Before I get into the topic of this article we must reconcile the reports of the early Imams discouraging debating and it’s permissibility.
Shayk Al Islam Ibn Taymiyyah said that debating innovators is not always beneficial, when the truth is already apparent and known among the Muslims, and an innovator calls people to bidah, abandoning him or disciplining him may protect the Muslims more than debating him, as was done by ʿUmar ibn al Khattab with Subaygh, and in other cases where the Muslims punished persistent callers to misguidance.
He also said that debates may be useful when it establishes the hujjah (established proofs) and leads people back to the truth, as what occurred with Ibn ʿAbbas when he debated the Khawarij and many returned, and when the proof was established against Ghaylan. However, if a person refuses the truth out of desire or corrupted understanding, continuing debate brings only harm.
Debate with the truth can be obligatory or recommended depending on circumstances, but it becomes blameworthy when it brings greater harm than benefit, when the debater is weak, or when the opponent is stubborn (which is the case with the majority of the debates that occur today). (Darʾ Taʿarud al ʿAql wa al Naql 7/172–175)
Navigation Menu For Summary
Linguistic meaning of debating
Technical meaning of debating
Linguistic meaning of dialogue
Technical meaning of dialogue and its link to debating
Pillars and conditions of debating
The two sides of the debate
Conditions of debating
Rules and etiquettes of debating
Knowledge, principles and defining the dispute
Manners during debate
Manners after debate
Stages and outcome of debating
Navigation For The Full Article
Reconciling Between The Reports Discouraging Debating & It’s Allowance
Definition of Debating in language and in technical usage
Meaning of a Dialogue
The difference between dialogue and debating
The proof for the permissibility of debating
The pillars of debating
Conditions of debating
Rules and etiquettes of debating
The etiquettes of debating continued
Summary
Linguistic meaning of debating
In Arabic, munadharah is when two people face one another and each looks at the other while they jointly look into a matter and consult about how to approach it. It can also mean mutual consulting and seeking a way forward in an issue. The expression “You debate your brother about a matter” means that the two of you look into it together.
The word is linked to nadhir, which means an equal or counterpart, and to nazar, which is looking with insight into an affair. Nazhar has three main meanings mentioned by the linguists. It can mean looking with the eye, as in the saying of Allah the Exalted:
“وجوه يومئذ ناضرة إلى ربها ناضرة”
“Faces on that Day will be radiant, looking at their Lord.” (al Qiyamah 22 and 23)
It can mean waiting, as in His saying the Exalted:
“انظرونا نقتبس من نوركم”
“Wait for us so that we may take from your light.” (al Hadid 13)
It can also mean thinking and reflecting, as in His saying the Exalted:
“أولم ينظروا في ملكوت السماوات والأرض”
“Have they not looked into the kingdom of the heavens and the earth.” (al Aʿraf 185)
Shaykh al Islam Ibn Taymiyyah said that nazar is stripping the mind of distractions, and that it is also the mind fixing itself upon what is seen. The first is seeking nazar, which is searching for what guides a person to the truth. The second is inferential nazar, which is looking into the proof that leads to the truth, and this second type produces knowledge. (Ibn Taymiyyah, Kitab al Nubuwwat 2/657)
Munadharah is also used for quarrelsome argument, on the sense of drawing out what is with the opponent and extracting it from him, just as the milker draws the milk from the udder, as Ibn al Athir explained. (Ibn al Athir, al Nihayah fi Gharib al Hadith 4/322)
Al Zuhri warned against misusing primary texts in argument. It is narrated from Yahya ibn Ayyub, from Yazid ibn Abi Habib, from Ibn Shihab al Zuhri, that he said: “Do not engage in debate using the Book of Allah, nor using the words of the Messenger ﷺ.” This means, do not set anything as a counterpart or match to them.
Technical meaning of debating
Scholars of usul and adab al bahth define debating as a structured discipline that examines the state of two disputants so that the order of their discussion is arranged correctly until the truth becomes clear between them.
Al Jurjani defined munadharah as “looking with insight from both sides into the relationship between two things, in order to bring what is correct to light.” (al Taʿrifat, al Jurjani, p. 231 to 232)
Others described it as speech going back and forth between two persons. Each intends to show his own statement as correct and to invalidate the statement of his companion, while both genuinely want the truth to appear
Linguistic meaning of dialogue
Dialogue, hiwar, comes from the root hawr. The lexicographers say that al hawr is returning from something and to something: a person returns to or from something, hawran, muhawaratan and huʾuran, meaning that he goes back from it and to it. (Lisan al Arab 4/219)
The meaning extends to returning and sending back speech. One says “I returned his reply to him” meaning that he sent it back to him. Muhawarah is replying and mutual answering. Tahawur is mutual response. Those who “yatahawarun” are going back and forth in speech. Muhawarah is reviewing and exchanging speech and reasoning in direct address. (Lisan al Arab 4/264)
The Qur’an uses the word in this sense, for example in the saying of Allah the Exalted:
“فقال لصاحبه وهو يحاوره”
“So he said to his companion as he conversed with him.” (al Kahf 34)
“قال له صاحبه وهو يحاوره”
“His companion said to him, while he was conversing with him.” (al Kahf 37)
“قد سمع الله قول التي تجادلك في زوجها وتشتكي إلى الله والله يسمع تحاوركما”
“Allah has indeed heard the saying of the woman who argues with you about her husband and complains to Allah, and Allah hears your mutual conversation.” (al Mujadilah 1)
Technical meaning of dialogue and its link to debating
In technical usage, dialogue is a kind of conversation between two persons or two groups in which speech is exchanged between them in a balanced way. Neither side takes over the discussion to the exclusion of the other.
It is usually marked by calmness, by keeping away from quarrelling and partisanship, and by referring back to the strength of the proof and the force of the argument.
On this basis, debating is a specific kind of dialogue. It shares with dialogue the exchange of reasoned speech, but relies more strongly on academic precision and logical conditions.
Debating is built upon opposition between the two sides concerning affirmation and denial of a disputed matter, while they seek to reach what is correct. Ordinary dialogue is not necessarily built on such opposition and is not built on enmity between the two sides.
Pillars and conditions of debating
Debating is a kind of dialogue between two debaters whose aim should be to reach the truth and make what is correct clear. For debating to be realised, there must first be a proper subject.
Some matters are not suitable for debating. These include single terms that belong to the universe of simple concepts, such as isolated nouns, verbs and particles, and non informative sentences which do not carry truth or falsehood, such as pure commands, prohibitions, questions, wishes and calls.
The suitable field of debating is informative matters that can be true or false. This includes issues of creed examined by the people of kalam, the legal rulings discussed by the imams and the righteous early generations, and public questions between these two, such as the caliphate and the system of government.
