The principle of the Progeny of Muhammad(A.S.)

(A case inbetween two concerns)

 

We do not need so much thinking and mediation to conclude that the Quranic principle about this sensitive and dangerous matter in man’s life is neither the first principle nor the second; Quranic verses we have already surveyed are enough evidence to prove this fact.

Hence, the principle AL Quran chooses is a third one midway between both.

This third principle is the one chosen by the Progeny(A.S.) who attributed it to the Holy Book later on to be known as (A case inbetween two concerns) i.e. midway between both doctrines.

True, it is a third principle inbetween two fanatic conflicting dogmas that have reigned over for a certain era during Islamic history of reason. The progeny of Muhammad (A.S.) are the pioneer advocates to this Quranic principle, being the first to demonstrate it to people.

“Interpretation of the Principle (a case inbetween two concern)”

Strange enough, this midway interpretation of AlQuran principle pertaining to man’s needs and behavior, though clear, has remained concealed during the first ages of Islam, hidden from the reasonable debate taking place then among Islamic scholars respectively about AL Quran attitude towards this matter.

And even though the Progeny (A.S.) have been propagating this principle so that it became one of their well know teachings, yet, it remained unknown in the reasonable debate taking place then (during the Abbasi reign and afterwards), which actually stimulates questions. How did the scholars (who do not follow the school of the Progeny(A.S.)), become two parties, each committed to one of these two doctrines, although alQuran frankly and clearly has rejected both?

The reason which diverged the scholars attention from (A case in between two concerns)

The reason for that – as it were – was that (Al Mutazilah) by means of emphasizing man’s independence of choice and will meant to get ride of putting the responsibility of the injustice committed by mankind on behalf of Allah the Sublime, deeming Him far above any injustice made by man.

This was the reason that made (Al Mutazilah) differ with (Al Asháirah), thus attributing the deed to man himself never attributing it to Allah the Sublime, for the same reason they emphasized man’s independence of choice denying that Allah the Sublime possesses any will or choice or authority over man’s choice and deed, but He the Sublime created man bestowing on him the talents which enable him to make a choice, leaving him thereafter to his own option and will.

Man’s independence of choice does not contradict creation and innovation for (according to this theory), the dispensable only needs the Indispensable at the stage of occurrence exclusively; if ever it takes place it will become independent from the Indispensable, thus it will be independent in its deed and free choice from Allah the Sublime, (AlMutazilah) think that if ever we deprive man of his freedom of choice, making his choice and will as an extension to Allah’s, giving – at the same time – Allah the Sublime a reign over man’s deed and free choice, we shall face the same problem which previously faced (Al Ashairah), namely attributing injustice and villainies to Allah the Sublime.

On the other hand, when man becomes completely independent in his will and deed from Allah the Sublime, none of his deeds will be attributed to Him the Sublime.

Thus (Al Mutazilah) try to maintain the (Devine Justice), but – Knowing it or not – they confiscate thus Allah the Sublime’s permanent reign and his continuous will over mankind, which is a sensitive point that touches Monotheism itself.

If Alasháirah’s principle touches Allah’s Justice the Mutazilah’s principle clearly and frankly touches Monotheism of Allah; and through the previous Quranic texts we have surveyed we found that its emphasis over Allah’s permanent reign on mankind and its denied of man’s independence in affairs is by no means less than its emphasis on man’s free choice.

This complex – as it were – was the reason that made Muslim scholars from schools other than the progeny’s (A.S.) refuge to adopt one of both perils; without such an explanation we shall not find enough reason for people’s ignorance of all the Quranic verses we have listed previously with all their forthright significance that rejects determinism and authorization and man’s independence of will and deed.

“Free Choice is Not Equal to Independence”

Before moving to tackle the style by means of which the scholars of the Progeny’s doctrine could avoid attributing injustice to Allah the Sublime never – at the same time – disregarding His domination and continuous influence on man’s deed and free choice, we must attract the reader’s attention to the fact that (free choice is not equal to independence).

