2– “Abû Yûsuf and Shâfi’î and the scholars of Baghdâd proved short of answering Husniyya,” he asserts. He has the face to write so because he does not know the greatness of Imâm-i-Shâfi’î. As a matter of fact, Farîdaddîn-i-Attâr ‘rahmatullâhi ’aleyh’ makes the following explanations in Tadhkira-t-ul-awliyâ:
Imâm-i-Muhammad Shâfi’î ‘rahimahullâhu ta’âlâ’ was only thirteen years old when he had the self-confidence to make the following challenge in Harem-i-sherîf: “Ask me any questions you like!” He was fifteen years old when he could give fatwâ[36]. Ahmad ibn Hanbal ‘rahimahullâhu ta’âlâ’, who was the greatest scholar of his time and had three hundred thousand hadîths committed to his memory, would pay him visits for the purpose of learning from him. It appeared paradoxical to a number of people around Imâm-i-Ahmad (ibn Hanbal) for him, such a great scholar as he was, to sit before a person as young as he was. Yet when he was asked why, he would explain, “He knows the meanings of the things we have memorized. If I had not seen him, I would have failed to get any further beyond the gate of knowledge. He is a sun illuminating the entire world; he is nourishment for souls.” At another occasion he said, “The gate of fiqh had been closed. Allâhu ta’âlâ opened this gate again for His slaves by means of Shâfi’î.” At some other time he observed, “I know no one who has served Islam more than Shâfi’î has.” And again, according to Imâm-i-Ahmad (bin Hanbal), the scholar denoted to in the hadîth-i-sherîf, “Allâhu ta’âlâ creates a scholar every hundred years, and through him teaches my religion to others,” was Imâm-i-Shâfi’î. [This hadîth-i-sherîf states that these scholars will appear in the Dâr-ul-Islâm.] Sufyân-i-Sawrî ‘rahimahullâhu ta’âlâ’ stated, “Shâfi’î’s wisdom was more than the sum of the wisdoms of half of the people of his time.” Abdullah Ansârî ‘rahimahullâhu ta’âlâ’ stated, “I do not know the Shâfi’î Madhhab well. Yet I like Imâm Shâfi’î very much. For I see him ahead of others in every realm I look into.” One day Imâm Shâfi’î was delivering a lecture, when he stood up and sat down again, repeating the same behaviour a couple of times. When, afterwards, he was asked why he had done so, he explained, “A child, who was a Sayyid, was playing immediately outside the door. Whenever he passed before me, I stood up out of respect for him. It would have been something inexcusable to see a grandchild of the Messenger of Allah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ and not to stand up.” If the author of the book Husniyya had known of this fact, he would perhaps have felt shame to say that “Imâm Shâfi’î was hostile towards the Ahl-i-bayt.” Rebî’ bin Haysam ‘rahimahullâhu ta’âlâ’ related, “I saw Âdam ‘alaihis-salâm’ dead in my dream. (The next morning, when I told my dream to people who were good at interpreting dreams,) they said that the greatest scholar of our time was going to die. For it was stated in an âyat-i-kerîma that knowledge was a property of Âdam ‘alaihis-salâm’. Imâm Shâfi’î passed away a few days later.”
3– “When Husniyya explained that her Madhhab was love of Ahl-i-bayt-i-Rasûl and put forward her arguments, the scholars were unable to answer her,” he writes. The Ahl-i-bayt-i-Rasûl and all the Ashâb-i-kirâm were of the same creed. They were in the path shown by the Qur’ân al-kerîm and hadîth-i-sherîfs.
As a matter of fact, Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ states, “My Ashâb are like the stars in the sky. If you follow any one of them you will be following the right path.” He does not say, “some of my Ashâb,” or “only my Ahl-i-bayt.” He says, “my Ashâb,” which means to say that they held the same creed. These people, on the other hand, are trying to deceive Muslims by calling their wrong stories and heretical beliefs ‘The madhhab of Ahl-i-bayt’. If there had been a scholar in the so-called discussion, the concubine would not even have been able to open her mouth. The author (of the book Husniyya) attempts to blemish the scholars of Ahl as-sunnat by asserting that they were not able to answer her.
