The Shaykh’s discourse on the people of the Sunnah in their refutation of the Mu'tazilah Qadariyyah, and likewise in their refutation of those who weakened the hadiths regarding the descent of 'Isa and the emergence of the Mahdi.

The Shaykh : We return to the issue of divine decree, which is in fact the problem of problems, from the day the Mu'tazilah existed until today. The Mu'tazilah say: if we say that Allah, Mighty and Majestic, decreed for man faith and disbelief, good and evil, this means he is compelled and has no power over himself for harm or benefit. What is their way out? No divine decree. So what do we say about the verses that affirm divine decree? We interpret them in the sense of knowledge, as you heard. But they gained nothing from this denial, because there is no difference between all believers who believe in divine knowledge and most believers who also believe in divine decree, regarding the problem the Mu'tazilah raised. There is no difference between the two beliefs: the belief in eternal divine knowledge and the belief in divine decree, from the standpoint of the problem. What is the problem? They said: if we say that Allah decreed and wrote faith and disbelief, good and evil, then compulsion follows. We likewise say: there is no doubt or ambiguity for all believers in divine decree that it is in accordance with divine knowledge. Likewise, the divine writing in its various stages, as Imam Ibn al-Qayyim explained in his great book called what? "Shifa al-Ghalil" (The Cure for the Grief), yes, you did well. There are stages to the writing, all this writing. The first and last writing, and the child in the womb, naturally, is in accordance with what? Divine knowledge. So the objection they raised remains valid, meaning if we now remove from our minds what they removed from their beliefs, which is divine decree, and we temporarily close the page on it, and likewise divine writing, and we agree with them there on knowledge, or they agree with us, well, it preceded in divine knowledge that so-and-so will disbelieve. Can divine knowledge change? Of course not.

The questioner : It does not change.

The Shaykh : Well, does divine writing change? No. Does divine decree change? No. So what did you gain from saying "no divine decree"? Is it clear? So it is obligatory to believe in everything that came regarding knowledge, writing, and decree, and to interpret that in a way that agrees with the other evidence. Yes.

The questioner : Peace be upon you, and Allah's mercy and blessings.

The Shaykh : And upon you be peace, and Allah's mercy and blessings and His forgiveness. Yes, my lord, our discussion reached?

The questioner : The Mu'tazilah.

