Correspondence with Maulana Abu A’la Maududi

In response to your letter dated June 15, 1962, I sent a letter on June 25 and am still waiting for a reply. Meanwhile, I received a letter from Mr. Shams Peerzada, who met you in Makkah during Hajj and mentioned my article to you. According to him, you responded: “Tell Mr. Wahiduddin Khan to write down his objections and send them to me. God willing, I will respond to them.” Now I can’t understand how the objections you addressed a month ago have now become “futile” in your view after a month. As for your letter of June 15, the reason you gave for not replying is unclear. You wrote that “your writing contains detailed objections” and that “after reading your argument, I felt that the issue is not just a few objections. Rather, your study has led you in a different direction than mine.” Then, you said you couldn’t respond by stating, “In this situation, it feels somewhat futile for us to get involved in a debate.” I don’t see the logical link between these statements. It appears the second is a result of the first. But how does labeling an objection as “detailed” and fundamentally “opposite” to your view mean you shouldn’t reply? Are only objections that aren’t detailed and don’t