Alhassanain(p) Network for Heritage and Islamic Thought

2. “Al Quran Denies Authorization and Man’s Independence”

The way Al Quran rejects inevitability in man’s social and individualbehaviour , it also absolutely denies man’s independentbehaviour off Allah’s reign,being completely authorized from Allah the Sublime in his affairs and movement (the wayAlMufawidah - a sect of AlMutazilah - claim).

We survey hereafter nine categories of verses taken from the Book of Allah that openly deny the principle of man’s independence and authorization to act.

First Category:

Verses that affirmman’s continuous need to Allah the Sublime:

1. [O men! You are all in need of Allah and Allah is the praiseworthy Independent.]Fater v. 15.

Second category:

Verses that confirm Allah the Sublime’s absolute reign over man with no restriction or exception.

The Sublime Says:

2. [And had Allah willed, He would have takena way by thunder and lightning their faculties of hearing and seeing, truly Allah is powerful over all things] AlBaquarah 20.

3. [And if Allah should let you (O, Man!) be touched by any harm none can remove that affliction but Allah and if Allah should let any good happens to you, (Nothing can deprive you from it), verily Allah is powerful over all (things)] AlAnam v. 17.

4. [When Allah opens the gate of His grace to a nation, no one can close it, and the gate of His grace that He closes against a nation, none can open besides Him; and He is the supreme power Sovereign].revised by translator.Surrah Fater v.2 .

5. [Say (O, messenger!)I have no power to harm or benefit myself, save what Allah wills.]Yunus v. 49.

6. [IfWe will, we can remove their eyes]Yasin v. 66.

7. [And ifWe will We can nail them in their places]Yasin v. 67.

Third category:

Verses demonstrating that faithmay only be attained or achieved in people’s life by Allah’s permission and will .

8. [And it is not possible for any (disbelieving) person to believe except by Allah’s will]Yunus .V. 100.

Fourth category:

Verses that condition harm to Allah’s permission, includingwhat the devils had taught people of the magic that angelHarut and angelMarut learned in Babylon, a magic which the wicked used to employ to divorce a man from his wife, furthermore to inflict harm on people.

Al Quran states that they would not have been able to inflict harm by means of that magic on anybody except by Allah’s leave.

9. [Though they could not thus harm anyone except by Allah’s leave] AlBaquarah v. 102.

Fifth Category:

Verses Demonstrating that Allah the Sublime can stop them, preventing what they intend to do:

10. [And if Allah hadwilled they would not have done so.] AlAna'm v. 137.

11. [And had Allah so willed, they would not have fought, but Allah does whatever He wills.]AlBaquarah v. 253.

Sixth category:

Verses that confirm victory and defeat as elements, whichmay never be attained , but for Allah’s leave.

12. [How often a small group overcame a big host by Allah’s command.]AlBaquarah v. 249.

13. [Following (their prayer) they defeated them by Allah’s leave.]AlBaquarah v. 251.

Seventh Category:

Verses that signify man’s decision are Allah’s decision; man decides by means of Allah decision.

14. [Andyou mankind do not decide something unless Allah decides so, verily, Allah is the KnowingDecreer ].AlInsan v. 30.

15. [And you will not wish the truth and will not be in search of the straight path unless itbe the will of Allah the Creator of the worlds.]Revised by translator. ALTakwir v. 29.

Eighth category:

Verses that command man to lay his will, decision and deeds on Allah the Sublime’s decision.

16. [And do not say (O, Messenger!) of any things, surely I shall do such and such tomorrow withoutadding “IF Allah wills”.]Revised by translator. AlKahf v. 23 - 24.

Ninth Category:

Verses that command man to depend in all his works, affairs, qualities on the decision of Allah the Sublime.

17. [And if Allah wills, you will find out thatI am of the righteous.]Revised by translator. ALQussas v. 27.

18. [You will findme by Allah’s will one of the patients.]AsSaffat v. 102.

19. [You all will enter the Sacred Mosque, by Allah’s will feeling securedinside and with shaved heads and nails cut short.] AlFateh .V. 27.

These are nine categories of verses selected from the Book of Allah clearly signifying the denial of man’s independence in his deeds and will, denying at the same time that he is authorized by Allah to do whatever he likes; they are clearly forthright, the way the first group of verses was clear in denying inevitability and determinism in man’sbehaviour .

People in all their affairs are wanting and urgently in need of Allah, and whoever that is wanting in all his affairs and needs, can never be independent from Allah the Sublime in his deeds, thus he is subject to Allah the Sublime’s dominion and authority, and it is up to Allah to take or transform him, or to deprive him from his faculty of hearing or seeing, or close his eyes if He wills; man without the support of the Sublimecan not do himself any good or evil, so how can he be independent of Allah who maintains such a vast Divine domination over his life, deeds, senses and faculties?!

Nobody may believe except by Allah’s leave.

And nobody may hurt anybody only by Allah’s leave.

And nobody may fight anybody except by Allah’s leave.

And a victorious may never attain victory except byAlllah’s leave.

And nobody may defeat anybody only be Allah’s leave.

Rather, nobody may will anything without the will of Allah.

It will be quite irrelevant if we intend to do something without reliance on Allah’s will and leave; and the patents may never attain patience, and the successful may never attain success, and the good may never attain righteousness without Allah’s permission (according to every verse of the Holy Quran).

