I did not receive any response to this letter from Maulana Maududi. It is difficult for me to understand why he adopted this stance regarding my questions. But those who know are aware that this is a great tragedy for me. Since these thoughts entered my mind, I have been deeply distressed. On the one hand, my feeling that “religion has been compromised” urges me to express and declare this sentiment. On the other hand, I am unwilling to criticize those who are working in the name of religion. I had shared with several of my companions that I would be most relieved if Maulana Maududi’s response could change my perspective and spare me this turmoil. I even mentioned that if Maulana Maududi could not respond to my entire writing but merely pointed out a single error in it, it would at least cause me to doubt myself. A visible error in one part might lead me to question if the remaining parts could also be flawed, providing me with a reasonable excuse not to publish my work.

But unfortunately, these hopes were not fulfilled. Now, I am proceeding to publish this work with the same reluctance as a reluctant witness in a sensitive case who wishes not to speak in court but, despite all efforts, finds himself compelled to testify.

Today, this work is being published against my will. However, perhaps I am justified in saying that the responsibility for its publication no longer rests on me but on Maulana Maududi.

Appendix

Maulana Maududi’s letter dated March 21, 1963, clearly showed that he was no longer eager to reply to me. In that letter, he simply stated:

“I offer you my final apology in this matter, and I hope you will not waste your time or mine in any further correspondence.”

Therefore, my only remaining option was to compile my writing into a book and proceed with its publication. However, I also felt it was necessary to share my saddened feelings with Maulana, so I sent him a letter dated April 20, 1963. I assumed that Maulana would not want to “waste” his time replying to this letter. Yet, two months later, I received another letter from Maulana Maududi on June 21, revealing an additional matter. Since the printing plates had already been prepared by that time,^[1]  this letter could not be included in the original sequence. However, without this letter, the story would be incomplete, so it is included here separately in an appendix.

──────────────────

Lahore–June 12, 1963

Respected and Honourable,

Peace be upon you and the mercy of Allah,

Your kind letter reached me during my pilgrimage to Hajj. Due to my absence, I could not respond promptly.

By nature, I have little interest in debates and disputes and always try to avoid them. When I reviewed your article, ‘Tabeer Ki Ghalti (Error of Interpretation),’ I sensed that your disagreement with me was no longer purely academic; instead, a sense of stubbornness and resentment had developed within you toward me. You left no stone unturned in finding fault with even my straightforward statements and, at various points, launched harsh criticisms against me. Additionally, I noticed a strong sense of confidence in your writing, leading me to believe that nothing but my “admission of error” would satisfy you, as you seem firmly convinced that your understanding is entirely correct, leaving no room for the possibility that my perspective might be valid. Therefore, it appears that the only acceptable course for me would be to admit my mistake before you. These aspects of your writing were so obvious that even a less perceptive person could not fail to notice them. For this reason, I expressed my inability to engage in debate with you, as under these circumstances, if anyone could guide you, it would have to be someone other than myself. Engaging in a debate with you would be unproductive.

Subsequently, when you persisted, I reluctantly agreed to respond to your core questions. However, in the meantime, certain individuals who had previously engaged in discussions with you in India advised me not to invest my time in this debate. I do not think it appropriate to detail their experiences, as that would only open the door to further unnecessary debate. Suffice it to say their accounts reassured me that my initial stance was correct. If you wish to consider this as a form of oppression on my part toward you, you are free to do so; however, in my sincere opinion, I am perhaps the least suited person to attempt to explain things to you. Therefore, my request is that you kindly accept my apology in this matter.

My sincere advice remains that if, through your deep and extensive study of religion, you have reached a particular understanding, then present it confidently and invite others to consider it. Why must the start of your invitation focus on refuting or invalidating someone else’s perspective? Still, if you feel it necessary to initiate your invitation this way, I have no right to prevent you. My list of critics is already quite long, and your addition will make little difference.

Humbly,

Abul Ala