“And if it was not for the favor of Allah upon you, and His mercy, a group of them would have determined to mislead you. But they do not mislead except themselves, and they will not harm you at all. And Allah has revealed to you the Book and wisdom and has taught you that which you did not know. And ever has the favor of Allah upon you been great.” (Qur’an 4:113)
“By Allah , We did certainly send messengers to nations before you, but Satan made their deeds attractive to them. And he is the disbelievers’ ally today [as well], and they will have a painful punishment.” (Qur’an 16:63)
“And when Satan made their deeds seem fair to them and said: No-one of mankind can conquer you this day, for I am your protector.” (Qur’an 8:48)
“If only, when Our calamity came upon them, they humbled themselves. But their hearts hardened, and Satan made their deeds appear good to them.” (Qur’an 6:43)
“And Satan had made pleasing to them their deeds and averted them from the path, and they were endowed with perception.” (Qur’an 29:38)
﷽
“As for the disbelievers, their deeds are like a mirage in a desert, which the thirsty perceive as water, but when they approach it, they find it to be nothing. Instead, they find Allah there ˹ to settle their account. And Allah is swift in reckoning. Or ˹ like the darkness in a deep sea, covered by waves upon waves, topped by clouds. Darkness upon darkness! If one stretches out their hand, they can hardly see it. And whoever Allah does not bless with light will have no light!” (Qur’an 24:39-40)
This entry is not to say that the Ibadi school holds disdain for the Mu’tazila for they agree with us on many positions. Positions that are based upon the Qur’an & Sunnah. This is where the Ashari school agrees with the Ibadis of Basra on this matter.
However, as Allah (swt) has informed us:
“Such is Allah, your Lord, the Truth. So after the truth, what else can there be, save error? How then are you turned away?” (Qur’an 10:32)
We should state that our team has neither a theologians or a philosophers and not classically trained in either field. We weigh in on this matter as a students. Much of the depth, richness and treasure of the Ibadi perspective in is behind the grasp of the Arabic language.
Surely the point of difference with the Mu’tazila on this matter are twofold
- That human beings via reason alone can reach absolute truth of moral laws apart from divine revelation or divine inspiration. Which leads people to believe in point 2.
- That actions have innate qualities of ‘good’ or ‘bad’ and/or that actions have innate qualities of ‘evil’ and ‘righteousness’ apart from being informed by revelation on the matter.
Our school stands apart from the Mu’tazila on these doctrinal errors.
That is to say the Ibadi school stands on the belief of what is called by others as ‘Divine Command Theory‘.
What is divine command theory? That is the belief that actions in and of themselves are neither morally evil nor good. Rather it is divine revelation that reveals to us if actions are morally ‘good’ or ‘bad’.
Take eating pork for example. In general Muslims are prohibited from eating pork. Thus eating pork would be morally wrong according to revelation. However, revelation has also revealed that there are situations in which eating pork is necessary, and therefore a meritorious act. So it is not that the action of eating the pork in and of itself is morally repugnant or morally meritorious. It is what divine guidance informs us about the matter.
“Prohibited to you are dead animals, blood, the flesh of swine, and that which has been dedicated to other than Allah, and killed by strangling or by a violent blow or by a head-long fall or by the goring of horns, and those from which a wild animal has eaten, except what you slaughter, and those which are sacrificed on stone altars, and that you seek decision through divining arrows. That is grave disobedience. This day those who disbelieve have despaired of your religion; so fear them not, but fear Me. This day I have perfected for you your religion and completed My favor upon you and have approved for you Islam as religion. But whoever is forced by severe hunger with no inclination to sin – then indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.” (Qur’an 5:3)
Some of us used to hold to the position 1. That was before we were graced with this right guidance on this matter.
So as what they published on the matter was public they hereby make a public repentance to Allah (swt) and to all thosethey may have unknowingly mislead on this essential epistemological matter.
Another point is this. Many in the Muslim ummah understand the problems of ascribing Allah (swt) parts such as limbs and hands and a foot. Yet, we equally must be careful in creating an idol of Allah (swt) in our minds by superimposing upon the Creator that he should or should not be like this or that.
Allah (swt) has never been, is not and never will be under the sovereignty of his Creation. Allah is sovereign and we are under him!
Allah is not constrained by any laws. Physical, Natural or Moral laws. The only constraints upon Allah are that which he imposes upon himself.
“The word will not be changed with Me, and never will I be unjust to the servants.” (Qur’an 50:29)
Allah has clearly stated that he has the capability and capacity to be unjust. However, it is something that he has forbidden to himself.
Note that Allah (swt) has never ascribed himself with the ability or capacity to lie.
We have an article on that here:
“Those messengers – some of them We caused to exceed others. Among them were those to whom Allah spoke, and He raised some of them in degree. And We gave Jesus, the Son of Mary, clear proofs, and We supported him with the Pure Spirit. If Allah had willed, those [generations] succeeding them would not have fought each other after the clear proofs had come to them. But they differed, and some of them believed and some of them disbelieved. And if Allah had willed, they would not have fought each other, but Allah does what He intends.” (Qur’an 2:253)
Allah tells us that it IS his will that they fight each other, otherwise they would not.
