After reading Maulana Maududi’s response, my initial impression was that, although he accused me of being self-assured, his letter showed that same trait with noticeable intensity. However, putting these issues aside, I sent him the following letter on July 25.

Rampur–July 25, 1962

Respected Sir,

Assalamu Alaykum

I received your letter dated July 14. I regret that you have formed the opinion that I have “passed the point where efforts to explain things could be beneficial.” If only you knew that I am solely in pursuit of the truth. Perhaps you came to this conclusion based on the current detailed form of my writing. However, the reason for its detailed form is not because I am unwilling to listen; rather, it is because, in my quest for a complete explanation of the matter, I reached this level of detail. You would agree that an event cannot be fully understood with only a partial study. Every incident has many aspects and is connected to a larger whole. Therefore, understanding any event in its entirety requires looking at it within its full context. This alone is the reason for the current shape of my writing.

I am disappointed that you dismissed my writing as merely a product of my “incomplete study and lack of knowledge.” It would have been more helpful if you had analyzed my objections and identified the weaknesses in my reasoning. That way, the main issue could have been addressed, and my lack of knowledge would have become evident. However, instead, you relied only on assertions. If you couldn’t provide a thorough opinion on the entire article right now, you could have selected one or two sections as examples and explained the mistakes in my reasoning. If you had done so, it would have been more useful to me than your letter, which only expresses indignation without addressing the main points.

The final comment in your letter has put me in a tough spot. I went through the trouble of writing this long article—or “book,” as you called it—and sending it to you because I wanted to know beforehand if I was wrong so I could avoid the mistake of publishing it unnecessarily. However, you have made it clear that you only want to comment after it has been published and made public. If I had been eager to publish it, I would have done so quite a while ago. I’ve been talking about this with various people for some time. But when I found no help from others, I turned to you. If that was a mistake on my part, I regret that it wasn’t just my error; many other members of the Jamaat, who still trust your thinking and hold it in high regard, also share this mistake directly. They advised and even insisted that I send my writing to you for your comments.

If only you would agree to respond to my questions! As far as I am concerned, I am ready to sincerely consider it, objectively, in whatever manner and language you find appropriate. However, if, unfortunately, that does not happen, I am also fully prepared that if circumstances lead me to publish it, and after publication, I find through your comments for “the public” that I was indeed mistaken, then, God willing, nothing will stop me from retracting at any stage. Still, you will definitely bear the responsibility for not trying to correct me and for pre-emptively concluding that I am not open to guidance.

Sincerely,

Wahiduddin