CHAPTER SUMMARY
With Maulana Maududi’s letter dated March 21, 1963, the correspondence I started last year through Shams Peerzada during Hajj, with Maulana’s promise of a reply, has now ended with his refusal to answer after his return from Hajj the following year. Despite verbal and written promises, Maulana never responded to my criticisms of his views. The reasons he listed in his letters are as follows:
1. Your writing has many objections, and with my current commitments, it’s very hard for me to read it and give a detailed response.
2. Your study has taken you in a direction completely opposite to where my study has led me, so it’s pointless for us to argue.
3. Your understanding is lacking, and to make matters worse, you consider yourself to be at a very high level. My difficulty is that I am not used to addressing someone who lacks knowledge yet thinks highly of himself.
4. You’ve passed the point where trying to explain things to you would help. Therefore, no response will be given. However, if you publish your book, a rebuttal will be issued to protect the public from the misconceptions you’ve presented.
5. Because your writing is polemical in nature, you should not expect me to engage in a back-and-forth question-and-answer exchange or to enter into a debate with you.
6. If you would lower yourself from your high stance and recognize that the person you’re criticizing is not a beginner, then maybe we could have a discussion.
7. You have reached such a high and distant level that further conversation with you is impossible and unproductive. Currently, I have more worthwhile uses for my limited strength and time, so I find it neither feasible nor appropriate to engage in a written debate with you.
8. Certain individuals from India who have debated with you advised me not to waste my time on this discussion.
9. If you want to publish your book, go ahead. My list of critics is already pretty long, and your addition won’t make much of a difference.
Readers can judge for themselves how much these reasons justify his refusal to respond to my concerns. As for myself, I cannot understand how any of the reasons above could justify Maulana’s complete refusal to address my questions. If an objection is “extensive,” one could choose to give a brief answer due to lack of time, but the length of an objection is not a valid reason to avoid responding entirely. Similarly, if a particular thought diverges from your own, that is grounds to refute it thoroughly, not to refuse a response.
Similarly, if the respondent believes the questioner’s understanding is lacking or considers the questioner’s self-assessment to be exaggerated, these are simply claims made by the respondent; presenting well-reasoned evidence is always better than just making assertions. Additionally, deciding in advance—before offering a reply—that the questioner has already passed the point where explanation could be of any benefit is indeed a claim to possessing a special kind of insight, but it does not establish that the respondent is justified in declaring the question unanswerable. Furthermore, the claim that the questioner does not fully respect the person he is addressing is merely the respondent’s own intuition, and instead of expressing such intuition, it is more important for him to present his view on the actual issue. Finally, even after promising to respond, refusing to do so because certain people in India advised against it is hardly a valid reason. If someone genuinely advised Maulana in this way, then, fairly speaking, Maulana should have asked about what I discussed with those people, and I would have explained what those discussions involved. Now, he can see the full record of the exchange in the letters published with this book, which show how those debating with me mainly focused on minor issues rather than the main topic, and how, unfortunately, they influenced Maulana to adopt a similarly unscientific and illogical approach.
The most astonishing thing, however, is that Maulana has called my correspondence on the issues I raised “written polemics.” To me, this is like someone making a legitimate request in reasonable words only to be dismissed with an insult. I had written to Maulana explaining that my main concern was that his interpretation of Islam’s mission didn’t seem to be supported by the Quran and Hadith. I analyzed the verses and Hadith usually cited in this context and explained why I felt they didn’t back the interpretation he proposed. Is this what Maulana calls polemics? If so, what kind of critique can ever avoid being labeled as polemics?
I am astonished that Maulana made multiple efforts to bring up irrelevant points about me, yet he remained completely silent on the main issue I approached him about. He went out of his way to point out other mistakes and weaknesses of mine, even seeming to think it was okay to rely on hearsay in this matter. But on the very issue where my views were clearly presented in writing, and where I specifically asked for his response, he said nothing. Regarding the position that—based on the information I provided—he was fully capable of judging, he avoided the discussion entirely, despite my repeated requests and insistence. Yet on another matter, about which he had no more than baseless rumors and indirect reports, he expressed his opinion with complete certainty. Perhaps, by offering some soothing words to justify this illogical behavior, he might fool the easily convinced public. But I don’t see how he will answer to God on the Day of Judgment.
