In fact, this proposition was a part of another topic, related to Compulsion and Freedom of actions. It was a major issue in Islamic faith. It was contested bitterly by the scholars of the Ummah. However, if this issue is studied with fair-mindedness, then the problem is not too difficult to comprehend, as it had been thought.

When the author said that people’s actions are empowered (by choice), and not predetermined creation of God, then he proposed that God had not invented those actions. Rather, He had the knowledge of those acts, even before the individuals committed them.

At this juncture, Shaykh Al-Mufid angrily criticised the author, by saying that the subject matter of his postulate was based on a solitary statement. However, several reports of this kind were present in Bihar Al-Anwar, and other books of Hadith. We have presented two narrations,

Imam Ja’far As-Sadiq (‘a) said, “People’s acts are empowered creation of God (as those are performed by the faculties provided to the human’s), instead of predetermined (they must perform the assigned duty) creation, surely Allah is the creator of all things.”

While, Imam Ar-Ridha (‘a) said, “People’s actions are creation of God. He has empowered them, and not predetermined their actions.”

Let this distinction be made clear by giving an example. God had created all the body parts of human beings. An important part of this structure was brain. Every child that would be conceived could be a male or female, be of any descent, but must have a brain no matter where, he or she was born, irrespective of time constraints, today, tomorrow or a million years from now. This process of creation would not change i.e. every child will have a brain. This would be called takveeni creation.

Now what could he or she do with their brain? They could create wonders of the world or they might choose to carry out the largest bank robbery. This was called a taqdeeri creation i.e. a faculty was created by God but its function was not determined by Him. It is left to the choice of the person having it, even though He (already) knew what those individuals would proceed to do with that faculty.

After clearing the concepts with the above-mentioned example, we could say that God was not the Creator of our actions in a sense that He had compelled us to do a particular thing. Yet, He was aware of what we thought and did with the instruments that were created for us. Therefore, Shaykh Al-Mufid’s criticism of Abu Ja’far, on the basis, that his conclusions were founded on a solitary narration, or that it was the derived from several narrations would be invalid. All the suggestions he made could be narrowed down to the variations of syntax.

In view of the significance of this issue, we would like to discuss aspects of this dilemma in some detail.

Distinction Between Predetermined And Acts That Fall Under The Religious Legal Code

Before we engage with the real topic, it would important for us to know, as a prologue that human acts are of two types. Some were predetermined or genetically controlled, such as height, colour and facial features etc. The others were tashriya acts like offering obligatory prayers, fasting in the month of Ramadan, not drinking alcohol or not committing adultery.

For the first category, the scholars of both sects agreed that human intervention is irrelevant and man was simply a recipient of what his genetic code had settled him for.

On the basis of how the second category of acts is performed, the ummah’s obligations fall into three categories. Firstly, jabr performing acts under compulsion by the Will of God. He does things - good or bad – as directed, and he does not exercise free will with respect to these deeds. Second was, tafweez, whereby whatever is done, is done by man himself. God does not compel on him. The third category is of al’amr bayn al-’amrayn. Here, the truth lay between the two positions. In other words, man is free in some acts and under compulsion in the others.

This is the Shi’a point of view. We will discuss this concept further in the fifth chapter of this book in detail - to confirm our point of view. But here we shall quote some traditions - both conceptual and practical - to rebut the first two points of views, in favour of the third.

It had been narrated that a man asked Imam Ja’far As-Sadiq (‘a) about the issues of jabr and freedom. He replied, “An act for which you can reprimand a person is a human act, and for the one you cannot raise your finger at him, is an act of God.

On the Day of Judgement, God shall ask a man about why he had disobeyed Him - why he consumed alcohol, why he committed adultery and why he transgressed on the others’ rights. But He would not ask him, why he was less tall, or why he was white and not black or why he fell ill (on certain occasions)? This would be so because these acts were acts of God.”

This word of Imam should be sufficient for thinking and sensible people. Yet, we have quoted a few more logical arguments to substantiate our point of view.

Rebuttal Of The Idea Of Compulsion

The following are the reasons why people are set free (to choose) with regards to their actions.

To say that human beings are coerced to perform their routine tasks would be a fallacy. The difference between a person’s usual acts, such as eating, standing, sitting or walking and the involuntary acts such as the pulse beat, tremors or the motor symptoms in Parkinson’s disease; or the difference between the movement of a person who fell accidentally from the roof of a house and one that walked down leisurely from the stairs of their own volition, is so lucid that it could not be denied by any reasonable person.

