The Deviation of the People of Innovation in the Chapter of Divine Decree
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : So now we have understood qadar (divine decree), or at least we have gained a good idea of it, if Allah wills. We ask Allah to make it beneficial. And through this, we know that denying qadar is clear misguidance. And exaggeration in affirming it is also clear misguidance. And the middle path of light is the one upon which the people of the Sunnah and the community are. On this occasion, we would like to say that Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him and reward him well for Islam) mentioned that the people of the Sunnah and the community are the middle ground between the sects of innovators in five principles. Allahu Akbar...
The questioner : So nothing happens except by the will of Allah, as al-Shafi'i said...
The Shaykh : So, if you affirm that man is independent in his actions, you have affirmed the existence of something in the dominion of Allah that Allah does not will, and this is associating partners with Him. For this reason, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) named these Qadariyyah (a sect that denied divine decree) the Majus (the Zoroastrians) of this Ummah (the Muslim community). This is one point.
Second, we say to them, and what is meant by this... their extremists. We say: Do you acknowledge the knowledge of Allah? They will say, yes, we acknowledge it. So we say: Did this thing happen contrary to His knowledge, or in accordance with His knowledge? If they say contrary to His knowledge, they have denied knowledge. If they say in accordance with it, they have acknowledged that it is by His will, because it means that Allah caused it to happen in accordance with... because you, as a human, do not know what Allah willed. So if it happened in accordance with the knowledge of Allah, it was by His decree, because when you did it, you did not know that Allah (Mighty and Majestic) had decreed it for you. As for the Jabriyyah...
The questioner : It was not clear.
The Shaykh : Yes?
The questioner : It was not clear.
The Shaykh : We say: Did what happened from him occur in accordance with the knowledge of Allah, or contrary to it? If he says contrary to it, he has denied knowledge. If he says in accordance with it, we say this is proof that it is by His will.
The questioner : ...
The Shaykh : How is that? We say: Because when you did it, you did not know that Allah the Exalted willed it, so you made it conform to His knowledge. It only proceeded in accordance with the knowledge of Allah the Exalted by the will of Allah. So this is proof that what you did is what Allah (Mighty and Majestic) willed. And on this basis is the famous saying of al-Shafi'i: "Argue with them using knowledge; if they deny it, they are disbelievers, and if they acknowledge it, they are defeated." As for the Jabriyyah, they have proofs. What are the proofs of the Jabriyyah? You...
The student: His saying, the Exalted:[Al-Anfal 8:17]
The Shaykh : Now,[Al-Anfal 8:17] he denied the action for the Prophet and affirmed it for Allah; this is one point.
The student: His saying, the Exalted:[Ali 'Imran 3:128]
The Shaykh :[Ali 'Imran 3:128]؟
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : What is the indication?
The student: That the matter is not in your hand for you to dispose of it; you are compelled. The whole matter is in the hand of Allah.
The Shaykh : It is not clear. Yes.
The student:[Al-Insan 76:30]
The Shaykh :[Al-Insan 76:30], do you agree with this proof?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Yes
The student:[Al-An'am 6:125]
The Shaykh :[Al-An'am 6:125]
The student:[Al-An'am 6:125]
The Shaykh :, okay.
The student:[Hud 11:34]
The Shaykh : Yes, these are the proofs. And among the proofs are also the proofs of their brothers, the polytheists. The proofs of their brothers, the polytheists:[Al-An'am 6:148] Is their statement correct? That is, if Allah had willed, we would not have associated partners with Him, but He willed that we associate, so we associated by compulsion. But we said previously that this is a word of truth intended to be used for falsehood. Yes, if Allah had willed, they would not have associated, as the Exalted said: [Al-An'am 6:107] But they did not intend this; they intended to use it as an argument for sins using qadar. Otherwise, if they had said, "By Allah, this is by the decree and destiny of Allah, and what happened to us is by the decree and destiny of Allah," they would have had a valid point. And Allah has invalidated their argument by His saying: [Al-An'am 6:148] And Allah the Exalted would not have subjected them to His punishment while they were right and correct in what they said. Okay, are there also rational proofs for the Jabriyyah?
The Shaykh : Yes, rational proofs.
The student: They said, if we say that the servant... it would necessitate affirming two creators. And the Creator is One. So the servant creates his action, and Allah creates the servant, so these are two creators.