4– He says, (through the imaginary concubine), that “Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ became a Believer as he was a child,” tries to prove by means of lies and solecisms that “a child’s belief is acceptable,” and simulates how the so-called concubine “refuted the scholars by concluding that caliphate was Alî’s right.”
Misrepresenting the Ahl as-sunnat as having denied the fact that Hadrat Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ was a child when he became a Believer, he alleges that the concubine put the Ahl as-sunnat scholars to shame. The truth, however, is that all the Sunnî books provide a detailed account of Imâm Alî’s ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ becoming a Believer as a child and praise the Lion of Allah (Hadrat Alî) with highly laudatory remarks.
5– In another page he attacks the Ahl as-sunnat as follows: “After the Messenger of Allah, Alî is higher than the Anbiyâ-i-mursalîn (prophets). The Imâm (Alî) is the wasi-i-Rasûl (the Prophet’s trustee), who has committed to his memory all the heavenly books, the Torah, the Zabûr, the Bible, and the Qur’ân. Abû Bakr, on the other hand, was forty years old when he gave up worshipping the idols called Lât and Uzzâ and became a Muslim; he opposed the Rasûl-i-Hudâ several times; his skin and blood had been fed with wine; how come you accept the belief of that person while rejecting the belief of the innocent members of theProphet’s family and harbouring enmity and grudge in your hearts against that noble family?”
At many places of the Qur’ân al-kerîm, e.g. in the eighty-sixth âyat of An’âm sûra, which reads as follows: “And Ismâ’îl and Elisha, and Jonas, and Lot: And to all We gave favour above the nations,” (6-80) Allâhu ta’âlâ declares that all prophets are higher than all non-prophets. To say that Hadrat Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ is higher than prophets means to contradict the Qur’ân al-kerîm, which in turn is an act of kufr (disbelief). The other heavenly books, (e.g. the Torah and the Bible,) were not in poetic form, and nor were they memorized by anyone. As a matter of fact, Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ was unable to answer three questions he was asked about the Torah and waited for three days for Jebrâ’îl (Gabriel) ‘alaihis-salâm’ to arrive with the answers. He spent the three days in deep anguish, and so did all the Muslims around him. Finally, the Kahf sûra was revealed and the answers proved to be in agreement with the facts in the Torah. Hadrat Abû Bakr as-Siddîq ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ and the Messenger of Allah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ were friends since their boyhood. They were warm-hearted towards one another, and together most of the time. It is written in books that neither of them ever tasted wine or worshipped idols. For instance, the book Ma’al-il-farajreports on the authority of Qâdî Abu-l-Hasan that Abû Hurayra ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ related: We were sitting in the presence of Rasûl-i-akram ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’, when Abû Bakr ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ said, “O Messenger of Allah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’! I swear by your right that I never worshipped idols throughout my life.” Hadrat ’Umar warned, “Why do you swear by the right of Rasûlullah? We led a life of nescience for so many long years.” Upon this Hadrat Abû Bakr ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anh’ related, “My father Abû Quhâfa took me to the place where the idols stood. ‘These are your creators. Prostrate yourself before them,” he said. When he was gone, I said to an idol, ‘I am hungry. Give me something to eat.’ It did not answer. I asked for water, and then for clothes. No voice came out. I challenged, ‘I shall throw stones at you. Stop me if you can!’ Silence, again. I threw stones at him. It fell flat on its face. My father was surprised when he was back and saw all that. He took me back home. My mother suggested that they should not say anything to me.” When Abû Bakr ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ finished his words, the Messenger of Allah ‘alaihis-salâm’ stated, “Jebrâ’îl ‘alaihi-salâm’ has just come to me and said that Abû Bakr told the truth.”
