Second Phase: Informal Conversation

DISCUSSION AND CORRESPONDENCE acknowledging the flaws in the existing arguments, then you would only be justified in doing so if you had some other evidence to support it. Otherwise, on what basis do you continue to consider it true?” However, he provided no further arguments and only promised to think about it further. He added that, unlike my systematic analysis, “we did not join the movement through such detailed thought. It was a simple Islamic enthusiasm; Maulana Maududi’s words stirred this passion, and we joined in.” One elder remarked, “As far as criticism of the previous ideology and interpretation of verses is concerned, your points are convincing. What you consider to be the primary objective also appears to be correct, even if we have not been able to achieve it practically. However, when considering the entire positive aspect, I fear that the concepts of revolution and reform of the world might become muted.” He suggested that the scholars of the Jamaat should prepare a comprehensive response. Yet, the same elder, who was a member of the Shura Council that decided to assign a scholar to prepare a detailed response to my work over four months, changed his stance upon reading Maulana Maududi’s letter. It was 26th June of 1962 when after the Asr prayer I presented him Maulana Maudidi’s letter (dated June 15, 1962) to read. After reviewing