The Refutation of the Mu'tazilah and the Jabriyyah on the Issues of Divine Decree

The Shaykh : And therefore, we say that in the matter of divine decree and destiny, the foundation is sincere and correct faith. When a discussion takes place between the Mu'tazilah and the Jabriyyah, each group stands very far from the other, and both are at opposite extremes, because they judge by their minds without considering what I mentioned earlier about Allah (Mighty and Majestic) and that He (Blessed and Exalted is He): The Mu'tazilah meet the Jabriyyah in one opinion, but the difference between the two groups is that when the Mu'tazilah apply their minds to that opinion, they find it does not align with divine justice, so they flee from it. As for the Jabriyyah, they settle upon it and find peace in it. What is it? If it is said that every action a person does, whether good or evil, is decreed upon him, the two groups agree that this means compulsion for the person to do good or evil, so they agreed on this. But the Mu'tazilah fled and said, if that were the case, there would be no wisdom for Allah (Mighty and Majestic) in commanding good and forbidding evil, nor in rewarding good with good and evil with evil, rewarding good with Paradise and evil with the Fire, as the Mu'tazilah say. Decree and obligation do not meet, so they fled to their saying that there is no decree. The Jabriyyah remained on their opinion that the meaning of Allah (Mighty and Majestic) decreeing good and evil for the person is that he is compelled, and they stuck to it. So each group refuted the falsehood in the other. The falsehood in the Mu'tazilah is their denial of the decree, and the falsehood in the Jabriyyah is their clinging to the decree and affirming compulsion, which is also false. And therefore, the matter is as Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him) said: take the truth from each group and leave their misguidance with them. Take from the Jabriyyah their faith in the decree as truth, and leave with them the saying of compulsion because it is false. And take from the Mu'tazilah their saying that compulsion is false, and rebuke them for their denial of divine decree and destiny. So the point is that each group held onto a truth and refuted a falsehood, and the reason is that they wanted to understand this divine attribute, divine decree as he (peace and blessings be upon him) said: They wanted to understand divine action with their limited minds, so they fell into misguidance. Those denied the decree because they could not reconcile faith in the decree with faith that the person is a chooser. And these denied the person's choice because they could not reconcile the person's choice with divine decree. So my intention in this speech is that the believer uses his mind and thought to a limit, especially regarding the divine attributes, and among them is the decree. He cannot solve the problem of the decree, or in the correct sense, the creed of the decree, such that he understands it and submits it to his mind. It is necessary to have faith and it is necessary to submit. The choice that the Jabriyyah denied is a denial of self-evident matters. And as I say in such a research, I am now speaking with you. Who doubts that I am speaking by choice? And if one of them stubbornly says to me, "You are speaking without choice," I remain silent. So I speak by my choice and I remain silent by my choice. This is stubbornness and denial of self-evident facts. Why do they deny these self-evident facts, my brother? It is written, it is recorded. Yes, it is recorded, and there is no doubt and no ambiguity, and it is recorded with knowledge, justice, and wisdom. And I give an example of accidental killing and intentional killing. This killing and that killing, both are decreed and written in the Preserved Tablet, and there is no doubt, and it does not accept figurative interpretation or alteration. But how was it written? How was it decreed? When we say intentional killing and accidental killing, without a doubt, we mention with accidental killing the absence of human will; he killed, but he did not intend to kill. As for intentional killing, as they say today in legal language, it is killing with prior intent, determination, and planning. So I give an example of these two types of killing: a man planned to kill a man isolated on the top of a mountain and made a precise plan to ambush and kill him. So he climbed the mountain on a moonless night, as they say, and killed him. Another climbed the mountain for some reason, for a walk, and his foot slipped, and there was a person, so he collided with him, and he rolled down until he reached the foot of the mountain dead. That one is a killer and this one is a killer. So who says this is like that? Both are decreed. So we must think that divine decree, as I hinted at the beginning of my speech, is accompanied by the other divine attributes, including knowledge and wisdom. If the veil is lifted for us, and we previously knew nothing about the nature of these two killings, but after the event occurred, we knew that the first killed with prior intent, determination, and planning, while the other's foot slipped and he collided with another person, and that person rolled down dead. The matter was revealed that the first killing was intentional and the other was accidental. So now, analyzing the divine writing: Allah (Mighty and Majestic) wrote that the first would intend, plan, and resolve to kill the man by his choice, so He wrote him in the Preserved Tablet as an intentional killer and stored for him the punishment of Hellfire. As for the other, He wrote that he would kill unintentionally and without his will, and therefore He did not write Hellfire for him. So the first matter represents what he deserves punishment for, and the other does not deserve punishment for it...
Abu Layla : Our Shaykh, Muhammad, is back on the phone.

The Shaykh : If we return to your question, what is the difficulty if we know this reality?

The questioner : The difficulty I had was that one of the scholars mentioned that, I forgot his exact phrase, it is fine, Shaykh, no, no, that the decreed is such and such, that evil is the evil of the decreed and not the evil of the Decider, and so on.

The Shaykh : The evil of the decreed and not what?

The questioner : And not the evil of the Decider, because this is from the actions of the servant himself. The phrase failed me, Shaykh?

The Shaykh : I did not understand.
Abu Layla : I mean, Shaykh, he intends...

The Shaykh : Did you understand him?
Abu Layla : By Allah, my Shaykh.

Another questioner : I understood.

The Shaykh: Go ahead, let us see.

Another questioner : Perhaps he intends the statement of some shaykhs that when Allah (Blessed and Exalted is He) decrees evil, it is not evil in its reality, as I spoke, but in the decree, for example, the flogging of the fornicator; this matter is evil.

The Shaykh : Did you give him an example?

Another questioner : I gave him an example, yes.

The Shaykh : What is the benefit of commenting on my words!

Another questioner : He said this is the difficulty that arose in my mind, so you spoke about it, meaning.

The questioner : May Allah reward you with good.

The Shaykh : The difficulty is gone, meaning?

The questioner : Yes, it is gone.

The Shaykh : May Allah reward you with good.