The two sides of the debate
The second pillar is the two sides. One side presents and gives reasons, and the other raises objections and questions. The one who begins is called the presenter of the subject when he sets out proofs, and the other is the questioner. In some cases the one who begins is preventing and blocking a claim, so the objector is then the one who must bring proofs.
During the course of a debate the roles may change. The questioner can become the one who gives reasons, and the presenter can become the questioner. The one who was preventing may become the one who brings proofs, and the one who was bringing proofs may become the one who prevents, according to the needs of the discussion.
Conditions of debating
Several conditions are mentioned for debating to be sound.
The first condition is that both debaters must have knowledge of the subject of the debate. Entering a debate without understanding the matter and the proofs leads to error and confusion.
The second condition is that both must know the rules and principles of debating that apply to what they discuss.
The third condition is that the subject must be one to which debating can apply. Matters that are taken as givens and matters that are self evident cannot be debated in a meaningful way.
The fourth condition is that the two debaters must conduct their debate according to one common usage. If speech is based on the usage of jurists, the second side should not resort to the usage of grammarians or philosophers without clarification.
Shaykh Ibn ʿUthaymeen said that a person should not enter into jadal with anyone until after he knows his proof and is ready to answer it. If he enters without knowing, the outcome will be against him except if Allah wills otherwise. (Ibn ʿUthaymeen, Sharh Kashf al Shubuhat p. 73)
Rules and etiquettes of debating
ʿAbd al ʿAziz ibn Muhammad al Saddahan describes how scholarly issues in gatherings of knowledge can lead to formal debate, where each participant presents what he understands from his research and replies to those who differ. There is nothing strange in this, as long as the aim is to reach the truth and clarify it, so that those who differ return to it while remaining under the shade of love and brotherhood, just as the early generations were. (Maʿalim fi Tariq Talab al ʿIlm p. 239–244)
The first etiquette is a sound intention. Yusuf, the son of Ibn al Jawzi, said: “The first thing that must be begun with is a good intention in making the truth appear.” (Yusuf ibn al Jawzi, al Idah li Qawanin al Istilah p. 42)
Al Khateeb al Baghdadi said that the student “should purify his intention in his jadal, such that he seeks by it the Face of Allah the Most High.” (al Khateeb al Baghdadi, al Faqih wa al Mutafaqqih 2/25–26)
Ibn al Jawzi said that in the beginning disputation was only laid down so that the correct position might become clear, and that the aim of the Salaf was mutual sincere advice to make the truth appear. (Ibn al Jawzi, Talbis Iblis p. 120)
The texts of the Qur’an and Sunnah show the permissibility of debating and set its limits. Allah commanded His Messenger ﷺ:
“ادع إلى سبيل ربك بالحكمة والموعظة الحسنة وجادلهم بالتي هي أحسن”
“Call to the way of your Lord with wisdom and good exhortation, and argue with them in the way that is best.” (al Nahl 125)
He also said:
“ولا تجادلوا أهل الكتاب إلا بالتي هي أحسن إلا الذين ظلموا منهم”
“Do not argue with the People of the Book except in the way that is best, except for those of them who do wrong.” (al Ankabut 46)
And He warned:
“ولو كنت فظا غليظ القلب لانفضوا من حولك”
“If you had been harsh and hard of heart, they would have dispersed away from you.” (Al Imran 159)
Ibn Kathir said that the command “argue with them in the way that is best” means that whoever needs discussion and debate should be debated in a good way with gentleness, kindness and fine speech, and he linked this to the verses about arguing with the People of the Book in the best manner and to the command to Musa and Harun عليهما السلام to speak gently to Firʿawn. (Ibn Kathir, Tafsir, 4/613)
The Qur’an also gives detailed examples of argument, such as the reply to the one who denied resurrection in Surah Yasin, and the story of Ibrahim عليه السلام with the ruler who argued with him about his Lord. These show clear proofs presented in a strong yet gentle way that draws hearts to submission. The Sunnah joins this with the hadith: “Strive against the polytheists with your wealth, your lives and your tongues.” (Ahmad, Musnad Anas ibn Malik 19/272; Riyad al Salihin 1349)
Knowledge, principles and defining the dispute
Ibn Kathir, in his introduction to tafsir, praised the method in which disagreement is reported completely, all the sayings are gathered, the correct one is distinguished, the false ones invalidated and the benefit of the disagreement explained, so that argument does not continue without fruit and distract from what is more important. He warned that reporting disagreement incompletely, or leaving it without clarification, or validating what is false deliberately or through ignorance, or multiplying empty differences, are all forms of deficiency and falsehood. (Ibn Kathir, Muqaddimat al Tafsir 1/10, Muassasat al Rayyan)
Shaykh ʿAbd al Rahman al Saʿdi said that a person who debates another should first lay down the basic principles upon which the two sides agree, then, when agreement is achieved and harmony is complete, he should move from that to the disputed matters with gentleness and calm. (al Saʿdi, Majmuʿ al Fawaʾid p. 255)
Ibn Taymiyyah explained that much disagreement between intelligent people arises because the exact point of dispute is not clear. In many cases the correct view lies in a position other than the two being argued, or the disagreement is built on a weak foundation which, once uncovered, causes the disagreement itself to disappear. (Ibn Taymiyyah, Majmuʿ al Fatawa 12/57)
Because of this, it is important to specify the point of disagreement, to remove agreed matters from the field of discussion, and to separate issues that only seem to be included. Shaykh Muhammad al Amin al Shanqiti said that among the etiquettes of debate is that both sides avoid strange words and vague wording. (al Shanqiti, Adab al Bahth wa al Munadharah 2/91)
Manners during debate
The Prophet ﷺ taught, through ʿAʾishah رضي الله عنها, that people are to be placed in their proper positions. She said: “The Messenger of Allah ﷺ ordered us to place people in their proper positions.” (Muslim, introduction to Sahih, p. 6)
Al Juwayni applied this to debate, saying that a debater must guard his own standing and the standing of his opponent, and give each person, in the way he is addressed, his proper rank and level, distinguishing between a peer, a seeker of guidance and a teacher. (al Juwayni, al Kifayah fi al Jadal p. 531)
Al Shatibi described proper conduct in debate as not confronting with an immediate rebuttal face to face, but proceeding through courtesy and forbearance, following the style of verses that present the matter gently and leave room for acceptance, such as “Indeed, either we or you are upon guidance or in clear error” and similar verses. He explained that this is more likely to lead to acceptance, to abandoning stubborn refusal and to extinguishing the fire of partisanship. (al Shatibi, al Muwafaqat 2/167)
Shaykh ʿAbd al Rahman al Saʿdi drew attention to fairness. He said that just as it is usual for each debater to be keen on his own proofs, he must also clarify what his opponent has of proofs and look into his evidence just as he looks into his own. In this, a person’s fairness or partisanship, his humility or pride, and his sound mind or foolishness become clear. (al Saʿdi, Taysir al Karim al Rahman p. 915)
Shaykh al Islam Ibn Taymiyyah explained that when the companions, their followers and those after them differed, they followed the command to refer what they disputed to Allah and the Messenger. They debated issues as a form of consultation and sincere advice, while affection, mutual protection and the brotherhood of faith remained between them.
Only the one who opposed the clear Book, the well known Sunnah and the agreed way of the Salaf with an inexcusable opposition was treated like a person of innovation. (Ibn Taymiyyah, Majmuʿ al Fatawa 24/172)
Scholars also stressed controlling oneself and avoiding anger. Ibn al Qayyim said that anger confuses the heart and mind, prevents complete understanding, blocks full study of the proofs and blinds a person to the path of knowledge and right aim, just as wine takes away the mind. For this reason the Prophet ﷺ forbade a judge to judge while angry. (Ibn al Qayyim, Iʿlam al Muwaqqiʿin 2/166)
Reports are given about scholars who controlled themselves in debate, such as Ibn Awn, who, when someone angered him, would say “May Allah bless you”, and Yusuf, the son of Ibn al Jawzi, who was described as debating without moving a limb, and ʿAbd Allah ibn Ahmad ibn Qudamah who debated while smiling until some said that he overcame his opponents with his smile. (Siyar Aʿlam al Nubala 6/366; Dhayl Tabaqat al Hanabilah 2/260; 2/137)
Manners after debate
Umar ibn al Khattab wrote to Abu Musa al Ash ari, may Allah be pleased with them both, advising him not to let a judgement given one day prevent him, when he reviews his view and is guided to what is right, from returning to the truth, because the truth is ancient and nothing invalidates it, and returning to the truth is better than continuing in falsehood. (Ibn al Qayyim, Iʿlam al Muwaqqiʿin 2/85–183)
Ibn al Jawzi gave a practical example. He said that he had acted for about thirty years upon a hadith of remembrance after prayer, due to his good opinion of the narrators, then when he came to know that it was fabricated he left it. When someone said to him “Is that not still practising something good”, he replied that practising what is good must be something legislated, and when it is known to be a lie it falls outside what is legislated. (Ibn al Jawzi, al Mawduʿat 10/245)
Al Saddahan warned that some people turn debates into stories for entertainment, telling everyone how they overcame their opponent and leaving the door open to showing off, love of reputation and backbiting.
He quoted Ibn al Jawzi who criticised those who are lax about backbiting under the pretext of relating debate, saying that one of them says “I spoke with so and so, and he had nothing to say”, speaking in a way that shows his gloating. (Ibn al Jawzi, Talbis Iblis p. 120; al Saddahan, Maʿalim fi Tariq Talab al ʿIlm p. 239–244)
Instead, the debater should praise Allah for guidance and success and keep silent about such incidents unless there is clear benefit, and even then he should mention them with calm dignity and praise of his brother.
If he sees his brother withdrawing from a mistaken position and accepting what is correct, he should hasten to praise this action and say that this is what was assumed of him, deepening affection and love.
Yunus al Sadafi said about al Shafiʿi: “I never saw anyone more intelligent than al Shafiʿi. I debated with him one day about an issue, then we parted. He took my hand, then said, O Abu Musa, can it not be that we remain brothers even if we do not agree in one issue.” (Siyar Aʿlam al Nubala 10/16)
Al Khateeb al Baghdadi warned against self admiration, saying that a person should not be someone who admires his own speech and is tempted by his own jadal, because self admiration is the opposite of correctness and from it partisanship arises, and it is the head of every calamity. (al Khateeb al Baghdadi, al Faqih wa al Mutafaqqih 2/57)
If clear stubbornness and wilful refusal appear from the other side, the door of debate should be closed. Continuing in such a case often begins hatred and enmity and removes the highest aim of the debate, while Shaytan raises his banners. The debater should soften his words, move to another topic until tension disappears, and then either return later if benefit is likely, with a method that wins affection and turns away the plotting of Shaytan, or leave the matter and direct the other person to clear written works that explain the issue. (al Saddahan, Maʿalim fi Tariq Talab al ʿIlm p. 239–244)
Stages and outcome of debating
The scholars divide sound debating into three stages.
The first stage is the stage of principles. In this stage, the exact point of disagreement is fixed and the shared foundations are set out so that each side does not speak in a different field.
The second stage is the stage of the middle matters, in which proofs are presented and ordered to show the necessity or strong likelihood of the conclusion being argued for.
The third stage is the stage of the conclusions. The research ends here if it reaches necessary knowledge that the mind must accept, or probable knowledge that the opponent accepts.
As for the outcome, if the one who gives reasons cannot answer the objection of the questioner, he is considered refuted. If the questioner cannot support and prove his objection, he is considered bound by the argument and obliged to accept the conclusion. When the meanings, conditions and etiquettes described above are fulfilled, debating becomes a means of clarifying the truth, protecting unity and teaching the manners of seeking knowledge.
Full Article
Reconciling Between The Reports Discouraging Debating & It’s Allowance
Shaykh Al Islam Ibn Taymiyyah said: There is harm in it (debating), as is found in the words of many of them, such as forbidding sitting with the people of bidah, debating them, speaking to them, and commanding that they be abandoned.
This is because abandoning them can sometimes be more beneficial for the Muslims than speaking to them. If the truth is apparent and the Muslims already know it, and some innovator wants to call people to his bidah, then he must be prevented from that.
If he is abandoned and disciplined, as Amir al Muminin ʿUmar ibn al Khattab, may Allah be pleased with him, did with Subaygh ibn ʿAsal al Tamimi, and as the Muslims used to do, or if he is killed, as the Muslims killed al Jaʿd ibn Dirham and Ghaylan al Qadari and others, then that is the maslahah ((benefit).
This is different from the case where he is left to keep calling people while he does not accept the truth, either because of his desire, or because of a corruption in his understanding. In that case, there is nothing in speaking to him except harm and damage to him and to the Muslims.
The Muslims established the proof against Ghaylan and those like him, debated him, and made the truth clear to him, as ʿUmar ibn ʿAbd al ʿAziz, may Allah be pleased with him, did, and he asked him to repent, then he broke that repentance afterwards, so they killed him.
Likewise, ʿAli, may Allah be pleased with him, sent Ibn ʿAbbas to the Khawarij (٢), and he debated them, then half of them returned, then he fought the rest.
The point is that when the truth becomes apparent and is known, and the aim of the caller to bidah is to harm people, he is met with punishment.