The reason that made the scholars of schools other than the progeny’s dismiss the principle of (a case inbetween two concerns) was not their belief that free choice means independence, and that the principle of (a case inbetween two concerns) confiscates man’s independence and free choice leading once again to the dogma of inevitability which we tried to got rid of its consequences; we say that such a doubt does not deserve prolonged discussion, for free choice does not necessitate that potency should be inclined to another choice or deed, possibly enough, one deed may fall under the free choice of two parties who maintain separately their own free choices and deeds, thus none of which can keep a choice and a deed but for the choice and the deed of the other; or the choice and deed of the second may become conditioned to the choice and deed of the first (and never vice-versa). Therefore, we do not need to embark longer at this point so as to prove that free choice does not mean independence. Back to the origin of the matter.

The interpretation given by the progeny’s school scholars to the principle of (A case inbetween two concerns

Let us try now to understand how did the scholars of the progeny’s school get rid of this problem taking into their consideration what (Al Quran) frankly states of Allah’s domination and sovereignty over the choice and deed of mankind and of deeming Allah the Sublime far above every evil and injustice; and we have seen before that (Al Ashairah) adopted the first principle neglecting the second; (Al Mutazilah) on the other hand adopted the second neglecting the first.

Philosophical theorization of man’s relation to Allah The Sublime in respect to (man’s origination and continuation)

Previously, we spoke of the Quranic principle of man’s relation with Allah, the continuation of this connection and man’s permanent need and wanting (at the stage of origination and in his continuation) to Allah; and we have seen that (Al Quran) removes every suspicion, proving absolutely that man remains wanting Allah the Sublime in all his affairs, needs and at all stages; Allah’s sovereignty, domination, will and reign over man’s choice and deed never cease (not even for a single moment). Now, we shall elaborate on the philosophical theorization of this matter.

The continuous need of every effect to its cause in both stages (origination and continuation):

(Al Mufawidah) – who believe that man is authorized and owns a free choice – establish their opinion about man’s independence from Allah the Sublime in his free choice and deed on the philosophical notion that (the effect) dispenses with (the cause) at the stage of continuation, it only needs (the cause) when it is originated.

Some theologists adhere to this opinion which relies on some non-scientific observations like the continuation of movement in a moving body after separating the dynamic energy from it; the heat – as another example – is preserved in a certain body that has absorbed it from a resource even after the removal of it.

The building continues to stand after the departure of the mason; and so on and so forth.

Al Shaikh (Ibn Siena) in his (Isharat) refers to this opinion (They may say; if something is originated, the need for its maker will be over, and even if the maker is dismissed the effect may remain, the way we see a building standing without the presence of its mason; to the degree that some of them would not hesitate to say: If it may be possible that the Sublime Creator to create and originate it, then it became a maker itself; and if it was made and brought into existence from nothingness, how should it move from existence into nothingness (so it might require a maker again?)([1])

According to this philosophical theorization (Al Mufawdhah) claim that man gains his independence from Allah the Sublime after being created by Him, therefore he is totally independent in his deed and free choice.

This is a worthless idea that cannot stand to the accurate reasonable proofs which state that (effect) requires the (cause) not only during the making; rather it needs it during the making and continuation all along, and if ever the (cause) vanishes the (effect) will vanish completely, for the (effect) only exists by means of the (cause), being removed, the (effect) will disappear, the (effect) has no independent existence other that that is bestowed on it by the (cause) (Which is the essence of the relation between cause and effect), whenever this relation comes to an end, the cause would no more bestow existence on effect, which – in turn – will vanish naturally.

The conclusions we derive from the first simple look signify that the (effect) maintains its existence even though the (cause) is removed and dismissed. But these are only naive primitive observations that are not connected to (cause) and (effect) and (casualty law).

We shall not embark longer on this matter; anybody who seeks elaboration is advised to study philosophical researches that deal with this matter from a reasonable point of view.

 

Scholastic Approach to the Progeny’s (A.S.) Interpretation or a (Case Inbetween Two Concerns)

In the light of what have been said, there is no doubt anymore that the theory of authorization which Al-Mutazilah adopted has been Quranicly and reasonably nullified.

Now what is the way to demonstrate the theory of (a case inbetween two concerns) which denies inevitability in mans behaviour; meanwhile it denies his independence of decision and full authority over his affairs?

Denying man’s independence and mastery over his decisions will lead us – after some accurate scrutiny – to adhere to the idea of attributing injustice and other wicked deeds to Allah the Sublime; matter which AL Mutazilah tried seriously to avoid.