We now ask a question – did the noble acts of praying or fasting or the evil deeds of stealing and adultery belong to the person’s freedom of choice or are these acts which volition is not involved? At this juncture, a person’s own intuition and conscience would be a better judge to answer this question.

If human beings were constrained in their acts, and the real player was (actually) God, then it would be necessary that God is responsible for all the evils in this world. Punishing human beings for the sins and crimes - which He had ordained Himself - would then be a gross injustice.

If human beings were not free in their actions, then the coming of numerous Prophets and Messengers would have been a futile exercise. People could silence them by saying that if God was responsible for their acts, then why were they not placed in the category of the believers? Therefore, they would be asked to go to their God and ask Him to create the capacity of faith within them, and then they will turn towards Him?

What could the answer of the Prophets to such statements be, other than silence? To summarise, we could say that this postulate involves a commitment to perform acts of faith without having the necessary capacity and strength to follow.

If people were not free in their actions, then all the divine promise of Paradise and Hell, and the efforts of the Prophets would be meaningless. There would be no need for someone to perform any good deed or abstain from a bad one, while Qur’an is full of censure of infidels, polytheists and fornicators and praise of the virtuous. Who would then accept the validity of all those pledges that had been made for the righteous and the evildoers?

Logically, all human actions can only be either one of the three possibilities – that man had committed it, or, God had committed it, or both man and God had jointly committed. If the second scenario were accepted, then the punishment of a sinner would be a grave injustice, because with this approach all salutations or condemnations, punishment or reward would be for God.

The same predicament would be true with the third assumption. As man would be the weaker partner, it would be unfair to have all the punishment reserved for man alone. It would be a mockery of the justice and God is free of such lapses. Therefore, we would have to agree with the first proposition as being correct one. This was why man alone would be the recipient of punishment or reward at the end of the Day of Judgement.

If man had not been free in his acts and God had warranted all good and bad deeds, then, wherever the liars, aggressors and the sinners had been cursed by God in the Qur’an, it would imply that the curse would mandatorily return to God, as well.

Shariah Arguments On This Issue

God had condemned the ideology of compulsion in the Qur’an due to various reasons.

There were numerous Verses in the Qur’an, where God clearly mentioned, by way of indication or clear narrations, that man has free will with regard to their actions. Few of those Verses have been mentioned here:

لَا إِكْرَاهَ فِي الدِّينِ

“There is no compulsion in the religion …” (2:256).

إِنَّا هَدَيْنَاهُ السَّبِيلَ إِمَّا شَاكِرًا وَإِمَّا كَفُورًا

“We showed him the Way: whether he be grateful or ungrateful (rests on his will)” (76:3).

وَقُلِ الْحَقُّ مِن رَّبِّكُمْ فَمَن شَاءَ فَلْيُؤْمِن وَمَن شَاءَ فَلْيَكْفُرْ

“And say: The truth is from your Lord, so let him who please believe, and let him who please disbelieve…” (18:29).

فَمَن شَاءَ اتَّخَذَ إِلَىٰ رَبِّهِ سَبِيلًا

“... So, whoever pleases takes to his Lord a way” (76:29).

The intellectuals and erudite must pay attention to how nicely God had presented the justification of populace, being completely liberated in their endeavours. An act, whose performance or defiance is left to the will of individuals, would be called a task of choice and its operator would be called an autonomous player.

On the other hand, if a person opted allegorical signs by putting aside these firm Verses, then there would be no solution for their lack of intellect and neglectful manner. God had said in the Qur’an:

فَأَمَّا الَّذِينَ فِي قُلُوبِهِمْ زَيْغٌ فَيَتَّبِعُونَ مَا تَشَابَهَ مِنْهُ ابْتِغَاءَ الْفِتْنَةِ وَابْتِغَاءَ تَأْوِيلِهِ

“... then as for those in whose hearts there is perversity, they follow the part of it which is allegorical, seeking to mislead and seeking to give it (their own) ...” (3:7).

There were numerous Verses in the Qur’an, whereby God clearly denied His acceptance of polytheism, corruption and injustice.

إِنَّ اللَّهَ لَا يَظْلِمُ مِثْقَالَ ذَرَّةٍ

“Allah does not carry out an atom weight of injustice...” (4:40).

وَمَا ظَلَمْنَاهُمْ وَلَٰكِن ظَلَمُوا أَنفُسَهُمْ

“And We did not do them injustice, but they were unjust to themselves…” (11:101).

