|
|
Chapter One |
|
In the course of the philosophical history of reason we come across two theories that set out from inevitability as a start point.
The first of which; concerns man’s behaviour, in particular, individual and social behaviour.
The other pertains to the universal system as a whole. The first theory tends to believe in the inevitability of man’s behaviour retarding his will and negating its role ever in his behaviour.
The second theory tends to assert inevitability in the universal system as a whole, claiming that the entire universe moves within an accurate system according to the law of casualty. This system runs within a serial chain, each one of its links is connected to the prior and the following one within some inevitable system that does not change or drop behind, and nobody’s will ever may interfere to shift it.
If we presume that we have found the key links in this series of the general universal system, succeeding to read the cardinal order of these links that keep the system in hold; then we shall be able to foretell all events in the universe right to its last day.
Both theories run through each of the two eminent trends of thought, the divine doctrine and the material one.
Some of those who believe that inevitability controls man’s behaviour and history, do believe in Allah the Sublime, and they attribute this inevitability to Him.
Others who belong to the opposite direction (the material trend) reach to the same conclusion on the grounds of casualty law, or the dialectical system of thought.
Thus both trends assert that both, mans behaviour and his history are inevitable.
The second inevitability (the universal) in its turn does not concern this party or that exclusively; it is quite possible that both materialists and religious may adhere to it.
The Jews are one of the religious groups that tend to follow the trend of the universal inevitability. The Sublime said:
[The Jews said: Allah’s hand is fettered. Be their hands fettered and they be cursed for what they uttered] Al Maidah v. 64.
A wide sect of Muslims that is called (Al Ashairah) as well tends to believe that man’s behaviour is inevitable.
The Marxists as a sect from the materialists believe that this inevitability governs man’s history, (calling it – by their terminology – the universal necessity. Translator)
These two inevitabilities lead to negative results in man’s history of thought, they also lead to negative results in man’s political history, for they will necessarily lead to the presumption that there is a compulsory system in the universe; a system that can never be adjusted changed or shifted. And interpretation as such connotes retarding the potency of the will of Allah the Sublime, expelling the domination of His sovereignty over the universal system. This applies to the universal inevitability respectively.
The definite result that the inevitability in man’s behaviour and history brings about is the belief in suspending man’s will.
Both these dangerous results are necessarily produced by these two inevitabilities.
The rulers and regimes have widely politically exploited both inevitabilities.
Adhering to behavioural and historical inevitability suspends man’s active role and will to change his circumstances of living and his political history, turning him from an active impressive element who can influence the movement of history and change his social circumstances of living into a character floating in the current of history and life, running wherever this current runs.
Such a kind of thinking usually serves the ends of oppressive political regimes. For, in a social media that thus adheres to fatalism, inevitability and determinism, any apparent opposition for the political regime may hardly show.
Therefore the theory of historical inevitability often meets approval and support from the politically oppressive regimes. The rulers encourage such thought tendencies towards destiny and fate to keep on the safe side from people’s rage, rebellion and objections. For there is no way for rage, rebellion and objections as long as all oppression and blood shed are predestined and designed by Allah, and no man has any power or right to change and adjust them!
It became well known that (Benou Aumyah) used to adopt the doctrine of determinism to interpret history and man’s behaviour, instructing people that their injustice, oppression, suppression, Muslim’s treasury looting… etc, are predestined by Allah the Sublime’s inevitable destiny which nobody may protest against and none may resist.
(Al Hassan Al Bassry) had a tendency to contradict them in the matter of (destiny) believing that people are free to decide their destiny and Allah the Sublime does note inevitably impose their destiny on them; (Al Hassan Al Bassry) sometimes used to propagate this opinion of his, so some people frightened him of the authority (Al Sultan).
Ibn Sa’ad in (Al Tabaquat) quotes (Ayoob):
(Several times I discussed destiny with (Al Hassan), then I threatened him by the authorities, so he said: I shall never say anything about that again.)
