Azamgarh–February 7, 1963

Respected Maulana Abul Lais Sahib,

Assalamu Alaykum,

I received your letter dated [should be January 29 as per the above letter]. You wrote, “the primary source for determining Jamaat-e-Islami’s ideology is its Constitution.” However, I must clarify that this does not answer my question. In my letter dated January 23, I did not inquire about the source used to define  the Jamaat’s ideology. Instead, my question concerned the explanation of this ideology; specifically, I asked about the status of Maulana Maududi’s literature to Jamaat-e-Islami’s ideological interpretation. As for the Constitution, I know it merely provides a legal expression of a group’s ideology and is not an explanatory document. Therefore, your response is extraneous to the main question and unrelated to it.

Similarly, your statement, “As for the Jamaat’s literature, it is not confined to the works of a single author but includes writings from multiple authors,” is also irrelevant to the main question. This response would only be relevant if I asked whether the collection called “Jamaati Literature” consists entirely of a single author’s works or includes writings from multiple authors. Instead, I specifically asked about the status of Maulana Maududi’s literature in relation to Jamaat-e-Islami’s ideological interpretation.

After noting your response, you wrote in your letter, “I am unsure whether this clarification will fully address your concerns.” Reading these words, I sensed that while writing the above response, you may have realized that you were not addressing my core question. And, if the writer is not confident, the reader will hardly find satisfaction.

However, after carefully reviewing your letter, I concluded that, despite my repeated verbal and written requests, you have not directly answered my question for reasons unknown. However, indirectly, you indicated what your response would be. I am specifically referring to the following sentence from your letter:

“This literature, overall, accurately reflects Jamaat’s objectives.”

To me, this sentence suggests that you treat this literature as an authoritative interpretation of the Jamaat’s ideology. Your clarification that “it is, however, a product of human intellect and, like all human works, may contain errors” is unnecessary because, when I say that members of Jamaat-e-Islami see Maulana Maududi’s literature as an authoritative interpretation of Jamaat’s ideology, I do not mean they consider it infallible like divine scripture, free from all errors. The “certain issues” you acknowledged within the literature are an inherent feature of human discourse; a few lines or paragraphs in any human writing may have such inconsistencies. No human text is completely free of them. The issue here isn’t minor, accidental oversights but the overall interpretation that runs throughout the literature’s pages. And as you pointed out, you see this interpretation as an accurate representation of Jamaat-e-Islami’s ideology.

Therefore, I have again concluded that remaining within Jamaat-e-Islami is not my option. As I have clearly stated, I disagree with Maulana Maududi’s approach to explaining deen. Since this interpretation is, in your view and that of the Jamaat’s members, an accurate reflection of the Jamaat’s ideology, the correct course for me is to separate from it.

This concludes my response regarding the main issue raised in your letter. However, you raised an additional point, stating:

“It is insufficient for our reassurance that your concerns regarding the literature alone are resolved, allowing you to retract your objections and continue your work within the Jamaat. You must also confirm that you accept  the Jamaat’s objectives.”

I am uncertain which senior advised you to demand an oath of loyalty from me concerning the objective (in other words, the Constitution). Your letter dated October 19, 1962, mentioned that “you are, at this time, still a member of Jamaat.” In such circumstances, if I were to respond, you would have no answer, for, as you stated, “Jamaat members are essentially bound only by the Constitution.” Therefore, for a person you still recognise as a member, you would need to specify the legal grounds under which you are making this demand before requiring such a commitment. You are aware that some individuals within the Jamaat hold that the statement of objective in the constitution was altered and that this change modified the Jamaat’s true objective. Did you require an oath on the current constitution from these members? And are they allowed to remain within the Jamaat without such compliance?

In truth, you have not fully considered the nature and consequences of your demand; otherwise, you would not have written this. You should remember that the legal framework of the Constitution you created serves as a protective wall for you, just as it can serve as a protective wall for other members. Some members’ experiences in Banaras indicate that this wall is so protective in their favour that, even if you wish to dismantle it, you cannot.

However, rest assured, I have no interest in engaging in any such legal games. I understand the condition I put forth regarding the status of Maulana Maududi’s literature and my willingness to withdraw my objections afterwards was not an ideal solution from a purely principled perspective. However, it was you who encouraged me to adopt this stance. For a long time, you and many others repeatedly suggested that regardless of my critiques, the points I raised fundamentally resonated with Jamaat members as if they were speaking from their hearts. There was no significant difference between what I said and Jamaat’s current ideology. Therefore, I should abandon the debate and continue working with the Jamaat. Recently, Maulana Abdul Aleem Islahi and other Jamaat members pressed this point, and you also reiterated it in your letter dated December 19, 1962, with the following words:

“As far as I am concerned, I still do not understand your fundamental disagreement with the Jamaat’s objective.”

However, I am unsure what new apprehension has led you to make this demand of me. Regardless, I concluded long ago that it would no longer be possible for me to remain within Jamaat-e-Islami. Yet, given your remarks above and the delicacy of the matter, I chose to compromise on principle by agreeing to stay if my concerns regarding the literature’s status were addressed. This was merely an accommodation, which could only be realised if you had accepted my request regarding the status of the literature, as I had verbally stated in Rampur and subsequently presented in writing. However, given your recent response, even this last possibility has been eliminated.

Therefore, I kindly ask that you notify me once my resignation is accepted, which would relieve me of this obligation.

Sincerely,

Wahiduddin