Allah the Most High said:
وَالَّذِينَ يُحَاجُّونَ فِي اللَّهِ مِن بَعْدِ مَا اسْتُجِيبَ لَهُ حُجَّتُهُمْ دَاحِضَةٌ عِندَ رَبِّهِمْ وَعَلَيْهِمْ غَضَبٌ وَلَهُمْ عَذَابٌ شَدِيدٌ
“And those who argue about Allah after He has been responded to, their argument is void with their Lord, and upon them is anger, and for them is a severe punishment.” (Fussilat 42:16)
They may also forbid disputation and debate if the one debating is weak in knowledge of the proof and in answering the doubt, because it is feared that this misguided person will corrupt him, just as a weak person in fighting is forbidden from fighting a strong brute from the brutes of the disbelievers, because that harms him and harms the Muslims without benefit.
It may also be forbidden when the one being debated is stubborn, where the truth becomes apparent to him but he does not accept it, and he is the sophistic.
All nations agree that when a debate ends at premises that are known, clear in themselves, necessary, and the opponent still denies them, then he is a sophistic. After that, one is not commanded to debate him. Rather, if he is corrupt in intellect, they treat him, and if he is unable to know the truth, and there is no harm in him, they leave him. If he deserves punishment, they punish him when able, either by discipline or by killing. Most people do not submit to the truth except by force.
The point is that they forbade debating for the one who cannot fulfil its obligation, or with someone where debating him does not have a stronger benefit, or where it has a stronger harm. These are incidental matters that differ according to different situations.
As for debate with the truth itself, it may be obligatory at one time and recommended at another time. Overall, the category of debate and disputation includes what is praiseworthy and what is blameworthy, harm and benefit, truth and falsehood.
The source of falsehood is lack of knowledge or bad intent, as Allah the Most High said:
إِن يَتَّبِعُونَ إِلَّا الظَّنَّ وَمَا تَهْوَى الْأَنفُسُ
“They follow nothing but assumption and what the selves desire.” (An Najm 23)
The source of truth is knowing the truth and loving it. Allah is the Clear Truth, and love of Him is the foundation of every act of worship. For this reason, the best matter in absolute terms is knowing Allah and loving Him. This is the millah of Ibrahim عليه السلام, the Khalil of Allah, whom Allah made an imam for the people, and made him a nation whom creation follows. He is the one who debated those who denied and those who associated partners.
As Allah the Most High mentioned his argument with the one who argued with him about his Lord:
إِذْ قَالَ إِبْرَاهِيمُ رَبِّيَ الَّذِي يُحْيِي وَيُمِيتُ قَالَ أَنَا أُحْيِي وَأُمِيتُ قَالَ إِبْرَاهِيمُ فَإِنَّ اللَّهَ يَأْتِي بِالشَّمْسِ مِنَ الْمَشْرِقِ فَأْتِ بِهَا مِنَ الْمَغْرِبِ فَبُهِتَ الَّذِي كَفَرَ
“When Ibrahim said: My Lord is the One who gives life and causes death. He said: I give life and cause death. Ibrahim said: Then Allah brings the sun from the east, so bring it from the west. So the one who disbelieved was confounded.” (Baqarah 258)
And likewise his argument with his people who used to worship the stars.
Dar’u Ta’arud al-‘Aql wa al-Naql by Ibn Taymiyyah (7/172-175)
Definition of debating in language and in technical usage
In the arabic language, debating is when two people face each other and each one looks at the other. From this comes the expression, “You debate your brother about a matter” meaning that the two of you look into it together to see how you both approach it.
It is also said that “mutual debating” is mutual consulting and trying to reach a way forward in a matter.
“Yahya ibn Ayyub narrated from Yazid ibn Abi Habib, from Ibn Shihab, who said: Do not engage in debate using the Book of Allah, nor using the words of the Messenger ﷺ.”
This means, do not set anything as a match or equivalent for them. The Arabs say, “My house looks towards the house of so and so” meaning that it faces it.
Debating is therefore taken from “nadhir”, which means “equal or counterpart”, or from “nadhar” with insight, as in, “He looked into the matter” meaning he saw it with insight.
As for its technical usage, it has a number of definitions that all revolve around the following meaning:
“It is a science that examines the condition of two disputants, so that the order of discussion between them is arranged in the correct way until the truth becomes clear between them.”
It has also been said that debating is:
“Speech going back and forth between two persons, each of whom intends to make his own statement correct and to invalidate his companion’s statement, while each of them wants the truth to appear.”
Meaning of Debating
In the arabic language, al munadhara comes from naadhar, from waiting, from looking with insight, and from the word naadhīr, meaning one similar to another. (See “al Taʿrifat” p. 298, “al Bahr al Muhit” 1/42, “Majmuʿ al Fatawa” 2/430.)
The root naadhara revolves around three meanings:
Looking that is the sense of sight and seeing. From this is the saying of Allah the Exalted:
“وجوه يومئذ ناضرة إلى ربها ناضرة”
“Faces on that Day will be radiant, looking at their Lord.”
(al Qiyamah 22 and 23)
Looking in the sense of waiting. From this is His saying the Exalted:
“انظرونا نقتبس من نوركم”
“Wait for us so that we may take from your light.”
(al Hadid 13)
Looking in the sense of thinking and reflecting on a thing. From this is His saying the Exalted:
“أولم ينظروا في ملكوت السماوات والأرض”
“Have they not looked into the kingdom of the heavens and the earth.”
(al Aʿraf 185)
Nadhar is of two types, seeking and inferential.
Shaykh al Islam Ibn Taymiyyah said: “Naadhar is stripping the mind of distractions. It has also been said that it is the mind fixing itself upon what is seen. The first is seeking nadhar. It is seeking what guides a person to the truth. The second is inferential naadhar. It is looking into the proof that leads him to the truth. This second type is what produces knowledge.”
Kitab al Nubuwwat 2/657
Al munaadhara is also used for quarrelsome argument, on the meaning of drawing out the belief and proofs of the opponent.
Ibn al Athir said: “Munadhara is also called mumarāh, because each one of the two draws out what is with his companion and extracts it from him, just as the milker draws the milk from the udder.” (al Nihayah fi Gharib al Hadith 4/322)
Meaning of A Dialogue
Its origin in language is from
الحَوْرُ: الرجوعُ عن الشيء وإلى الشيء
Al hawr, which is “to return from something and to it.” (Lisan al Arab 4/264)
In terminology, it is “exchanging speech and passing it between two sides, taking and giving in it.” (See “al Hiwar” p. 20.)