At the age of (Al Hassan Al Bassry) the authority that reigned was (Benou Aumyah). A fact that inspires us to conclude, they used to consolidate the theory of behavioral and historical inevitability extending it to the extremes of terrorism and suppression.
Strange enough, the advocates of polytheism used to justify their polytheism and idolatry by this inevitability!
The Sublime – mouthpiecing them – says:
[And these pagans have said: if it had not been the will of ArRahman we would not worship these idols they say these out of ignorance; they say nothing but lies.] Az Zukhruf v. 20.
The way politics had a role in misusing the first inevitability, it also had a role in widely misusing the second inevitability, for universal inevitability necessarily leads to segregate the Divine will from the universe, that does not contradict believing that Allah the Sublime is the Creator of the universe, for the Jews used to believe in Allah the Sublime and that he is the Creator of this universe, but also they used to believe that this universe runs and moves – after being created by Allah the Sublime – within an obligatory system established on causes and reasons with no role for Allah the Sublime in managing and administrating it, in other words they used to believe that Allah the Sublime is the Creator of this universe, but He does not have a role in managing or dominating it, while the Holy Quran certifies that Allah the Sublime maintains all qualities of creation, domination, management, simultaneously. Proportionate to the amount of weakness that befalls Allah’s sovereignty, domination and practical influence on the universe from man’s point of view – man’s relation and connection to Allah in turn, turns weaker.
And the way man’s faith in Allah’s sovereignty, authority and direct practical influence on the universe weakens, his relation with Allah also weakens, and the more his adherence and connection to Allah weakens, he himself gets weaker, furthermore his potency, power and resistance will weaken. Opposite to this however, the more man’s faith in Allah the Sublime, His domination, authority and practical influence on the universe increases, his adherence to Allah and his relation with the Sublime on the other hand will increase. The more strong his relation with Allah becomes, the more strong and potent he will be, for he will get strength and potency from Allah, thus his resistance and hope will increase.
This matter naturally concerns the rulers and the oppressive terrorist regime; this is in the first place.
Second: such a concept of universal inevitability deepens man’s sense of the role of matter and materialism in his mind and soul giving them more value than they deserve meanwhile weakening and flattening the metaphysical sense in man’s soul and consciousness decreasing their real value, quite opposite to what the Quran does to man.
In the Quran we notice that a great attention has been paid to the faith in the unseen, in an attempt to deepen, fix and establish this faith in man’s soul, meanwhile AlQuran through a great number of verses emphasizes the effect and importance of matter in the universe.
Faith in the unseen has a great impact on man’s way of thinking, on the course of his movement, on his aspirations and ambitions, then on his flexibility and potency to face and withhold difficulties, troubles and challenges.
Weakening and flattening faith in the unseen, and strengthening and deepening faith in matter (more than it really deserves) weakens man’s role, activity and dynamism, influencing directly his style of thinking.
The Holy Quran tells about the Jews ultimate faith in the universal inevitability, which cancels Allah the Sublime’s authority and potency to alter the order of the historical and universal events within the frame that the initial episodes of these events impose.
[The Jews said: Allah’s hand is fettered. Be their hands fettered and they be cursed for what they uttered! Nay, Allah’s hands are widely outstretched; He spends (of His bounty) as He wills] Al Maidah v. 64
Although these two inevitabilities are different in shape and significance, yet they meet so as to cripple man’s transitional and pioneering role in the political and social system.
For change depends on two things:
1. Man’s faith in Allah the Sublime and His sovereignty, potency and power; and man’s reliance and dependence on Allah the Sublime and his trust in Him; and if man delivers himself to Allah the Sublime, he will gain from Allah the Sublime some super strength and potency, further he will gain unlimited hope and confidence.
Man, however powerful, influential and efficient might be, but for delivering himself to Allah cannot attain that hope and confidence. And if ever he loses hope and trust in Allah, disconnecting himself from Him, he will become too weak to confront life, and he will have to face the challenges of work and life movement on his own, depending on his own strength and potency which are weak and limited.
