Continuation of the discussion on the people's schools of thought regarding the issue of the actions of the servants and arguing with divine decree.

And how many hands do you have in the darkness of the night that tell you that Manichaeism lies?
To emphasize the multitude "How many hands in the darkness of the night" meaning from blessings "that tell you that Manichaeism" and they are a sect of the Zoroastrians "lies" because the Manichaeans say: Darkness creates what?
The student: Evil

The Shaykh : And are blessings good or evil? Good. He says to the one he praises: You are generous by night and by day, which refutes the Manichaeans who say that darkness creates evil. In any case, we say: The Jabriyyah were met with their innovation by an innovation. Know that an innovation cannot be countered by an innovation, because if you innovate, he will claim against you, he will claim against you. And among that is what some people do on the day of 'Ashura. The day of 'Ashura for the Rafidah is a day of grief and calamity. People from the people of the Sunnah came and said: Then we will make it a day of joy and happiness, and it is recommended on the day of 'Ashura that we adorn ourselves, beautify ourselves, be generous with the children, take them out, and show them things, in opposition to the grief. But is this correct? No, because if we do this, the Rafidah will say: What is your evidence for this? So an innovation can never be countered by an innovation; it is not countered except by the Sunnah. We counter the Jabriyyah, who deny the will of the servant, with the evidence of the Book and the Sunnah that the human being has a will. And we counter the Qadariyyah by saying that Allah the Exalted has dominion over the heavens and the earth, and you do not will except that Allah wills. Did you understand? So if I will something and do it, I say: Allah willed that before I willed it. It is not possible for me to will something and do it without Allah the Exalted having willed it, ever. { Abdullah al-Afghani! Where are you? } Well, if someone says: If you say this, and that your will is after the will of Allah and follows the will of Allah, then it follows that the sinner should argue against us with the decree of Allah and His will. The sinner wills the sin and commits the sin. We say to him: Why? He says: Because Allah willed that. What am I to do? Allah willed that I do it, so I did it. How do you blame me for a matter that Allah wrote upon me and willed for me? What do we say? We say: First of all, who informed you that Allah willed that? Does anyone know that Allah willed a thing except after it occurs? He does not know. For example, when I stand up and pray, I know that when I willed the prayer and did it, Allah the Mighty and Majestic had willed it before. But before I pray, do I know that Allah willed that I pray or not?
The students: I do not know

The Shaykh : No? Lam with alif? Are you sure?
The students: Yes.

The Shaykh : Well, when the sinner commits the sin, does he know that Allah willed for him to commit the sin before he commits it? No. So he has no argument. And how well some scholars said: The decree is a hidden secret that is not known except after the decreed thing occurs. And so it is. This is a conclusive answer that the sinner cannot surpass by a hair's breadth. Well, then we say to him: Are you not, if there is a burning fire before you or drowning valleys, are you not deterred from them and do not proceed to them?
The student: Yes.

The Shaykh : Well, why do you not proceed and throw yourself into the fire and say: .. This is the will of Allah? It is not possible for one to proceed to drowning valleys or a burning fire and claim that it is by the will of Allah. It is not possible. We say: So why did you not avoid the sins that you know, by the promise of Allah the Mighty and Majestic or His threat, are a cause for entering the Fire? Why? This is how we address him when we want him to avoid sins. When we want him to do the acts of obedience, we say: Come: It was written in the papers, a competition for two jobs, one is ten thousand riyals a month and the other is ten .. a month. Where does he go?
The student: Ten thousand

