Meanwhile, I kept waiting for Maulana Maududi’s response. But, two weeks went by, and during that time, I received a letter from Mr. Shams Peerzada, a member of the Central Advisory Council of Jamaat-e-Islami Hind and the leader of the Bombay branch of Jamaat-e-Islami. His letter mentioned an additional matter. Because of this, I sent a third letter to Maulana.

Rampur–July 9, 1962

Respected Maulana Syed Abul A’la Maududi,

Assalamu Alaykum,

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 challenge your main point worth responding to? I can’t understand the meaning of your reply.

Once again, I must say that by choosing silence on this issue, you have placed yourself in a position of great responsibility. If you feel that my path and yours are going in “opposite directions,” surely you are on the correct path, or I am. Now, if you do not accept my path, you consider yourself on the right path. I cannot understand how silence could be permissible for you. If you believe you are in the right and have strong arguments to support it, then it is your duty to try to clear up my misunderstanding. If you choose not to do so, you risk the serious possibility that, in the Hereafter, you will be questioned about why you did not clarify the mistake of someone you knew was wrong and who personally asked you for clarification.

If someone possesses the truth, it is a gift from God. The most deserving person of this trust is the one who has been deprived of it. So, won’t you try to deliver this trust to the rightful recipient?

If these few lines of mine are able to influence you and you decide to write a response, it will be my good fortune. If not, I must request that you return my writing to me.

Yours sincerely,

Wahiduddin