The Shaykh : I mean, if we say that man is a chooser, if we say that man is a chooser, it would necessitate that there is in the dominion of Allah (Mighty and Majestic) what He does not will, and rather it would be independent. And this, if they are answering whom? The Qadariyyah. This is correct as a refutation of the Qadariyyah. So then, how do we refute them with transmitted and rational proofs? Yes.
The student: We say, if your statement were correct...
The Shaykh : Yes
The student: Then the sending of the messengers would be futile, and it is impossible that Allah (Glorified and Exalted is He) would send the messengers in futility.
The Shaykh : How is that?
The student: Because if you say that man is compelled...
The Shaykh : Yes
The student: In his actions, that means that obedience to the messengers contains no...
The Shaykh : I mean, that the sending of the messengers does not establish the argument, because qadar still exists even after the sending of the messengers. And Allah (Mighty and Majestic) has denied the argument after the sending of the messengers, and He said:[An-Nisa 4:165] And if man were compelled, he would say, "O Lord, what do You want from the messengers?" Yes, this is a proof. Yes...
The student: If we say by compulsion...
The Shaykh : No, no, we don't want that. If we say, we want proofs. What is this? It is an explanation.
The student: A rational proof.
The Shaykh : No, no, we haven't reached the rational part yet. Yes.
The student: His saying, the Exalted:[Ali 'Imran 3:152]...
The Shaykh : No, this is in the refutation of them. No, we want to establish their argument. What is this that we want?
The student: No, the refutation of them.
The Shaykh : Ah, you did well. So bring out what you have.
The student: His saying, the Exalted:[Ali 'Imran 3:152] So He affirmed will for the servant.
The Shaykh : Correct. And also His saying:[At-Takwir 81:28-29] Okay, how do we refute them with rational proofs?
The student: We say that there is a difference known by necessity between voluntary actions and involuntary actions.
The Shaykh : Yes
The student: And that if we say that this and that are the same, there would be no difference between the obedient and the disobedient.
The Shaykh : Yes
The student: And it would be futile to reward this one and punish that one, and this would be a criticism of the wisdom of Allah (Mighty and Majestic).
The Shaykh : Yes, like that? Did you hear now? He says: If we say by their statement that man is compelled in his actions, there would be no difference between the obedient and the disobedient, and the obedient would not deserve reward, nor the disobedient punishment.
The Shaykh : Yes
The student: Even though each of them deserves the consequence of his action. And there is a difference known by necessity between the things a person does by choice and the things he does by compulsion. For example, one person drives a car and hits a wall and crashes into this fence, and another person is forced, his car slips out of his control, and he is unable to drive it. Is there a difference between them or not? And between one person who goes down the stairs by choice, step by step, and one person who is pushed from the top until... until what? Until what?
The student: He breaks.
The Shaykh : No, he doesn't break. If he broke, he wouldn't walk. No, until he rolls down. So is there a difference between them or not? Everyone knows that, and everyone also knows that a person goes and comes, stands and sits, prays, fasts, gives zakah, and leaves these things by choice, and he does not see that anyone compelled him. Yes.
The student: A rational proof.
The Shaykh : Yes
The student: Because they themselves do not pardon those who wrong them. If someone slapped him...
The Shaykh : Yes
The student: He would demand his right.
The Shaykh : Yes
The student: And if he argued with qadar, he would not accept it.
The Shaykh : Yes, exactly. They also do not say this. If one of them was slapped by a person from the people and said, "Why are you aggressing against me?" and the other said, "By Allah, this is by the decree and destiny of Allah," would he accept it? He would not accept it. But if the... the second one, the wronged one... says, "This is by the decree and destiny of Allah." For this reason, it is said that the Commander of the Faithful, 'Umar, was brought a thief, and the theft was established against him, so he ordered his hand to be cut off. The thief said, "Wait, O Commander of the Faithful! By Allah, I did not steal except by the decree of Allah." So the Commander of the Faithful said to him, "We do not cut off your hand except by the decree of Allah as well." Is that correct or not? And the Commander of the Faithful (may Allah be pleased with him) answered him with the same proof as his, or is there also another proof stronger than that proof? Because we cut it off by the decree of Allah and the Shari'ah (Islamic sacred law) of Allah, while he steals by the decree of Allah, not by the Shari'ah of Allah. Yes.
The questioner : So nothing happens except by the will of Allah, as al-Shafi'i said...