“Mankind was a single community, then Allah sent prophets to bring good news and warning, and with them He sent the Scripture with the Truth, to judge between people in their disagreements. It was only those to whom it was given who disagreed about it after clear signs had come to them, because of rivalry between them. So by His leave Allah guided the believers to the truth they had differed about: Allah guides whoever He will to a straight path.” (Qur’an 2:213)
“Indeed, those who say, “Allah is the Messiah, son of Mary,” have fallen into disbelief. Say, ˹O Prophet,˺ “Who has the power to prevent Allah if He chose to destroy the Messiah, son of Mary, his mother, and everyone in the world all together?” To Allah ˹alone˺ belongs the kingdom of the heavens and the earth and everything in between. He creates whatever He wills. And Allah is Most Capable of everything.” (Qur’an 5:17)
When Allah (swt) says and who would prevent Allah from destroying Jesus the son of Mary, including his mother and everyone on the earth altogether? The answer is no one. Allah is a the ultimate sovereign creator.
“He is not questioned about what He does, but they will be questioned.” (Qur’an 21:23)
So a major difference between Ahl al-Haqq wa-l istiqama (The People of Truth and Straightness) and the Mu’tazila is that we believe that Allah (swt) is Sovereign above all. Allah (swt) determines what is good or bad via his commands and prohibitions.
Where as for the Mu’tazila Allah is good and must do good because we want Him to be good. A god of our own making.
Note the following:
” Verily, we know with certainty that some things are [morally] good and some things are [morally] bad, [and we know this] without considering revelation. Thus, every sane person firmly believes that charity is good, and they praise the charitable, and [firmly believes] that injustice is [morally] bad, and they blame the unjust. These [moral beliefs] are necessary judgments, and not subject to any doubt; and they are not acquired from Sharia, as the Brahmins and atheists, who do not believe in any Sharia, also make the [moral] judgments.”
Sources: (al-Ṭūsī & al-Ḥillī, Kashf al-murād, 281. Cf. al-ʿAllāma al-Ḥillī, Nahj al-ḥaqq, 83.
For an articulation of the argument in earlier kalām periods, see ʿAbd al-Jabbār, al-Mughnī, vol. 6, part 1, 18, 106, and 109; vol. 14, 152)
Prima-Qur’an comments. So the Mu’tazila claim that it is innate that charity is good.
Our position is that charity is not some how innately ‘good’. Charity can breed short term dependency this can become long term dependency, stops one from becoming self reliant and makes them feel dependent upon others. Charity can be used to manipulate people, organizations and institutes.
The aim of charity often cultivates a false sense of duty to society.
As Warren Buffet stated:
“The American investor and philanthropist Warren Buffett acknowledges that he would not have acquired his own wealth without certain necessary conditions: “If you stick me down in the middle of Bangladesh or Peru, you’ll find out how much this talent is going to produce in the wrong kind of soil.” Without stable infrastructures, it will be difficult if not impossible to rise above poverty, no matter how hard you work or how talented you are .”
Source: (Peter Singer, The Life You Can Save, p. 31).
Thus, instead of tackling the core reasons why people need charity, charity becomes
a simple cop out to make one feel they have done some moral good for society.
To make statements like: “every sane person firmly believes that charity is good.” is emotive rhetoric and poisons the well.
As regard what is just and what is injustice that is also begging the question. What is justice and what is injustice?
“As the Brahmins and atheists, who do not believe in any Sharia, also make the [moral] judgments.”
Note the Mu’tazila appeal to atheism. We will crush this argument soon enough. Allah-willing.
It is also this man made inclination to make Allah in our own image that lead to strife among the Mu’tazila, The position of the Zaydi, Twelver Shi’i, and Ibadi is that hellfire is eternal for whoever enters it. However, some under the umbrella of Mu’tazila notions of ‘justice’ present the idea of an eternal hellfire as not just. Does any evil action truly merit eternal suffering and damnation?
Interestingly and perhaps ironically the Ibadi school recognizes the logical outcome of Nihilistic societies wherein we are left with moral relativism. The irony here being that adherents of the Mu’tazila school often appeal to absolute truth and revelation in the push back against moral relativism.
Yet, when the human reason is left at the seat of power moral relativism is one of logical outcomes.
“These are the ones who have purchased straying with guidance; their trade did not profit them, nor were they guided.” (Qur’an 2: 16)
“It is they who take error in exchange for guidance, and suffering in exchange for forgiveness: yet how little do they seem to fear the fire.” (Qur’an 2:175)
The two schools of Islam that follow the position of the Mu’tazila are Twelver Imami Shi’i and Zaydis.
The Twelver Imami Shi’i believe that divine guidance comes from the infallible interpretation of a divinely appointed Imam.
Yet, the Mu’tazila position undermines guidance from divinely appointed Imams. It certainly does not make the juristic position of a learned Imam from the line of Fatima (ra) conclusive; especially If human beings can reach absolute truth concerning morality via reason then being led by Imams or practicing taqlid becomes moot.
Questions for the Mu’tazila position.
Is belief in Allah morally good?
Is it morally evil?
Is belief in Allah inherently good or inherently bad?
How is this reasoned apart from divine revelation, or divine inspiration?
So what does it say about a worldview in which a person can be moral atheist?
Because our argument is there are moral atheist but there is no moral atheism.
Mu’tazila would bring in a world view in which moral atheism is plausible.
The Mu’tazila position is able to accept and accommodate a deist view of God. No God at all. Pantheism, Pan-deism. It is an accommodating model.
So when having such an accommodating model one must ask:
How does that enjoin the good and forbid the bad?
How does this invite people to believe in Allah?
The Mu’tazila effectively strip the da’wah of Muslims against moral relativism.