Belief in the universal inevitability and denial of Allah the Sublime’s authority to influence and penetrate the serially related events of the universe the way the Jews believe – make man lose his psychological contact with Allah the Sublime, robbing him his trust in Allah and hope in the metaphysical aid expected from Him all the way through his actions and movement.
2. Man’s faith in his free will and potency to change the course of history and decide his destiny and the destiny of history.
Such a faith enables man to act, move and change opposite to which he loses his psychological potency to move and change things, and if ever he loses this faith, he will turn to believe that his history and fate has inevitably been predetermined and there is no way to alter or change it, and that he is only a wheel that is part of a big instrument which makes him act and move with no control over his acts, moves, history and fate. Thus faith in both inevitabilities blocks man from Allah the Sublime concealing him from his ego and abilities, robbing him of hope and freedom to move and make a decision.
Man thus will turn into a piece of wood floating into the current of event and history.
Both this and that are things that rulers and oppressive terrorist regimes seek.
Al Quran has a clear position towards these two inevitabilities. In dealing with the historical and behavioural inevitability the Holy Quran frankly approves man’s free will and responsibility for his deeds, the Sublime said:
[Then we showed him the straight path; it is up to him to choose to be grateful or ungrateful and disbeliever.]
Revised by translator Al Insan v. 3.
[Verily, Allah does not do any injustice to mankind, but men do wrong to themselves.] yunus v. 44.
[Say, (O messenger!) O, men! The truth has come to you from your Creator and Nurturer. Whoever is guided it is only to his own loss.] Revised by translator. Yunus v. 198.
[And whoever wishes can find through it a way towards his Creator and Nurturer.] Revised by translator Al Insan v. 29.
Meanwhile Al Quran clearly confirms the doctrine of Allah the Sublime’s will that dominates man’s life and history without canceling man’s free will. The Sublime says:
[And you mankind does not decide something unless Allah decides so; verily, Allah is the knowing Decreer.] Al Insan v. 30.
[And you shall not wish the truth and shall not be in search of the straight path unless it be the will of Allah the Creator of the worlds] At Takwir v. 29.
[Say (O, messenger!) Allah leaves in his error whom he regards unworthy, and guides to his path those who turn to Him invokingly.] Ar Rád v. 27.
[Allah does guide to His light whomever He wills.] Revised by translator An. Nur v. 35.
[And if your Creator and Nurturer had willed, verily, all those who are on the earth would have believed; can you (O, Messenger!) compel people against their wish to become believers? And it is not possible for any (disbelieving) person to believe except by Allah’s will and Allah will put the wrath on those who do not use their reason.] Yunus. V 99 – 100.
This direct influence of Allah the Sublime’s will of domination on man’s life and history in addition to man’s free will and choice is the well known doctrine of (A case in between two concerns) which has been attributed to the progeny of Muhammad (A.S.).
It is a midway dogma inbetween (determinism) that has been adopted by (Al Asha’irah) and (free choice) that has been adopted by (Al Mufawidha).
We shall elaborate more about this in the following chapters of this research.
In relation to the second inevitability, the Holy Quran clearly approves the doctrine of Allah the Sublime’s sovereignty of will over the universe, and His permanent and continuous control over it.
The Sublime says:
[The Jews said: Allah’s hand is fettered, be their hands fettered and they be cursed for what they uttered! Nay, Allah’s hands are widely outstretched, He spends (of his bounty) as He wills] Al Maidah. V. 64.
The Sublime also says:
[Allah abrogates whatever He wills and keeps confirmed whatever He wills, and with Him is the preserved Book]. Ar-Rád v. 39.
This doctrine, which the Holy Quran approves, does not connote suspending inevitability and casualty dogma, in addition to all the regulations and reasonable laws resulting from casualty dogma.
We find in the Holy Quran many verses other than those mentioned above, that confirm clearly and accurately the casualty doctrine.