It is not difficult for those scholars to admit that the principle of (a case inbetween two concerns) is correct, (especially that Al Quran affirmed it); rather, what is difficult for them is to search through this Quranic theory advocated by the Progeny (A.S.) for a way that saves them from the problematic attribution of injustice to Allah the Sublime, the way they are saved from falling under the accusation of polytheism.

This is what those scholars tried to conclude from the texts related by the Progeny of Muhammad (A.S.) which interpreted, stated, and established this theory.

We have a number of approaches at hand, we shall choose the clearest and most famous from them; hereafter is an elaboration on this approach:

Demonstration and Interpretation of the theory (a case inbetween two concerns)

The well-known interpretation, which the progeny’s doctrine scholars adopt, relies on the origin we have already explained. It advocates that existence as a whole is continuously and successively connected with Allah the Sublime; man too in this universe is connected with Allah the Sublime by his need and wanting to Him; furthermore, man is connected with Allah by this (flow of existence) which He the Sublime has bestowed on him; a flow that became the cause for his existence in this world. This flow is continuous and successive, and if ever it ceases – even for one moment – man and his property will come to an end (part of this property of course is his will and deed).

But for this incessant flow, man will never be, neither does, nor will anything; but man himself is the one who wills and chooses; if not, Allah would not have imposed a law on him. Yes, it is true that if Allah blocks this flow of existence, potency, determination, reason, consciousness, insight, will, choice; man will not be able to choose or do anything; but after all he is the one who chooses and does things, so it is improper to attribute his deeds to somebody else; he himself is responsible for them.

[And had Allah willed, He would have taken away (by thunder and lightening) their faculties of hearing and seeing] AL Baquarah v. 20.

[And if Allah had willed they would not have done so.] Al Anám v. 137.

Suppose that the engineer in charge of the center that produces electric energy turned on electric current for a house keeping it running so the household will make use of it; now if the house owner misused it, or committed suicide, or killed or harmed somebody by means of it; such an act will be attributed to him exclusively (even though he would not have been able to do none of these deeds if ever the engineer in charge of the electric energy center would have turned off the current), yet the house owner remains the only one to whom the act is attributed, and he himself will be responsible for it. If ever the house owner commits suicide, nobody will say that “the engineer in charge has killed the house owner”, thus the engineer in charge of the center will not be held responsible for the other’s suicide.

Perhaps the best and most scientifically accurate example in this respect is the one given by the late Ayatollah Aludma Authority Syaied Al Khouáy.

The example which the Authority Scholar Sayied Al Khouay employed to declare the matter

Suppose that somebody’s hand has been paralyzed, so he can not move it himself; the physician succeeded in moving it temporarily by electric power, so that the man could move it himself whenever the doctor connects electricity wire to it; in case the wire is disconnected the man would not be able to move it. Now, if the doctor connects the wire – let us say for the sake of experiment – and the man started to move his hand doing his things by it; the doctor every now and then supplies him with the necessary power he needs; no doubt then that the man’s movement of his hand in this case is (a case inbetween two concerns), for it can not be attributed to him alone because he needs somebody to pass the power to his hand; and it can not be attributed the physician either, for the man – by his own will – has moved his hand; he – as a doer – was not obliged to act, he has acted willingly, yet he has not been authorized to act independently by all means of the word, somebody else must support him. All acts produced by willing doers fall under this jargon.

The act is man’s product; man – as a servant of Allah – can only will by Allah’s will; all Quranic verses refer to this purpose; they deny determinism - which most (Sunnies) advocate-, for they (the verses concerned) affirm man’s free choice. These verses too deny absolute authorization – which some sects advocate- proving the opposite by attributing the act to Allah.

(Later on – if Allah the Sublime wishes – we shall tackle this matter elaborately, invalidating both opinions by means of the verses concerned).

The matter we have already stated is driver from the instructions of the progeny(A.S.).([2])

“Al Shaikh Al Mufeed’s Opinion”

The late Al Shaikh Al Mufeed Abi Abdullah Muhammad bin Muhammad bin Al Newman’s opinion agrees with this approach in explaining (a case inbetween two concerns).

We might summarize his opinion into two fundamental points that lay at the core of the (a case inbetween two concerns) namely:

1. Repudiating the opinion of attributing man’s deeds to Allah

First point: All people’s deeds are attributed to them themselves and never they are Allah’s creation.

