With the exception of the issue of ruler regarding the perpetrator of a kabīrah (major sin) over which Wāsil Ibn ‘Atā’, the head of the Mu’tazilah, withdrew from the circle of al-Hasan al-Basrī, we can hardly find any issue from the issues of ‘Ilm al-Kalam which had not originated from an issue that was discussed by the Greek philosophers. The issue of al-qadā’ wa‘l-qadar by this name and with the referent which they discussed had been discussed by Greek philosophers, and they had differed in it. This issue is referred to as the issue of al-qadā’ wa‘l-qadar and as al-jabr wa‘l-khtiyār, and as hurriyat al-irādah, all of which have the same referent, namely: The actions that man does, is he free to do them or not, or is he compelled? It never occurred to the minds of the Muslims - before the translation of the Greek philosophy - to inquire into this subject matter. It was the Greek philosophers who inquired into it and differed in it. The Epicureans opined that the will is free in choice and that man does all of his actions according to his will and choice, without any compulsion. As for the Stoics, they opined that the will is compelled to take the path it takes, incapable of departing from it. Man, according to them, does nothing in accordance with his will; he is compelled to do whatever he does and does not have the ability to make a choice to undertake an action or not. After the advent of Islam and the infiltration of philosophical thoughts, one of the major issues was the attribute of justice with regards to Allah الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ. Allah الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ is just; from the proposition of this justice follows the issue of punishment and reward, from which arises the issue of the servant’s commission of his actions, all of which were inquired into, in line with the method of inquiry which they adopted in inquring into an issue as well as into all its offshoots, and due to the influence of the inquisitions of the philosophers i.e the philosophical thoughts they had studied in relation to the topics they were refuting. The most prominent of these was the discussion by the Mu’tazilah, being the original discussion in this matter; the discussions of the other Mutakallimīn come only as a response to refute the views of the Mu’tazilah. Thus the Mu’tazilah are considered the pioneers in discussing the issue of al-qadā’ wa ‘l-qadar, nay in all the topics of ‘Ilm al-Kalam. The Mu’tazilah’s view of the justice of Allah الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ was one of subliming Him الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ above injustice. Regarding the issue of punishment and reward, they took a stance which was consistent with the subliming of Allah الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ and with his Justice. They postulated that the justice of Allah الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ would be meaningless without the affirmation of the freedom of the will of man and the affirmation that he creates his actions and that he is capable of doing or refraining from doing; thus if he does (an action) voluntarily or refrains from doing (it) voluntarily, his punishment or reward will be understandable and just. But if Allah الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰcreates man and compels him to act in a certain way by compelling the obedient toward obedience and the disobedient toward disobedience and then punishes him and rewards him, this would not be just in the least. Thus they drew analogy between the unseen and the seen, comparing Allah الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ to man. They subjected the laws of this world to Allah الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ precisely as a group of the Greek philosophers had done. Thus they obligated justice upon Allah الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ as it was envisaged by man. The origin of the discussion is the punishment and reward from Allah الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ for the servant’s action. This is the subject matter of the discussion which was given the name ‘al-qadā’ wa‘l-qadar’ or as ‘al-jabr wa‘l-ikhtiyār’ or ‘hurriyat al-irādah’. Their approach to the discussion was that of the Greek philosophers: they discussed volition [irādah] and the creation of acts. Regarding the issue of volition, they said: we see that the one who wills good is himself good and the one who wills evil is evil, the one who wills justice is just and one who wills injustice is unjust. Thus if the Will of Allah الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ were associated to all good and evil in the world, good and evil would be willed by Allah الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ and thus the one who willed would merit the description of good and evil, just and unjust, and The Islamic Personality Vol.1 41

this is an impossibility with regard to Allah الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ. They also said that if Allahالله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ had willed the kufr of the kāfir and the disobedience of the disobedient, he would not have prohibited them from kufr and disobedience, and how can it be thinkable that Allah الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ willed for Abu Lahab that he be a kāfir and then ordered him to have imān and prohibited him from kufr? If any one of the creation did this, he certainly would be (deemed) foolish; Exalted is Allahالله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ high above such. Further, if the kufr of a kāfir and the disobedience of the disobedient were willed by Allah الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ, they would not be deserving the punishment; their acts actually would be in obedience to his الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ Will… Thus they proceeded with logical propositions, and then they followed this up with textual proofs from the Noble Quran, citing the saying of Allah الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ,

And His الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ saying,

And His الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ saying,

And

and His الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ saying,

They manipulated the ayāt that contradicted their viewpoint, for example the saying of Allah الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ,