The word hiwar occurs in the Qurʾan in three places:
“وَكَانَ لَهُ ثَمَرٌ فَقَالَ لِصَاحِبِهِ وَهُوَ يُحَاوِرُهُ أَنَا أَكْثَرُ مِنْكَ مَالًا وَأَعَزُّ نَفَرًا”
“He had fruit, so he said to his companion, while he was conversing with him, I have more wealth than you and I am mightier in men.”
(al Kahf 34)
“قَالَ لَهُ صَاحِبُهُ وَهُوَ يُحَاوِرُهُ أَكَفَرْتَ بِالَّذِي خَلَقَكَ مِنْ تُرَابٍ ثُمَّ مِنْ نُطْفَةٍ ثُمَّ سَوَّاكَ رَجُلًا”
“His companion said to him, while he was conversing with him, Have you disbelieved in the One who created you from dust, then from a drop, then fashioned you as a man.”
(al Kahf 37)
“قَدْ سَمِعَ اللَّهُ قَوْلَ الَّتِي تُجَادِلُكَ فِي زَوْجِهَا وَتَشْتَكِي إِلَى اللَّهِ وَاللَّهُ يَسْمَعُ تَحَاوُرَكُمَا إِنَّ اللَّهَ سَمِيعٌ بَصِيرٌ”
“Allah has indeed heard the saying of the woman who argues with you about her husband and complains to Allah, and Allah hears your mutual conversation. Allah is All Hearing, All Seeing.”
(al Mujadilah 1)
Examples of hiwar and its settings in the Qurʾan include:
The conversation of Allah the Exalted with the angels about the creation of Adam عليه السلام.
The conversation of Allah the Exalted with Ibrahim عليه السلام about how creation is brought to life.
The conversation of Nuh عليه السلام with his people.
The conversation of Ibrahim عليه السلام with Nimrud.
The Sunnah has also given attention to hiwar. From this is:
The conversation of the Prophet ﷺ with ʿUtbah ibn Rabiʿah. (See “Sirah Ibn Hisham” 1/313.)
The conversation of the Prophet ﷺ with the Ansar after the battle of Hunayn.
It was reported by al Bukhari 4330 and 7345, and Sahih Muslim 1061.
The difference between dialogue and debating
In language, “dialogue” has meanings that all revolve around “returning, reviewing and responding”. In Lisān al Arab it is said:
From this is the saying of Allah the Exalted:
إنه ظن أن لن يحور
He thought that he would never return.
(al Inshiqaq 14.)
“Al hawr” also means loss after increase, because it is moving back from one state to another.
In the hadith, the Prophet ﷺ said:
اللهم إني أعوذ بك من الحور بعد الكور
Its meaning is that we seek refuge with Allah from loss after increase.
I returned his reply to him, meaning that I sent it back to him.
Muhawarah is replying to one another.
Tahawur is mutual response.
They engage in tahawur, meaning that they go back and forth in speech.
Muhawarah is reviewing and exchanging speech and reasoning during address. (Lisan al Arab, 4 / 264)
From this is the saying of Allah the Exalted:
فقال لصاحبه وهو يحاوره
“So he said to his companion as he conversed with him.”
(al Kahf 8.)
As for the technical definition of dialogue, researchers have given many definitions, which can be summed up as follows:
“Dialogue is a kind of conversation between two persons or two groups, in which speech is exchanged between them in a balanced way, such that neither one of them takes over it to the exclusion of the other. It is usually marked by calmness, by staying away from quarrelling and partisanship, and by referring back to the strength of the proof and the force of the argument.”
Based on this definition of dialogue, we can say that debating is one kind of dialogue and is in harmony with it, but debating relies more strongly on academic precision and logical conditions than ordinary dialogue does.
Debating is built on there being opposition between the two debaters, in order to reason and argue for affirming a matter over which they are in dispute, in terms of denial and affirmation, seeking to reach what is correct. Dialogue, on the other hand, is not built on there being opposition between the two sides, or on there being enmity between them.
The proof for the permissibility of debating
The Qur’an has legislated debating, has set limits and rules for it, and has confirmed its necessity and importance, in many verses of the Noble Reminder. This gives the reader of the Qur’an a clear picture of how debating occupies a living and active place in the life of all religious communities.
There was no messenger or prophet except that he debated his people, argued with them and discussed with them to prove the soundness of what he was calling them to.
What makes the matter even clearer is that Allah, the Exalted, commanded His noble Messenger ﷺ to argue with the polytheists and to call them to the truth with wisdom and good exhortation. He said:
ادع إلى سبيل ربك بالحكمة والموعظة الحسنة وجادلهم بالتي هي أحسن إن ربك هو أعلم بمن ضل عن سبيله وهو أعلم بالمهتدين
“Call to the way of your Lord with wisdom and good exhortation, and argue with them in the way that is best. Your Lord knows best who has strayed from His way, and He knows best those who are guided.” (al Nahl 125.)
Ibn Kathir said in his commentary on this verse: “And His saying, “And argue with them in the best manner,” means that whoever among them needs discussion and debate, then it should be done in a good way, with gentleness, kindness, and fine speech. Just as He said:
“And do not argue with the People of the Book except in the best manner, except those among them who commit wrongdoing” (al Ankabut – 46).
So Allah commanded gentleness and a soft approach, just as He commanded Musa and Harun عليهما السلام when He sent them to Firʿawn, saying:
“So speak to him with gentle speech, so that he may take heed or fear” (Ta Ha – 44).” (Tafsir Ibn Kathir 4 /613)
Allah the Exalted also commanded that the People of the Book be argued with through wisdom and exhortation, because this softens their hearts and makes them more ready to follow the truth. He said:
ولا تجادلوا أهل الكتاب إلا بالتي هي أحسن إلا الذين ظلموا منهم وقولوا آمنا بالذي أنزل إلينا وأنزل إليكم وإلهنا وإلهكم واحد ونحن له مسلمون
“Do not argue with the People of the Book except in the way that is best, except for those of them who do wrong, and say, We believe in what has been sent down to us and what has been sent down to you, and our God and your God is One, and we submit to Him.”
(Al Imran 64.)
Harshness in debating and arguing only increases the other side in aversion, stubbornness, partisanship and clinging to falsehood. Allah the Exalted made this clear when He said:
ولو كنت فظا غليظ القلب لانفضوا من حولك
“If you had been harsh and hard of heart, they would have dispersed away from you.”
(Al Imran 159.)
This reveals the prophetic way of debating. It is the best way, which must be observed by those who debate.
