Continuation of the explanation of the saying of Allah the Exalted: << And do not dispute with the People of the Book except in the best manner, except for those among them who act unjustly, and say: We believe in what has been revealed to us

[Surat al-Shura: 16] Those who deny the attributes of Allah (Mighty and Majestic), despite their differing schools of thought—whether they deny the descriptive attributes, the active attributes, or all attributes—have argued using a fallacy. They said: Affirming these attributes necessitates likening Allah to creation, because we do not perceive in reality anyone described with these attributes except the created beings. This implies that Allah the Exalted is similar to creation. Therefore, denial is necessary. Do you understand? This is the predominant argument of all the people of denial of the divine attributes, despite their differing schools of thought. They say: We do not observe in reality—meaning in actual existence, to exclude the hypothetical mental construct—anyone possessing this attribute except the created being. A hypothetical mental construct may posit things that do not exist, right? For example, your mind might imagine a person with ears as long as a minaret and fingers ten miles long, right? But does such a person exist? He may not exist. One might posit a general category called "animality" that includes humans, camels, horses, and the like. Does this general category exist in the mind? Yes, in the mind. But in reality, in the external world: no. The point is that they say: We do not find in reality, meaning in actual existence, anything possessing this attribute except the created being. Therefore, we must negate this attribute from Him. The extremists of the Jahmiyyah also said: We deny the names as well. You must not affirm them at all, except "Doer" and "Able." The extremists of the Jahmiyyah say: We cannot even affirm the names. We do not call Allah the All-Hearing, the All-Knowing, the All-Forgiving, or the Merciful, because these are names for the created beings. We do not name Allah with them. We name Him only as Doer and Able.
The student: ...

The Shaykh : No, because they are Jabriyyah. They believe that a human does not act by himself and is not capable of action. They said: Since the attribute of action and ability is negated in the human, we say that what contradicts Allah is a Doer and an Able One. As for anything else, no, we do not affirm it for Him.
The student: ...

The Shaykh : They do not attribute will to the human. In their view, the human has no will. Therefore, they must affirm will. In fact, they only mentioned "Doer" and "Able," but they must affirm will, because in their view, the human does not will. The result is that I say: Is this an argument or a fallacy? It is a fallacy. In reality, it is a fallacy, and it is actually the easiest to refute. Because they say: Do you now observe that some created beings agree with others in names, or not? The camel has a hand and a leg, the horse has a hand and a leg, the ant has a hand and a leg, and the human has a hand and a leg. Are they similar? They are not similar. If similarity is negated among created beings, even though they are all created and originated, then the negation of similarity between the Creator and the created is even more certain, more decisive, more apparent, and clearer. So, I say: The author's statement "on his arguments" refers to true proofs and decisive evidence, not that every argument is acceptable. Only the argument from Allah and His Messenger is acceptable in all cases. May Allah grant success.
It has been mentioned that the People of the Book refers to the Jews and the Christians. The attribution of "People" to the Book includes those who were given it and acted upon it, and those who were given it but did not act upon it. However, the true People of the Book are those who were given it and acted upon it. And His saying: It has been mentioned that this refers to the best path by which one reaches the silencing of the opponent. This also includes the manner and form of this dispute and contention, including the delivery and the phrasing, is that not so? Meaning, one should take the closest path to silencing the opponent and the strongest in convincing him and establishing the proof against him. It should also be the best in terms of phrasing and speech, so that it is not with violence or stubbornness, or the like. This now includes the method by which the dispute occurs, and the form and manner of it, because this is closer to convincing him. Because violence, harshness, cursing, and reviling do not establish a right or refute a falsehood. In fact, they are an invitation to mockery by others and aversion to the dispute. A person should be alert to this, because some people, when they want to silence their opponent, you find them becoming agitated, harsh, quarreling, and cursing. This is actually a mistake. Some scholars may use this, and among those I see using it is Ibn Hazm in al-Muhalla. When he speaks in refuting others, you find him cursing and reviling, especially the people of opinion, Abu Hanifa and his companions. This is not among the good things that should be done. And His saying the Exalted: This is an exception from His saying: Is it obligatory to use the accusative case in this exception, or is it permissible to use the accusative and the substitute?
The student: ...

The Shaykh : Why?
The student: Because it is preceded by

The Shaykh : a prohibition, meaning it is in the sense of negation. Ibn Malik said:
And after a negation or as a negation, it is chosen to follow what is connected
He said: Because they fought and refused to acknowledge the jizyah, so dispute with them by the sword until they submit or pay the jizyah. "Yes, the discussion on the author's statement has also been mentioned previously: disputing with the verses of Allah and pointing out his arguments. And we said that disputing with verses includes cosmic verses and legal verses. Yes. And his saying:

except those who wronged among them

إلا الذين ظلموا منهم

He said: " Because they fought and refused to acknowledge the jizyah, so dispute with them by the sword until they submit or pay the jizyah. " These are the ones who acted unjustly. Perhaps the verse is more general than what the author said, and the intended meaning of "those who acted unjustly" are those who were arrogant, stubborn, and did not submit to the truth that became clear. So these people are not disputed with in the best manner, because their stubbornness has become clear. But does the verse indicate that they should be left alone and abandoned, or does the verse indicate that they should be disputed with in the worst manner? The words of the exegetes differ on this issue. Some said: "Except those among them who acted unjustly, so leave them and do not dispute with them," because there is no benefit in disputing with them as long as their stubbornness and injustice have become apparent, so there is no benefit. And some said—as the author said—"Except those among them who acted unjustly, meaning dispute with them. Do not dispute with them [verbally], dispute with them by the sword until they submit or pay the jizyah." And in my opinion, the verse is compatible with both meanings, and it should be applied in both cases, using what is appropriate and suitable for each situation. If the situation requires that we dispute with them by the sword until they submit or pay the jizyah, we do that, provided we have the strength and ability to do so. And if we do not have the ability, and the public benefit requires leaving them alone, then we leave them. And this, may Allah know best, is the secret in Allah (Glorified and Exalted is He) not mentioning the ruling of this exception explicitly. He did not say: "Except those among them who acted unjustly, so dispute with them in the worst manner," nor did He say: "Except those among them who acted unjustly, so do not dispute with them at all." Rather, He made the ruling of this exception suitable for both matters.

except for those who commit injustice among them, and say

إلَّا الذين ظلموا منهم وقولوا

[Al-'Ankabut 29:46]

For those who accepted the payment of the jizyah, if they inform you of something from their books,

We believe in that which has been revealed to us and revealed to you

آمَنَّا بالذي أنزل إلينا وأنزل إليكم

[Al-'Ankabut 29:46]

" This is a means of calming the opponent during a dispute and argumentation, because some people, when they dispute or argue, begin to insult the source of their opponent's argument, and this is a mistake. For example, suppose you are arguing with a person about a matter of Islamic jurisprudence, and the opponent says to you: 'So-and-so said this in such-and-such a book.' Some people pour out their anger and insults upon this book, and this is wrong; this action is not permissible. This is a sign of inability; rather, calm your mind and establish the truth. If the evidence he presented is acceptable, accept it, but not everything that is acceptable in one matter is acceptable in all matters. So here we say to these arguers from the People of the Book: 'We believe in what was revealed to us, which is the Qur'an, and what was revealed to you, which is the Torah if you are Jews, or the Gospel if you are Christians.' We do not deny what was revealed to you; we say it is the truth, but we also believe in what was revealed to us and say that it is the truth. And when we believe in this and that, to which does the ruling belong? To what was revealed last, which is the Qur'an, because it is the abrogating text. And in this case, our statement has two benefits: first, it calms them and their souls, and second, it compels them to believe in what was revealed to us, because a person—no matter who he is—is a human being. If he is told, 'I believe in what was revealed to you, so believe in what was revealed to me,' he will be overcome with shame and failure, and he may agree, saying: 'How can this man believe in what was revealed to me, while I deny what was revealed to me?' So there is benefit in this from two aspects: first, calming him, and second, compelling him to believe in what was revealed to me, just as I believe in what was revealed to him. And this is, in reality, from arguing in the best manner. And his saying: Whenever the command to speak is mentioned, the intended meaning is speaking with the tongue after the affirmation of the heart, because mere speaking with the tongue does not constitute faith, as Allah the Exalted said: [al-Baqarah:8]. So the faith in which the heart and the tongue do not agree is not faith; this is hypocrisy, may Allah protect us from it. So it is necessary to speak with the tongue after the affirmation of the heart. And his saying: This is from the eloquence of the Qur'an; it did not say 'what you said' or 'what you brought,' but it said: Why did it not express it with the first option? Because they have a degree of distortion and alteration such that it is not possible for us to accept everything they brought, but we believe in what was revealed to them. As for what they brought, they have distorted and lied. And for this reason, it came in the authentic hadith: with this wording in al-Bukhari: So we believe in what was revealed, not in what was altered. We do not believe in what was altered; we only believe in what was revealed. Is the attribute of believing in what was revealed to us like the attribute of believing in what was revealed to them? No, because our belief in what was revealed to us is binding upon us to follow it, while our belief in what was revealed to them is not binding. So if there is something in our Shari'ah that contradicts their Shari'ah, the one to be followed is our Shari'ah, but we believe that what was revealed to them is from Allah, that it is the truth, and that it is obligatory for them to follow it as long as it remains in effect and has not been abrogated. And his saying: From whom? From Allah the Mighty and Majestic, because all the books revealed to the prophets are from Allah.
Second: That is, our worshipped deity, because means the one who is worshipped, and the one who is worshipped means the object of worship. It is applied to the one worshipped rightfully, O Husayn! And to the one worshipped without right. But Allah alone is the one worshipped rightfully, and everything else is worshipped falsely. Allah the Exalted said: So these idols are called gods, but their divinity is false in the Shari'ah. And for this reason, the negation in His saying: is valid. This negation does not mean that there is no god in the universe except Allah; there is a god, but a false god. Other than Allah, Glorified and Exalted is He, their divinity is false.