Abû Bakr as-Siddîq ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ sacrificed all his property, his life, his children, and everything he had for his sake. The hadîth-i-sherîf that states, “Abû Bakr’s ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ îmân is more than the sum of the îmâns of my entire Ummat,” would be sufficient in itself to prove that he was higher than all the other Sahâbîs. In addition, there is many another hadîth-i-sherîf stating that he was the highest of all. A few of them are quoted along with their documentary sources in the (Turkish) book Se’âdet-i-ebediyye. Abû Bakr as-Siddîq ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ never opposed Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wasallam’. In fact, even his ijtihâds were in agreement with those of the Messenger of Allah. Furthermore, (he was so deeply attached to Rasûlullah that) once he sincerely expressed his willingness to barter all his acts of worship for one single mistake ever made by the Messenger of Allah. The books of Ahl as-sunnat brim over with love and veneration for the Ahl-i-bayt. His assailing the Ahl as-sunnat scholars with the accusation that they “harbour enmity and grudge (against the Ahl-i-bayt)” reeks of the treacherous and ignoble attempts to defame the Ahl as-sunnat which his book bristles with. So many are the reports and passages laudatory of Hadrat Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ in the books of Tafsîr and Hadîth written by the scholars of Ahl as-sunnat that no Muslim can be imagined not to have heard at least one or two of them. For instance, Abdullah ibni Abbas ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anhumâ’ reports: I heard the Messenger of Allah state, “Love of Alî burns a Muslim’s sins like fire’s burning (pieces of) wood.” Love of him entails correct learning of his words and painstaking efforts to attain the personality typified in his example.
6– He states in a page, “According to the Ahl as-sunnat, evils, wrongdoings, disbelief and sins are in agreement with Allah’s qadâ and qadar (foreordination, fate), although He does not approve of them. This belief is like saying that a certain judge disapproves of his own decree. Those who say so are aware of their own disbelief and they try to cover their own guilt by putting the blame for disbelief on qadâ and qadar, which in turn is the devil’s madhhab.”
These statements betray his denial of qadâ and qadar. Also, they contradict Imâm Ja’far Sâdiq by doing so. Distorting the âyat-i-kerîmas purporting that Allâhu ta’âlâ is the Creator of all, he interprets them arbitrarily. However, the true meanings of those âyat-i-kerîmas are explained with such excellence as will command the admiration of owners of wisdom in the tafsîr of Shaikhzâda [Muhammad bin Shaikh Mustafâ], which is an annotation to (Qâdi) Baydâwî’s (book of tafsîr entitled Anwâr-ut-tanzîl). He quotes (the imaginary concubine named) Husniyya as having said, “I stayed in Imâm Abû Ja’far’s ‘alaihis-salâm’ home between the ages five and twenty. From him did I acquire all this knowledge.” He begrimes the honourable name of that great religious leader with his lies and disbelief for the purpose of smuggling them into people’s credence. As a matter of fact, Imâm-i-Ja’far Sâdiq’s ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ statements on qadâ and qadar are quoted and explained in minute detail in the (Turkish) book Se’âdet-i-ebediyye[37]. Furthermore, it is illogical of him to say that it would be paradoxical for a judge to disapprove of his own decree, in the matter of reconciling decree with approval. Naturally, it would be paradoxical for a judge to disapprove of his fair and correct decree. Likewise, it would be paradoxical for Allâhu ta’âlâ to disapprove of (people’s) obeying Him and doing good and charitable deeds. In fact, He declares that He will approve of such acts. Yet, how could a judge approve of a decree that he made under duress or by mistake and which he, later, finds out to have been wrong? He would not approve of it even if it was his own decree. Sirâj-ud-dîn Alî bin ’Uthmân Ûshî, owner of the fatwâs called the fatwâs of Sirâjiyya, states as follows in the third distich of the extremely valuable qasîda entitled Amâlî: “Allâhu ta’âlâ has the Attribute ‘Hayât’, [that is, He is alive]. He foreordains everything in the eternal past.” Several scholars wrote annotations to this qasîda. Sayyid Ahmad Âsim Efendi, who translated the book into Turkish, notes in his annotation, “Qadar means Allâhu ta’âlâ’s knowledge, in the eternal past, of all the future events. Qadâ means His showing this knowledge in Lawh-il-Mahfûz.”