A Case Inbetween Two Concerns
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 Ana'm 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 Ana'm 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 Ana'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 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.