is someone who understands the truth and accepts it, in which case, when the truth is explained to him, he understands and accepts it; or he is someone who will not accept it even when he understands it, or has no interest in understanding it, but merely intends to reject it. When such a person is confronted with proof in debate, he is silenced, and his harm and hostility toward others are restrained. This is the purpose mentioned by Abū Hāmid and others: defending the Sunnah against its enemies who dispute with falsehood.

Alternatively, the truth may have become unclear to him, although his underlying intention is to seek it. Yet he finds it difficult to recognize because of his limited knowledge of the evidence for it—as with someone who knows little of the prophetic reports indicating the truths conveyed by the Prophet—or because of his limited understanding, which prevents him from grasping subtle points of knowledge, or allows him to grasp them only with difficulty. Or he may have heard arguments for falsehood whose conclusions he has accepted, believing that those arguments cannot be answered.

When such a person is engaged in debate with proof, this benefits him by either bringing him to recognize the truth or causing him to doubt and suspend judgment concerning the falsehood he believes, or concerning the soundness of the evidence he has used to support it. It also rouses his resolve to examine and seek the truth, if he has any desire to do so. But if he becomes one of the partisans who follow conjecture and their own desires, he falls into the category of the obstinate, as explained above.

As for blameworthy debate on the part of someone who knows the truth, this occurs when his sole intention is to wrong and transgress against his interlocutor, or merely to display his knowledge and eloquence in pursuit of ascendancy in the land. If he desires ascendancy in the land or corruption, he is blameworthy for that intention.