[38][Tayyibî], the annotator of Kashshâf, noted that “According to some (scholars), ‘qadar’ means a ‘general commandment’, and ‘qadâ’ means ‘the happening, one by one, of the events (stated in the general commandment)’. For instance, [Every living being will die] is qadar. And death of every living being is qadâ.” Shams-ad-dîn Mahmûd bin Abdurrahmân Isfahânî, who wrote an annotation to the book Tawâlî’, makes the following definition: “Qadar means the existence of all things, en masse, in Lawh-il-Mahfûz. And qadâ means the creation of their causes and them one by one when their (foreordained) times come.” Qadar means a cellar-full of wheat, and qadâ is to dispense it piecemeal in certain quantities. The words ‘qadar’ and ‘qadâ’ can be used for each other. Qadar: (Ahmad becomes a Muslim of his own volition and using his own will power. And Gregory prefers disbelief, which, also, is his own wish and predilection. There is many an âyat showing this fact.) There is detailed information about qadâ and qadar in the (Turkish) book Se’âdet-i-ebediyye. A person who reads the information with due attention will easily detect the sly, tricky and hoodwinking sophistry which the Jewish author engineers throughout the book (Husniyya). It would take no time for connoisseurs of Tafsîr[39] to diagnose the unschooled and illogical inaptitude in the interpretation of the âyats. Yet people who are unaware of Tafsîr and the twenty main branches of Islamic sciences might be inveigled into taking the book for granted under the influence of melodramatic expressions, such as “She routed them, put them to shame, refuted them, outwitted them, proved them false,” which abound in the book. Therefore, such mendacious and heretical books, magazines and newspapers should not be read at all. Not to read them means to protect yourself from becoming a disbeliever.
7– At one place he says, “At one time Shaikh Behlûl [Behlûl Dânâ] said (to Imâm a’zam Abû Hanîfa): ‘O Abû Hanîfa! You say that man does not have ihtiyâr (choice). An ass is wiser and more virtuous than you are. For it would not walk across an impassable stream whatsoever you do to force it to!’ Ibrâhîm Khâlid was unable to answer her. Hârûn Rashîd and Yahyâ Bermekî laughed.”
And, quoting the hadîth-i-sherîf stating that the group of Qadariyya are the fire-worshippers of this Ummat, he adds, “The group of Qadariyya are people who commit sins and then say that their sins were preordained in the eternal past by Allah. The pre-Islamic Qouraishî polytheists were in the Jabriyya madhhab. Islam rescinded that madhhab. But after the martyrdom of the Amîr-ul-mu’minîn Hadrat Alî, during the reigns of Mu’âwiya and Yazîd, the ’alaihi-il-la’na[40], that madhhab reappeared and survived as a cultural heritage for Muslims.” He tries to prove himself to be right by offering preposterous arguments which give the impression of puerile confabulations.
The scholars of Ahl as-sunnat have never said that man does not have ihtiyâr (choice). According to them, the group of Jabriyya are disbelievers. One should have never read books written by the scholars of Ahl as-sunnat to believe the shameless slanders in the so-called book. Qadariyya is another apellation for the sect of Mu’tazila. It can be concluded from the so-called book that Shiites are in that sect, too. The sect of Mu’tazila can also be called Qadariyya because they deny qadâ and qadar and say that man is definitely able to do whatever he likes and creates his own actions. In other words, those who deny qadar are the group of Qadariyya, and (the true Muslims) who believe in qadar and qadâ are in the Madhhab of Ahl as-sunnat.