Through the sequence of Islamic history, the progeny (A.S.) confronted an ideological dogmatic digression by some Islamic sects in their misunderstanding of the movement of history and the universe. This digression is represented by their adoption of determinism and inevitability as influential doctrines in man’s history and behavior, applying at the same time the doctrine of inevitability on the movement of the universe. The ruler’s of the (Aumawey) and (Abbasy) dynasties’ trends of thinking had a great influence on the sects believing in both doctrines, accidentally the progeny of Muhammad (A.S.) lived contemporaneously with both those dynasties.
The Progeny of Muhammad (A.S.) adopted a strong position against both trends expressing their opinion about man’s free will and choice without suspending the role of Allah the Sublime’s will in affecting man’s life; a fact that the Progeny (A.S.) described as being (A case inbetween two concerns).
It has been narrated that (Al Fadhl bin Sahl) asked Imam (Al Redha) (A.S.) at the presence of (Al Máamoon) the Abbasi Caliph saying:
- O, Abal Hassan! Are the people compelled in their behaviour?
Al-Redha (A.S.) said: (Allah is too just to compel his creatures in their deeds, then to torment them for what they did?
(Al Fadhl) then said: Then they are completely free, are not they?
Imam (Al Redha) (A.S.) said: (Allah is too wise to neglect man leaving him to his own devices.)([1])
Al Sadouqu relates of (Mufdhel bin Ommar) from Abi Abdullah(A.S.) saying:
(Neither determinism nor authorization rather a case inbetween two concerns.)([2])
The Progeny (A.S.) expressed their opinion about the second inevitability; Muhammad bin Muslim relates from (Abu Abdullah Al Sadique) (A.S.) saying:
(Allah never has chosen a prophet unless He made sure that the prophet possesses three characteristics: admitting his submission to Allah; never accepting any counterpart to Allah, and approving that Allah brings forward or delays whatever He chooses).([3])
The progeny (A.S.) simultaneously rejected and negated both inevitabilities by adopting the doctrine of (A case inbetween two concerns.), further, their refutation of the universal inevitability that was expressed in the dogma of (Al Bedáa) was well known.
Whatever the case might be, we – by the permission of Allah - shall get indulged elaborately through this research in the light of the Holy Quran if Allah the Sublime wishes.
The first inevitability pertains to man’s individual behaviour and the history of nations and human communities.
Inevitability theories tackle this field and that, or pertains to individual behaviour one time, and to man’s history another.
These theories sometimes adopt the belief in Allah as a base and a resource for inevitability; theories as such are the Divine inevitability theories.
In other cases these theories adopt other basic resources to explain inevitability in the individual behaviour and the movement of history; such theories might be called (Material Necessity Theories). Theories that rely on inevitability as a foundation to understand man’s behaviour, history, thought and development are old and deep rooted in the history of human culture.
Many elements (namely religious, philosophical and political elements) commingle to shape these theories; it will be very difficult to understand these theories within the framework of science and thought exclusively; political and religious factors that have participated in forming the philosophical formula of these theories must be taken into consideration too.
To the religious, the theories of inevitability often pertains to the individual behaviour of man heading to negate his will in his deeds and behaviour, viz. man has no role in his deeds and no sovereignty over them.
This theory is well known by the name of (determinism). The most famous Islamic sect that adheres to determinism is (Al Ashairah) whose founder and leader was (Abul Al Hassan bin Ismaeel AL Asháary) who died in the year 330 Hejrah.
This doctrine does not negate man’s will and potency directly, rather it believes that man’s action is not begotten by his own will and potency, rather it is created by Allah the Sublime.
Man has no role in begetting and innovating any deed; his role is only limited to gain the deed, never to invent it. (Al Shaikh Al Asháary) thus tries to join together two fundamental origins of religion namely; monotheism (Al Tawheed) and Justice (Al Adl).
In the first place, he believes that Allah the Sublime creates all man’s deeds, and man has no role in begetting, innovating or inventing them, for Allah the Sublime says:
[But Allah is the One who has created you and the material from which you make your Gods]([4]) revised by translator. A Saffat v. 96.
