The Salaf’s Fiqh of Debate and Argumentation
The below is a translation of Ustadh Bandar b. Al-Fayyiz’s article, Fiqh as-Salaf fi al-Jadal wal-Munadhara.
In light of the tremendous technological advancements and the resulting closeness among people, gaining access to the cultures and beliefs of others has become easy and accessible. Due to the differences in culture and belief among people, the ease of communication with others, and the leniency of some in engaging in issues related to Islamic fiqh without significant knowledge of the subject or without considering the benefits and harms of such engagement, many debates and discussions have emerged on social media concerning issues considered fundamental to the faith. This has led to exaggerating the importance of issues that do not deserve such attention. Engaging in many of these debates has not yielded the intended benefits, resulting in errors and harm. It would have been better for those interested to refer to the understanding of the Salaf regarding debate and argumentation, understand their methodology, and follow their example. Therefore, this paper aims to explain: (The Salaf’s Fiqh of Debate and Argumentation), and I have structured it around two main issues:
Issue One: The Prohibition of Debate and Argumentation as Reported by the Salaf
Many statements from the Salaf (early generations of Muslims) prohibit debates and argumentation on matters of aqeedah. However, debates and discussions did occur among the Salaf on matters of fiqh.[1]
Several scholars who authored works on aqeedah included sections mentioning numerous narrations that forbid debate, argumentation, and contention. For instance, Al-Ajurri stated: “Chapter on the Condemnation of Argumentation and Disputation in Religion,”[2] Ibn Battah mentioned: “Chapter on the Condemnation of Quarreling and Disputing in Religion and the Warning Against the People of Argumentation and Speculative Theology,”[3] and Al-Lalaka’i wrote: “A Context of What Has Been Narrated from the Prophet ﷺ on the Prohibition of Debating with and Arguing against the People of Innovation.”[4]
The silence of the Salaf on debate and argumentation and their avoidance of engaging in issues of aqeedah was not due to ignorance or inability, but rather due to piety, protection of the religion, and consideration of benefits and harms. As Ibn Rajab states:
فمن عرف قدر السلف عرف أن سكوتهم عما سكتوا عنه من ضروب الكلام، وكثرة الجدال والخصام، والزيادة في البيان على مقدار الحاجة، لم يكن عيًّا ولا جهلًا ولا قصورًا، وإنما كان ورعًا، وخشية للَّه، واشتغالًا عما لا ينفع بما ينفع
“Whoever understands the status of the Salaf knows that their silence on certain types of speech, frequent debate and contention, and extending clarification beyond the necessary amount was not due to incapacity, ignorance, or deficiency, but rather due to piety, fear of Allah, and engagement in what is beneficial instead of what is not.”[5]
This strict stance from the Salaf against debate and argumentation is due to the potential harms and dangers involved, which come from various angles, including the following:
The First Aspect: The Nature of Debate and Argumentation
The nature of debate and argumentation can lead to hardening of the heart, breed resentment, and ruin friendships. Imam Malik said, “Argumentation in knowledge hardens the heart and breeds rancor.”[6] Abdullah ibn al-Husayn remarked, “Argumentation ruins old friendships and unties firm bonds. At the very least, it involves striving to overpower the other, which is one of the strongest causes of enmity.”[7]
It might be argued that this applies to excessive argumentation or blameworthy debate—and as will be explained, the prohibition by the Salaf is not an absolute and universal rule in all circumstances.
The Second Aspect: The Debater and Arguer
Debate and argumentation can sometimes weaken the person who holds the truth. This may happen if the individual cannot effectively respond to the doubts raised by their opponent, leading to a weakening of their Iman, diminished certainty, and the sowing of doubts. Hence, one of the reasons the Salaf warned against debate and argumentation was to prevent such occurrences. Abu Qilabah stated:
لا تجالسوا أهل الأهواء، ولا تجادلوهم، فإني لا آمن أن يغمسوكم في الضلالة، أو يُلبِّسوا عليكم في الدين بعض ما لُبِّس عليهم
“Do not sit with the people of desires and do not argue with them, for I do not feel secure from their plunging you into misguidance or confuse you in matters of religion, causing you to be confounded in what confounded them.”[8]
The Third Aspect: The Opponent in the Debate
The weakness of the one being debated can sometimes cause the opponent—and those deceived by him—to cling more firmly to their false beliefs. It can also embolden them against the people of truth. The Salaf highlighted this in their teachings. For instance, it is narrated that Ibn Farrokh wrote to Malik ibn Anas, saying, “Our town is full of innovators, and I have written a refutation against them.” Malik replied,
إن ظننت ذلك بنفسك خفت أن تزل فتهلك، لا يرد عليهم إلا مَن كان ضابطًا عارفًا بما يقول لهم، لا يقدرون أن يعرجوا عليه، فهذا لا بأس به، وأما غير ذلك فإني أخاف أن يكلمهم فيخطئ فيمضوا على خطئه، أو يظفروا منه بشيء، فيطغوا ويزدادوا تماديًا على ذلك
“If you think highly of yourself, I fear you might slip and perish. Only those knowledgeable and well-versed in what to say to them, such that they cannot sway him, should respond to them. This is acceptable. Otherwise, I fear that if he speaks to them and errs, they will persist in their error, or they may find something to use against him, leading them to further obstinacy and persistence in their falsehood.”[9]
The Fourth Aspect: The Audience of the Debate
During a debate, an observer might become troubled by a doubt raised by the opponent that the defender of the truth could not adequately address. Alternatively, the observer might understand the doubt but not grasp the response, especially if the rebuttal requires foundational knowledge. The Salaf provided guidance on this matter. For example, Ja’far ibn Abdullah recounted: “A man came to Malik ibn Anas and asked, ‘O Abu Abdullah, how did the Most Merciful rise over the Throne?’ Malik was visibly distressed by this question, and he began to sweat. The people present waited for his response. After regaining his composure, Malik said, ‘The modality is incomprehensible, the istiwa is not unknown, belief in it is obligatory, and questioning it is an innovation. I fear you may be a deviant.’ He then ordered the man to be removed.”[10]
The Fifth Aspect: The Disputed Issue
Engaging in debates or arguments over certain issues may be inappropriate, especially if delving into them is considered unnecessary or forced. The Salaf emphasized this point. For instance, Ahmad ibn Janab narrated: “I asked Isa ibn Yunus about the verse, ‘Everyone upon it will perish’ [Al-Rahman: 26], inquiring whether the Hoor al-'Ayn would also perish, as some who speak with the rhetoric of the Jahmiyyah had inquired about this. Isa became extremely angry and said, ‘We have scattered the hadith in a way that no one has ever done before… We have never heard anyone ask such a question.’”[11]
Additionally, the Salaf discouraged debating opponents on ambiguous aspects of the religious texts. For example, Ayyub Al-Sakhtiyani stated,
لا أعلم اليوم أحدًا من أهل الأهواء يخاصم إلا بالمتشابه
“I do not know anyone from the people of whims and desires who argues except using the ambiguous parts of the texts.”[12]
لا تجالسوا أهل القدر، ولا تخاصموهم، فإنهم يضربون القرآن بعضه ببعض
Similarly, Awn ibn Abdullah advised, “Do not sit with the people of Qadar (those who deny preordainment), and do not argue with them, for they strike the Quran against itself.”[13]
Debate and argumentation can also lead to the dissemination of the opposing views and their doubts. Among the texts from the Salaf on this matter is the statement by Al-Lalaka'i:
فما جني على المسلمين جناية أعظم من مناظرة المبتدعة، ولم يكن لهم قهر ولا ذل أعظم مما تركهم السلف على تلك الجملة يموتون من الغيظ كمدًا ودردا، ولا يجدون إلى إظهار بدعتهم سبيلًا، حتى جاء المغرورون ففتحوا لهم إليها طريقًا، وصاروا لهم إلى هلاك الإسلام دليلًا، حتى كثرت بينهم المشاجرة، وظهرت دعوتهم بالمناظرة، وطرقت أسماع من لم يكن عرفها من الخاصة والعامة
“No harm has been inflicted on Muslims greater than the debates with innovators. They had no greater defeat or humiliation than the fact that the Salaf left them to their own devices, causing them to die in anguish and frustration, unable to find any way to express their innovations. Then came the naive ones, who opened a path for them, becoming a guide to the destruction of Islam. This led to increased disputes among them, their call gaining prominence through debates, and their arguments reaching the ears of those among the elite and the common folk who had not previously known of them.”[14]
The Second Issue: Instances of Debate and Argumentation by the Salaf with Opponents
The aforementioned prohibitions by the Salaf against debate and argumentation were not absolute or permanent. Rather, these prohibitions were conditional upon considerations of benefit and harm. Thus, when opponents compelled the Salaf to engage in debate and argumentation, the Salaf undertook these actions as a means of repelling aggressors. This engagement was not their fundamental approach; instead, it was a temporary measure necessitated by the prevailing circumstances of the time, place, and situation, among other factors. They adhered strictly to the legal guidelines for debate and argumentation and took precautions to ensure that such engagements were beneficial. They judged it appropriate to proceed with debates when necessary.
Al-Dhahabi said:
كانت الأهواء والبدع خاملة في زمن الليث، ومالك، والأوزاعي، والسنن ظاهرة عزيزة، فأما في زمن أحمد بن حنبل، وإسحاق، وأبي عبيد، فظهرت البدعة، وامتحن أئمة الأثر، ورفع أهل الأهواء رؤوسهم بدخول الدولة معهم، فاحتاج العلماء إلى مجادلتهم بالكتاب والسنة، ثم كثر ذلك، واحتج عليهم العلماء أيضًا بالمعقول، فطال الجدال، واشتد النزاع، وتولدت الشبه – نسأل الله العافية
“During the time of Al-Layth, Malik, and Al-Awza’i, the sects and innovations were dormant, and the traditions were prominent and esteemed. However, in the era of Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Ishaq, and Abu Ubaid, innovations became widespread, the Imams of tradition were tested, and the proponents of sects raised their heads through state involvement. Consequently, scholars were compelled to debate them using the Qur’an and Sunnah. This practice became more common, and scholars also resorted to rational arguments against them. Thus, debates increased, disputes intensified, and doubts emerged—may Allah grant us safety.”[15]
The following are statements from the Salaf elucidating this matter:
1. The statement of Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz:
مَن جعل دينه غرضًا للخصومات أكثر التنقل
"Whoever makes their religion a matter for disputes will frequently change their beliefs."[16]
This explicit statement prohibits argumentation. However, Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz, debated Ghaylan al-Dimashqi regarding his views on predestination,[17] indicating that the prohibition is not absolute. Ibn Abd al-Barr clarified Umar’s prohibition against argumentation while noting his engagement in it, saying:
هذا عمر بن عبد العزيز رحمه الله، وهو ممن جاء عنه التغليظ في النهي عن الجدال في الدين، وهو القائل: من جعل دينه غرضًا للخصومات أكثر التنقل، فلما اضطر وعرف الفلح في قوله، ورجا أن يهدي الله به، لزمه البيان، فبين وجادل، وكان أحد الراسخين في العلم رحمه الله تعالى
“This is Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz, one of those who sternly prohibited argumentation in religion, who said: ‘Whoever makes their religion a matter for disputes will frequently change their beliefs.’ Yet, when compelled and recognizing the benefit of speaking, hoping that Allah would guide through him, he was obliged to explain and debate. He was one of those firmly grounded in knowledge, may Allah have mercy on him.”[18]
2. The statement of Ibn Aun:
سمعت محمد بن سيرين ينهى عن الجدال إلا رجلًا إن كلمته طمعت في رجوعه
“I heard Muhammad ibn Sirin prohibiting argumentation except with a person whom you hope will return to the truth if you speak to him.”[19]
This statement from Ibn Aun indicates that argumentation is not inherently prohibited but is instead contingent upon the benefit, specifically the hope that the person being debated will respond positively.
3. Bishr ibn al-Harith was “Asked about a man who is with these people—those of deviant beliefs—at a funeral or a cemetery, and they speak and make insinuations. Should we respond to them? He replied: “If there are others with you who are unaware, then respond to them so that those people do not think their words are correct. But if it is just you and them, do not speak to them or respond.”[20]
Here, Bishr ibn al-Harith did not consider the mere raising of doubts as sufficient justification for responding to them. Instead, he linked the response to the presence of a benefit—in this case, preventing those who might be deceived by their statements from being misled. Thus, there was a clear benefit in responding to them.
4. Imam Ahmad said,
قد كنا نأمر بالسكوت، فلما دعينا إلى أمر ما كان بد لنا أن ندفع ذلك، ونبين من أمره ما ينفي عنه ما قالوه، ثم استدل لذلك بقوله تعالى: ﴿وَجَادِلْهُم بِالَّتِي هِيَ أَحْسَنُ ۚ ﴾ [النحل:125]
“We used to command silence, but when we were called to address a matter, it became necessary for us to refute it and clarify the issue to negate what they had said. Then he referenced the verse: ‘And argue with them in a way that is best’ [An-Nahl: 125].”[21]
This statement by Imam Ahmad highlights the distinction between different situations. The default is to avoid argumentation, but engaging in debate is sometimes necessary when it serves a beneficial purpose.
5. Al-Ajurri said,
فإن قال قائل: فإن اضطرني الأمر وقتًا من الأوقات إلى مناظرتهم، وإثبات الحجة عليهم ألا أناظرهم؟ قيل له: الاضطرار إنما يكون مع إمام له مذهب سوء، فيمتحن الناس ويدعوهم إلى مذهبه، كفعل مَن مضى في وقت أحمد بن حنبل: ثلاثة خلفاء امتحنوا الناس، ودعوهم إلى مذهبهم السوء، فلم يجد العلماء بدًّا من الذب عن الدين، وأرادوا بذلك: معرفة العامة الحق من الباطل، فناظروهم ضرورة لا اختيارا
“If someone asks: ‘If I am compelled at times to debate with them and establish proof against them, should I not engage in debate?’ It is said to him: Compulsion arises only when an imam with a bad doctrine tests people and calls them to his doctrine, like what happened during the time of Ahmad ibn Hanbal: three caliphs tested the people and called them to their bad doctrine. The scholars had no choice but to defend the religion and sought to make the truth clear from falsehood for the general public. Thus, they debated out of necessity, not choice.”[22]
This clearly indicates that there can be a significant benefit in debating, particularly when the one being debated is an influential leader. The debate serves the purpose of defending the religion and removing any confusion that may affect the general populace due to the influence of the one being debated.
From the above, it is evident that the default stance of the Salaf was to refrain from engaging in debates and arguments. Engaging in such activities was only considered when there was a clear benefit. Therefore, despite the numerous heretics and their constant provocations for debate, the Salaf did not frequently participate in debates. Some researchers have traced the debates mentioned in the works of the Salaf during the first three centuries and found only twenty debates.[23]
May peace and blessings be upon our Prophet Muhammad, his family, and all his companions.
[1] See: Ibn Battah, Al-Ibanah al-Kubra, vol. 2, p. 545; and, Ibn Abdul Barr, Jaami’ Bayan al-‘Ilm wa-Fadhlihi, vol. 2, p. 948
[2] Al-Ajurri, ash-Sharee’ah, vol. 1, p. 429
[3] Ibn Battah, Al-Ibanah al-Kubra, vol. 2, p. 483
[4] Al-Lalaka’i, Sharh Usul ‘Itiqad Ahlus Sunnah wal-Jama’ah, vol. 1, p. 128
[5] Ibn Rajab, Fadl ‘Ilm as-Salaf ‘ala ‘Ilm al-Khalaf, p. 9
[6] Ibn Battah, Al-Ibanah al-Kubra, vol. 2, p. 530
[7] Ibid., vol. 2, pp. 530-531
[8] Al-Ajurri, ash-Sharee’ah, vol. 1, p. 435
[9] Ash-Shatibi, al-‘Itisam, vol. 1, p. 38
[10] Al-Lalaka’i, Sharh Usul ‘Itiqad Ahlus Sunnah wal-Jama’ah, vol. 3, p. 441
[11] Ibn Battah, Al-Ibanah al-Kubra, vol. 1, p. 403
[12] Ibid., vol. 2, p. 530
[13] Ibn Battah, Al-Ibanah al-Kubra, vol. 2, p. 466; and Al-Lalaka’i, Sharh Usul ‘Itiqad Ahlus Sunnah wal-Jama’ah, vol. 1, p. 146
[14] Al-Lalaka’i, Sharh Usul ‘Itiqad Ahlus Sunnah wal-Jama’ah, vol. 1, p. 19; and Al-Ajurri, ash-Sharee’ah, vol. 1, p. 449
[15] Siyar ‘Alam an-Nubala’, vol. 8, p. 144
[16] Ibn Battah, Al-Ibanah al-Kubra, vol. 2, p. 503
[17] Abdullah b. Ahmed, as-Sunnah, vol. 2, p. 429
[18] Ibn Abdul Barr, Jami’ Bayan al-‘Ilm wa-Fadhlihi, vol. 2, p. 967
[19] Ibn Battah, Al-Ibanah al-Kubra, vol. 2, p. 541
[20] Ibid., vol. 2, p. 542
[21] Ibn Muflih, al-Adab ash-Shar’iyyah, vol. 1, p. 207. Also see: Naqdh ad-Darimi ‘ala al-Marrisi, vol. 1, p. 538; and Al-Khallal, as-Sunnah, vol. 5, p. 134
[22] Al-Ajurri, ash-Sharee’ah, vol. 1, p. 454
[23] Nasser al-Haneeni, Manhaj Ahlus Sunnah wal-Jama’ah fi Tadween ‘Ilm al-Aqeedah, p. 1063