Among the Qur’anic proofs and examples that show the permissibility of debating in Islam is the saying of Allah the Exalted:
وضرب لنا مثلا ونسي خلقه قال من يحيي العظام وهي رميم قل يحييها الذي أنشأها أول مرة وهو بكل خلق عليم الذي جعل لكم من الشجر الأخضر نارا فإذا أنتم منه توقدون أوليس الذي خلق السماوات والأرض بقادر على أن يخلق مثلهم بلى وهو الخلاق العليم إنما أمره إذا أراد شيئا أن يقول له كن فيكون فسبحان الذي بيده ملكوت كل شيء وإليه ترجعون
“He puts forward for Us a parable and forgets his own creation. He says, Who will give life to the bones when they are decayed. Say, He will give them life who produced them the first time, and He has full knowledge of all creation.
He who has made for you from the green tree fire, and behold, from it you kindle. Is not He who created the heavens and the earth able to create the likes of them. Indeed, He is the Knowing Creator. His command when He intends a thing is only that He says to it, Be, and it is. So glory be to Him in whose hand is the dominion of every thing, and to Him you will be returned.” (Yasin 78.)
In this answer to the one who denied bringing the dead back to life after death, we notice what it contains of great proofs and a wonderful style that reaches right into the hearts and leads them willingly to submission and affirmation.
From this it becomes clear how powerful the proof is and how much the manner of presenting it matters, for by both of these a person on the other side is turned into someone who is easy to lead to what is right.
This matter is not limited to the debates of our Prophet ﷺ with the polytheists of Makkah and his arguing with them in the way that is best. Rather, this way of debating and arguing was followed by the prophets عليهم السلام with the polytheists among their peoples, as in the story of Ibrahim عليه السلام with Nimrud, in the saying of Allah the Exalted:
ألم تر إلى الذي حاج إبراهيم في ربه أن آتاه الله الملك إذ قال إبراهيم ربي الذي يحيي ويميت قال أنا أحيي وأميت قال إبراهيم فإن الله يأتي بالشمس من المشرق فأت بها من المغرب فبهت الذي كفر والله لا يهدي القوم الظالمين
“Have you not seen the one who argued with Ibrahim about his Lord because Allah had given him kingship, when Ibrahim said, My Lord is the One who gives life and causes death. He said, I give life and cause death. Ibrahim said, Allah brings the sun from the east, so bring it from the west. So the disbeliever was dumbfounded, and Allah does not guide the wrongdoing people.” (al Baqarah 258.)
From this it becomes clear that if debating had not been legislated, Allah the Exalted would not have commanded His prophets عليهم السلام to engage in it, while the Qur’an is filled with the arguments of the prophets with their peoples.
Especially our Prophet ﷺ who is the noble example and the highest model whose greatness never ceases to be spoken of, and whom the passing of ages only increases in radiance and elevation. It has been narrated that the Prophet ﷺ said:
جاهدوا المشركين بأموالكم وأنفسكم وألسنتكم
The pillars of debating
Debating is a dialogue between two debaters whose aim is to reach the truth and make what is correct clear. For debating to be realised, certain pillars must be present, namely the subject and the debaters. Certain conditions must also be met.
The first pillar is the subject. Not every subject can be debated. There are subjects that are not suitable for debating. Among these are:
Single terms, which belong to the universe of concepts, and include the noun, the verb and the particle.
Non informative sentences, which are those that do not carry truth or falsehood in themselves. These include commands, prohibitions, questions, wishes and calls.
Debating takes place in a number of sciences and issues. Among them are those that relate to creed, such as the issues examined by the philosophers of kalam.
These are a wide field for debating. It also includes what relates to legal rulings, such as the issues that the imams and the righteous early generations discussed, and other subjects between these two, such as the caliphate and the system of government.
The second pillar is the two sides of the debate, whose aim is to reach the truth. The one who begins is called “the presenter of the subject” if he gives reasons, and the one who objects is the questioner.
The one who begins can also be called “the presenter of the subject” when he is preventing and blocking a point, and the objector is then the one who brings proofs. This follows the nature of the issue being debated.
During the course of a debate, the situation might change. The questioner might become the one who gives reasons and the one who gives reasons might become the questioner, or the one who prevents might become the one who brings proofs and the one who brings proofs might become the one who prevents.
Conditions of debating
The first condition is that the two debaters must have knowledge of the subject of the debate.
The second condition is that the two debaters must know the rules and principles of debating that are needed for the subject they want to debate.
The third condition is that the subject must be one to which debating can apply. Matters that are taken as given and matters that are self evident cannot be debated.
The fourth condition is that the two debaters must conduct their debate according to one common usage. If speech is based on the usage of jurists, then the second side should not resort to the usage of grammarians, or philosophers, or the like.
Rules and etiquettes of debating
ʿAbd al-ʿAziz ibn Muhammad al Saddahan says: O student of knowledge, it may happen that you sit in a gathering of knowledge in which some scholarly issues are raised. Those who sit with you may hold different views on these issues according to the research and understanding of each one of them. Each person then puts forward what he has reached through his reading and study.
Matters may even reach the level of formal debate, so each participant begins to present his proofs and what he knows about that issue on the one hand, and on the other hand he replies to whoever disagrees with him.
There is nothing strange in this and nothing to be surprised at, for gatherings of knowledge seldom lack such debates.
All of this, however, must be with the aim of reaching the truth and clarifying it, so that those who differ may then return to it, all of them shaded by the shade of love and brotherhood.
The point of this discussion is that some scholarly debates can depart from their highest aim and drag their participants into falling into clear prohibitions: love of victory for the self, stubborn refusal to return to the truth, showing gloating over the other side when one sees him withdrawing from his statement, and other things of this sort which do not befit an ordinary Muslim, so how then can they be fitting for a student of knowledge, who is looked at as a model and example in his words, actions and all his behaviour?
From the etiquettes of scholarly debate
First, that the aim is to seek the pleasure of Allah the Most High by making the truth apparent.
Ibn al Jawzi said: “… Among these matters is that disputation was only laid down so that the correct position might become clear. The aim of the Salaf was mutual sincere advice by making the truth appear. They used to move from one proof to another, and if something was hidden from one of them, the other would alert him to it, because the aim was to make the truth apparent.” (Talbis Iblis 120)
Second, that he should be knowledgeable about, or at least well informed concerning, the issue about which he is debating. This is among the causes of strength in debate, and also among the causes of the debate bearing fruit.
Imam Ibn Kathir, may Allah have mercy on him, has fine words about the etiquettes of disputation. After some preceding words he said: “This is the best way to report disagreement, that you cover all of the sayings in that place and then point out which of them is correct, invalidate what is false, and mention the benefit and result of the disagreement, so that argument and dispute do not go on and on about something that has no benefit, causing people to be distracted from what is more important.
As for someone who reports disagreement in an issue but does not cover all of the sayings of the people in it, then he is deficient, for it may be that the correct view is the one he left out. Or he reports the disagreement and leaves it unrestricted and does not point out which of the sayings is correct, then he is also deficient.
If he validates what is not correct deliberately, then he has deliberately lied, and if he does so out of ignorance, he has erred all the same.