Thus, mankind has no role in begetting or innovating their deeds, for this is related to Allah the Sublime, He is the Creator of deeds and things and creatures. This according to (Al Shaikh Al Asháary) is the connotation of (Monotheism doctrine).
Actually, this man believes in the doctrine of casualty, never negating its origin, but he also believes that Allah the Sublime is the direct cause for all causes which does not mean that He begets something which will be the cause for other things, replacing only one cause for the many causes that all creatures demand.
In the second place he thinks that trusting the role of man’s will and potency in begetting any deed is a kind of polytheism, which the following gracious verse completely negates:
[But Allah is the One who has created you and the material from which you make your gods] As Saffat v. 96.
What we have mentioned above is the first origin to which (Al Shaikh Al Asháary) was committed; his second origin is Gain (Al Kasb) to which he was committed for fear of turning to determinism which might retard the doctrine of reward and punishment, hence man will no more be responsible for his deeds which will result into denying Allah the Sublime’s quality of Justice.([5])
For, assuming that man has no role in his deeds neither sovereignty over them will lead to cripple the doctrine of reward and punishment, for it is unfair to punish a man for committing an act that he had no role and authority whatsoever in begetting it.
(Al Ashaáirah) differed in explaining the word (Al Kasb); the best one among their theorists who tried to explain this word was the famous (Abu Bakr Al Baqulany).
His opinion about (Al Kasb) in short was:
Every deed has two aspects: the aspect of begetting, and the aspect of particularity and title which Allah the Sublime made a criterion for reward and punishment.
These are two diverse aspects, each of which is definitely attributed to.
The first aspect is begetting which belongs to Allah the Sublime, attributing this aspect to anything other that Him is a kind of polytheism.
The second aspect is the title that brings man reward and punishment; (Prayer) for instance, (fasting) (pilgrimage) (Backbiting) and (lying)… etc.
The way the first aspect should not be attributed to man, the second one too should not be attributed to Allah the Sublime, man’s will and potency is only related to the second aspect – never to the first – and it is the criterion for reward and punishment.
Thus, this school – as its proponents believe – conjoins both origins (Monotheism) and (Justice) i.e. deserving reward and punishment.
Hence each deed has two directions – never one -; these two directions belong to two different potencies, that of Allah the Sublime, and that of man. No Problem about this, for diversity of directions justifies the multiplication of potencies to which a deed pertains.
We may not attain a clear sight of (Al Kasb), for these titles which man gains are themselves begotten – and (Al Ashaáirah) attributes begetting a deed to Allah the Sublime, i.e.: praying, pilgrimage means begetting these acts and gestures which when joined together get the title of prayer and pilgrimage. Other deeds like (fasting) which is achieved by not eating or drinking can actually be attained by forsaking these things that break fasting, (forsaking) is something that man does as much as the rest of the acts done by the senses.
(Al Sheikh Al Baqulany) believes that man’s intention (Al Niah) is the only thing that determines his responsibility for what he does. He claims that a certain act (deed) differs from one intention to another; killing if intended for aggression is a crime, but the same act with the intention (Niah) of legal punishment (Quasas and Had) is a legislative duty, for which Allah the Sublime rewards man. The act itself is from Allah, but the intention of man which puts the act in a certain direction comes from man, thus reward and punishment do not concern the act itself, they rather concern man’s intention of killing.
We say, if this speech happens to be true, then intention itself is an act of the senses, and there is no difference between one deed and another; I do not know really why should we attribute the intention to man and not the deed itself? An act is an act whether it is done by the senses or by other faculties of man; and if we accept attributing the intention to man himself, we – on the same criterion and justification – ought to attribute to him every deed he commits whether it was done by means of his senses (prayer and pilgrimage) or by his inner faculties (like forsaking food and drinks in the intention of fasting).
Whatever the case might be we do not mean to simplify discussing a theological theory that engaged many Islamic scholastics exerting a lot of time and effort in this way. We only mean to get a sight of this subject. If the reader demands elaboration about it we refer him to theological encyclopedias like (Sharh Al Maquasid) (Altaftazani), and (Sharh Al Mawaquif) by (Al Jurjany).
