them, nor would it leave any pleasant effect on any serious mind. In the hue and cry of their slogans at the most they can suppress the voice of truth for a short while. But that can only affect the ears, but not the hearts. A stage does come when the cries become hoarse and their throats get dry. It is then that the dignified voice of truth overcomes with full force, directly affects the hearts and stays permanently there.