When is it appropriate to respond to the opposition?

Many people who prolong the argument and debate do not differentiate between proving the argument and acknowledging it, making it necessary for proving the argument to be acknowledged by the opposing party. This is not part of knowledge or legislation, as acknowledgment lies in the heart, and the tongue conveys what is in the heart. Truthfulness in this matter is very difficult, to the point where the truth may become apparent to all listeners while the debater remains in denial, refuting the established arguments and downplaying them, while clinging to acknowledgment that cannot be reached. Presenting the argument with clarity and explanation understandable to the debater and the listener, if they wish to understand, is sufficient for holding the debater accountable. Therefore, when the greatest obligation - which is Islam - is heard in a manner and language understood by the addressee, the hearing is sufficient for its establishment and acknowledgment is not required. "And they denied it, while their souls were convinced of its truth out of injustice and arrogance." Therefore, it is more appropriate to suffice with what is below it in terms of obligation. Imam Abu Yusuf said: Proving the argument to the ignorant is easy, but getting them to acknowledge it is difficult. The person with the truth should suffice with a sufficient amount of explanation, without excessive repetition, while countering the false argument. Every false statement will disintegrate and disappear with the lowering of the speaker's voice, while the truth will live on in the souls and build structures that will not disintegrate with the death of their owners, let alone their voices. "As for the foam, it passes away as scum, but what benefits the people remains on the earth." (13:17)

It is necessary for the rightful person to differentiate between themselves and the truth they hold, so they do not seek revenge for a personal moment with the truth they have when they make a mistake. There is a delicate shared balance between the self's share and the truth's share, which only rare individuals can comprehend. Many writers have missed out on the truth's share due to completing their own share in ways they do not realize, leading them to respond to wrong with more wrong and consequently turn away from the truth. The more the self's share increases, the more it eats away at the truth's share, and often the dominance is in favor of the false suspicion because the one facing it is experiencing desire in the form of truth, and the suspicion is stronger than the desire. In disputes over the truth, a judge rules in favor of God's truth and does not rule with a heart turned away from the truth. It is also mentioned that "A judge does not rule while in a state of anger" and this is in the disregard of human rights, so what about the disregard of God's rights?! This is also met with hesitation in expressing the truth for fear of diminishing oneself in front of the ignorant or being blamed by oneself, so one does not care about diminishing the truth and is more concerned with diminishing themselves. Most of the people of truth, in times of trials, belong to one of these two types, and the fair-minded are very few at that time. Those who fear the criticism of people when writing and explaining, fear praise or blame, and these are among the reasons for the confusion of the public in religion and the increase in hypocrites. Even if a debater has a strong argument and presents evidence, they are still arguing without a judge, and their judge is the opponent's mind, through acceptance or rejection, and the response to that depends on the completeness of their mind, fairness, and complete devotion. These are qualities that are rarely found in an individual. The most difficult statements to refute are the ones that lead to the greatest downfall, because the response to them is to submit to them, and it does not occur to a rational mind that they even exist, let alone to have a pre-existing answer in mind.

One of the heavy burdens is to respond to the ignorance of an ignorant fool who is firmly entrenched in his ignorance from two sides: on one side, the firmness of his ignorance, and on the other, the fact that if one does not elevate oneself above the level of the ignorant, the ignorant will elevate himself in the eyes of others. This is because those who argue with ignorance and arrogance have a multitude of fallacies ingrained in their minds, so that every time you refute one, they will bring up another similar to it, in order to avoid having the fallacy take hold in the minds of the people. They come up with other fallacies, which may gain ground in the minds of the people even more so than the previous ones. Therefore, there is no time to follow up on them to refute them, as some people may consider them to be well-founded. It is therefore essential in standing against falsehood to begin by refuting it. One of the virtues of knowledge is to be content with the results of situations and to know the reasons. One of the pieces of knowledge known by the wise but not by the common people is not to respond to someone whose nature is such, as people being preoccupied with one fallacy that is then spread in the realm of prevailing truth is better than them being preoccupied with many fallacies, as patching up some fallacies will then expand them, and weaving a complete fabric of truth is better than that. Hence, Al-Ahnaf bin Qais said: Cutting ties with the ignorant is equal to establishing ties with the wise. The strength of a fallacious argument differs in its degree of fallacy; some are easily refuted and reinstated in the right position, while others present a challenge to the critic due to the strength of their fallacy. Many of the incorrect statements that authors and speakers make are like possessions that slip out of the hand of their owner: some are easy to pick up again, while others are not worth the effort, and some fall into a deep well and are too difficult to retrieve. Therefore, it is better to leave them, and the person leaving them may be described as incapable, but that should not harm his own soul or his reputation among the wise. A scholar cannot complete his learning until he is willing to set aside the disgraceful word. A person may find it difficult to refute the argument of an ignorant fool who is firmly entrenched in his ignorance, because it requires a kind of knowledge that is suitable for descending to his level of ignorance.

Excessive argumentation on an issue is not commendable in itself unless it is considered in the context of its evidence and what it leads to. A knowledgeable person should not be swayed by the ignorant desire for review and debate, and should not be required to explain more than he has already clarified, because the ignorant does not know himself to the extent that the knowledgeable person does, as the knowledgeable person was once ignorant. As for the ignorant, he does not know the knowledgeable person, because he has never been knowledgeable. The truth may be clear while the owner of falsehood remains stubborn in his known obstinacy, so he must be debated and the truth must be clarified not for his sake, but for the sake of those behind him and those who follow him. This is like Abu Lahab, whom Allah judged for his disbelief and decreed that he will enter the Fire. However, the Prophet (peace be upon him) continued to debate with him and his people for a long time, because his people, in their form as his followers, were the intended target. The knowledgeable person perceives types and categories of addressees in a way that others do not, as he may address an individual and label him, while intending someone else. Or he may address an individual while intending a group, or he may refrain from naming a deserving individual to admonish someone else who shares in his denial, from the people of obstinance, or someone who provides him with a reason and lineage, to block the entrance of Satan to them through avoiding censure and seeking false interpretations, due to the corruption of their desires by the truth. This can then become a fitnah for the whole community, after it was a fitnah for individuals, as the Prophet (peace be upon him) did with some hypocrites from the Aus and Khazraj tribes. This is a result of the insight mentioned in the saying of Allah: "Say, 'This is my way; I invite to Allah with insight, I and those who follow me.'" (Yusuf 108)