Debate and dialogue are two forms of literary expression upon which scholars and literary figures rely to present their intentions and aims through the easiest and most expansive means. Debate achieves its goal through demonstrative or rhetorical persuasive proof, while dialogue reveals and facilitates the path to a desired point that requires clarification.
Debate is when two disputants face each other concerning the relationship between two matters to establish what is correct. That is, when the claim of one differs from that of the other, and each aims to affirm his claim either through authentic transmission from a source that is irrefutable or by constructing an argument consisting of two premises—a minor and a major—formed into one of the logical structures, with the objective of revealing what is right, then this constitutes a debate. The term “munāẓarah”in Arabic (debate) is derived from “naẓīr” (peer or equal), implying that each disputant considers himself equal to the other in discussion, reasoning, and topic validation. Alternatively, it may be derived from “naẓar” (sight or looking), since each of the disputants looks at the other during the debate. Or it may come from “naẓerah” (waiting), as each waits for the other to finish speaking before responding or conceding. Another derivation is from “tanāẓur” (mutual opposition), meaning that each confronts the other during the argument.
Regardless of its etymology, the purpose is to reveal the correct view—i.e., to affirm the correctness of one of the two claims. Each party seeks to prove his position as being right. For example, if Zayd claims that the statement “Actions are but by intentions” is a sound ḥadith, and Khalid denies this, insisting it is not, and both persist in their respective views, then Zayd proceeds to validate his claim by citing this saying with an authentic chain of transmission from the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), while Khalid attempts to refute it—this situation constitutes a debate.
Similarly, if Zayd asserts that spreading knowledge among the Ummah is obligatory, while Khalid claims it is merely recommended, and Zayd insists upon his position by reasoning that spreading knowledge is obligatory, the argument here comprises two premises: a minor—“Disseminating knowledge in the ummah is a preparation of its strength”; and a major—“Every preparation of strength for the Ummah is obligatory.” Both premises are accepted without dispute.
The proof is structured according to the first of the four logical syllogistic forms in logic. According to this, the conclusion appears by omitting the repeated element in both premises—namely “preparation of strength for the Ummah.” When this repeated element is removed, the conclusion becomes: “Disseminating knowledge in the Ummah is obligatory.” The opponent—the questioner—can challenge the proponent’s proof by producing a counter-proof that yields an opposite conclusion, or by refuting the argument with another, or by requesting the proponent to provide evidence for one of the two premises—either the minor or the major. Thus, the debate continues between the two sides—the proponent and the questioner—in this manner, with mutual respect and decorum, until one of them fails to substantiate his claim and concedes to the other due to the clarity of the truth in the opponent’s position.
This is when the goal between the disputants is to reveal the correct view, which is the foundational and essential principle of debates among seekers of truth. However, if the purpose of the contention is merely to defeat and silence the opponent without concern for whether the truth emerges or not, this is termed disputation (mujādalah), not debate (munāẓarah). Such disputation often occurs among the heads of schools of thought, each firmly believing in the correctness of his own school and not intending to depart from it. It also occurs among political leaders and election candidates, aiming to increase the number of followers or voters, or to boost party membership in order to gain more power for the school of thought or to enhance the standing of a particular candidate. In such disputations, it is enough that one party is rendered speechless or unable to respond, whether or not the opponent’s argument is genuinely convincing or simply constructed to attack and mislead in essence and truth.
Thus, the aim and focus of disputation is solely to silence and defeat the opponent. It shares with debate the same requirement of adhering to established etiquettes and known decorum that must be followed during discussions, until the intended result is achieved and the conclusion becomes apparent. As Allah says, “And do not argue with the People of the Scripture except in a way that is best” (Al-‘Ankabut: 46)
However, if the objective of the contention is neither to reveal the truth nor to defeat the opponent, but rather to showcase one’s knowledge or to hide one’s ignorance from the audience, it is called obstinacy (mukābarah). The obstinate person does not aim through his dispute to establish what is right or to compel his opponent. The truth may be evident, yet he refuses to accept it, persisting in his denial, clinging to weak arguments, relying on empty talk and frivolous speech. Even if the argument obliges him, he does not remain silent or stop speaking, trying instead to cover his ignorance with deception and fallacy, concealing his flaws and masking his deficiencies. Such adversarial may offer no hope of revealing truth, enforcing an argument, or establishing a claim; it becomes mere verbal exchange, a show of wit with hollow proofs for vanity or misguidance. Allah says, “And of the people is he who buys the amusement of speech to mislead others from the way of Allah” (Luqman: 6) This kind of exchange is categorized as rambling and nonsense.