This is the point of disagreement between the school of the progeny of Muhammad (A.S.) and the school of determinism.

Members of the school of determinism used to believe that all men’s deeds are in fact Allah the Sublime’s acts that are created for man, he is a mere container for these deeds and nothing more; they used to emphasize this dogma so as to maintain the origin of (monotheism) repudiating the presence of several resources for things and deeds in the universe. This school does not repudiate the origin of casualty directly, but they consider Allah the Sublime as the only cause in the universe, thus everything and deed is attributed directly to Him, the late AL Mufeed violently confronts this opinion answering it ruthlessly.

Al Shaikh AL Mufeed’s citation of the text narrated by the Progeny of Muhammad to invalidate the approach that attributes all acts to Allah

It has been narrated that abu Al Hassan the third (Imam Al Hadi) (A.S.) had been asked about man’s deeds, whether they are created by Allah the Sublime? He (A.S.) said: “If He was the creator of these acts He would not have renounced them; for He said in His book:

“Allah and His messenger renounce the polytheists” translator. Al Taubah v. 3.

Allah by this verse did not mean to renounce creating them, rather He renounced their polytheism and ugly deeds.”

(Abu Hanifah) asked (Abu Al Hassan Musa bin Jaffar (A.S.) ) about the source of man’s deeds?

Abu Al Hassan (A.S.) said “Man’s deeds never miss three possibilities: (either they are Allah the Sublime’s creation, or they are Allah’s and man’s creation together, or they are man’s creation).([3]) If they were exclusively from Allah the Sublime; He will deserve praise for their good part and reproach for their bad (and praise or reproach will be exclusively dedicated for Him).

And if they were from Allah and man together, both will deserve praise and reproach.

If both possibilities were dismissed, these deeds no doubt will be people’s acts, if Allah punished them for their sins – it is up to Him – and if He forgives them it will be His choice, for He is the source of forgiveness and piety.

Similar to this, we have a long list:

Sl Shaikh AL Mufeed’s citation of Al Quran to prove the invalidity of the theory that attributes man’s deeds to Allah

Al Shaikh Al Mufeed deduces that Quranic verses repudiate the idea of attributing men’s deeds to Allah.

The late Shaikh says:

“The book of Allah is more authenticated than narration and speeches (Hadieth), people measure their validity to it, and whatever it approves will be exclusively correct.”

Allah the Sublime said:

[Allah is the One who gives the best perfection to all of His creations; He first created Adam from clay.] As Sajdah v. 7.

(He told us that whatever creation He has made, is good and beautiful (never bad and ugly), so if the ugly deeds and things were His creation, He would not have told us that they are beautiful. This evidence which Allah the Sublime provides disproves and invalidates the evidence of those who claim that Allah has created ugly things).

The late Sayyed Hibatuldeen Al Shahrestany comments on Al Shaikh AL Mufeed’s speech saying:

This verse is not the only evidence that authenticates attributing peoples deed’s to themselves; rather, every other verse that deems Allah far above creating wicked deeds and wrong doings asserts it. ([4])

Discussing the Inference They Deduce from Quranic Verses to Validate Their Theory of Attributing Man’s Deeds to Allah

Al Shaikh Al Mufeed wide opens the door to discuss the evidence of those who refuge to the Quran anticipating to authenticate their theory that attributes people’s deeds to Allah the Sublime.

One of their conclusions relies on the verse:

[And whomever Allah wills to guide, He will expand his breast for Islam, and whomever He wills to leave in his error, He makes his breast closed and narrow.] Revised by translator. AL Anám v. 125.

From which they inferred that Allah the Sublime deludes man. The other verse they cite is:

[And if your Creator and Nurturer had willed, verily all those who are on the earth would have believed] Yunus v. 99.

Inferring from it that we may attribute non-believer’s delusion to Allah the Sublime, for if he willed, all of them would have believed.

AL Shaikh Al Mufeed elaborately discussed these evidences; here are examples of his discussions:

The late Shaikh says:

(Concerning the evidence they deduce from the verse:

[And whomever Allah wills to guide, He will expands his breast for Islam, and whomever He wills to leave in his error, He makes his breast closed and narrow] Al Anám v. 125;

They can not use it as a pretext to prove their theory, for its meaning is (That whom Allah the Sublime means to reward in response to his obedience, He will expand his breast for Islam by means of the graces He bestows on Him, which may enable him to continue fulfilling his acts of obedience, guidance here means rewards. 3.