When we speak about the (Material Theories)- we do not mean those theories which deny faith in Allah the Sublime -, rather we mean the theories that contradict the theory of (Divine Inevitability) adopted by (Al Asháirah), attributing every act and deed in the individual’s lives and movement of history to Allah the Sublime. These theories attribute the inevitability which governs the behaviour of individuals and communities to resources other that Allah the Sublime. Some of the advocates of this theory in the west are (Montesquieu) in his book (The Essence of laws), (Spiengler) in his book (The Decline of the Western Civilization) and (Durkheim) the famous French sociologist who believes that the social life is determined separately from the individual’s will and desires.
Social relations and affairs like manners, knowledge’s, social culture, ease (yusr) and distress (Ausur) are characterized by three inseparable qualities namely: (being external), (being inevitable), (being general). Social affairs by all their particularities are produced by external factors, they never rise from inside the individuals, neither from their will or desires, an individual is obliged to fall under the pressures of social life. Social life as well falls under its own factors of external compulsion, and this is the nature of the relation between causes and results in the movement of history.
The movement of society is (inevitable) so that (results) can never stay behind their (causes). If we may have a look through the reasons and causes of events, we would no doubt have been able to forecast them, this is (being inevitable).
The third quality (being general). Every thing that takes place at a certain time and a certain place may possibly take place any other time at any other place under the same conditions and causes.
One of the most famous contemporary material inevitabilities is the theory of (Karl Marx) – (Fredrick Ingles) which tries to legislate laws for the movement of history arranging them into five stages through the factor of (the struggle of classes) between the exploiting class and the exploited one.
But this theory relapsed at the dawn of its emergence at the stage of appliance; reality proved opposite to it, it became a mere theoretical study today.
Whatever the way these material inevitabilities follow to interpret history, some of them proved righteous and others proved wrong, regardless of their scrupulous details.
Righteousness lies in the fact that these theories dedicate history to some scientific laws, causes, and reasons that dictate its movement.
A historical event – similar to any other phenomenon in the universe - is conditioned to its causes and reasons, therefore casualty law governs historical events the way it governs the physical, chemical, mechanical phenomena, accurately reigning over all their familiar reasonable essentials like, inevitability, originality and so on.
This is righteousness, which can never be suspected, except in the Marxist theory, which fundamentally rejects casualty law replacing it with Dialectical Materialism, which has been extracted from (Hegel).
The wrong aspect of these theories lies in negating man and his independent decision that makes history, considering him a piece of wood floating on the ever flowing waves of history; determining only one destiny for history and man, a destiny that never multiplies or shifts. Certainly, this is wrong, for man (the individual, society, history) is not conditioned to one cause as a choice, rather he is usually conditioned to fall on a cross way; selecting the right way is related to his will, consciousness, culture and to his own decision to a great extent; so if ever he follows one of these ways according to his own will, decision and opinion he would find no way to get rid of compulsory impacts dictated on him by casualty law. Let us state two examples for this, the first concerns the individual; and the other pertains to society.
In regard to the example of the individual; if ever he moves, activates himself, and learns he will see his way in life; on the other hand, if ever he idles residing to ignorance and laziness he will remain minor, weak, worthless and powerless in life.
Both results are conclusive and inevitable if ever man chooses the right way to attain them. But it does not mean that man faces a one-dimensional inevitable (destiny and fate) in his life.
In the example of society, a society that resists, makes sacrifices, endures the agony of confrontation and the severity of resistance, it will definitely come safe out of oppression, political suppression and terrorism.
A society that surrenders and does not resist is doomed to the worst kind of political suppression and terrorism. Both are inevitable laws that condition the lives of nations. But society in its political life stands at a crossway, if it chooses the first way the result will be inevitable, and if it chooses the second way the result two would be inevitable. Selecting this way or that falls under man’s will and option, never under the inevitable system of things. Within the course of this research we shall come back to tackle this point again.