إِنَّ اللَّهَ يَأْمُرُ بِالْعَدْلِ وَالْإِحْسَانِ

“God commands you to do justice and munificence among each other...” (16:90).

قُلْ إِنَّمَا حَرَّمَ رَبِّيَ الْفَوَاحِشَ

“Say: My Lord has only prohibited indecencies....” (7:33).

وَإِذَا فَعَلُوا فَاحِشَةً قَالُوا وَجَدْنَا عَلَيْهَا آبَاءَنَا وَاللَّهُ أَمَرَنَا بِهَا قُلْ إِنَّ اللَّهَ لَا يَأْمُرُ بِالْفَحْشَاءِ أَتَقُولُونَ عَلَى اللَّهِ مَا لَا تَعْلَمُونَ

“And when they commit an indecency, they say: We found our fathers doing this, and Allah has enjoined it on us. Say: Surely Allah does not enjoin indecency; do you say against Allah what you do not know?” (7:28).

We would now request our readers to be fair in their analysis and reflect upon the above quoted Verses to see, if these Verses reject (the idea of) compulsion in human actions and indicate free will, or do they promote (the idea of) jabr (compulsion) while negating freedom of choice.

There are clear Verses in the Qur’an, which plainly hold people responsible for their own deeds, and confirm that punishment for them was a result of those acts.

فَوَيْلٌ لِّلَّذِينَ يَكْتُبُونَ الْكِتَابَ بِأَيْدِيهِمْ ثُمَّ يَقُولُونَ هَٰذَا مِنْ عِندِ اللَّهِ

“Shame is for them who write scripts with their own hands and then claim, it is from God…” (2:79).

فَالْيَوْمَ لَا تُظْلَمُ نَفْسٌ شَيْئًا وَلَا تُجْزَوْنَ إِلَّا مَا كُنتُمْ تَعْمَلُونَ

“So, this day no soul shall be dealt with unjustly in the least; and you shall not be rewarded aught but that which you did” (36:54).

وَتُوَفَّىٰ كُلُّ نَفْسٍ مَّا عَمِلَتْ وَهُمْ لَا يُظْلَمُونَ

“And every soul shall be paid in full what it has done, and they shall not be dealt with unjustly” (16:111).

ثُمَّ تُوَفَّىٰ كُلُّ نَفْسٍ مَّا كَسَبَتْ وَهُمْ لَا يُظْلَمُونَ

“…then every soul shall be paid back in full what it has earned, and they shall not be dealt with unjustly” (2:281).

لَا يُغَيِّرُ مَا بِقَوْمٍ حَتَّىٰ يُغَيِّرُوا مَا بِأَنفُسِهِمْ

“God has not changed the state of a nation, unless, it has decided to change itself” (13:11).

Then, there were Verses in which infidels were reprimanded for not accepting faith. It was revealed, that they had not been forced to remain infidels.

وَمَا مَنَعَ النَّاسَ أَن يُؤْمِنُوا إِذْ جَاءَهُمُ الْهُدَىٰ إِلَّا أَن قَالُوا أَبَعَثَ اللَّهُ بَشَرًا رَّسُولًا

“What kept men back from belief when Guidance came to them, was nothing but this: they said, "Has Allah sent a man (like us) to be (His) Messenger?” (17:94).

فَمَالِ هَٰؤُلَاءِ الْقَوْمِ لَا يَكَادُونَ يَفْقَهُونَ حَدِيثًا

“What’s the matter with these people that they do not make approach to understanding what is told (them)?” (4:78).

قُلْ يَا أَهْلَ الْكِتَابِ لِمَ تَصُدُّونَ عَن سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ

“… Why obstruct ye those who believe, from the path of Allah...” (3:99).

لِمَ تَلْبِسُونَ الْحَقَّ بِالْبَاطِلِ

“Why do you blend truth with the falsehood? ...” (3:71).

قَالَ يَا إِبْلِيسُ مَا مَنَعَكَ أَن تَسْجُدَ لِمَا خَلَقْتُ

“What stopped you O! Satan to bow to him, whom I have created...?” (38:75).

These Verses of the Qur’an are clear negation of the concepts of compulsion, and repudiation of Al-Asha’irites philosophy because God had questioned them over the wisdom of their adoption of infidelity and shirk. If Al-Asha’irites’s point of view was right, then they could say that it was He who had created polytheism and then compelled them to adopt that track, and now without any logical reason is reprimanding them for something which is not of their own making. Their silence on this issue indicate that the ideology of compulsion is totally false.

