I am grateful to Mr Hashmi for his response to my humble questions. Again, it will not be useful to comment on personal remarks from his side or on his disparaging tone. However, I should like to say here that, as may be seen on the basis of comparison of his response with my post, hardly any of the actual or main questions that I raised were answered. Some were simply ignored (e.g. Q.5), and some responses to questions that I had not even really asked were given. If I have time, I might, in the interest of the possibility of meaningful discussion in future, explain these aspects of Mr Hashmi’s “rebuttal” in some detail.
I do not mean to say that the points Mr Hashmi has raised in his response
do not merit a separate discussion. They do not however relate to my
questions as such. Nevertheless, I am grateful that he at least was kind
enough to respond. That is still much better for humble students as
myself than sudden dismissal of questions asked for enhanced
understanding as “irrelevant” even after long engagement with an
interlocutor on them -- as has been typical of many people I have had
discussions with on similar issues in the past.
A separate matter that might also be discussed later is that I honestly believe that a scholar of Mr Hashmi's high calibre cannot be accused of having been unaware of Ghāmidī’s views. One wonders therefore how, while he was on al-Mawrid payroll, could he have kept presenting these views without being aware of Ghāmidī’s argumentation* -- something really hard to imagine as it woud cast serious aspersions on Mr Hashmi’s credibility as a sincere scholar. Or, was it that he was aware of Ghamidi's argumentations but later (after his very recent departure from al-Mawrid?) became aware of stronger counterarguments (which of course is possible and perfectly okay -- at least academically). In either case, however, it would be rather embarrassing for anyone else in his shoes to ask for references to Ghāmidī’s argumentation, which are also so readily available in his publications.
*In the following links related to Mr Hashmi’s responses on issues as takfir, Qadiyanis, etc, please note Mr Hashmi’s own words that show his awareness of Ghāmidī’s works and which clearly indicate his “ownership” of these views at that time. As a qualified scholar, he must have been aware of the argumentation, which he now claims just doesn’t exist. It realy doesn't matter what views Mr Hashmi had then and which views he has now. However, a scholar of his calibre must have accepted counter narratives on the basis of seriatim rebuttal in his mind and conscience of each and every argument that had earlier made him accept and present Ghāmidī’s views as those that he agreed with. What I had very humbly requested for was a kind and gracious sharing of that thought process. The response that I however got is there for all to see.