Muhammad bin Abdulkerîm Shihristânî states as follows in his book Milal wa Nihâl: Wâsil bin Atâ, leader of the group Mu’tazila, and his followers assert that “Man is the creator of his own optional actions. Allâhu ta’âlâ has to make the things that are useful for His slaves. He has to reward the good and torment the evil. Allah is one. He cannot have attributes additionally. The Qur’ân is composed of letters, words and sounds, which, in their turn, are creatures and were created afterwards. Man creates his own actions, good or evil. It is not something right to say that Allâhu ta’âlâ creates evil, bad things, sins and disbelief. To say so means to malign him. For he who creates cruelty is cruel himself. And Allâhu ta’âlâ is not cruel.” These words of theirs are wrong. The owner of an action is its agent, not its creator. As man himself is a creature, likewise, his disbelief, belief, worship and disobedience are creatures as well. The ninety-sixth âyat-i-kerîma of Sâffât sûra purports: “Allâhu ta’âlâ has created you and your handiwork.” Imâm Baydâwî ‘rahmatullâhi ’aleyh’, a scholar of Ahl as-sunnat, explains the âyat as follows: “The actions you do and the things you make are man’s handiwork. YetAllâhu ta’âlâ, alone, gives you energy to act and creates the causes of your work.” Because the group Qadariyya have held the belief that everyone is the creator of his own handiwork, they have become the fire-worshippers of this Ummat. The Sunnî Muslims say that there is one creator. Fire-worshippers say that there are two creators.
The Arabic book Ikd-ul-jawharî, by Mawlânâ Khâlid Baghdâdî ‘rahimahullâhu ta’âlâ’, contains detailed explanations about irâda-i-juz’iyya (limited will, man’s will). Abdulhamîd Harpûtî ‘rahmatullâhi ’aleyh’ wrote an annotation to the book and entitled his annotationSim tul’abqarî. The annotation was published in Istanbul in 1305 [1888 A.D.]. Also, Mawlânâ’s[41] booklet Irâda-i-juz’iyya was published by offset litho as an appendix to the book Rashahât in Istanbul in 1291 [1874 A.D.], during the period when Safwat Pâsha was Minister of Education. The ninth letter in the book Bughyat-ul-wâjid is a lithographic copy of that booklet. It is stated as follows in the booklet:
May hamd (praise and gratitude) be to Allâhu ta’âlâ, who created the earth and heaven, human beings and animals, and all their works and actions from nothing. WhenAllâhu ta’âlâ wills to create something, he says, “Be!” and presently that thing comes into being.
May blessings, salvations and goodnesses be upon Muhammad ‘alaihis-salâm’, our master and superior and best of the people living in hair tents and in buildings made of sun-dried bricks, (i.e. all people,) and upon his Âl (family, household), upon his relatives, and upon his Ashâb!