And His الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ saying,

And His الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ saying,

They concluded from this the opinion that they held and advocated, namely their well-known view that man has the freedom of will to do an act or refrain from it. Thus if he acts, it is according to his will and if he refrains, it is also according to his will. As for the issue of the creation of acts, the Mu’tazilah said that the acts of the servants are created by them and are of their own doing not of Allah’sالله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ; it is in their power to do these acts or refrain from them without any intervention of the power of Allah الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ. The proof of this is the difference which man feels between the voluntary and the involuntary movement, such as the movement of a person who voluntarily moves his hand and the movement of a trembling person, and such as the difference between the movement of someone going up a lighthouse and another falling from it. Thus the voluntary movement is in the power of man: it is he who creates it; but he has no role in the involuntary movement. Also, if man was not the creator of his acts, the taklīf (obligation to comply with the Sharī’a) would certainly be invalidated, since if he was not capable of acting or refraining from acting, it would not be rational to ask him to act or to refrain from acting and this would not have been the subject of praise, reproach, reward or punishment. Thus, they proceeded with the proof of this opinion of theirs via logical propositions, and then they annexed to this textual proofs, citing many ayāt, like the saying of Allah الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ,

And His الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ saying,

And His الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ saying,

And His الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ saying,

And His الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ saying,

They manipulated the ayāt which contradicted this opinion of theirs, like the saying of Allah الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ,

And His الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ saying,

They concluded with the opinion which they held regarding the issue of the creation of acts, namely the view that man creates his own actions by himself and that he is capable of doing an act or refraining from it. In pursuance of the methodology of inquiry of the Mutakallimīn in discussing the issue as well as its offshoots, one of the offshoots of the issue of the creation of acts was the issue of causality. After the Mu’tazilah had determined that the acts of man are created by him, a question arose from this: what about the acts that result from his action? Are they created by him as well? Or are they created by Allah الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ? For example, the pain felt by a person who has been hit, the taste that a thing comes to have as a result of the action of man, the cutting that occurs from a knife, pleasure, health, lust, heat, cold, humidity, solidity, cowardice, courage, hunger, satisfaction, etc. They said that all these are part of the action of man because it is man who causes them when he performs his acts. Thus they are ensuing from his act and as a result are created by him.

This is the issue of al-qadā’ wa‘l-qadar and the view of the Mu’tazilah regarding it. The essence of it is that it is the issue of the volition of the act of the servant and the attributes that occur in things as a result of the action of man. The essence of their view is that the servant has free will in all of his actions and that it is he who creates his actions and the attributes that occur in things as a result of his action.

This view of the Mu’tazilah provoked the Muslims and it was a view unfamiliar to them; it was a impudent view in the prime basis of the deen i.e the ‘aqīdah. Thus they refuted it, a group called the Jabriyyah emerged; among the most famous of them was al-Jahm ibn Safwān. They said: man is compelled and he does not have free will, nor does he have the capability of creating his acts; he is just like a feather in the wind or like a piece of wood floating upon waves. Indeed, Allah الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ creates the actions upon the hands of man. They said: if we say that man is the creator of his own acts, what follows is the limiting of Allah’s الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ capability and (the implication) that it does not cover all things: that the servant is a partner of Allah’s الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ in the formation of what is in this world. A single thing cannot be affected by two capabilities. If the capability of Allah الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ created it, then man has no role in it, and if the capability of man created it then Allah الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ has no role in it. It is impossible that part of it is the result of the capability of Allah الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ and another part is the result of the capability of the servant. Thus Allah الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ is the Creator of the action of the servant, and it is according to His الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ will that man performs an action. They opined that the acts of the servants occur only through Allah’s الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ capability and that the servant has no influence whatsoever in it; man is merely the subject of what Allah الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰconducts at his hands, he is compelled absolutely. He and the inanimates are equals, differing only in appearance. Thus did they proceed in the proof of their view, citing ayāt of the Quran to support it, like the saying of Allah الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ,

And His الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ saying,

And His الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ saying,

And His الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ saying,

and His الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ saying,

They would interpret away the ayāt indicating the free will of the servant and his creation of acts. Accordingly, they said that the attributes of things that result from the action of the servant such as pleasure, hunger, courage, cutting and burning etc. are from Allah الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ.

Ahl ul-Sunnah wa‘l-Jama’ah (also) emerged and addressed themselves to refute the Mu’tazilah. Ahl ul-Sunnah said that the acts of the servants are all by the Will and Volition of Allahالله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ. Will and volition, they said, mean the same thing, namely, an eternal attribute of al-Hayy (the Alive, i.e. Allah الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ), which dictates the opting for the occurrence of one of two practicables at one specific time while the capability is uniform with regard to all. The acts of the servants are according to his ruling [hukm] - when He الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ Wills something He says ‘Be!’ and it is – and His qadiyyah, that is, His qadā’, which is a denotation of the act plus conditions; Allah الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ says,