The Shaykh : No, my brothers, he goes to the ten thousand. And we say this is the estimation of Allah? .. No. Well, we say: Are you not going to the ten thousand? You want this good salary. Well, righteous work was offered to you, righteous work where the reward of a good deed is ten times its like up to seven hundred times. Why do you not proceed to it? Just as you proceeded to what you see as your luck in the work of this world, why do you not proceed to what you see as your luck in the work of the Hereafter? And with this, the argument of the wrongdoer is cut off, whether he wronged by committing the forbidden or by leaving the obligatory. There is no harm in saying that we addressed this, even though it is not among the specific features of the science of tafsir, because this is from the important science of 'aqidah. Perhaps such objections from the Jabriyyah or from the Qadariyyah may confuse a person, so we say with what you have heard. And the matter, praise be to Allah, is clear, so much so that the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) solved this problem with only two words. He (peace and blessings be upon him) said, while on the edge of the grave of one of his daughters: They said: O Messenger of Allah, should we not leave the work and rely on the Book? This is an objection, but it is an objection in the beginning, as Allah the Exalted said: Since the thing is written, what is the need to work? This is written for the people of happiness, so they have attained happiness .. Let him sleep because he is from the people of happiness. This one is from the people of misery, he also does not work, because he is from the people of misery, what is the need to work? So the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said two words: Glory be to Allah, he did not come with philosophy and lengthening: with two words So if you find in yourself that Allah has facilitated for you good, guidance, and energy for worship, know that you are from those written as people of happiness, by the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him): So the matter, praise be to Allah, is very clear that there is no argument for the sinner with the decree regarding his sin, and no argument for the one who is negligent in the obligatory with the decree regarding his negligence. The matter is clearer than needing much speech. { May Allah have mercy on you } But when Satan comes to a person and says: So and so, it remains for us to say: Did not Adam argue with the decree? And did not Allah the Exalted argue with the decree, saying to His Messenger: So what is the answer? The answer is to say: As for the saying of Allah the Exalted:
And you are not a guardian over them. This is a source of comfort for the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), a comfort for him, where Allah said to him: “Had Allah willed, they would not have associated partners with Him.” So their shirk (associating partners with Allah) is by the will of Allah. It is known that the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) would be pleased with the decree of Allah. For this reason, it is obligatory for us to look at the people of sins with two perspectives: a perspective of divine decree (qadar) and a perspective of the Shari'ah. The perspective of divine decree is that we accept what has occurred of their sins, because it is by the decree of whom? By the decree of Allah. The perspective of the Shari'ah is that we hold them accountable to the Shari'ah of Allah, we establish the hudud (fixed Qur'anic punishments) and ta'zir (discretionary punishment) upon them, and other things that compel them to do acts of obedience and leave off what is forbidden. Be aware, my brothers, these issues are very important. So we say: The purpose of Allah the Exalted’s saying to the Messenger: What is its purpose? It is to comfort the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), because if he knew that it was by the will of Allah, he would be pleased. But Allah the Exalted refuted their claim by His saying: [Al-An'am: 148]. Allah refuted this argument because what did they intend by it? They intended to invalidate the Shari'ah by citing divine decree. So Allah the Exalted clarified that He punished them. Adam (peace be upon him) argued with Moses and said to him: “You have caused us to fail; you brought us out and yourself out of Paradise.” By what? By his disobedience in eating from the tree. So Adam said to him: “Do you blame me for something that Allah wrote upon me before He created me by forty years?” The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: And in another narration: And the meaning of “he argued with him” is that he overcame him in the argument. So Adam argued with the divine decree that was written upon him before he was created, and Moses was defeated in the argument. Who uses this hadith as an argument? The people of sins use it as an argument for their sins, and they say: Adam argued with the divine decree against Moses, and the Prophet (may Allah’s prayers and peace be upon him) ruled for whom? For Adam, and he said: “He argued with him.” So we argue with the divine decree just as our father did. We answer this with two answers. The first answer is from Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him), who said: Adam did not argue with the divine decree regarding the sin, but rather he argued with the divine decree regarding being taken out of Paradise. As for the sin, Adam excused himself from it, and [Al-A'raf: 23] Did you understand? So Adam cannot possibly argue with the divine decree regarding the sin in any way, and he is too noble in status to argue with the divine decree regarding the sin against Allah. He only argued with the divine decree regarding his being taken out of Paradise, not regarding the cause of being taken out. And