Allah the Sublime, relating about the people of paradise said:

[All thanks giving and adoration (for the worshipers) is due to Allah who had guided us to this] AL Araf. V. 43.

Guided here means (rewarded us), in the following verse delusion (Al Dhalal) means torment:

[Verily, the sinners will be in delusion and fire.] Revised by translator Al Quamar v. 47.

Thus Allah employed the word (delusion) meaning (torment) and (guidance) meaning (reward), the original usage for such terminology is the (delusion) means (oblivion) and (Guidance) means (survival and safety).

Allah the Sublime mouth piecing the Arabs said:

[And the disbelievers said: Is it possible to regain life after we died and became lost in the earth of our graves?] Revised by translator As Sajdah v. 10.

The phrase (lost in the earth) means if we perished.

The meaning of the verse:

[And whomever Allah wills to guide] Al Anám v. 125

is what we have already stated; as well as the meaning of (delude) in the phrase that follows the verse mentioned above. The meaning of the verse (He makes his breast closed and narrow) is that Allah will deprive him from success as a punishment for his disobedience, and He will block away His grace from him as an answer for his wrongdoing, making the breast wide open (which is parallel to success) is the reward for obedience; making it closed and narrow (added to it, prevention of success), is the punishment for disobedience.

There is no doubt about the meaning of this verse which may support the pretext of those who claim that Allah the Sublime deludes people from faith and prevents them from becoming Muslims (i.e. He seeks disbelief and wants delusion).

Allah the Sublime says: (And if your Creator and Nurturer had willed, verily, all those who are on the earth would have believed] Yunus v. 99, meaning to tell of His potency declaring that if he wants to make them believe by force and compulsion, he is quite capable of it, but (He the Sublime) wanted them to believe willingly. The last phrase of the verse signifies the meaning we have mentioned.

[Can you (O, Messenger!) compel people against their wish to become believers?] Yunus v. 99.

Meaning that He can oblige them to believe, but He does not, although it would have been easy for Him.

All similar verses to which they cling in an attempt to confirm their theory have similar meanings and connotation that pertain to the things we have stated above.

The advocates of determinism may avoid a forthright claim that Allah wants to be disobeyed, He wants the people not to believe in Him, He wants His messengers to be killed, and his beloved to be damned; thus they refuge to say that he wants to see, find and meet whatever he had known in the way He had known (foreseen) it; meaning to show that disobediences are bad deeds which he forbids the people to commit.

This round about way to which the advocates of determinism refuge leads them to the trap from which they are trying to escape. For, if Allah finds the ugly and bad deeds – that which He had foreseen – are identical to His knowledge, and He Himself meant them to be so; this will signify that He wants these bad and ugly deeds i.e. He wanted to be bad and ugly Himself.

This is quite senseless, for why should they run from something to the same thing? And why should they avoid a meaning by refuting to something identical to it? How should they deal with the reasonable people? They behave similar to a man who says: I do not curse Zayed, rather? I curse Abi Amrou (and Abu Amrou is another name for Zayed). Or, similar to the Jews who sarcastically said:

(We do not disbelieve in Muhammad (S.A.), rather we disbelieve in Ahmad (which is another name for the prophet(S.A.)).

This is arrogance and ignorance from those who adhere to it; and malfunctioning and impotence from those who rely on it; end of AL Shaikh AL Mufeed’s discussion.

Repudiating the Idea of Man’s Independence to Act

The second point of what the late Al Shaikh AL Mufeed said asserts the repudiation of man’s independence of deed, he illustrates the saying of (a case inbetween two concerns) i.e. (Determinism and Authorization) in this way: ((Intermediate between both theses is this: Allah the Sublime enabled men to act and do, appointing certain limits for their deeds, by doing so, neither was He compelling them, nor authorizing them to act thereafter to prevent them from doing most of these acts by drawing a number of red lines which they should not cross.))([5])

“Examining the Texts”

When we read the texts narrated by the Progeny(A.S.) that fit within both, the current of the ideological struggle, and the argument taking place between both parties concerned in this struggle; we come across a vivid image that reflects the reality of struggle and of the Progeny’s (A.S.) attitude which is a far cry from the image that some theological studies reflect. The Progeny(A.S.) during the (Aumaway) and (Abbasy) reign went through a powerful ideological conflict about this matter.