The intent of qadā’ here being the subject affected by the qadā’ and not an attribute from amongst the attributes of Allahالله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ. The act of the servant is according to the arrangement [taqdīr] of Allahالله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ: the characterisation of every created entity with its own specification as regards goodness, badness, usefulness, harmfulness and the time and place that contain it, and the consequent punishment and reward. The intention here is to affirm the generality of the Will and Capability of Allahالله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ because all (things) are created by Allah الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ (This dictates the Capability and the Will (of Allah) for no compulsion or imposition.) They said: if it is said that according to your view a kāfir is compelled in his kufr and a fāsiq is compelled in his fisq and thus their obligation to have imān and be obedient would not be valid, our reply is that Allah الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ wanted from them kufr and fisq according to their own volition, thus there is no compulsion; this is just as الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ foreknew their voluntary kufr and fisq, thus the incumbency of the impossible does not The Islamic Personality Vol.1 45

follow. About the acts of the servants, they said in response to the Mu’tazilah and the Jabriyyah: the servants have voluntary acts for which they are rewarded in the case of obedience and are punished in the case of disobedience. They explained how they termed it voluntary whilst holding that Allah الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ is the sole creator and effector of acts; thus they said: the creator of the action of the servant is Allah الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ. The capability and will of the servant has a role in certain acts such as the movement of striking, but not in others, such as the movement of (involuntary) trembling; As for the thought that Allah الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰis the Creator of all things and the servant is only an acquirer, they clarified this and said: the directing by the servant of his capability and will to the act is acquisition [kasb] and Allah’s affecting the action thereafter is creation. The same accomplishment is under the two capabilities but in two different directions. The act is accomplished by Allahالله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ in the direction of effecting and accomplished by the servant in the direction of acquisition. In other words, Allahالله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ has consistently created the act upon the capability and willing of the servant but not through the servant’s capability and will; this combination is acquisition. They evidenced their view with the same ayāt that the Jabriyyah cited to prove Allah’s الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ creation of acts and His control on them, and they evidenced acquisition by the servant by the saying of Allah الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ,

And His الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ saying,

And His الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ saying,

They considered themselves as having repudiated the views of the Mu’tazilah and the Jabriyyah. In reality their view and that of the Jabriyyah is one and the same. Their notion of acquisition was a complete debacle. It is neither in accordance with the intellect since there is no rational proof for it, nor is it in accordance with the texts since there is no textual proof for it among the shar’i texts. It is no more that a failed attempt to reconcile the views of the Mu’tazilah and the Jabriyyah. In summation, the issue of al-qadā’ wa‘l-qadar was a major issue amongst the Mutakallimīn, and all of them focused their inquiry on the act of the servant and the attributes resulting therefrom, that is, the attributes which the servant effects in things as result of his actions. Their basis for the inquiry was the act of the servant and the attributes which he affects as result of his action: is it Allahالله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ who created both (the act and the attributes) or it the servant, and does this occur via the will of Allah الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ or via the will of the servant? The cause which gave rise to this inquiry is the adoption of the issue of ‘al-qadā’ wa‘l-qadar’ or ‘al-jabr wa‘l-ikhtiyār’ or ‘hurriyat al-irādah’ from the Greek philosophy by the Mu’tazilah, and their discussion of it from a perspective that they deemed consistent with the attribute of Justice neccisitated upon Allah الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ. This led to the emergence of the Jabriyyah and Ahl ul-Sunnah to refute the views of the Mu’tazilah, which they did according to the same precepts and on the same basis. All of them discussed the issue from the perspective of the attributes of Allah الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ not from the perspective of the subject alone. They applied the Will of Allahالله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ and His Capability to the act of the servant and to the attributes which the servant affects in things; their subject of inquiry became: are these through the capability and will of Allah الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰor are they via the capability and will of the servant? 46 How the Issue of al-Qadaa’ wa‘l-Qadar Emerged Al-qadā’ wa‘l-qadar is, thus, the acts of the servant and the attributes of things which man effects in things as a result of his action. Thus qadā’ is the act of the servants and qadar is the attributes of things. The fact that the qadā’ is the acts of the servants is evident from their discussion and divergence with regards to it, that is, their saying that the servant carries out the act through his own capability and will, and the saying of those who refuted them that the act is affected by the capability and will of Allah الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ, not the capability and will of the servant, and the saying of those who refuted both groups that the act of the servant is effected through the creation of the act by Allah الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰat the time of the capability and will of the servant for the act, not by means of the capability and will of the servant. This indicates that the meaning of qadā’ is the acts of the servants. The fact the qadar is the attributes effected by the servant in things is evident from their discussion and divergence with regards to it: when they discussed what results from the acts of the servant, they discussed the attributes that he effects; thus they said: if we add starch to sugar and cook the twain, pudding results: is the taste and the colour of pudding of our creation or is it of the creation of Allah الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ? Is the exiting of the rūh upon slaughter, the movement of a stone upon pushing, our vision upon opening our eyes, the breakage of a leg upon falling down and it health upon healing etc.: are all these of our creation or of the creation of Allah الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ?