The benefits of the saying of Allah the Exalted: >

[Al-'Ankabut: 46] to its end. It is derived from this noble verse that it is obligatory to follow the best manner in debate. From where is this taken? From the restriction: "Do not debate them except in the best manner." This is a restriction, and the prohibition implies prohibition. So if debating except in the best manner is forbidden, it means that debating in the best manner is obligatory.
And among the benefits of the verse is that it is obligatory for a person to know what his opponent has so that he can debate him with it. For example, if someone wants to debate the Jews, he says: I will read the Torah and what is in their books until I know how to respond to them. Is this possible or not? It is possible, but we said in the tafsir: In the Qur'an and the Sunnah, there is enough of that to suffice and cure. For what is in them is truth, and what is in the Torah may have been distorted.
Among the benefits of the verse is also that we do not debate anyone other than the People of the Book except in the best manner. Just as if we debated the philosophers and others, we would not debate them except in the best manner.
And among the benefits of the verse is also that in debate, one must follow what is more convincing and more effective in refuting the opponent's argument than his saying: The superlative form. And we mentioned in the tafsir that if the debate opens the door to contention, then this door is left for a door where contention is not possible. And we gave an example of this: the story of Ibrahim when the one who argued with him said: "I give life and I cause death." Ibrahim said to him: "But Allah brings the sun from the east, so bring it from the west." And at that point, he could no longer debate ever. So if you take a path in refuting someone and you see that this path will open the door to debate, what do you do? There is no harm in you withdrawing from this path, because some people may not withdraw from the path they have taken for fear of being thought to be defeated. But if you have other evidence and other paths to silence the opponent, there is no blame, and it may even be obligatory for you to turn from the first to the second, because there is no restriction on you until you say: I will remain on this path. Yes.
The student: Sometimes, for example, everything that comes through a path, you find an opening in it...

The Shaykh : ...that contradicts. Bring them all. If in their totality the objection is negated, then bring them all. So you say: For example, if this is the case, let us move to the second. Then if he brings up an objection, you move to the third. If you bring them up, you say: In their totality, it is not possible for you to say such and such.
The student: It would be a withdrawal.

The Shaykh : What would be a withdrawal? Even if it is a withdrawal, it is for the sake of repelling this enemy, just as it happens in military armies. A person may withdraw before his enemy in order to lure him so that he can defeat him from another direction. There is no objection.
Among the benefits of the noble verse is that the wrongdoer in debate, the wrongdoer, is not debated in the best manner, due to His saying: But is he left alone? Or is severity used with him? We mentioned previously that it is according to the situation. If the interest requires leaving him, he is left. Or if following severity is required, severity is followed.
And among the benefits of the verse is that among the People of the Book, there is one who is stubborn and wrongdoer, and there is one for whom the truth may have been hidden. By debate, it becomes clear to him. From where is this taken?
The student: His saying: It is known from this that they are divided into two categories: a wrongdoer who is stubborn and arrogant, and another who is seeking guidance, for whom the truth may be hidden by what has been confused upon him by his scholars. If the truth becomes clear to him, he returns and takes it.
And among the benefits of the verse is also following what reassures the opponent in the discussion, what requires his reassurance and his obligation. From where, Ya Husayn?
The student:

The Shaykh : Yes, His obligation. So he says: "I believe in both. Why do you not believe in both?"
And among the benefits of the verse is also the proof that the Torah was revealed from Allah, and so was the Gospel. 'Isa!
The student:

The Shaykh :
And from it is the proof that both, meaning the Torah and the Gospel, and the Qur'an as well, are the speech of Allah. Take it, Yusuf!
The student:

The Shaykh : Good. And from it is the proof of the Highness of Allah the Mighty and Majestic. 'Isa!
The student: Descent does not happen except from above.

The Shaykh : Descent does not happen except from above. Yes. And what do you say, Ya 'Isa?
The student: ... All the verses, it is taken from them that the Qur'an is the speech of Allah.

The Shaykh : Yes, how is this taken, my brothers? Good. The Qur'an: is it said to be an entity existing in itself, or an attribute?
The student: An attribute.

The Shaykh : An attribute, because it is speech, not an entity existing in itself, but it is speech. If it is speech, and speech is an attribute, then every attribute must have an attributed one. And by this, we know that the Qur'an is the speech of Allah. Is it clear? As for the issue of revelation, it is an argument, but there is a doubt in it, which is that the Jahmi will argue with you and say: Allah the Exalted said: And it is known that the eight pairs are created, yes or no? Created. And Allah the Exalted called it revelation. And He said: And iron is undoubtedly created. But we escape this objection by what? By the fact that these are entities existing in themselves, and the entity existing in itself is created in all cases. Everything other than Allah is created from the entities. And we refute the argument by this.
Good. And among the benefits of the verse is that the People of the Book acknowledge the divinity, the divinity of Allah. Ghanim?
The student:

The Shaykh :, Good. I think we raised an issue in the tafsir regarding this verse, which is that the Christians do not make Allah one, meaning the reality of their statement is the absence of tawhid. Because they say that Allah is the third of three, and that the deity is composed of three hypostases: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, or something else in what they agree upon among themselves. So we say: They claim that it is one God in three. They claim this. They say: One God, but in three. And this is undoubtedly arrogance. How can there be a God in three, and each one is existing in itself, separate from the other? But what the Gospel brought and what the Torah brought is that the deity is one and not multiple?
The student: One.

The Shaykh : One.
Among the benefits of the verse is that Islam is only for Allah (Glorified and Exalted is He). From where is this taken? From the precedence of the acted-upon and the precedence of what is right to be delayed. This implies restriction. Allah the Exalted said: