Correspondence with Maulana Abu A’la Maududi

Discussion and Correspondence 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 wellreasoned 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.