Have we not noticed that people like Sam Harris whom are trying to argue for a world in which science will be able to tell us what we ought to do to live the best lives possible.
Concerning his book: A Moral Landscape
We read in the following:
https://www.samharris.org/books/the-moral-landscape
“Sam Harris’s first book, The End of Faith, ignited a worldwide debate about the validity of religion. In the aftermath, Harris discovered that most people—from religious fundamentalists to non-believing scientists—agree on one point: Science has nothing to say on the subject of human values. Indeed, our failure to address questions of meaning and morality through science has now become the most common justification for religious faith. It is also the primary reason why so many secularists and religious moderates feel obligated to “respect” the hardened superstitions of their more devout neighbors.”
“In this explosive new book, Sam Harris tears down the wall between scientific facts and human values, arguing that most people are simply mistaken about the relationship between morality and the rest of human knowledge. Harris urges us to think about morality in terms of human and animal well-being, viewing the experiences of conscious creatures as peaks and valleys on a “moral landscape.” Because there are definite facts to be known about where we fall on this landscape, Harris foresees a time when science will no longer limit itself to merely describing what people do in the name of “morality”; in principle, science should be able to tell us what we ought to do to live the best lives possible.”
“Bringing a fresh perspective to age-old questions of right and wrong, and good and evil, Harris demonstrates that we already know enough about the human brain and its relationship to events in the world to say that there are right and wrong answers to the most pressing questions of human life. Because such answers exist, moral relativism is simply false—and comes at increasing cost to humanity. And the intrusions of religion into the sphere of human values can be finally repelled: for just as there is no such thing as Christian physics or Muslim algebra, there can be no Christian or Muslim morality.”
Just a quick comment about the above statement:
“Harris foresees a time when science will no longer limit itself to merely describing what people do in the name of “morality”; in principle, science should be able to tell us what we ought to do to live the best lives possible.”
Allah (swt) knows best the future. Yet, given that this world is dominated by global conglomerates and economic interest watch and see a dark utopian world unfold where science does not merely tell us what we ought to do but science compels us to do what we must do.
The Mu’tazila have objections against divine command theory. However, they do not have solid epistemological evidence for their position.
It’s good because it’s good is circular. In order for reason to be reasonable it must have imposed limitations on it.
Who or what imposes those limitations upon reason?
The same in our position against moral relativism. Sam Harris has to make a case for some kind of morality otherwise he and his colleagues lose a basis or a grounding to attack hudud laws of the Shari’a. He has to make a case (under the rubric of the so called ‘neutrality’ of science) so as to mask the attacks for what they really are: Namely arguing for the cultural/civilizational superiority of one people over another.
So just as the there has to be an objective basis to determine what is moral there therefore needs to be an objective basis to determine what is reasonable. Otherwise it would not have an opposite: unreasonable.
In order for reason to be reasonable it must have imposed limitations on it.
The self evident and self refuting nature of reason being some type of objective basis to determine what is rationally good or rationally bad is that people have not come to a consensus on the matter.
Killing animals to sustain ourselves. Is this ethical? On what reasonable basis is such an action deemed good or bad?
Are our positions more or less justified and/or reasonable on the basis concerning the manner in which we kill the animal? Bullet to the head, strangulation, arrow to the jugular?
What about plants? If they are sentient on what objective basis grounded in reason is it morally good or bad to uproot them and eat them? What about destroying trees to make way for the building of residences?
If I have been informed that over population of the planet will most definitely lead to the extinction of our species would it be unreasonable for me to develop a virus with the intent to save the species by killing of a huge number of people in the process? I could cover my tracks by releasing said virus near a biolab to make it look like it was an accidental contagion leak. I could further justify my reasoning by stating to myself that the virus is indiscriminate it kill rich and poor and all ethnic groups alike.
In fact, in 2019 Marvel Studios debuted a movie called: End Game. The Protagonist, a not-very-well-thought-out villain named ‘Thanos’ did not see himself as a villain. His objective was to collect a series of 6 stones with the ability to grant him any wish he wanted. His motive or his reasoning was that the universe is filling up with life forms, thus he wanted to indiscriminately annihilate half of all life so that the other half could be grateful and thrive.
However, his reasoning is deeply flawed on many accounts.
- By annihilating half of all living things including those living things that other living things consume, eat or depend upon for their own survival essentially made things the way they were before.
The above example amounts to 500 trillion we can say represent higher life forms and sentient beings. The 1000000 trillion represent the living things that the 500 trillion depend on. Thus, Thanos by eliminating half of all life forms across the board did not really fix much of anything. His reasoning being deeply flawed.
Lastly, he could have willed for a universe of infinite resources and cooperation across all sentient species. But that would not have made for an interesting film.
Metaethics. Who would you kill and why?
This question tries to determine the basis or reason that each party would give for doing what they do. The very fact that there are different responses to this question also shows that human reasoning is limited. It is limited in both its ability and capacity to see what is ultimately good or bad.
- The question also assumes that a person would want to make the decision to kill anyone at all. Though the counter is that by not acting the person is killing. The counter to that counter is that by not acting the person is taking into account the possibility of train malfunction or derailment etc..
- Many might reason that killing one is preferable to killing five. Thus life is quantified. However, are there situations when killing more people is preferable to killing less? Think of a battlefield. Killing more of the enemy soldiers does it instill in them reason to come to the negotiating table or surrender or does it instill in them hardened resolve wanting them to press on to victory?