There are the Verses in which the infidels accept the responsibility for their kufr. For example, the Qur’an said:

فِي جَنَّاتٍ يَتَسَاءَلُونَ

“In gardens, they shall ask each other” (74:40).

عَنِ الْمُجْرِمِينَ

“About the guilty” (74:41).

مَا سَلَكَكُمْ فِي سَقَرَ

“What has brought you into hell?” (74:42).

قَالُوا لَمْ نَكُ مِنَ الْمُصَلِّينَ

“They shall say: We were not of those who prayed” (74:43).

وَلَمْ نَكُ نُطْعِمُ الْمِسْكِينَ

“And we used not to feed the poor” (74:44).

كُلَّمَا أُلْقِيَ فِيهَا فَوْجٌ سَأَلَهُمْ خَزَنَتُهَا أَلَمْ يَأْتِكُمْ نَذِيرٌ

“…Whenever a group is cast into it, its keeper shall ask them: Did there not come to you a warner?” (67:8).

قَالُوا بَلَىٰ قَدْ جَاءَنَا نَذِيرٌ فَكَذَّبْنَا وَقُلْنَا مَا نَزَّلَ اللَّهُ مِن شَيْءٍ

“They shall say: Yea! indeed there came to us a warner, but we rejected (him) and said: Allah has not revealed anything...” (67:9).

كُلَّمَا دَخَلَتْ أُمَّةٌ لَّعَنَتْ أُخْتَهَا حَتَّىٰ إِذَا ادَّارَكُوا فِيهَا جَمِيعًا قَالَتْ أُخْرَاهُمْ لِأُولَاهُمْ رَبَّنَا هَٰؤُلَاءِ أَضَلُّونَا فَآتِهِمْ عَذَابًا ضِعْفًا مِّنَ النَّارِ

“…Every time a nation entereth, it curseth its sister (nation) till, when they have all been made to follow one another thither, the last of them saith unto the first of them: Our Lord! These led us astray, so give them double torment of the Fire...” (7:38).

It is to be observed here that while the dwellers in hell accept their responsibility for their infidelity and sins, they hold their elders liable for their misconduct instead of God.

There are some Verses in the Qur’an, wherein, God refused any responsibility for people who were liable for misconduct and sins. In Surah At-Tawba, God says:

وَأَذَانٌ مِّنَ اللَّهِ وَرَسُولِهِ إِلَى النَّاسِ يَوْمَ الْحَجِّ الْأَكْبَرِ أَنَّ اللَّهَ بَرِيءٌ مِّنَ الْمُشْرِكِينَ وَرَسُولُهُ

“And a proclamation from Allah and His messenger to all men on the day of the Greater Pilgrimage that Allah is free from obligation to the idolaters, and [so is] His messenger” (9:3).

It is evident that if God was responsible for the acts of the evildoers, and He had established the compulsion (of doing evil) within them then there would be no meaning for such a denial. Therefore, the author of Tafsir Al-Mizan quoted a tradition on the authority of Shaykh Al-Mufid that Imam Muhammad At-Taqi (‘a) was asked, “Are people’s acts created by God?” He replied that if God was responsible for human actions, He would have never shown any antipathy towards their acts, when He says:

أَنَّ اللَّهَ بَرِيءٌ مِنَ الْمُشْرِكِينَ

“He is disgusted with the polytheists” (9:3).

In this Verse Allah did not express any aversion with the personality of the polytheists but with their acts.

Rebuttal Of Tafweez

The meaning of this concept had been made clear in the previous discussion on Tawhid. A Probable entity, which depended on the Essential Being, could not remain aloof, even for a moment from gaining endorsement or approval of the Essential. In other words, if we were to say that man was totally independent of God in his acts, then it would be equivalent to declaring that he was independent of the Essential. This would be totally false.

This concept would make God redundant, which is against His Majesty. Hasan Ibn Wushleh said that he asked Imam Ar-Ridha (‘a) if God had completely tendered human actions to their own hands? He replied that the Majesty of God was far above such a suggestion. Then he asked if God had compelled people to commit sins? Imam replied that God was absolutely just. He would not do such a thing.

When Muhammad Ibn Ajlan asked the same question from Imam Ja’far As-Sadiq (‘a), he replied that God was well above the suggestion that He should transfer all the rights to human beings completely.

Imam further elaborated that there were three groups on the issue of fate. One group claimed that God compelled people to commit sins. This group in their own judgement, considered God to be a compulsive oppressor. Therefore, this faction was kafir. The next group, which presumed that God had transferred all these affairs to humans, imagined God to be powerless in His Kingdom. These were therefore, kafir as well.

