Correspondence with Maulana Abu A’la Maududi

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