It was not a mere ideological theological conflict, rather, the political factors, side by side with the intellectual factor interacted to form that theological ideological debate. Sometimes, the ruling regime formed an opponent party, other times; the political opposition to the ruling regime represented the opponent side. (Al Mutazilah) used to fall into the category of political opposition; or the political opposition itself would gain popular and political support from them.

Whatever the case might be, that was the deepest and most sensitive and dangerous ideological conflict that the Progeny(A.S.) went through; for the authorities frankly and openly adopted the doctrine of determinism, to the degree that (Ghaylan Al Damashqui) had been assassinated by the (Aumiah) caliph (Husham bin Abdulmilik) in that barbarous horrible style which the historians describe, his only crime was adherence to the doctrine of free choice and authorization.

Each of those doctrines left vast negative impact on the Islamic mentality as well as on the political condition of the Islamic world then.

The Progeny (A.S.) used to stand against this party or that now and them fighting on two contradictory fronts.

The First Front of the Intellectual Conflict

The first of these fronts is the official or semi official theological front which was openly committed to the principle of (Determinism), believing that the Devine will directly interferes in all man’s deeds, namely it was (Al Ashairah) front who used to repudiate the cause – effect relationship between things, dismissing any relation among things of the universe, and refusing to recognize any direct impact on things in the universe other than Allah the Sublime’s.

If a log floats on water (and a stone does not!), the reason for this does not lie in the log which necessitates floating, rather it is because Allah the Sublime wanted to make the log float and to prevent the stone from floating, thus it was customary to Him to dictate on things His will.

There is no law, or cause or reason in the universe other than Allah’s habit (which resembles the law), and His authority and will (which resemble the reason).

Man’s acts are part of the universe events, thus they are Allah the Sublime’s creation into which man has no role or authority.

This concept though apparently crude – represented the official concept of a wide stratum of Muslim scholars. Both (Aumiah) and (Abbasy) administration – except for a short while during the reign of the last dynasty – used to adhere to it, punishing whoever might violate it.

The Progeny of Muhammad (A.S.) found in this trend of thought an eminent danger threatening the Islamic mentality, Muslim’s political life, and their understanding of Al Quran and the example of the Prophet(S.A.) (Al Sunnah), for this concept cancels casualty law giving way to the motion that Allah the Sublime imposes on man duties and things beyond his potencies. It also gives way to the notion that man might be punished by Allah the Sublime for doing a thing that is beyond his free choice and potency, thus attributing injustice and oppression to Allah the Sublime. This concept turns man into a log floating in the current of history, denying him any power, act, or influence to decide his destiny.

Further, it authorizes the ruling authority to terrorize and oppress people, confiscate their rights, kill or torture them. Some of these negative impacts give enough reason to stand against this concept. Thus, the first confrontation within the conflict of thought, which the Progeny’s school went through, took place.

The Second Front in the Conflict of Thought

Opposite to this trend, (Al Mutazilah) emerged as a reflex to the (Ashairah) dogma. (Al Mutazilah) went to the extreme in understanding man and the universe – naturally as any other reflex may emerge; they believed that Allah the Sublime created the universe, rupturing thereafter all relations between Him and it; thus this universe runs within a static code of laws and regulations moving in isolation from Allah the Sublime’s will; exactly similar to an engineer who had thoroughly composed a factory, assigning thereafter some other engineers to run it, to go then to his own business – such a factory will keep on running within a code fixed systems even though the engineer who composed it is absent.

Thus (Al Mutazilah) tend to imagine Allah the Sublime’s relation with this universe as a relation that is conditioned to the stage of making; man – after that – is free to act according to his own will and free choice on earth, for Allah the Sublime has let him to his own, and His only relation to man concerns making, innovating creating and composing him at the stage of making exclusively.

This approach safeguards Al Mutazilah from attributing injustice to Allah the Sublime, but it confiscates Allah’s authority on man and the universe, limiting it to a single stage, theoretically excluding Allah the Sublime’s grace and assistance off man’s life; going so far to claim that Allah the Sublime had created man and bestowed on him whatever talents he chose, then he let go of him, leaving him to his own, alone to face his destiny and responsibilities.