The third group believed that God had handed over responsibility to humans in those segments that were within their capabilities, and withheld those, which were beyond their capacity. This was the group that supplicated in obedience and adored God. They repented, and sought forgiveness and mercy, when they transgressed His limits. This group was truly Muslim.

Clarification Of Some Doubts

Advocates of compulsion and coercion used some logical but feeble doubts to defend their views. It is important that a summary of those views is presented along with its necessary clarification so that the issue is cleared in the readers’ minds.

God knew in advance from eternity, the things that were to happen (good or bad), and all that would not happen, in relation to human actions. When He knew that something was to happen, then it was an obligation for that thing to happen. Anything whose occurrence or non-occurrence was known to God, its negation in either case would turn God’s knowledge into ignorance. It was thus be necessary that that obligatory and prescribed acts would both have to be beyond human reach. Only then can they prove that all human acts are under compulsion.

Rebuttal

A simple answer to this misgiving would be that though God has knowledge about all things -due to His total command - the knowledge of something could not be the reason for its occurrence or non-occurrence. Instead, the knowledge (‘ilm) remains subjective to its percept or find (maloom), and it could not be its cause. It is essential for a cause to precede its effect just as an object had to be followed by its subject.

We could consider the example of an astronomer, who after making his celestial calculation predicted the timings of a lunar and solar eclipse. No right-minded person could say that from then on, the Sun and Moon were under compulsion to appear as eclipsed at that particular time. Instead, every logical person would say that the laws of motion and geometrical configurations, as known to the scientists, govern the knowledge of astronomy. Yet the movements of celestial objects could not be attributed to the knowledge the scientists had.

In case of God, the only difference would be that God’s Knowledge was perfect - as compared to human understanding. While our calculation could sometime render wrong results, it is not possible to be such with God. He knew what a soul would be doing in terms of good and bad. This knowledge of the events could not be rendered as a cause of their actions.

The people, who claim this thesis, would be considered to be so short on wisdom that they could not understand that having the knowledge of an incidence is different, from converting an imaginary incident into reality. God knows the acceptance of faith by a mu’min and its rejection by a kafir. But this is different from the statement that God’s knowledge had made John a Mu’min (believer) and Michael, a Kafir (infidel).

If God knew that a thing would happen then its manifestation would be essential. If a thing whose non-existence was also in God’s knowledge, then its existence would be impossible. Therefore, both possibilities remained external to His attribute of Power.

We could now ask a question - whether God knew in advance about an act that a person was about to perform? If the answer was negative then God’s ignorance became apparent, and if the answer were in affirmative, then the person would lose the independence of his will.

Again, if this idea - that knowledge of something is the cause of its effect - was accepted, then even God’s Independence and Power would have to be sacrificed. He would then become an afflicted subject, which is unacceptable in all Islamic schools of thought.

The reason for this statement is that God certainly knew His own actions in advance just as knew human actions in advance. Based on the above idea therefore, because of His knowledge He would then be compelled to act accordingly (and would have no freedom to do otherwise).

We could say as an example, that while He knew that He had to create Mathew in a certain year on calendar, the question arises whether He held the capability of not creating Mathew during that year. If the answer was positive, then His knowledge, according to ‘Umar Khayyam, was commutable to ignorance. If the answer was negative, then He would be constrained and coerced, whereas in reality, He was Mighty and Independent.

If we critically analyse this concept of compulsion and control, we would find it to be the artifact of human fortitude and weakness. The very concept of compulsion was responsible for defaming Islam and the Muslims, when they attributed their failures and defeats as having been willed by God.

There are a few allegorical Verses in the Qur’an that are (used as) the basis for the theory of compulsion. These Verses use words such as Dhalla, Khatm and Taba’, e.g.

فَإِنَّ اللَّهَ يُضِلُّ مَن يَشَاءُ وَيَهْدِي مَن يَشَاءُ

“Allah verily sendeth whom He will astray, and guideth whom He will…” (35:8).

وَمَن يُضْلِلِ اللَّهُ فَمَا لَهُ مِنْ هَاد

“… He whom Allah sendeth astray, for him there is no guide” (13:33).

خَتَمَ اللَّهُ عَلَىٰ قُلُوبِهِمْ

“Allah has set a seal upon their hearts.” (2:7).

وَمَن يُضْلِلْ فَأُولَٰئِكَ هُمُ الْخَاسِرُونَ

“… and whomsoever He causes to err, these are the losers” (7:178).