Verbal adversarial over opinions, schools of thought, and other demands do not fall outside the scope of either debate, disputation, or obstinacy. All three are forms of meaningful discourse and valid forms of inquiry. All other forms of verbal disputes are nonsense and folly, lacking any genuine literary or intellectual merit and exhausts the ears. Among the three, debate holds the highest status, followed by disputation, and the weakest is obstinacy.
Among the types of debate is a category in which the proof for the claim lies in the performance of actions that testify to its validity or lead to its verification in practice. We may call this type practical debate. The miracles performed by prophets and messengers fall under this category. Likewise, the experiments and tests conducted by scientists to prove scientific claims, such as in geometry or other disciplines, are also practical debates.
There is also a type of debate based on initiating a claim accompanied by proof that is either irrefutable or extremely difficult for the opponent to deny, as it represents a concrete reality or evident truth acknowledged even by the opponent. In such a case, the opponent is defeated from the outset, his argument invalid, and his position collapsed. Alternatively, the claim may pertain to self-evident necessities, i.e., truths that require no proof, as simply conceiving them guarantees belief in them, such as the statement: “One is half of two.” We may call this type the victorious-claim debate. An example of this is Allah’s saying: “O People of the Scripture, why do you argue about Abraham while the Torah and the Gospel were not revealed until after him? Then will you not reason?” (Aal-Imran: 65)
Another example is the Bedouin's statement: “Footprints indicate the presence of a walker; a sky with constellations and an earth with pathways—do they not point to the All-Hearing, the All-Seeing?”
In the Qur’an, we find examples of all three kinds of debate: verbal, practical, and victorious-claim debates.
The foundation of debate is verbal, based on rational proof. Debates occur between minds and conclude when reason is convinced of the truth or falsity of the claim. Resorting to practical evidence is necessary only when rational proof alone is insufficient, and the claim requires an accompanying action from the claimant, as in the case of miracles, or mathematical and experimental proofs. Practical evidence is also necessary when the opponent lacks the rational capacity to comprehend the evidence and thus must be convinced through actions that compel him to accept the truth, whereby the claimant triumphs, and the opponent is defeated.
As for dialogue: it is a back-and-forth in speech, i.e., mutual exchange; hence taḥāwur (mutual discourse).
Dialogue is the exchange of logic and speech in communication. It is a refined and elevated form of literature, and one of its stylistic methods. It involves eliciting speech, questioning, clarifying, explaining, expressing grief and sorrow, revealing what is within the soul, and uncovering secrets. In books of literature, there are extensive chapters dedicated to eloquent dialogues. In modern lyrical literature, dialogue has come to occupy a significant role.
In religious literature, dialogue serves to deliver lessons, temper wild souls, awaken heedless hearts, and offer insight to inner vision. How gentle was the dialogue between Prophet Ayyub (peace be upon him) and his companions as he was engulfed in his afflictions! How profound is the literary elegance and solid philosophy therein, as it delves deep into the human soul. Afflicted with trials, overwhelmed by disease, and crushed by calamities, his supplication to his Lord stood out with sublime eloquence and delicate reproach, until his voice fell silent and his tongue ceased to move. He called upon his Lord, saying: “Indeed, adversity has touched me, and You are the Most Merciful of the merciful”—confessing his helplessness, seeking refuge in Allah from suffering, and acknowledging that he had deviated from the standard of patience and certainty, longing for mercy from the Lord of all worlds. It was a powerful dialogue between a tested prophet and a group of sincere truth-seekers. Ancient religious texts recorded it, and the Noble Qur’an alluded to it with eloquent brevity and precise expression.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Source: “Iraqi Academy of Sciences” Magazine, March 1961.