And whoever sets up disagreement in a matter where there is no benefit, or reports multiple sayings in wording while in reality they all go back in meaning to one or two sayings, has wasted time and multiplied what is not in fact distinct, and is like a person wearing two garments of falsehood. Allah is the One who grants success to what is right.” (Muqaddimat al Tafsir 1/10 Muassasat al Rayyan edition)
Third, showing a spirit of affection and brotherhood before, during and after the discussion.
Shaykh al Islam Ibn Taymiyyah, may Allah have mercy on him, said:
“The scholars from among the companions, their followers and those who came after them, when they differed over a matter, would follow the command of Allah the Exalted in His saying:
فَإِن لَنَتَزَعْتُمْ فِي شَيْءٍ فَرُدُّوهُ إِلَى اللَّهِ وَالرَّسُولِ إِن كُنتُمْ تُؤْمِنُونَ بِاللَّهِ وَالْيَوْمِ الْآخِرِ ذَلِكَ خَيْرٌ وَأَحْسَنُ تَأْوِيلًا
‘If you disagree about anything, refer it back to Allah and the Messenger, if you believe in Allah and the Last Day. That is best and gives the best outcome.’
They used to debate an issue as a form of consultation and sincere advice. Their sayings might differ in theoretical and practical issues while affection, mutual protection and the brotherhood of faith remained.
Yes, whoever opposes the clear Book and the well known Sunnah, or what the Salaf of this ummah agreed upon, with a kind of opposition that is not excused, such a person is dealt with as the people of innovation are dealt with.” (Majmu al Fatawa 24/172)
Fourth, controlling oneself and not becoming agitated. If he is able to soften the discussion with words of affection and respect throughout the debate, he should do so, such as addressing his companion with terms that suit him, and if he couples that with supplicating for him that is even better.
Among the beautiful reports in this regard is what is narrated from Ibn Awn, may Allah have mercy on him, that if a man angered him he would say to him, “May Allah bless you.” (Siyar A lam al Nubala 6/366)
Even more remarkable than that is what has been narrated about Yusuf, the son of Imam Ibn al Jawzi, concerning his control of himself during debate. It was related that he would debate without moving a single limb. (Dhayl Tabaqat al Hanabila 2/260)
This is also what is reported about Abd Allah ibn Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn Qudama, that he would not debate anyone except that he was smiling, until some people said, “This shaykh kills his opponent with his smile.” (Dhayl Tabaqat al Hanabila 2/137)
Fifth, hastening to return to the truth when it becomes clear on the tongue of your companion. Returning to the truth and leaving what is other than it are among the traits of the people of truth.
Umar ibn al Khattab wrote to Abu Musa al Ash ari, may Allah be pleased with them both: “… And do not let a judgement you give today prevent you, when you review your view and are guided to what is right in it, from returning to the truth, for the truth is ancient and nothing invalidates it, and returning to the truth is better than continuing in falsehood …” (I’lam al Muwaqqiin 2/85–183)
Among the amazing examples that have been narrated about returning to the truth is what has been reported from Ibn al Jawzi, that he used to act upon a hadith which contained some words of remembrance to be said after the prayer. He said:
“I had heard this hadith in the time of youth and I acted upon it for about thirty years, due to my good opinion of the narrators. When I came to know that it was fabricated, I left it.
Someone said to me, ‘Is that not still practising something good?’ I replied, ‘Practising what is good must be something legislated. When we know that it is a lie it falls outside what is legislated.’” (Al Mawdu at by Ibn al Jawzi 10/245)
Sixth, not exposing or shaming your opponent when you have overcome him in a session of debate.
Some people, when they manage to get the better of their brother in debate, turn that debate into the entertainment of their gatherings. They talk about it with every person who sits with them, telling how they demolished the proofs of their opponent and succeeded in refuting his statement, and so on with every companion they sit with.
This behaviour is disgraceful for a student of knowledge. It may drag him into the door of showing off and love of reputation. It may also be a cause of his brother turning away from him and of enmity arising between them, because of such conduct whose sin is greater than any benefit in it, indeed in such a case there is no benefit at all. This behaviour pushes its doer into the door of backbiting.
What would have been better is that he praise Allah and thank Him for granting him success and help in reaching the truth, and that he refrain from mentioning that incident, fearing the deception of Iblis, unless he sees some clear benefit in mentioning it.
In that case he mentions it with the manners of the people of knowledge, without gloating, without love of showing himself, but with calm dignity and praise of his brother.
Ibn al Jawzi said: “… Among these matters is their being lax about backbiting on the pretext of relating what happened in debate. One of them says, ‘I spoke with so and so, and he had nothing to say,’ and he speaks in a way that brings out his gloating over his opponent’s aim being frustrated by that proof.” (Talbis Iblis 120)
Seventh, thanking your brother when your proof becomes clear over his proof and praising him for his return to the truth.
If Allah grants you that your proof appears over that of your brother, and you see that your brother has withdrawn from his statement, then praise this action of his. Hasten to speak good words about him personally for his return to what is correct, and say that this is what was assumed of him. This is more likely to deepen affection and love between hearts and bodies.
Eighth, closing the door of debate if you see from the other side stubbornness and wilful refusal.
Continuing the debate in such a case may lead to the beginnings of hatred and enmity, at which point the highest aim of the debate disappears and Shaytan raises his flags.
What is better for you is to soften your words to your companion and move the conversation to another topic, so that the tension lightens and then disappears completely. If after that you see some benefit in returning to the debate, then do so, but with a method by which you win the affection of your brother and turn him away from the plotting of Shaytan.
If you see that the benefit lies in not reopening the door of discussion, then leave it closed, while directing him instead to some references that you know have done well in clarifying the truth in that issue.
Maʿālim fi Tariq Ṭalab al-ʿIlm by ʿAbd al-ʿAziz ibn Muhammad al Saddahan page 239-244
The etiquettes of debating continued…
The expression آداب المناظرة means ʿthe etiquettes of debatingʾ.
The etiquettes of debating are many, among them:
Good intention
Yusuf, the son of Ibn al Jawzi, said: “The first thing that must be begun with is a good intention in making the truth appear.” (al Idah li Qawanin al Istilah” p. 42)
وَيُخْلِصُ النِّيَّةَ فِي جِدَالِهِ، بِأَنْ يَبْتَغِيَ بِهِ وَجْهَ اللَّهِ تَعَالَى
Understanding the belief of the opponent
Shaykh Ibn ʿUthaymeen رحمه الله said:
Taking into account the standing of the one who debates
It was narrated from ʿAʾishah رضي الله عنها who said:
“أمرنا رسول الله ﷺ أن ننزل الناس منازلهم”
“The Messenger of Allah ﷺ ordered us to place people in their proper positions.”