O you Muslim! May Allâhu ta’âlâ increase your mental capacity! May He bless you with the lot of following the right path! You must know that all groups of Muslims, and also most philosophers and non-Muslims have acknowledged the fact that Allâhu ta’âlâ, alone, is the one and only power that moves and effects every being, everything, aside from the movements of animals. It is doubtless that He is the creator also of the movements of animals and human beings. In other words, Allâhu ta’âlâ, alone, creates all their movements, both the conscious ones, [i.e. those which they are aware of,] such as illness, wealth, sleep and awakenness, and the unconscious ones, [i.e. those they are unaware of,] such as growing and digesting the food consumed, which are not dependent upon their will and option. As for the optional movements of animals and human beings, i.e. their actions which they do by using their will and choice; there are different views concerning these movements. According to the group Jabriyya, for instance, there is only one source of power effective in the optional movements: Allâhu ta’âlâ. They say that man’s power has no function at all. Also, Abul-Hasan Alî Ash’arî ‘rahimahullâhu ta’âlâ, who is one of our imâms in credal matters, says that they are dependent only upon Allâhu ta’âlâ’s power and that man’s power has no function in them. The group Mu’tazila, on the other hand, maintain that the so-called movements come into existence only out of man’s power and option, while in the view of philosophers they happen from man’s power and yet man has to do them. Abdulmalîk Juwaynî ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anh’, who has been known as the Imâm of Haramayn, is wrongly said to have held the same view. As a matter of fact, this jaundiced information is belied by the sagacious scholar Muhammad bin Yûsuf Sinnûsî ‘rahimahullâhu ta’âlâ’, in his book Umm-ul-barâhîn, and by Sa’duddîn Teftâzânî ‘rahimahullâhu ta’âlâ’ [722-792, Semmerkand], in Sharh-i-makâsid. The great scholar Ibrâhîm bin Muhammad Isfarâinî ‘rahimahullâhu ta’âlâ’, one of our masters in credal matters, states that those movements are dependent both upon the power of Allâhu ta’âlâ and upon the slave’s power. According to Qâdî Abû Bakr Bâqillânî ‘rahimahullâhu ta’âlâ’, however, the only power effective in the creation of such movements is Allâhu ta’âlâ, and that man’s power is effective only in the nature of the movements, i.e. in their being good or evil. That the Imâm of our Madhhab in credal matters, Muhammad bin Mahmûd Abû Mansûr Mâturîdî ‘rahimahullâhu ta’âlâ’, held the same view, is acknowledged by Kemâladdîn Muhammad ibn-ul-humâm ‘rahimahullâhu ta’âlâ’, in Al-musâyara; by Kemâladdîn Muhammad ibn Abû Sherîf-i-qudsî ‘rahimahullâhu ta’âlâ’, in Al-musâmara fî sharh-il-musâyara; by Hasan Chalabi (Çelebi) bin Muhammad Shâh ‘rahimahullâhu ta’âlâ’, -who was a descendant of Molla Ghurânî-, in his annotation entitled Sharh-i-mawâqif; and by the research scholar Gelenbevî ‘rahimahullâhu ta’âlâ’, in Aqâid-ud-dawwâniyya.
Imâm Birgivî ‘rahimahullâhu ta’âlâ’, a Sunnî scholar, explains the true meanings which the scholars of Ahl as-sunnat derived from the Qur’ân al-kerîm and hadîth-i-sherîfs in a splendid, concise and clear style in his Turkish book Birgivî Vasiyyetnâmesi. Qâdî-zâda (Ahmad Amîn bin Abdullah) ‘rahmatullâhi ’aleyh’ makes the following explanation in the twenty-fourth page of his commentary to the book:
Allâhu ta’âlâ is Murîd. In other words, He has the Attribute Irâda (Will). He creates whatever He wishes. He creates whatever He wills to exist. And whatever He does not will to exist, does not exist. It is not necessary for him to make anything. He cannot be forced to do something. For Allâhu ta’âlâ is powerful over all. No one can have power over Him. He never is incapable. Everything comes into existence out of His Will. Goodness such as îmân and obedience (to His commandments), as well as evils such as disbelief and disobedience, all come into existence out of His Will. According to the group Mu’tazila, “Allâhu ta’âlâ does not will, and so He does not create, evils and sins. These things are created by human beings and by the devil. For it would be an evil deed to create evils. And Allâhu ta’âlâ will never do an evil deed.” The (scholars of) Ahl as-sunnat answer them as follows: “It is not an evil deed to create evils. It is an evil deed for men to do evils.” The group Mu’tazila put forward the argument that “If Allâhu ta’âlâ willed and foreordained evils and disbelief, men would have to acquiesce in disbelief and evils. For it is necessary to acquiesce in qadâ.” The Ahl as-sunnat scholars answer them: “Disbelief itself is not Allâhu ta’âlâ’s qadâ or qadar. It is His maqdî. That is, it is something made qadâ. It is necessary to acquiesce in His qadâ. Yet it is not necessary to acquiesce in the maqdî. Allâhu ta’âlâ declares that He is the creator and foreordainer of all, and that, yet, He does not approve of disbelief.” The group Mu’tazila argue that “If Allâhu ta’âlâ willed the perpetration of evils, evil practices, disobedience (to His commandments) and disbelief would be blessed and rewarded (in the Hereafter). For these things would mean to do what He willed. To do His will means to obey His command.” And the Sunnî answer is as follows: “Obedience that deserves rewards and blessings (thawâb) is only obedience to His commandments. And it is not obedience to do what He willed.”