The Shaykh : So, if you affirm that man is independent in his actions, you have affirmed the existence of something in the dominion of Allah that Allah does not will, and this is associating partners with Him. For this reason, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) named these Qadariyyah (a sect that denied divine decree) the Majus (the Zoroastrians) of this Ummah (the Muslim community). This is one point.
Second, we say to them, and what is meant by this... their extremists. We say: Do you acknowledge the knowledge of Allah? They will say, yes, we acknowledge it. So we say: Did this thing happen contrary to His knowledge, or in accordance with His knowledge? If they say contrary to His knowledge, they have denied knowledge. If they say in accordance with it, they have acknowledged that it is by His will, because it means that Allah caused it to happen in accordance with... because you, as a human, do not know what Allah willed. So if it happened in accordance with the knowledge of Allah, it was by His decree, because when you did it, you did not know that Allah (Mighty and Majestic) had decreed it for you. As for the Jabriyyah...
The questioner : It was not clear.
The Shaykh : Yes?
The questioner : It was not clear.
The Shaykh : We say: Did what happened from him occur in accordance with the knowledge of Allah, or contrary to it? If he says contrary to it, he has denied knowledge. If he says in accordance with it, we say this is proof that it is by His will.
The questioner : ...
The Shaykh : How is that? We say: Because when you did it, you did not know that Allah the Exalted willed it, so you made it conform to His knowledge. It only proceeded in accordance with the knowledge of Allah the Exalted by the will of Allah. So this is proof that what you did is what Allah (Mighty and Majestic) willed. And on this basis is the famous saying of al-Shafi'i: "Argue with them using knowledge; if they deny it, they are disbelievers, and if they acknowledge it, they are defeated." As for the Jabriyyah, they have proofs. What are the proofs of the Jabriyyah? You...
The student: His saying, the Exalted:
And you threw not, [O Muhammad], when you threw, but it was Allah who threw
وما رميت إذ رميت ولكن الله رمىThe Shaykh : Now,
And you threw not, [O Muhammad], when you threw, but it was Allah who threw
وما رميت إذ رميت ولكن الله رمىThe student: His saying, the Exalted:
Not for you, [O Muhammad, but for Allah], is the decision
ليس لك من الأمر شيءThe Shaykh :
Not for you, [O Muhammad, but for Allah], is the decision
ليس لك من الأمر شيءThe student: Yes.
The Shaykh : What is the indication?
The student: That the matter is not in your hand for you to dispose of it; you are compelled. The whole matter is in the hand of Allah.
The Shaykh : It is not clear. Yes.
The student:
And you do not will except that Allah wills
وما تشاءون إلا أن يشاء اللهThe Shaykh :
And you do not will except that Allah wills
وما تشاءون إلا أن يشاء اللهThe student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Yes
The student:
So whoever Allah wants to guide
ومن يرد الله أن يهديهThe Shaykh :
So whoever Allah wants to guide
ومن يرد الله أن يهديهThe student:
He expands his breast to [contain] Islam; and whoever He wants to misguide - He makes his breast tight and constricted
يشرح صدره للإسلام ومن يرد أن يضله يجعل صدره ضيقا حرجاThe Shaykh :
narrow and constricted
ضيقا حرجاThe student:
although I wished to advise you - If Allah should intend to put you in error
... إن أردت أن أنصح لكم إن كان الله يريد أن يغويكمThe Shaykh : Yes, these are the proofs. And among the proofs are also the proofs of their brothers, the polytheists. The proofs of their brothers, the polytheists:
Those who associated with Allah will say, "If Allah had willed, we would not have associated [anything] and neither would our fathers, nor would we have prohibited anything."
سيقول الذين أشركوا لو شاء الله ما أشركنا ولا آباؤنا ولا حرمنا من شيءBut if Allah had willed, they would not have associated
ولو شاء الله ما أشركواLikewise did those before deny until they tasted Our punishment
كذلك كذب الذين من قبلهم حتى ذاقوا بأسناThe Shaykh : Yes, rational proofs.
The student: They said, if we say that the servant... it would necessitate affirming two creators. And the Creator is One. So the servant creates his action, and Allah creates the servant, so these are two creators.
The Shaykh : I mean, if we say that man is a chooser, if we say that man is a chooser, it would necessitate that there is in the dominion of Allah (Mighty and Majestic) what He does not will, and rather it would be independent. And this, if they are answering whom? The Qadariyyah. This is correct as a refutation of the Qadariyyah. So then, how do we refute them with transmitted and rational proofs? Yes.
The student: We say, if your statement were correct...
The Shaykh : Yes
The student: Then the sending of the messengers would be futile, and it is impossible that Allah (Glorified and Exalted is He) would send the messengers in futility.
The Shaykh : How is that?
The student: Because if you say that man is compelled...
The Shaykh : Yes
The student: In his actions, that means that obedience to the messengers contains no...
The Shaykh : I mean, that the sending of the messengers does not establish the argument, because qadar still exists even after the sending of the messengers. And Allah (Mighty and Majestic) has denied the argument after the sending of the messengers, and He said:
[We sent] messengers as bringers of good tidings and warners so that mankind will have no argument against Allah after the messengers
رسلا مبشرين ومنذرين لئلا يكون للناس على الله حجة بعد الرسلThe student: If we say by compulsion...
The Shaykh : No, no, we don't want that. If we say, we want proofs. What is this? It is an explanation.
The student: A rational proof.
The Shaykh : No, no, we haven't reached the rational part yet. Yes.
The student: His saying, the Exalted:
Among you are some who desire this world, and among you are some who desire the Hereafter
منكم من يريد الدنيا ومنكم من يريد الآخرةThe Shaykh : No, this is in the refutation of them. No, we want to establish their argument. What is this that we want?
The student: No, the refutation of them.
The Shaykh : Ah, you did well. So bring out what you have.
The student: His saying, the Exalted:
Among you are some who desire this world, and among you are some who desire the Hereafter
منكم من يريد الدنيا ومنكم من يريد الآخرةThe Shaykh : Correct. And also His saying:
(28) For whoever wills among you to take a right course. (29) And you do not will except that Allah wills - Lord of the worlds.
لمن شاء منكم أن يستقيم وما تشاءون إلا أن يشاء الله رب العالمينThe student: We say that there is a difference known by necessity between voluntary actions and involuntary actions.
The Shaykh : Yes
The student: And that if we say that this and that are the same, there would be no difference between the obedient and the disobedient.
The Shaykh : Yes
The student: And it would be futile to reward this one and punish that one, and this would be a criticism of the wisdom of Allah (Mighty and Majestic).
The Shaykh : Yes, like that? Did you hear now? He says: If we say by their statement that man is compelled in his actions, there would be no difference between the obedient and the disobedient, and the obedient would not deserve reward, nor the disobedient punishment.
The Shaykh : Yes
The student: Even though each of them deserves the consequence of his action. And there is a difference known by necessity between the things a person does by choice and the things he does by compulsion. For example, one person drives a car and hits a wall and crashes into this fence, and another person is forced, his car slips out of his control, and he is unable to drive it. Is there a difference between them or not? And between one person who goes down the stairs by choice, step by step, and one person who is pushed from the top until... until what? Until what?
The student: He breaks.
The Shaykh : No, he doesn't break. If he broke, he wouldn't walk. No, until he rolls down. So is there a difference between them or not? Everyone knows that, and everyone also knows that a person goes and comes, stands and sits, prays, fasts, gives zakah, and leaves these things by choice, and he does not see that anyone compelled him. Yes.
The student: A rational proof.
The Shaykh : Yes
The student: Because they themselves do not pardon those who wrong them. If someone slapped him...
The Shaykh : Yes
The student: He would demand his right.
The Shaykh : Yes
The student: And if he argued with qadar, he would not accept it.
The Shaykh : Yes, exactly. They also do not say this. If one of them was slapped by a person from the people and said, "Why are you aggressing against me?" and the other said, "By Allah, this is by the decree and destiny of Allah," would he accept it? He would not accept it. But if the... the second one, the wronged one... says, "This is by the decree and destiny of Allah." For this reason, it is said that the Commander of the Faithful, 'Umar, was brought a thief, and the theft was established against him, so he ordered his hand to be cut off. The thief said, "Wait, O Commander of the Faithful! By Allah, I did not steal except by the decree of Allah." So the Commander of the Faithful said to him, "We do not cut off your hand except by the decree of Allah as well." Is that correct or not? And the Commander of the Faithful (may Allah be pleased with him) answered him with the same proof as his, or is there also another proof stronger than that proof? Because we cut it off by the decree of Allah and the Shari'ah (Islamic sacred law) of Allah, while he steals by the decree of Allah, not by the Shari'ah of Allah. Yes.