It was reported by Imam Muslim in the introduction to his Sahih page 6.
al Juwayni said: “You must guard your standing and the standing of your opponent, and give each person, in the way you address him, his proper rank and level. So you distinguish between one who is your peer, one who is seeking guidance, and a teacher.” (al Kifayah fi al Jadal” p. 531)
Disputing in the best way
Allah the Exalted said:
“ادْعُ إِلَى سَبِيلِ رَبِّكَ بِالْحِكْمَةِ وَالْمَوْعِظَةِ الْحَسَنَةِ وَجَادِلْهُمْ بِالَّتِي هِيَ أَحْسَنُ إِنَّ رَبَّكَ هُوَ أَعْلَمُ بِمَنْ ضَلَّ عَنْ سَبِيلِهِ وَهُوَ أَعْلَمُ بِالْمُهْتَدِينَ”
“Call to the way of your Lord with wisdom and good exhortation, and argue with them in the way that is best. Your Lord knows best who has strayed from His way, and He knows best those who are guided.” (al Nahl 125)
Al Shatibi, speaking about the benefits of jadal in the best way and with gentleness and kindness, said:
الْأَدَبُ فِي الْمُنَاظَرَةِ١ أَنْ لَا يُفَاجِئَ بِالرَّدِّ كِفَاحًا دُونَ التَّقَاضِي بِالْمُجَامَلَةِ وَالْمُسَامَحَةِ، كَمَا فِي قَوْلِهِ تَعَالَى: {وَإِنَّا أَوْ إِيَّاكُمْ لَعَلَى هُدىً أَوْ فِي ضَلالٍ مُبِينٍ} [سَبَأٍ: ٢٤] . وَقَوْلِهِ: {قُلْ إِنْ كَانَ لِلرَّحْمَنِ وَلَدٌ فَأَنَا أَوَّلُ الْعَابِدِينَ} [الزُّخْرُفِ: ٨١] . {قُلْ إِنِ افْتَرَيْتُهُ فَعَلَيَّ إِجْرَامِي} [هُودٍ: ٣٥] . وَقَوْلِهِ: {قُلْ أَوَلَوْ كَانُوا لَا يَمْلِكُونَ شَيْئًا وَلا يَعْقِلُونَ} [الزُّمَرِ: ٤٣] . {أَوَلَوْ كَانَ آبَاؤُهُمْ لَا يَعْلَمُونَ شَيْئًا وَلا يَهْتَدُونَ} [الْمَائِدَةِ: ١٠٤] . لِأَنَّ ذَلِكَ أَدْعَى إِلَى الْقَبُولِ وَتَرْكِ الْعِنَادِ وَإِطْفَاءِ نَارِ الْعَصَبِيَّةِ
وَإِنَّا أَوْ إِيَّاكُمْ لَعَلَى هُدىً أَوْ فِي ضَلالٍ مُبِينٍ
“And indeed, either we or you are upon guidance, or in clear error.” (Saba 34:24)
قُلْ إِنْ كَانَ لِلرَّحْمَنِ وَلَدٌ فَأَنَا أَوَّلُ الْعَابِدِينَ
“Say: If the Most Merciful had a son, then I would be the first of those who worship.” (az Zukhruf 43:81)
قُلْ إِنِ افْتَرَيْتُهُ فَعَلَيَّ إِجْرَامِي
“Say: If I have fabricated it, then upon me is my sin.” (Hud 11:35)
قُلْ أَوَلَوْ كَانُوا لَا يَمْلِكُونَ شَيْئًا وَلَا يَعْقِلُونَ
“Say: Even if they possess nothing and do not understand?” (az Zumar 39:43)
أَوَلَوْ كَانَ آبَاؤُهُمْ لَا يَعْلَمُونَ شَيْئًا وَلَا يَهْتَدُونَ
“Even if their fathers knew nothing and were not guided?” (al Maidah 5:104)
Agreeing on basic principles
Shaykh ʿAbd al Rahman al Saʿdi رحمه الله said:
ينبغي لمن ناظر غيره أن يؤسس الأسس التي يتفق عليها المتناظران، ثم إذا حصل الاتفاق وتم الالتئام، انتقل منه إلى المواضع المختلف فيها بلطف وهدوء
“It is appropriate for a person who debates another to lay down the basic principles upon which the two who debate are agreed. Then, when agreement is achieved and harmony is complete, he moves from that to the points that are disputed, with gentleness and calm.” (Majmuʿ al Fawaʾid” p. 255)
Defining the exact point of disagreement
What is meant is to set out clearly the matters that are agreed upon and remove them from the field of discussion, and to specify the point of disagreement and discuss it alone.
It also means to remove cases that may be confused with the issue and thought to be included under it. Some issues branch into several detailed issues. By defining the point of disagreement, the particular branch that is intended for research is fixed.
Defining the point of disagreement reduces disagreement
“For a great deal of the disagreement between intelligent people is because they do not clearly grasp the exact point of dispute. In many cases, the correct view lies in a position other than the two opinions being argued. In other instances, the disagreement is built upon a weak foundation; once its flaw is made clear, the disagreement itself disappears..” (Majmuʿ al Fatawa” 12/57)
٢ – ومنها أن يتجنبا غرابة الألفاظ وإجمالها.
Avoiding anger and irritation
Being fair to the one you debate
Shaykh ʿAbd al Rahman al Saʿdi said in “Taysir al Karim al Rahman” p. 915:
“For just as it is the custom that each one of the two who debate is keen on what he has of proofs, he must also make clear what his opponent has of proofs which he may not know, and he must look into the evidence of his opponent just as he looks into his own evidence.
In this matter a person’s fairness is known compared to his partisanship and forcing matters, and his humility compared to his pride, and his sound mind compared to his foolishness. We ask Allah for success in every good.”
Caring about the affection of your companion
Turning away from self admiration
Stages of debating
Every sound debate is divided into three stages.
The first stage is the stage of principles.
In this stage, the exact point of disagreement is determined, so that the two sides are not scattered across different and unrelated branches, and so that each one does not end up speaking in a valley other than the valley in which his opponent is speaking.
The second stage is the stage of the middle matters. In this stage, proofs are presented that show the necessity of the conclusion being argued for.
The third stage is the stage of the conclusions. This is the stage at which, if the research reaches it, it comes to an end.
It comes to an end if the discussion reaches what is necessary knowledge, which is certainty that must be accepted by rational necessity, or if it reaches probable knowledge that the opponent accepts.
The result of debating
If the one who gives reasons is unable to answer the objection of the questioner, then the one who gives reasons is considered refuted. If the questioner is unable to support and prove his objection, then he is considered bound by the argument and obliged.