With this strange emphasis that AL Quran puts on the fact that man in every respect is subject to Allah the Sublime, how come that somebody claims Allah the Sublime has created man the way He willed bestowing on himwhat ever talents He chose, authorizing him thereafter to dowhat ever he likes by granting him an absolute permission to manage his affairs?

Whoever reads the verses of the Holy Quran quoted above will be sure that Al Quran does not approve of such independence and authorization.

Chapter Three: The principle of the Progeny ofMuhammad( A.S.)

We do not need so much thinking and mediation to conclude that theQuranic 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 caseinbetween two concerns) i.e. midway between both doctrines.

True, it is a third principleinbetween 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 thisQuranic principle, being the first to demonstrate it to people. “Interpretation of the Principle (a caseinbetween two concern)”

Strange enough, this midway interpretation ofAlQuran 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 theAbbasi reign and afterwards), which actually stimulates questions. How did the scholars (who do not follow the school of theProgeny( A.S.)), become two parties, each committed to one of these two doctrines, althoughalQuran frankly and clearly has rejected both?

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

The reason for that - as it were - was that (AlMutazilah ) by means of emphasizing man’s independence of choice and will meant to getride 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 (AlMutazilah ) differ with (AlAsha'irah ), 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 (AlAshairah ), 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 deedswill be attributed to Him the Sublime.

Thus (AlMutazilah ) 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.

IfAlasha'irah’s principle touches Allah’s Justice theMutazilah’s principle clearly and frankly touches Monotheism of Allah; and through the previousQuranic 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 theQuranic 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 caseinbetween two concerns) was not their belief that free choice means independence, and that the principle of (a caseinbetween 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 pointso 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 caseinbetween 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 (AlAshairah ) adopted the first principle neglecting the second; (AlMutazilah ) on the other hand adopted the second neglecting the first.

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

Previously, we spoke of theQuranic 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):

(AlMufawidah ) -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.

Sometheologists adhere to thisopinion 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.

AlShaikh (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 (AlMufawdhah ) 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 elaborationis 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 (CaseInbetween Two Concerns)

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

Now what is the way to demonstrate the theory of (a caseinbetween two concerns) which denies inevitability inmans 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 ALMutazilah tried seriously to avoid.

It is not difficult for those scholars to admit that the principle of (a caseinbetween two concerns) is correct, (especially that Al Quran affirmed it); rather, what is difficult for them is to search through thisQuranic 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 caseinbetween 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 willcome 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 andlightening ) their faculties of hearing and seeing]ALBaquarah v. 20.

[And if Allah had willed they would not have done so.] AlAna'm 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 AyatollahAludma AuthoritySyaied AlKhoua'y .

Theexample which the Authority ScholarSayied AlKhouay employed to declare the matter

Suppose that somebody’s hand has been paralyzed, so hecan 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 caseinbetween two concerns),

for itcan not be attributed to him alone because he needs somebody to pass the power to his hand; and itcan 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; allQuranic 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 somesects 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 theprogeny( A.S.).[2]

“AlShaikh AlMufeed’s Opinion”

The late AlShaikh AlMufeed Abi Abdullah Muhammad bin Muhammad bin Al Newman’s opinion agrees with this approach in explaining (a caseinbetween two concerns).

We might summarize his opinion into two fundamental points that lay at the core of the (a caseinbetween 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 neverthey 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 deedis attributed directly to Him, the late ALMufeed violently confronts this opinion answering it ruthlessly.

AlShaikh ALMufeed’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 thatabu Al Hassan the third (Imam AlHadi ) (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. AlTaubah v.3 .

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

(AbuHanifah ) asked (Abu Al Hassan Musa binJaffar (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 possibilitieswere 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 ALMufeed’s citation of Al Quran to prove the invalidity of the theory that attributes man’s deeds to Allah

AlShaikh AlMufeed deduces thatQuranic verses repudiate the idea of attributing men’s deeds to Allah.

The lateShaikh 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.] AsSajdah 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. Thisevidence which Allah the Sublime provides disproves and invalidates the evidence of those who claim that Allah has created ugly things).

The lateSayyed Hibatuldeen AlShahrestany comments on AlShaikh ALMufeed’s speech saying:

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

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

AlShaikh AlMufeed 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. ALAna'm v. 125.

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

[And ifyour 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.

ALShaikh AlMufeed elaborately discussed these evidences; here are examples of his discussions:

The lateShaikh 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] AlAna'm v. 125;

Theycan 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] ALAraf .V. 43.

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

[Verily, the sinners will be in delusion and fire.]Revised by translator AlQuamar 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 AsSajdah v. 10.

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

The meaning of the verse:

[And whomever Allah wills to guide] AlAna'm 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 statedabove .

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.

Thisround 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 curseZayed ,rather? I curseAbi Amrou (and AbuAmrou is another name forZayed ).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 theprophet( 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 ALShaikh ALMufeed’s discussion.

Repudiating the Idea of Man’s Independence to Act

The second point of what the late AlShaikh ALMufeed said asserts the repudiation of man’s independence of deed, he illustrates thesaying of (a caseinbetween 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. TheProgeny( 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. (AlMutazilah ) 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 AlDamashqui ) had been assassinated by the (Aumiah ) caliph (Husham binAbdulmilik ) 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 andthem 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 (AlAshairah ) 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 theProphet( S.A.) (AlSunnah ), 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 thatman 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.