Allah the Exalted said: << And do not argue with the People of the Book except in the best manner, except for those who wrong among them, and say, "We believe in what has been revealed to us and what was revealed [to you]

Tafsir
Allah the Exalted said: The address here is to the entire Ummah, and it is a prohibition. And His saying: What is argumentation? Argumentation is disputing with an opponent for two purposes: to prevail over him and to invalidate his proof. This is argumentation: you dispute with your opponent in order to rise above him, prevail over him, and invalidate his proof. It is derived from twisting the head, from twisting a rope. Because the *jadl* (twisting) of a rope, what is intended by it? Its tightening and strengthening. It is as if the disputant wants to strengthen his proof against his opponent. And I think we know in the colloquial language that we call a woman's braids *juda'il* because she twists them and strengthens them. And His saying: means those who were given it. And "the people of a thing" is intended to mean those who were given it, even if they do not act upon it. And it is intended to mean those who were given it and acted upon it. And the place of the second praise, or the first?
The student: The second.

The Shaykh : The place of the second praise. So who are the people of the Quran? Those who memorized it only by recitation, or those who memorized it and acted upon it?
The student: They memorized it and acted upon it.

The Shaykh : Yes, all of them are called "people." The first group are "people" and the second group are "people." But the reality of the matter is that the praise and commendation are for those who were its people in both recitation and action. So the People of the Book are those who were given it: if they acted upon it, they became truly "people" of it; and if they did not act upon it, they were not truly "people" of it. And His saying: The intended meaning of "the Book" here is the generic type, otherwise they are two books: the Torah and the Gospel. The Torah is for whom? For the Jews. And the Gospel is for the Christians. And His saying: This exception is emptied of the generality of circumstances, meaning in any circumstance, do not argue with them except in the best manner. And this is like His saying, the Exalted: [Al-Nahl: 125]. And His saying: He did not say "with that which," but said "with that which" (feminine). And "that which" (al-ti), as we all know, is feminine or masculine? It is for the feminine. So except by the method that is best, because argumentation is not a word that is thrown, but it is methods. And in their science of rhetoric and disputation, they have methods for disputation by which a person can reach convincing the opponent and establishing the proof against him. For this reason, he said: meaning by the method that is best. And His saying: In our case, argumentation in the best manner does not contradict Here, the name of superlative came absolutely to generalize the ruling in the context of evidence, for example, in the context of argumentation. And the goodness is also in the manner of this argumentation, because it is necessary for both things: it is necessary for the goodness of the path, meaning that we bring the closest methods to convince the opponent. And it is also necessary for the manner of placing this path or throwing this path, the manner of throwing it. We give an example of the two things: A person has strength in disputation and presenting proofs, but when he comes to argue, he says: "You are dull, you are a donkey, you do not know the issue such and such and such and such." I am actually wrong to argue with such a donkey. Is this the best or not? It is not the best, even if the presentation of the path is good, but this manner of throwing this path is not good. Another person is soft in speech and refined, but he does not know how to dispute. This is also not included in His saying: Look at Ibrahim (peace be upon him) when the man disputed with him about his Lord: Ibrahim did not go to dispute with him, saying, "You do not give life and you do not cause death. You only preserve life or do the cause by which death occurs." Because the reality of the matter is that a person does not give life and does not cause death, but he does the cause by which he dies or preserves life from another. Is that not so? He did not go to dispute this dispute because it might become prolonged. He came to him with what? With another proof from which he cannot escape: Simple, can he?
The student: No.