The Shaykh : Yes, so they gained nothing from their denial of divine decree on the grounds that if divine decree does not change, then the obligated person becomes compelled. We say to them: does divine knowledge change? It will be said: yes, divine knowledge does not change. So it will be from their answer that it does not change. So did it precede in divine knowledge that so-and-so is happy and so-and-so is wretched? From their statement that He encompassed all things in knowledge, so it does not change. So what is your answer regarding divine knowledge that does not change? That is our answer regarding divine decree that does not change. This, as is not hidden from you, is a dialectical answer, but it is the truth. But I have another answer.
What preceded in divine knowledge or in divine decree undoubtedly corresponds to what will occur; it does not differ by a hair's breadth. And if that is the case, we respond to both groups: the Mu'tazilah and their opponents, the Jabriyyah. The answer covers both groups together. Then we return to the Jabriyyah with a detail that the Mu'tazilah do not need. They agree with us that divine knowledge knows events in their clear reality. And we know from the reality of the obligated people that their deeds and lives contain what they choose by necessity and what they are compelled in as well. We begin with the action of the heart. In the action of the heart, they are compelled, because it is from the creation of Allah in which humans have no choice. Therefore, if Allah, Mighty and Majestic, wills, He disables this movement by killing its owner. Likewise, we say regarding the fact that Zayd among people is tall, another is short, fat, thin, and so on. Here the statement of Allah the Exalted is true: But there are other matters concerning this person who is compelled from this angle. There are other matters that issue from him by his choice. Now I am speaking and you are listening, and sometimes you also speak with us. Do you, O people of the Mu'tazilah — the Jabriyyah have another address, as we said earlier — do you, O people of the Mu'tazilah, say that we are now in this speech choosing or being compelled? It will be from their statement: choosing. Well, in the first case or the other examples, are you choosing or being compelled? Meaning, in the fact of the heart's movements, and this person is tall and another is short, white, brown, black, and so on, are you choosing or being compelled? They cannot say choosing. This is it. So this reality, with its two sections and its two forms, preceded in the knowledge of Allah, Mighty and Majestic. It preceded in the knowledge of Allah, Mighty and Majestic. So knowledge includes both forms. We now descend to what you denied of divine decree. Divine decree includes both as well, because we said that divine decree is in accordance with divine knowledge. So there is no difference between them in that they reveal reality in its truth before its occurrence. So from this standpoint, divine decree corresponds to divine knowledge. So where is the objection if what Allah decreed is from the first section, and I do not ask about it, because I have no will in it? One person being black and dark may be mocked by the white person for the blackness of his skin, for example. But he is not mocked because this is the creation of Allah, so show me what they created besides Him. But if I deviate or insult, I am mocked, why? Because it is from the other section, where there is will. So what is the objection in your denial of divine decree, and divine decree reveals reality with its two sections? We just now cited the first section because it is clear, there is absolutely no dispute in it, and it is understood by everyone.
Now let us take an example from our own actions that issue from our limbs. A man threw a bird and hit a person, killing him. This is accidental killing, but by what action? The person did not act directly by divine will, as in the first category. This is decreed. Pardon me, I am not saying to the Mu'tazilah that this action was decreed beforehand in divine knowledge, or was it not? And so it was from divine justice that he was not held accountable in the Hereafter because he killed by accident. Likewise, we who believe in divine decree say: Divine decree recorded this error, this accidental killing, and therefore I am not held accountable. But another person—we say: another person, yes, and on a moonless night he lay in wait for an enemy of his, prepared to kill him, and shot him with a rifle or stabbed him with a dagger. Are these two equal? No, they are not equal, for example. This one was intentional, and as they say in the courts today, it was premeditated and deliberate. Both scenarios preceded in divine knowledge without doubt, because He encompasses all things in knowledge. So what prevents you, O Mu'tazilah, from saying that this divine knowledge was recorded in the Preserved Tablet and thus became a decree? Decree, then, encompasses reality as it is. If it is compulsion, there is no accountability; if it is choice, then there is accountability here. So why do you fear speaking of decree? Is this answer clear? This answer is binding for belief in decree, just as the first answer was. But that was a dialectical answer, and this one confirms that answer. Accordingly, all correct Islamic beliefs must be addressed in this manner. Among them is the issue of the descent of 'Isa (peace be upon him). The matter was difficult for Sayyid Rashid Rida (may Allah have mercy on him), and from him we derived this Salafi and hadith-based methodology. It was also difficult for many scholars of al-Azhar, such as Shaltut and his like, who denied the belief in the descent of 'Isa (peace be upon him) in the end times. Why? They said because many people have claimed to be 'Isawi, and this is Ahmad al-Qadri, and many of them have claimed to be Mahdi, and your neighbor there in Sudan, the Mahdi, is well known. In Islamic history, many have claimed to be 'Isawi and claimed to be Mahdi. If we close the door to these false claims, we will relieve people of the belief in the descent of 'Isa (peace be upon him) and the emergence of the Mahdi. This is an error, and treating an error with an error like it, and worse, is wrong. I said in some of what I wrote in response to people like these: I fear most of all that a day will come when some of them will address divinity and deny it, because the Pharaohs have not yet ended. Some of them claim divinity, so let us not relieve people of this claim, for it is the most false of falsehoods. There is no divinity, and the problem is solved. Is this the correct treatment?
We say finally that the descent of 'Isa is a correct belief. The Salaf believed in it, and the Khalaf followed them on the guidance of their Lord. But in these hadiths, nor in the hadiths of the Mahdi (peace be upon them both), is there any indication that Muslims should not act upon their Islam and the honor of their religion until 'Isa descends and the Mahdi emerges. There is nothing in all these hadiths that suggests this incorrect understanding that has occurred in some Muslims. Therefore, some reformers denied these hadiths in order to, in their claim, remove the stumbling block from the path of the Muslims' obstacle. There is no benefit in 'Isa descending and the Mahdi emerging. This is an incorrect understanding, just as the Jabriyyah understood decree, and the Mu'tazilah agreed with them and then denied compulsion, and with it they denied decree. Since there is nothing in the authentic hadiths concerning the descent of 'Isa (peace be upon him) and the emergence of the Mahdi that suggests reliance on their coming to the exclusion of action, it is obligatory for us to act. Because if 'Isa descends, he will find the earth prepared for a leader who will lead them. And if 'Isa (peace be upon him) descends and the Muslims are as they are today—I say this while believing in it—'Isa will not be able to gather the Muslims in an instant, in a day and a night, around his leadership, because in my opinion, there will be no one more decisive and capable of gathering the hearts of people around him than our Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him). He remained among his people for twenty years until he was able to establish this nucleus, which Allah (Mighty and Majestic) nourished with His power and knowledge, and then its shadows extended, as you know, in Islamic history.
Therefore, if 'Isa (peace be upon him) descends, we must not imagine that he will descend unless the earth has been prepared for his acceptance. So we should understand the hadiths of the descent and the emergence, because they encourage Muslims to work to restore Islam to its former glory, not to wait for 'Isa and the Mahdi to restore their former glory for them. If we believe in this way, what is the problem with the hadiths of 'Isa and the emergence of the Mahdi? There is no problem at all. Problems always arise from the misinterpretation of texts. And this reality is a very important point from the perspective of the Muslim scholar, in that they have misinterpreted some texts and thereby misinterpreted other texts. And we ask Allah (Mighty and Majestic) to guide us all, and you, to the correct understanding of Allah and His Messenger.