Abduljabbâr Hemedânî, who was Qâdî of the city of Ray and a scholar in the group Mu’tazila, visited the vizier Sâhib bin Ibâd in his office. Abû Ishâq Isfarâînî ‘rahimahullâhu ta’âlâ’, a Sunnî scholar, happened to be there. The following conversation took place between the two scholars:
Abd. – Allâhu ta’âlâ does not will evils and sins. He does not like them and does not create them. These things are created by evil people and by the devil.
Abû Ishâq – All the good things as well as the evil ones are created by Allâhu ta’âlâ. Only what He wills comes into existence in His property.
Abd. – Would our Rabb (Allah) ever will disobedience to Himself.
Abû Ishâq – Could the slaves ever be disobedient to Him if Allâhu ta’âlâ did not will and create (their disobedience)? The slaves (men) use their irâda-i-juz’iyya and wish to commit sins and evils. And Haqq ta’âlâ creates their wishes, if He wills to do so.
Abd. – If Allâhu ta’âlâ did not will hidâyat (guidance) for a person, and if He decreed and foreordained that that person would do evils, would He be doing good to him or harming him?
Abû Ishâq – He would be harming him if He did not will to give him his right. However, not to will to take His own right would not mean to harm the slave. He will reward for the tiniest goodness done. Nobody’s good deeds will be left unpaid for. He will forgive most of the wrongdoers, except for (people guilty of) disbelief. As for the question why He wills (and creates) disbelief; Allâhu ta’âlâ has knowledge. He knows everything that will happen in the future. He is Hakîm; whatsoever He does and makes, it is always the best that can ever be (done and made). It depends only and only on His will to bless any of His slaves with His Compassion by guiding him (or her) to the true way of salvation. He does not have to do or make anything. As a matter of fact, the eighth âyat-i-kerîma of Fâtir sûra of the Qur’ân al-kerîm purports: “... For Allâhu ta’âlâ leaves to stray whom He wills, and guides whom He wills. ...” (35-8) In other words, He creates good and evil upon the slave’s will and option. The slave’s will is the cause, the means for the creation. When Believers will îmân and obedience by using their irâda-i-juz’iyya, Allâhu ta’âlâ also wills them and creates them. If Allâhu ta’âlâ did not will them, too, no one would be a Believer or an obedient Muslim. On the other hand, when a disbeliever wills disbelief and a sinner wills wrongdoing, He creates those evils if He, too, wills them. No one could be a disbeliever or a sinner if He did not will their evil deeds.
Nothing comes into existence upon only the slave’s will. Its creation takes place when Allâhu ta’âlâ, also, wills it. Allâhu ta’âlâ wills and creates evils and iniquities as well. Yet He does not like them and does not approve of them. As for goodnesses; He both wills them and likes them and approves of them. A fly cannot move its wings unless Allâhu ta’âlâ wills it to do so. All the goodnesses and evils that men do come into existence with His Will. When the slave wants to do something, it does not take place if He does not will it, too. It takes place if He, too, wills it. Something He does not will to exist, does not exist. If it existed after all, it would mean some drawback in His power. Allâhu ta’âlâ is omnipotent. All human beings and genies would be obedient Believers if He willed them to be so. Conversely, they would all be disbelievers if He willed them to be so.
Question: Everything comes into existence with His Will. He has willed the disbelief of disbelievers. They cannot stand against His Will. Therefore, they have been forced to be disbelievers. To command them to be Believers would mean t