.” He continued: “I said, ‘Come and debate me.’ He replied, ‘Your teachers have already been unable to answer me.’ I said, ‘Debate me.’ He repeated his argument, so I asked him, ‘Who is the Moses whose prophethood I have agreed with you upon? Is he Moses son of ‘Imrān, to whom Allah revealed the Torah containing tidings of Muhammad, may Allah bless him and grant him peace—the Moses who foretold Muhammad, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, and from whom Allah took a covenant to believe in him and support him, and whose people were likewise bound by a covenant to believe in him and support him’—Abū al-Hudhayl said, ‘Or words to that effect’—‘or is he the Moses who said, “Observe the Sabbath as long as the heavens and the earth endure,” and declared that his law would never be abrogated? As for the former, I agree with you concerning his prophethood, and his prophethood necessarily entails the prophethood of Muhammad, may Allah bless him and grant him peace. As for the latter, I neither believe in him nor agree with you concerning his prophethood.’”

Such examples are common in debate. This author, Abū ‘Abd Allāh al-Rāzī, has stated in his Nihāyah that one may not argue by drawing such binding implications from an opponent’s concessions, as explained above, namely,