- What if a person reasons killing the five is better than killing the one. The justification, basis or reasoning can be that they know nothing about the one or the individual. The one is a potentially nasty person and the five are nasty people. Thus sparing one nasty person is better than sparing five nasty people.
On and on it goes. In fact there could be organizations willing to test the moral fabric of a human being on the basis of reasoning alone by posing hypothetical questions to see how far they would be willing to go to commit certain acts.
- There is a perfectly healthy human child. Humans are born all the time. This child has not manifested anything note worthy about themselves. Yet we have five well known philanthropist and entrepreneurs who contribute a great deal to human culture and civilization. Each of them are gong to die unless they get a Heart, Kidney, Liver, Lungs and Pancreas respectively. It could be perfectly reasonable to kill the child who has yet to manifest any potential and harvest those organs.
Recall Harris remark:
“Harris foresees a time when science will no longer limit itself to merely describing what people do in the name of “morality”; in principle, science should be able to tell us what we ought to do to live the best lives possible.”
There are already people on this planet who have a great deal of disdain for the impoverished.
We learn our ethics and our morality and our right and wrong via our culture.
The Ibadi view is that culture conditions us where as revelation breaks this conditioning.
The limits of the mind and the limits of human sensory perception.
“The human intellect is a gift from Almighty Allāh, and the ability to think and reason is one of his favours bestowed upon us. Thus, pondering over the written verses of the Qur’ān and
reflecting over visual signs of Allāh are things both the Book of Allāh and His Prophet’s Sunnah urge us to practice. However, deactivating the mind from understanding the texts in their entirety leads to serious issues, such as likening all-Powerful Allāh to human beings and giving Him some of His creatures’ physical and non-physical attributes. This group of literalists became captives to the apparent literal wordings of the texts, forgetting that the Qur’ān is an Arabic book, including both literality and metaphor. On the one hand, it is beyond doubt that the human mind is limited, just like any limb or organ in a human being. Likewise, the human senses that feed the mind with intellectual material are also limited. On the other hand, it is well-known that the human mind cannot work in a vacuum without intellectual material to deal with, and to conduct its logical processes. Hence, al-Akmah (who was born blind) cannot imagine in his mind colours, such as red and yellow, even if he or she hears about their beauty and descriptions of them.”-Shaykh Al-Muatasim Al-Mawali
Shaykh Al-Muatasim continues…
“Similarly, the person who was born deaf and never heard people’s speech cannot, even with his sound mind, express with his tongue what he finds within himself. This is because of the
fact that his mind does not perceive such images or words, due to the simple fact that the receivers for this data are not working. In the same manner, it is said regarding the rest of
these human faculties. Likewise, it is said about the favours of paradise, the human being cannot imagine its reality, as is narrated in the tradition: ‘There will be bounties which no eye
has seen, no ear has heard and no human heart has ever perceived’.” -Shaykh Al-Muatasim Al-Mawali
Source: (https://sunnah.com/bukhari:7498)
“The senses that represent the mind’s intellectual sources, even in their ideal condition, are limited. Our bare eyes cannot see what is too far away, such as those millions of stars, planets and galaxies with their magnificent sizes; neither can they see what is too close to them, nor the millions of microscopic living creatures floating around us. Equally, we are unable to see sound and electromagnetic waves, even though they undoubtedly exist, as proven by specially designed devices. On the contrary, the human eyesight might see a mirage from afar and would think it is fresh water. This optical scene has been affirmed in His saying:
‘But those who disbelieved – their deeds are like a mirage in a lowland which a thirsty one thinks to be water until, when he comes to it, he finds it is nothing’ (Qur’an 24:39).
“The same is applicable to the other source of the mind, hearing. The human ear cannot perceive the super-fine sounds around it, despite them being very close to the ears. It does not hear loud and noisy voices if they are too far away, nor can it hear the voices of earthly explosions that might take place under our feet.” -Shaykh Al-Muatasim Al-Mawali
“With all that in mind, and with the assumption that the inputs entering through these limited senses are correct, the mental outputs do not have to be necessarily correct and conclusive, because the mind might be influenced by various secondary factors caused by the impact of the surrounding environment. Another influencing factor is the different beliefs and ideologies that different people assume to be unquestionable reality. Had all these differences not existed, people would not have been different from each other. But such difference is the divine will and an ongoing precedent in creatures, as Allāh states:
‘
And if your Lord had willed, He could have made mankind one community; but they will not cease to differ. Except whom your Lord has given mercy, and for that He created them’ (Qur’an 11:118-119).
“Besides these external factors, some people might be influenced by some inner diseases, such as pride, arrogance and showing off, with which some are obsessed. Consequently, such
subtle diseases could mask reality from people so much so that they view reality as an illusion, the truth to be falsehood and a mirage to be sweet water.”-Shaykh Al-Muatasim Al-Mawali
“Additionally, the soundness of the mind is a prerequisite of responsibility/accountability (taklīf). Thus, none of the legal responsibilities are binding upon the insane, as the scholars say: ‘If Allāh takes what he granted (i.e. the mind), he drops what he obliged’. Hence, the mind is just a condition of obligation, and not a legislating source for legally responsible/accountable humans (mukallaf). The issue of legislation is tied to sending messengers of warning, as the all-Powerful says:
“And We never punish until We have sent a Messenger’ (Qur’an 17:15).
