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 .