arguing with the divine decree regarding misfortunes is permissible, and it is the ultimate submission to Allah the Mighty and Majestic. Have you seen the saying of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him): And this is an argument with the divine decree, but after doing the causes. So arguing with the divine decree regarding misfortunes is permissible. And when a person is struck by a misfortune and says: “Indeed, to Allah we belong and to Him we return,” this means submission to the divine decree. Settle down, everyone, be aware. So Adam’s argument with the divine decree was regarding what? Regarding the misfortune, not the sin. This is one aspect. Another aspect: It was not permissible for Moses (peace be upon him) to blame his father for a sin from which he had repented, and after which his Lord chose him and guided him. It is impossible. The lowest of people, if someone is struck by a sin and then repents, he will not direct blame at him. Allah the Exalted said: This status he did not attain before the sin occurred. So it is impossible for Moses to blame his father for a sin from which he repented and after which his status with Allah the Mighty and Majestic was raised. This is impossible; this does not come from the lowest of people, let alone a man from the Ulul 'Azm (the resolute messengers). This is the answer of whom? The answer of Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah, and it is a good answer without a doubt. And Ibn al-Qayyim (may Allah have mercy on him) went to another answer and said: Arguing with the divine decree regarding a sin after repenting from it and abandoning it is acceptable, not to remove blame or to make continuing permissible. He says: Arguing with the divine decree is of two types: One type is arguing with the divine decree after the time has passed, with abandoning the sin and being in a good state, and this is permissible. And arguing with the divine decree to push away blame and to continue in the sin, this is prohibited. Did you understand? That means, if we assume that Adam (peace and blessings be upon him) argued with the divine decree regarding the sin from which he repented and Allah guided him and chose him, it would be permissible under this assumption, because Adam did not argue with it to continue; he argued with it because the time had passed. The parallel to this now, in what we have now, if a person commits zina (unlawful sexual intercourse) – may Allah protect us from that – and he is a good man but his desire overcame him and he committed zina, then he repented, and we said to him: “So-and-so, how did this thing happen to you?” He says: “By Allah, this is divine decree and destiny, otherwise I would not be of the people of this matter, but what was decreed happened.” Do we accept it from him or not? We accept it from him. But if he is committing zina and continuing, we say: “Repent to Allah.” He says: “It is forced upon me.” Forced upon you? Glory be to Allah, it is forced upon you, and you are currently practicing this act? It is not forced upon you. In any case, Ibn al-Qayyim says: Arguing with the divine decree after it has occurred, as submission to the divine decree and entrusting the matter to Allah, not as continuation or pushing away blame, this is permissible. Then he cited a story that happened with 'Ali ibn Abi Talib and his wife Fatimah (may Allah be pleased with them) when the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) entered upon them and said to them: 'Ali said: “O Messenger of Allah! Our souls are in the hand of Allah; if He willed, He would have raised them.” He argued with what? With the divine decree. So the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) left them or turned away from them, striking his thigh and saying: So did the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) accept it from them? Be aware, if you say: “He accepted it absolutely,” that is not correct. And if you say: “He accepted the reality, but he disliked the argument,” that is the reality. Because if he had wanted to rebuke them, he would have said something else; he would have said: “You have no argument in this.” But he considered it from the category of argumentation which he prohibited. So one day he came out to his Companions and they were arguing about the divine decree, and he became angry (peace and blessings be upon him), as if a pomegranate seed had burst on his face; his face turned red, and he prohibited arguing about the divine decree. So what is the second way out from the story of Adam and Moses? That Adam argued with the divine decree regarding a matter that had passed and ended and he had been relieved of it, but he said: “This was a mistake from me.” And each of them has a perspective, but the first perspective, in my opinion, is stronger, because Moses cannot possibly blame his father for a matter from which he repented. But the second one has a point of view without a doubt. However, we do not apply the story of Adam and Moses to it, but we say: It is regarding all other people now. If you blamed a person for a matter he did from the sins of Allah, and then he argued with the divine decree after he had repented, I accept it from him. And this happens often. Often a person commits a sin and then regrets it with great regret, and then says: “It is the decree of Allah, and what He willed happened. How did this happen to me? How did my self overcome me?” Yes, and this is a matter with no harm. We have lengthened this for you, but excuse us, because we see that it is necessary for the student of knowledge to have, as they say, a background. And I say: What is a background? That he has knowledge of such matters to free himself with it from the doubts that Satan brings upon him, and to free himself with it from doubts that the friends of Satan bring upon him.