The most dangerous thing in this approach – added to the ideological and intellectual dangers it imposes – is that it blocks or weakens man’s relation to Allah the Sublime in his daily life, work and movement. For man’s relation to Allah the Sublime at its most is not attained through (ideology) or (worship) alone, rather it is attained through his permanent need to Allah the Sublime in his daily work and movement; through the support, backing and assistance that Allah gives to man everywhere, at the market, at home, in his political activity, and in time of troubles and problems. Such troubles and problems that face man make him refuge to Allah the Sublime establishing a firm connection with Him. These troubles are in fact Allah’s examination to His good servants.

The Sublime says:

[Then We seized them (upon their disobedience) in distress and adversity in order that they might submit (to the truth) with humility] AL Anám v. 42.

The theory of man’s independence to act and choose is situated right at the opposite end to this approach (which the gracious verses reveal); rupturing the daily relationship between man and Allah the Sublime; (AlMutazilah) trend, - in order to confront (Al Ashairah) trend – deepens the concept of man’s independence and freedom to choose, decide, act move, asserting that Allah the Sublime authorized man these options, providing him with the essentials he requires in addition to the freedom to decide, choose and act.

The Holy Quran – on the other hand – gives different kinds of assertions that do not meet with this trend, rather they deepen in man a feeling that contradicts it.

Whoever reads (Al Quran) will no doubt feel that this book tries and intends to draw our feelings, minds and hearts towards Allah the Sublime through this point exclusively; exactly opposite to the (Mutazilah) trend. Zuhdy Jar Allah in his book about (Al Mutazilah) says: (As if AlMutazilah in their defence of the origin of monotheism went so far to fight and repudiate everything that opposes it claiming that: Allah the Sublime distributed the religious graces equally among men, never favouring the prophets and angels with a special grace or infallibility or any other divine grace that might distinguish them from the others.

Furthermore, (Al Mutazilah) denied any kind of intercession to forgive the people’s sins on the Day of Judgment for it implicates a sort of partiality to a certain party.

They went as far as saying that; the Quranic verses which connote that Allah guides people to virtue, success, delusion, deserting some of them and making their hearts (and minds) closed to conversion; those verses – according to them – contradict the principle of Divine Justice and the idea of individual freedom, thus they insisted that such verses should be interpreted in another way; thus they explained the meaning of (Guidance) by saying that it is figuratively used (as a word) to signify righteousness, correct judgment and conversion; Allah the Sublime has nothing to do with actual guidance of hearts.

Interpreting (success) they said: It is a general success achieved through showing people the Quranic verses, sending messengers and revealing His Book.

In respect of delusion, they justified it into two meanings: The first by saying (Allah the Sublime has deluded (misleaded) some one) i.e. He has named him deluded, or that He has told us he is misleaded.

The second by saying (Allah has punished man for his delusion.)

The same interpretation applies to the concept of desertion; for it is a figurative usage of the word (desert) to signify that the Sublime has doomed somebody with desertion. Such an understanding should not ever lead to the conclusion that Allah deludes, tempts, or prevents people from doing something. (AlFutty) and his student (Abbad bin Soliman) were the most rigid among (Al Mutazilah) in relation to this matter.

((Al Futti) for example used to refuse attributing some acts (deeds) to Allah the Sublime – even though the Holy Quran frankly attributed them to Him; hence we must not say that Allah the Sublime brings the Muslim’s hearts together, rather they themselves willingly bring their hearts together; nor should we say that the Sublime makes them tend to faith bringing it close to their hearts, nor should we say that He deludes the wrongdoers.).([6])

If the first concept (Al Ashairah’s) tends to suspect Allah the Sublime’s (Divine Justice); the current concept suspects (Monotheism) of Allah, and the relationship between man and Allah.

Hence forth the Progeny (A.S.) found themselves facing another front of conflict that was no less dangerous and important than the first one; and if they (A.S.) were defending the (Divine Justice) at the first place; they, at the second place were defending Monotheism as a doctrine. The Progeny (A.S.) confronted this enormous mass of mistakes and deviations that deeply inflict the (Divine Justice) and (Monotheism) as two fundamentals of the Islamic concept; politicians’ hands could easily reach those ideas and fundamentals.

Let us have a look, how did the Progeny (A.S.) face and deal with this case.