“We can see here, in this verse, that He did not say until We have fixed minds. Otherwise, everybody around the globe would have his unique religion, due to the variety of thoughts and ways of thinking. Therefore, even if the mind arrives at a conclusion regarding
something being good or bad, that does not mean in any way that it is permissible or prohibited, because the matters of Sharī‘ah and legal rulings are dependent on the two kinds of revelation: explicit (the Qur’ān) and implicit (His Prophet’s Sunnah).” -Shaykh Al-Muatasim Al-Mawali
Source: (Shaykh Al-Muatasim Al-Mawali Al-Muatamad The Reliable Jurisprudence on Prayer pgs. 32-35)
Section 9: Divine Law Has No Rational Foundation
“The corruption of the Mu‘tazilite doctrine that the laws of the Shari‘a concerning human acts can be rationally discerned, even without a prophetic mission, can also be clarified by admitting, for the sake of argument, the principle of the rational necessity of deeming something good or evil because of the contradiction between different perspectives, in order that the corruption of their opinion on this matter may become manifest.”
“If we consider gratitude to The Most High for His blessings on us before the coming of the law, according to them reason would make gratitude to The Most High obligatory, without requiring the coming of a lawgiver, because knowledge of The Most High and the knowledge that He bestows blessings are rationally comprehended without the law, as are the goodness of thanking the One who bestows blessings and the evil of ingratitude to Him. Therefore, the obligation to give thanks and the prohibition of ingratitude are understood without the law.”
“We will say to them: This obligation to give thanks before the Shari‘a must have a benefit, because if there is no benefit to it, then it is not good until it becomes obligatory. But the affirmation of a benefit before the coming of the Shari‘a is absurd, because either its benefit goes to the person who gives thanks, or to the Lord Who is thanked. If it goes to the person, the benefit is either immediate or postponed, or all the allotments [of benefit] are void. Th e falseness of its going to the person immediately is because the immediate impact on him is only fatigue. The falseness of its going to him later is because, according to consensus,
the intellect had no ability to understand the affairs of the afterlife before the coming of the law. The falseness of its going to the Lord Most High is because He transcends any renewal of His perfection; indeed, in His essence He has no need of people and their deeds.”
“This point of view is rational and repels the obligation of giving thanks and contradicts their point of view which makes it obligatory, which is the comprehension that The Most High bestows blessings.”
“If they say, “We do not accept that there is no benefit to giving thanks before the coming of the Law; indeed, there is a benefit to the person, and that is safety from the punishment that could be imposed for turning away from giving thanks,” we say that likewise it is possible for the act of giving thanks to be punished, for two reasons:
“First, he has caused fatigue to someone who belongs to Allah Most High and has done this without His permission. In this he is like someone who thanks a king who has enabled him to receive a blessing, in that he causes the king’s servant fatigue by giving thanks for it without his permission. There is no doubt that by thanking the king for this blessing, he has exposed himself to punishment.”
“Second, it is a matter of an extremely generous king giving him a little piece of barley bread, for example, while he has treasure-houses of different types of food and infinite wealth, and it would not diminish him in any way for him to give him from his stores. Then that poor, needy person mentions the king and praises him in social gatherings for giving him this piece of barley bread. He would deserve punishment from the king for mocking him and thinking little of him, making him out to be a coward by praising him for something that imposes no burden on him at all. There is no doubt that all the blessings of this life and the next are like nothing compared to the greatness of Allah Most High and the wideness of His dominion and majesty. So it is clear to you by this that for reason to enter into the laws of Allah Most High concerning acts with the scale of approval and disapproval is to enter with a faulty scale that will make its owner turn back exhausted.”
“If you say, “All this clashes with what you have affirmed before from the teaching of your imams, who agree with the doctrine of the Mu‘tazila,” I say, as for its clashing with it, you are right; what I have affirmed here is the teaching of the company of our companions, as well as the Ash‘arites. As for the teaching of some of our imams being the same as that of the Mu‘tazila, this is incorrect, as I have already explained, because of the evident difference between the two schools: the Mu‘tazila say that the judge is reason and that the law is an affirmation of rational judgment, and that it does not bring anything that differs from this, whereas the teaching of those imams is that judgment belonged to reason before the coming of the law, but after it comes, the law is the foundation, and it may bring something
that does not accord with human reason. So there is a difference.”
“Another thing that demonstrates the denial of the principle that good and bad can be rationally known is that we say, regarding someone with respect to whom all acts are equal, that nothing he does can be deemed good or bad. Acts are equal with respect to the Creator; nothing He does can be deemed good or bad, because if an act is deemed good, this requires a preference for doing it over not doing it, and if it is deemed bad, this requires a preference for abandoning it over doing it, but deeming them equal negates any preference. This is why we said previously that what is preferred in contingent things is simply whatever The Most High wills.”
“The demonstration (bayan) that all acts are equal with respect to Him is that the Glorified One transcends benefit and harm. If we are able to do something that causes us no harm, and if by not doing it no benefit escapes us, then there are no repercussions from our doing it or not doing it. All acts with respect to The Most High are like this supposed act with respect to us. Furthermore, if all acts were not equal with respect to Him, it would be better for Him to bring them into existence than not to bring them into existence, which would lead to His perfection being due to His acts, and you know that He is perfect in His essence and in His attributes, which are the same as His essence, not by His acts. So the conclusion is that with respect to The Most High, nothing is either good or evil. And Allah grants success (wa-bi-’l-lahi ’l-tawfi q).”
Source: (Shaykh ‘Abd al-Aziz al-Thamini al-Mus’abi on God’s Power and Human Acts, from Kitab Ma’alim al-Din)
What about the justice of Allah in creating humanity?