Most negative results that are brought about by belief in these inevitabilities cripple man’s role and movement in history suspending his role in determining his destiny. If man believes that his movement and acts are subject to a chain of inevitable factors foreign to his will and option, he will start feeling that he is a useless element who has no role in making his destiny and the destiny of his society; with such a belief and satisfaction man can never be a resource for movement and change in his individual and social life. Therefore, faith in inevitability (historical or individual) has all the way through the history of Islam been adopted by oppressive regimes. Such a belief mobilizes people to political surrender taming them to accept injustice.
Benu Aumyah used to adopt the theory of (determinism); (Abu Hilal Al Askary) says: (Muawiah) was the first to claim that Allah dictates all deeds on mankind;([6]) and when Abdullah bin Ommar objected to Muawiah’s assignment of his son (Yazeed) as a successor to govern after him; Muawiah answered him (I warn you, do not segregate the Muslims, disintegrating their unity, spelling their blood. (Yazeed’s) assignment has been predestined by fate, people have no choice about it).([7])
Muawiah adopted the same logic when (Aiyshah) objected to assigning (Yazeed) as a successor to caliphate; he told her: (Yazeed’s assignment has been predestined by fate, people have no choice about it).([8])
Some scholars took the initiative to confront that trend of determinism, which Benu Aumyah adhered to, the most prominent of them were (Mábed Al Jahny) in Iraq and (Ghaylan Al Damashquy) in Sham; they advocated free choice and free will.
(Mábed) with his ally (Ibn Al Ashaath) rebelled against (Beni Aumyah), thus (Al Hajaj) killd him. (Ghaylan) was summoned by (Husham bin Abdul Malik) the Aumayah Caliph to Damascus to be interrogated; he then was condemned and nailed on the cross after having his hands and feet cut.
Apparently (Al Hassan Al Bassry) used to adhere to this opinion too, i.e. free choice.
Al Muquriezy says: (Attaá bin Yessar) and (Mabed Al Jahny) came to (Al Hassan Al Bassry) and told him:
Those Aumyah rulers are shedding blood claiming that Allah has predestined their deeds. Al Hassan said:
Foes of Allah are lying. (He was condemned for this statement)([9]). Al Hassan AL Bassry used to propagate openly his opinions that oppose the government of Beni Aumyah; then some people threatened him by the Caliph, thus he kept quiet.
Ibn Sáad in his (Al Tabaquat) relates from (Ayub) saying: (I challenged Al Hassan Al Bassry to discuss fate and destiny more than once, then I threatened him by the caliph. He said: I shall never say anything anymore.([10])
(Benou Al Abbas) did not deviate from following (Benou Aumyah)’s line, they too adhered to Al Ashairah’s approach to destiny; except (Al Mamoon) and (Al Mutasem) who chose to adopt (Al Mutazilah)’s approach of free choice and authorization.
When (Al Mutawkil) seized reign he adopted Al Ashairah’s faith in determinism again, he even used to punish people who do not follow this ideology; his successors too were committed to his line.
Two contradictory trends pertaining to man’s individual behaviour dominate the Islamic history:
Determinism and Authorization.
The first of which is adopted by (Al Asháirah), the second by (Al Mutazilah).
Al Mutazilah’s approach of authorization was: Allah the Sublime authorized man to choose whatever he likes, thus man is totally independent in what he does.
This belief completely contradicts the first one.
If the philosophical and ideological justification of the first doctrine was meant to maintain the origin of (monotheism) thus attributing all things and deeds in this universe to Allah the Sublime (But Allah is the one who has created you and the material of which you make your gods).
As Saffat v. 96; the ideological justification for this doctrine (the second) was meant to deem Allah the Sublime far above compelling man to do things he can not do, meanwhile Allah the Sublime’s destiny was paradoxical to what He commands or prohibits; it was meant to deem Allah the Sublime far above creating wrong doings, wicked deeds, heathenism, polytheism injustice, aggression in man’s behaviour.