Apparently, these Verses show that God Himself had led people astray, and He was the one Who had sealed (closed) their hearts (away from truth). If it was so, then who could bring guidance to these people, who had their hearts sealed off by God?

Scholars and researchers both have agreed that these Verses were symbolic. When these are referred to the place of belief or practice, then it became compulsory to describe them in a manner that they became aligned to those Verses with a definitive (muhkam) meaning. With this methodology, their apparent differences get resolved.

The Creator of the Universe condemned those, who followed (the literal meanings) the figurative Verses, in Surah Aali Imran. God has said:

فَأَمَّا الَّذِينَ فِي قُلُوبِهِمْ زَيْغٌ فَيَتَّبِعُونَ مَا تَشَابَهَ مِنْهُ

“…then as for those in whose hearts there is perversity, they follow the part of it which is allegorical…” (3:7).

This part of the Verse was followed by another part:

وَمَا يَعْلَمُ تَأْوِيلَهُ إِلَّا اللَّهُ وَالرَّاسِخُونَ فِي الْعِلْمِ

“...Though, the true interpretation of these Verses is not known by anyone, other than God and those who are entrusted with the knowledge…” (3:7).

If we took the apparent meanings of these Verses, then the evils that were discussed in the previous sections with regard to rejection of the doctrine of compulsion and oppression would become more evident. In addition to this, another iniquity that would surface is that God - Who had in various Verses of the Qur’an made Satan responsible for leading people astray - would become a target of His own criticisms. There would then be no demarcation between God, Satan, Pharaoh and other evildoers. It therefore remains important that these Verses were understood and explained in a manner that is compatible with the lucid text of the Qur’an.

Readers should keep in mind that (the Arabic word) adhlaal had emerged for the word form of “afaal”, which is the root word of ‘adhalla’ and ‘yudhillu’, used in the Arabic language to point to the aspects of an act, that are against truth and justice, or to imply waywardness and deviation within someone, or to indicate waste, annihilate or sending down of punishment.

It had been stated that in all the following Verses, the second meaning mentioned above, had been alluded to.

In Surah, Al-Feel:

أَلَمْ يَجْعَلْ كَيْدَهُمْ فِي تَضْلِيلٍ

“Did God not make waste of their pretences and deceits” (105:2).

In Surah, Al-Ra’d:

وَمَا دُعَاءُ الْكَافِرِينَ إِلَّا فِي ضَلَالٍ

“…and the prayer of the unbelievers is only in error” (13:14).

وَمَا كَانَ صَلَاتُهُمْ عِندَ الْبَيْتِ إِلَّا مُكَاءً وَتَصْدِيَةً فَذُوقُوا الْعَذَابَ بِمَا كُنتُمْ تَكْفُرُونَ

“And their prayer before the House is nothing but whistling and clapping of hands; taste then the chastisement, for you disbelieved” (8:35).

Or:

الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا وَصَدُّوا عَن سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ أَضَلَّ أَعْمَالَهُمْ ‎

“Those who disbelieve and turn (men) from the way of Allah, He rendereth their actions vain” (47:1).

Similarly, opposed to adhlal, in Arabic language, is the word ‘ahda’, which was also used for three facets - to guide someone towards a candid act or, to initiate guidance within someone, or not to destroy and waste a thing, but to sanction reward and goodness. The following Qur’anic Verses were the applications of these connotations. God said in Surah Muhammad:

وَالَّذِينَ قُتِلُوا فِي سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ فَلَن يُضِلَّ أَعْمَالَهُمْ

“And (as for) those who are slain in the way of Allah, He will by no means allow their deeds to perish” (47:4).

سَيَهْدِيهِمْ وَيُصْلِحُ بَالَهُمْ

“He will guide them and improve their condition” (47:5).

We now have to see, which of the meanings of ‘dhalal’ and ‘hadayat’ are proper, improper or impossible for God.

The first two meanings of dhalal are forbidden for God, because it would involve the iniquities that have been discussed in the previous sections. Therefore, the third meaning would be more appropriate for God - that is, to punish, annihilate or to make their actions redundant. Hence, wherever adhalla or yudhillu had been used in God’s context, it would mean that He could punish, annihilate or make actions to be fruitless.

In Surah Al-Baqarah, God has said:

فَيَغْفِرُ لِمَن يَشَاءُ وَيُعَذِّبُ مَن يَشَاءُ

“Then He will forgive whom He pleases and chastise whom He pleases” (2:284).

وَمَا يُضِلُّ بِهِ إِلَّا الْفَاسِقِينَ

“… But He does not cause to err by it (any) except the transgressors” (2:26).

الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا وَصَدُّوا عَن سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ أَضَلَّ أَعْمَالَهُمْ

“(As for) those who disbelieve and turn away from Allah's way, He shall render their works ineffective” (47:1).

And, wherever the phrase ‘huda’ or ‘yahdi’ was mentioned for God in the Qur’an, it meant guidance towards a candid act, or to shower blessings on the pious. These meanings therefore, nullify the apparent meanings used by the advocates of compulsion, for the allegorical Verses of the Qur’an.

These figurative Verses of the Qur’an could also be understood in another way. As God had provided all the basic human faculties, and He had made people independent with regard to their use, this would include using their abilities to search for guidance or to defy it. Therefore, metaphorically speaking, we could refer those phrases towards receiving guidance from God or deviating away from Him. He however, did not award those faculties to use for disobedience and immorality. The desire of the Great Benefactor (God) would be that man use their abilities for His service.

The remaining Verses, where the phrase ‘tabaa’ (stamped) and khatm (seal) are used, could also be explained in a similar manner. It is not an actual seal. What really is implied here is that the inner selves of these people had become so polluted with kufr and shirk that admission of faith in their hearts and mind would be difficult, in the same way that nothing could enter a sealed object. So, the use of the word khatm in these Verses was metaphoric.

When someone’s kufr and shirk become deeply entrenched in the person’s behaviour, then there is no chance of such a person to come to the right path. There might be a possibility that God might put a special sign on his heart and mind, which could resemble a black dot, which could be identified by the Angels and the Prophets to know that this person would not be able to return towards God, so they would be cursed as a last resort.

This explanation is supported by many narrations, which stated that when a man commits a sin, a black spot appears in his heart. If he washes it with repentance then it is fine. However, if he continues sinning, it grows and blackens the whole heart. Consequently, the capability of returning to the faith is removed from him, which is the main theme of the Qur’anic Verse:

بَلْ طَبَعَ اللَّهُ عَلَيْهَا بِكُفْرِهِم

“Nay, but Allah set a seal upon them for their disbelief…” (4:155).

These Verses made it clear that the blackening of the heart would be done as a result of their own actions, and not as a compulsion from God. Therefore, in the following Verses, the phrases ‘adhlal’ and ‘zaga’ referred to God in the context when the offenders persist with evil deeds,

فَلَمَّا زَاغُوا أَزَاغَ اللَّهُ قُلُوبَهُمْ

“When they were themselves bent, God then twisted their hearts” (61:5).

There were certain narrations in the treatise of hadith, which mentioned that God created both good and evil. This allegation could be responded to in several ways.

Many authentic reports have suggested these narrations to be false and forgeries. Shaykh As-Saduq reported it in his book Kitab al-Tawhid, on the authority of Husayn Ibn Khalid that he asked Imam Ar-Ridha (‘a) that people quoted some traditions, bearing the names of his elders, which authenticated the doctrine of compulsion from God. Imam replied: “Was the percentage of the traditions, which bore the name of his (Imam’s) elders more than those, which were directly linked to the Prophet?”

The narrator answered that those Ahadith, which had direct chain of transmission from the Prophet (S) were more in numbers. Imam then reacted and asked, “Why did the people not refer to the Prophet in their claims?”

The narrator replied that the people considered those traditions to be false and fabricated, and none of those were true narrations from the Prophet. Listening to this answer, Imam replied that it was the same for the Ahadith that bore the name of his elders.

Such narrations have been against the principles held by the Sunni principles, and also the authentic words of our Imams. According to Shi’a practices, one of the rules is that any narration which is against our accepted reports, but is in accord with the Sunni standards, and is weak in its chain of transmission, has to be treated as false and fabricated. If however, the chain of transmission is strong then the rule of taqiyya would apply. Such narrations are abundant in Sunni authentic texts.

Even if we set aside all the previous answers, and accepted these narrations to be authentic, and did not apply the rule of taqiyya, we could say that the viewpoint of the proponents of compulsion still could not be proven.

Dualists believed that there were two creators - Yazdan, the creator of useful things and Ahraman, the creator of harmful things. It could be argued that from the word khair (good), a harmless creature such as a cow, goat or a rabbit were referred to. Likewise, from sharr (evil), dangerous creatures such as snakes, crocodiles, wolves and scorpions etc were referred to. Our Imams, in any case had repudiated their claims by saying that it was God who had created all the things, which could be harmless or beneficial.

Even if we ignored the last explanation, and acquired the same meanings that were under discussion, then it could be argued that from the creation of khair wa sharr (good and evil) it could be meant the that taqdeeri or an empowered creation had been set forth instead of a takweeni or predetermined one. This conclusion had been aided by the fact that in some Ahadith, the phrase ‘qaddarta ala yadet hayy al khair’ had been used instead of ‘ajraita’.

The difference between the empowered and predetermined creature was already explained in the previous section. These Verses still could not prove the point of view from a compulsion perspective. This could only make sense, if a predetermined creation was involved.

If it is said that man is fully empowered, then it made God powerless, because a kafir would want to choose the route of infidelity while God had willed him to accept the faith and he succeeded to remain infidel. In this way a kafir achieved what they wanted, while God’s will failed to materialize. This indicated a weakness in the entity of God. Therefore, we have to believe that good and bad all came from God.

The answer to the doubt was that this uncertainty only arises if we assumed that God is not capable of converting an infidel with force to the pathway of faith. However, despite His power (to do so), He did not compel him to accept the faith. In view of the malevolence that surfaced due to the doctrine of compulsion, and a person adopted kufr, then how could the frailty of God be proven? It is revealed in Surah Yunus:

وَلَوْ شَاءَ رَبُّكَ لَآمَنَ مَن فِي الْأَرْضِ كُلُّهُمْ جَمِيعًا

“And if thy Lord willed, all who are in the earth would have believed together” (10:99).

It has been mentioned in some Ahadith, which are famous by the title of teenat (nature). These somehow allegedly proved the doctrine of compulsion. Their subject matter stated that the nature of a mu’min (believer) was unsoiled, while, that of a kafir was polluted and filthy and at the time of creation these two natures were intermixed. So, it is said that if a believer commits a sin or an infidel performs an act of piety, it is the result of that mixing. This doubt can be addressed in the following discussion.

Many scholars have doubted the authenticity of such Ahadith. The answer was disputed, because so many traditions of this sort are there in the literature. Therefore, to discard all in this way is a daring and intrepid act. Some Scholars treat these narrations as ambiguous. They say that one must accept their limitations in understanding the true nature of those Ahadith and therefore, refer to the Imams for advice. Although, this answer is correct, it does not satisfy the critics.

Some scholars have recounted these traditions among similes or metaphoric texts. According to them, the creation of a believer and an infidel is from the same nature, but in accepting faith, the believer behaved in a conformist’s manner, while a kafir, in performing evil acts, showed a filthy and tainted nature. This answer also remains uncertain, because in this context there are so many lucid Ahadith, which could not be termed metaphoric or emblematic.

God, the Almighty, is said to know from His own knowledge, before the creation, that Mu’minin (believers) would perform in a virtuous manner by their own choice, and the kafirs and mushriks would opt for infidelity and shirk. This is why the nature of a mu’min is associated with the eminent, and that of the infidels with those, who are held in captivity or in quarantine (as criminal).

God has created the spirits of all humans from the same essence, and impregnated it with the powers of desire and covet. He frees them to make their own choices in terms of performing a particular deed or refraining from one. When these spirits were put to the test in the spiritual realm, then some of them chose obedience and the others rebelled. Therefore, God adopted a nature, which best suited it. He then mixed the natures in accordance with the peculiarities for each of the souls.

Thus, a spirit that deserved kindness and benefaction was given due attention and the other, which needed to be restrained was provided with the deserving treatment. Leading Shi’a scholars have applauded this explanation as it conformed with the elucidations of our Imams.

Criticism Of Asha’irites’s Ideology Of Kasb

When Asha’irites realised that their concept of compulsion was leading them into deep waters, they then invented another conjecture, better known as ‘kasb’ to shield from criticism. This new concept was noted to be vague, and no standard definition was put forward.

Some of their spokesmen said that when a man desired to do an act, God created that act for him, and if he had no desire then the act was not created. The others said that the act was definitely created by God, as to whether it was good or bad was for the man to judge. Some said that kasb was a force, which initiated a compulsive desire in man, but the act (to accomplish that desire) had been created for him by God.

It was also claimed by certain Asha’irites quarters that according to kasb, man was the source of submission (obedience to God) or resistance (sins). However, a few of them have surrendered and acknowledged since that they did not understand this hypothesis but had accepted it at face value.

Similarly, a number of scholars echoed that they failed to understand three things – kasb, kalam al-Nafs and the haal of philosophers.

We would not like to spend further time on these irrational concepts, and would simply ask our readers to analyse, whether such line of thinking could redeem mankind.