One may say, “I was never asked to be created. I was never asked to be brought into an existence in which I had to choose between heaven and hell.” “The stakes are so high. I could go to heaven but I could end up in hell.” “I never asked for this reality to be foisted upon me!”
If Allah must do what is good at all times cannot it not be effectively and rationally argued that given the choice between non being and non existence and being brought into being exposed to a world of different belief sets, choosing the wrong belief set or the wrong course of action could damn one to eternity in hell; than what is maximally good is to not create or bring that individual into being in the first place. Unless, no matter what choices or what actions the individual does they would be guaranteed paradise.
“He is not questioned about what He does, but they will be questioned.” (Qur’an 21:23)
The Role of Fitra in knowing Allah
We have expanded more on that here:
https://primaquran.com/2024/07/12/ashari-aqidah-ibadi-aqidah-on-ahl-al-fatrah
The proof of “Fitrah” (natural inborn belief in Allah)
Allah (swt) has informed us in the Qur’an:
“I did not create jinn and humans except to worship Me.” (Qur’an 51:56)
For those Arabic grammarians out there look closely at the above text.
the lam [translated here as “so that”] is placed there only to indicate the outcome (al-sayrura wa-’l-‘aqiba) thus the verse can be understood as: “I created the jinn and humans therefore they worship.”
There is a growing field of scientific research centered around neurology that states: ‘Human beings are wired for worship.’
https://www.psychiatrictimes.com/view/neurotheology-are-we-hardwired-god
“When your Lord brought forth from the loins of the children of Adam their descendants and had them testify regarding themselves. “Am I not your Lord?” They replied, “Yes, You are! We testify.” “Now you have no right to say on Judgment Day, ‘We were not aware of this.’” (Qur’an 7:172)
“So, set your face toward the religion in uprightness. That is the “Fitrah” of Allah, upon which He has created mankind. Let there be no changing of Allah’s creation.” (Quran 30:30)
The pledge which Allah took from the soul of every one of us before we came into this world.
“And [remember], when your Lord took from the children of Adam, their children behind them, and made them testify over their own selves, [saying to them], ‘Am I not your Lord?’ They said, ‘Yea.'” (Quran 7:172)
The human being has an inherent and inborn recognition of the Creator.
Abstract language.
The very fact that the word ‘nothing’ has a meaning that we understand but cannot give a physical representation to. If you were to close your eyes and try to imagine nothingness you would either imagine an all black space or an all white space, both of which would still be something.
How many times have we known about atheists who find themselves in the middle of turbulence on an airplane reaching out to Allah? And how feeble and uncertain are the disbelievers when death or old age approaches one of them. Suddenly, they are not so arrogant.
“[Allah] it is who causes you to travel over land and sea; until, when you are in the ships, and they sail with [their passengers] with a fair breeze, and they are glad therein, a tempestuous wind reaches them, waves are coming at them from everywhere, and they think that they are overwhelmed therein; [then] they call to Allah, making their faith pure for Him [alone], ‘If You save us from this, we will surely be among the thankful!'” (Quran 10:22)
“Yet, this sincerity is often short-lived. Allah Says (what means): “Then, when He saves them, behold, they rebel upon the earth wrongfully.” (Quran, 10:23)
“Even though they were convinced, they rejected them out of spite and pride. So consider what happen to those who spread corruption.” (Qur’an 27:14)
Objections that the Mu’tazila raise against our position.
“If [moral] goodness and badness are determined by Sharia, then it would be fine for Allah to command disbelief, denying the prophets, glorifying the idols, observing adultery and theft … as the actions would not be evil per se . . . and thanking the benefactor, returning the deposit, and truth-telling would not be good per se; if Allah were to prohibit them they would become evil. But since it happened, without any objective or reason, that Allah commanded them, they became good. Likewise, it happened that Allah prohibited those [former] actions, and so they became evil. Before He commanded [the latter actions] and prohibited [the former actions] there was no difference between the actions. Anyone whose reason leads him to follow someone whose conviction is this is the most ignorant of the ignorant, and the most foolish of the foolish.”
Source: (al-ʿAllāma al-Ḥillī, Nahj al-ḥaqq, 84. Cf. al-Ṭūsī & al-Ḥillī, Kashf al-murād, 281)
Prima Qur’an responds: If these are the best arguments they have surely they are upon error. An argument like this is half mad and half sound. Allah commands people to disbelieve in him is circular in reasoning. “I am Allah therefore disbelieve in me!”
As regard the points on adultery and theft if Allah commanded it than it would be what is done. Do they not say that Muslims can take the property of the mushrik in battle?
By theft are we not talking about the acquisition of a good, item or property that belonged to one and is considered unlawfully taken by another. But than again who or what determines if an item good or property was taken unlawfully if not Allah? Consider for example war booty.
“And know that anything you obtain of war booty – then indeed, for Allāh is one fifth of it and for the Messenger and for [his] near relatives and the orphans, the needy, and the [stranded] traveler, if you have believed in Allāh and in that which We sent down to Our Servant on the day of criterion [i.e., decisive encounter] – the day when the two armies met [at Badr]. And Allāh, over all things, is competent.” (Qur’an 8:41)
From the vantage point of those who have had their booty taken from them would they not argue that this was indeed theft and acquisition of their property that was not taken with consent?
Again as regard the comment on adultery who or what defines what is a legal marriage and what is not if not Allah? The Mu’tazila wants to impose some moral order on the Sovereign, Allah. However, for those who submit to the Sovereign Allah it comes down to: “Did Allah command this or not?” “Is this something permissible or not?”
Again we turn to the Qur’an.
“O you who have believed, when the believing women come to you as emigrants, examine them. Allah is most knowing as to their faith. And if you know them to be believers, then do not return them to the disbelievers; they are not lawful [wives] for them, nor are they lawful [husbands] for them. But give the disbelievers what they have spent. And there is no blame upon you if you marry them when you have given them their due compensation. And hold not to marriage bonds with disbelieving women, but ask for what you have spent and let them ask for what they have spent. That is the judgement of Allah ; He judges between you. And Allah is Knowing and Wise.” (Qur’an 60:10)
So it can be asked is it not inherently morally wrong to marry a woman who is already “lawfully” married to another man according to their custom, beliefs or creed?
Notice I said lawfully in brackets. Because who determines what is or is not? So in the above text that believing woman is indeed married to a disbelieving man according to the laws, customs and beliefs of his society and his people. Thus, she is in adultery in accordance to them. However, Allah (swt) has made that marriage null and void!
In fact, Allah (swt) is being rather magnanimous by ordering: But give the disbelievers what they have spent. When Allah (swt) could have ordered that they receive nothing!
Example of two sisters taking in marriage.
“And [also prohibited are] the wives of your sons who are from your [own] loins, and that you take [in marriage] two sisters simultaneously, except for what has already occurred. Indeed, Allāh is ever Forgiving and Merciful.” (Qur’an 4:23)
Was it morally wrong to do that before? If so why the quasi-tolerance of it by Allah (swt) during the transition period of the Muslims?
Allah is not constrained nor shaped by morality but morality is constrained and shaped by Allah.
The Mu’tazila say that Allah does not do anything immoral -so they want to put human constraints upon Allah. How is it possible for Allah (swt) to do anything immoral when morality itself is defined by Allah (swt).
Thus, is it not surprising to find those who want to shape Islam in accordance with whatever the moral whim of society is to often claim themselves as the inheritors of the Mu’tazila.
Another argument used by the Mu’tazila is as follows:
“If morality is determined by Allah’s will, then, given that Allah might will different things for different communities, morality would turn out to be relative. Thus, one and the same action would be good for one community and bad for another community. However, morality is not relative. Therefore, morality is not determined by Allah’s will.”
Prima Qur’an responds: Not at all. As in the case that context determines the will of Allah. Just as he wills a woman one thing and a man a different thing he can will one community one thing and another community different. Saying it makes morality relative makes man the author of what is and what is not moral. This is man centric not Allah centric.
This was also addressed by Shaykh Al-Muatasim above.
“To each of you We have ordained a code of law and a way of life. If Allah had willed, He would have made you one community, but His Will is to test you with what He has given ˹each of˺ you. So compete with one another in doing good.” (Qur’an 5:48)
The Question the Mu’tazila cannot address.
Below map let us say represents the entirety of Earth. The Mu’tazila would have to prove that the idea of human reason deciphering or learning that something is inherently good or inherently evil happened in isolation far from any religious tradition. That there was no mark of having any contact with any religious tradition and therefore able to thwart the charge that what they claim that what they claim happened apart from revealed faith, was actually inspired by those who either received revealed faith or received it from those before them.
There has not been until this day an effective response from the Mu’tazila on this point.
Mu’tazila argument:
“Then people who do not believe in any revelation will not have moral knowledge.”
False it is possible for people to have remnants of knowledge based upon previous moral codes before.
“For every community We appointed a code of life to follow. So do not let them dispute with you in this matter. And invite to your Lord, for you are truly on the Right Guidance.” (Qur’an 22:67)
The other thing is people can simply assume. They can assume but how certain is that?
Would it be Relative or Absolute? (Again what is the objective criteria)
“And they have thereof no knowledge. They follow not except assumption, and indeed, assumption avails not against the truth at all.” (Qur’an 53:28)
“If you obey most of those on earth they would mislead you far from Allah’s way. They follow naught but an opinion, and they do but guess.” (Qur’an 6:116)
The guess, zann, assumption. They have the probability of being correct and the probablity of being incorrect.
Where are all these ancient cultures and societies where everyone was an atheist?
Or did they have theist and atheist? The assumption is that they did not get their morality from revealed revelation.
A massive assumption on behalf of the Mu’tazila considering the default position of humanity is Adam (as) who learned words from his lord!
Nothing in the Mu’tazila position entails a readiness to accept a sovereign God that interacts with humanity.
If Mu’tazila believe in good and bad independent of sharia than it stands to reason that they must have an objective means to determine what is truth from what is not truth.
Where does this objective means come from?
The Mu’tazila argue as follows:
“We can only make sense of divine justice if God abides by predetermined moral principles.”
Again these put human reasoning of what is and is not concerning the moral law before Allah. Who is in control of what gets pre-determined by God? Man of course!
Mu’tazila believe in a constructed deity that is perfect moral being (because we deem it so).
Other poor arguments -directed against the Ash’ari (but by that token us as well)
They may propose a scenario as follows: One might appeal to cases where no clear end is served by an appreciably good action. For instance, suppose whether you tell the truth or lie, you will achieve your desired end.”
The question itself contains a contradiction. How can there be no clear end being served along with the idea of an achievable desired end?
This Machiavellian reasoning by the Mu’tazila further strengthens our argument because the argument itself is that telling the truth or lying in this scenario is not ethically or morally wrong as the desired outcome was achieved either way.