Abdul Khader Al Baghdady in his book (Al Farqu Bain Al-Firaqu) demonstrates the dogmas of (Al Mutazilah):
(Some of their dogmas claim that Allah the Sublime is not the Creator of people’s gains (deeds); neither of the acts of animals; they claim that people themselves determine their deeds, and Allah the Sublime has no role or hand neither in their deeds nor in the acts of animals).([11])
Al Sayied Al Sharif AL Radhy in his book (Sharh Al Mwaqif) said: (Al Mutazilah deduced that many things are attributed to one origin and that is; but for man’s independence to act the way he chooses, assignment (commands) and punishment (which are dictated by the legislations of Allah) would have been suspended, thus there will be no meaning in praising or blaming anybody).
Zuhdi Jar Allah about (Al Mutazilah) relates:
(They have agreed that man is the creator and originator of his deeds, and that Allah the Sublime has no role or hand in man’s deeds (that are gained).)([12])
The late Sadrul Mutálihien says: (Some groups such as Al Mutazilah and the like advocated that Allah the Sublime has created mankind enabling people to act; authorizing them to act according to their free choice, thus they are independent to do these deeds according to their own will and potency.
Further they said: Allah wanted people to obey and believe in Him abhorring their disbelief and disobedience. Also they said: The case being thus, some matters become clear:
First: the benefit of commands and prohibitions, and the benefit of promises and threats.
Second: Deserving reward and punishment.
Third: Deeming Allah the Sublime far above ugly and wicked deeds, far above various kinds of atheism, disobediences and bad deeds).([13])
Al Shahristany in his book (Al Milal wal Nihal) thinks that (Al Mutazila tend to consider people as creators and innovators of their deeds, and that Allah the Sublime has no hand or role in their deeds (which they have gained).([14])
Al Mutazilah use to advocate authorization (free choice) independence of man in his deeds just to escape from the mistake that (Al Asháirah) have committed by claiming that man deserves Allah the Sublime’s punishment for a sin or a crime he made in spite of himself; further they wanted to escape from Al Asháirah’s claim that Allah the Sublime commands man to do things over his power opposite to what destiny and fate dictate. In order to deem Allah the Sublime far above this and that (Be He Exalted and raised far above all that) they resorted to advocate authorization and the belief that Allah the Sublime has authorized man to handle all his affairs, bestowing on him absolute potency to be independent in all his deeds and behaviour, thus entrapping themselves in something worse than the mistake that (Al Sháirah) made, namely (polytheism), isolating man’s deeds and acts totally from Allah the Sublime’s will, permission, wish and innovation, is equal to polytheism, if not itself polytheism.
There is a clear difference between the theory of Divine authorization and man’s independence to act apart from Allah the Sublime’s will, permission and wish; and between the doctrine of free choice.
This will be thoroughly explained later in this research.
([1]) Behar Al Anwar: 5: 56/120.
([2]) Al Kafi: Al-Tawheed: 8/362.
([3]) Al Kafi 1: 3/147 Al Bedaá – Ketab Al Tawheed.
([4]) This gracious verse has nothing to do with what they claim for it concerns the conversation that took place between Ibrahiem (A.S.) and the Polytheists among his people; before it he told them in denouncement [Do you worship things that you have carved by your own hands?]
([5]) Though they do not frankly admit this.
([6]) AL Awail. Abu Hilal Al Askry 2: 125.
([7]) (Imamah and Syasah) Ibn Qutaibah : 210 – Bairut 1990.
([8]) Ibid.
([9]) Al Kutat. Al muquriezy 2: 356.
([10]) Tabaquat Ibn Sáad 7: 167. pb. Bairut.
([11]) (Al Farqu Bain Al Firaq) pub 1994 Bairut.
([12]) Al Mutazilah: 99. Same meaning in (Al Milal Wal Nihal) 1: 91.
([13]) Al Assfar 6: 369 – 370.
([14]) Al Milal wal Niha. Al Shahrestany 1: 91.