The Shaykh : For this reason, he said: He was not able to escape from this objection ever. This is also among the best in disputation: that if you see that by following this path, a door of opposition opens for you, you follow the other path. A person might say to himself: "I do not want to be defeated. I want to establish this proof that I presented. Leave it, people." A person might say to himself: "I like to remain with the proof I presented and not bring the other one, because I fear that it will be a defeat." Is this possible? This is possible. A person might present a proof and then begin to dispute in it in order to realize it and establish it, and that opens doors of refutation for him. Instead of this, since you have a clear proof by which you invalidate your opponent's statement, what is the intended purpose? What is the primary intended purpose of argumentation? Invalidating the proof of the disputing other. So as long as I have a proof that I know he cannot dispute with, I leave what I brought first and say: "Let us leave such and such, what do you say about such and such?" Because this opens for you first the silencing of the opponent quickly, and secondly, so that by disputing in the first proof, it does not become apparent against you. Because a person, as you know, might have a preparation in disputation in one of the issues and have a clear proof for it. Then in the argumentation, he overcomes you, while you have something stronger than his. But if you followed another path, you reached your objective. The important thing is that we say in argumentation that is best: it includes what? The method by which the opponent's proof is repelled and the proof is established against him. And it also includes the manner of throwing this proof in the argumentation. So it includes this and that. Yes. And His saying: We have "best" and "good." Look, in argumentation, although a person in argumentation finds that his desire is only in the thing that angers the opponent, and yet Allah commanded the best manner, because the intended purpose is reaching the truth, not mere victory. The one who intends by his argumentation mere victory, not for Allah but for himself, is actually a loser, even if he succeeds. Yes. The one who intends to prevail and overcome his opponent for Allah, because he believes that the truth is with him and he wants this truth to rise, is undoubtedly good and the person is not blamed for it. But higher than him is the one who intends to manifest the truth regardless of whether that became for himself or not. So the ranks are three in disputation:
1- Some people dispute in order for their own appearance and victory only. This is a loser. And this means that he will dispute for his statement, even if it is false.
2- And some people dispute and want victory or triumph for themselves because they see that their statement is the truth. This is a rank in which the person is safe and saved.
3- The third rank, the highest of them, is that he intends by it to manifest the truth, regardless of whether he won or did not win. It does not matter. Yes? And therefore, for example, he might see from himself that he is in a lower rank in this place, but it does not matter to him to be of a lower rank because he wants the appearance of the truth. This is undoubtedly the highest of the ranks.
And His saying, the Exalted: Like calling to Allah by His verses and pointing out His proofs "

Calling to Allah by His verses

الدعاء إلى الله بآياته

Which verses? The legislative and the cosmic. The legislative and the cosmic, because Allah the Exalted establishes the proof by both of them. Allah the Exalted said:

So do not obey the disbelievers, and strive against them with the Qur'an a great striving.

فلا تطع الكافِرين وجاهدْهُم به - بالقرآن - جهادًا كبيرًا

[Al-Furqan 25:52]

So argumentation is by the cosmic verses and by the legislative verses. Okay, the legislative verses are correct, that they are truth to argue with them. How do I argue with the legislative verses? I clarify what is in the Shari'ah, what is in the Shari'ah of Allah of rulings and secrets. For if this Shari'ah becomes clear in its rulings and secrets to every person of intellect, it becomes clear to him that it is the truth. Also, I clarify what is in the legislative verses of Allah of coherence and order and lack of contradiction:

If it had been from [any] other than Allah, they would have found within it much contradiction.

ولو كان مِن عند غير الله لوجدوا فيه اختلافا كثيرا

[An-Nisa 4:82]

This is argumentation by the verses of what?
The student: The legislative.

The Shaykh : The Shari'ah, debating with the cosmic signs: showing them the cosmic signs of Allah. I say: Who did such and such? Who did such and such? Allah the Exalted said:

⁽³⁵⁾ Or were they created by nothing, or were they the creators [of themselves]? ⁽³⁶⁾ Or did they create the heavens and the earth? Rather, they are not certain.

أم خُلِقُوا مِن غير شيء أم هم الخالِقُون * أم خلَقُوا السماوات

[At-Tur 52:35-36]

These signs in the Torah are a debate regarding the cosmic and Shari'ah signs, or not? أَمْ خُلِقُوا مِنْ غَيْرِ شَيْءٍ أَمْ هُمُ الْخَالِقُونَ 35 أَمْ خَلَقُوا السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضَ بَلْ لَا يُوقِنُونَ 36 أَمْ عِنْدَهُمْ خَزَائِنُ رَبِّكَ أَمْ هُمُ الْمُصَيْطِرُونَ 37 أَمْ لَهُمْ سُلَّمٌ يَسْتَمِعُونَ فِيهِ فَلْيَأْتِ مُسْتَمِعُهُمْ بِسُلْطَانٍ مُبِينٍ Or were they created from nothing, or are they the creators? 35 Or did they create the heavens and the earth? But they are not certain. 36 Or do they possess the treasures of your Lord? Or are they the ones in control? 37 Or do they have a ladder in the sky that they listen on? Let their listener bring forth clear proof. أَمْ يَقُولُونَ تَقَوَّلَهُ بَلْ لَا يُؤْمِنُونَ 33 فَلْيَأْتُوا بِحَدِيثٍ مِثْلِهِ إِنْ كَانُوا صَادِقِينَ Or do they say, “He composed it”? But they do not believe. 33 So let them bring forth a statement like it, if they should be truthful. This last one is with the Shari'ah signs, and the first one is with the cosmic signs. So, the obstinate one is debated with using the cosmic signs, and it is made clear to him. Among this is the debate of Ibrahim (peace be upon him) with the one who argued with him about his Lord, for he debated him with the cosmic signs. And his saying: " and drawing attention to his arguments" — the arguments (hujaj) is the plural of hujjah, which is the convincing and silencing evidence against the opponent.