But this cannot be. This maybe so for this life but not in the life to come. Allah’s curse is upon the liars. How can it said to be an argument at all?
“Allah certainly does not guide whoever persists in lying and disbelief.” (Qur’an 29:3)
As regard the ‘beneficial truth telling’ and ‘harmful lying’ -who or what determines it to be ‘beneficial’ or ‘harmful’.
Beneficial to the one telling the truth or to the one being told the truth? The same applies to harmful lying. Harmful to the one lying or to the one being lied to?
No to mention the unseen motives of the individual telling this supposed ‘beneficial truth telling’ or the ‘harmful lie’- is the individual altruistic or egocentric?
Lastly, as this is a thought experiment it is difficult to concede that this happening in a society independent of revelation and guidance as this was the default position of humanity and as mentioned Allah (swt) had sent prophets to every people.
And again, there are cases where being transparent and truthful are deemed by Allah (swt) not to be morally or ethically the best judgement call.
“Whoever disbelieves in Allah after their belief—not those who are forced while their hearts are firm in faith, but those who embrace disbelief wholeheartedly—they will be condemned by Allah and suffer a tremendous punishment.” (Qur’an 16: 106)
Again it only solidifies our position.
“Or, suppose that a child is drowning, that saving the child will not benefit you, and that it may even be a hardship for you. In such a scenario, it is still appreciably good to save the child, even though no benefits are gained from the action.”
Another poor argument. Everything is taken into account by Allah (swt)
“And be not slack so as to cry for peace and you have the upper hand, and Allah is with you, and He will not bring your deeds to naught.” (Qur’an 47:35)
Question for the Mu’tazila is Allah telling the truth when he says:
“Fighting has been made obligatory upon you, though you dislike it. Perhaps you dislike something which is good for you and like something which is bad for you. Allah knows and you do not know.” (Qur’an 2:216)
That you can incline towards something that is ultimately not good for you. You can recoil from something that is ultimately good for you? So does Allah know or do you know?
This includes the moral law and ethics. Remember, culture conditions us. Revelation breaks that conditioning.
The Qur’an itself is testimony to this. It is filled with edicts that repeal what was culturally acceptable to the Arabs of that time.
In order for us to be truly objective concerning Allah (swt) we would have to encompass all knowledge and it is known that only Allah (swt) encompasses all knowledge. We cannot encompass the whole but we are encompassed by the whole.
We and the Mu’tazila both posit a belief in Allah. We both believe that the need and desire to worship Allah or practice ritual is instilled in us. We believe that an aspect of that is trigged from our fitra; which leads us to Allah.
Our challenge lies therein where we impose upon Allah (swt) our concepts of what is morally good or morally evil. If we are to talk about Free Will & Suffering.
Take for example the Komodo Dragon.
“Any prey manages to escape an attack might not consider themselves lucky for long. A Komodo dragon’s killing power is intensified by a combination of secondary weapons: venom and bacteria. The sharp, serrated shape of a Komodo dragon’s tooth makes it easy for bits of rotten flesh to get caught in the reptile’s mouth, turning their saliva into a mini-habitat for harmful bacteria that can cause untreated bite wounds to become septic. Researchers have also documented a venom gland in the dragon’s lower jaw. This venom prevents their prey’s blood from clotting, which causes massive blood loss and induces shock. Even larger prey animals like water buffaloes may succumb to their wounds after escaping an initial attack—although it may take days for that to happen.”
This is how this creature was designed by Allah (swt) to survive. It’s survival comes at the cost of immense , immense unimageable pain and suffering in this case to this water buffalo. Already imagine the discomfort of sepsis setting in after a bite from one of these Komodo Dragons. Sepsis lasting days and these Buffalo do not have a natural form of defense against it. It is plausible that Allah (swt) could have given them any number of means to defend against this bacteria. Than as you slow down imagine being over powered and eaten alive.
WARNING THIS VIDEO CONTAINS GRAPHIC IMAGES.
Whereas it cannot be effectively argued that it is a must for this creature to exist; or even to survive in this way. There are a myriad of other living things that exist that are not sustained through such obvious suffering.
So does this reflect Allah’s power, terror, wrath, wisdom it is not something readily discernable.
Notable personalities that are influenced by this Mu’tazila position water down sharia.
Lastly, we were thinking of using ad hominem to actually launch a blistering attack upon known personalities that take on Mu’tazila positions. What have we seen from them? Watering down of the sharia. Fantastical interpretations of text they find problematic. Open to accepting LGBTQ+
This is a fundamentally important position of belief that cannot be emphasized enough.
Muslims are having to justify themselves according to the world views of others;
and we have done that long enough.
If morality is fully deductible by reason, then what’s the point of revelation to begin with?
If one can just ponder and reach answers on moral questions it completely robs religion of any meaningful role really.
And this is doubly worse for imami shi’i who try to put forth their imamate doctrine in everything. So it is bizarre for those imami shi’i who do take this counterintuitive view.
Let us rather be justified by our Creator, by submitting to his commands and avoiding his prohibitions and let us not give a concern for the detractors of truth.
“And they say, ‘Our hearts are in a covering from that to which you call us, and in our ears is a deafness, and between us and you is a veil, so act, we [also] are acting.” (Quran 41:5)
“Those against whom the decree of your Lord has been verified, will not believe, although every sign should come to them, until they see the painful punishment.” (Quran 10:96-97)
You may also enjoy the following articles:
May Allah (swt) guide the Ummah.
May Allah (swt) forgive the Ummah.
Prima Quran 