Is Islam Deterministic? - RespondIslam.net

Headings

What is “Divine Decree”?- an Article of Faith

The roots of this “divine decree” originate in Qur’anic verses that seem to indicate that nothing happens that is not Allah’s will for it to happen. It is further affirmed and concretized by certain hadith, which state it as an article of faith:

“Iman is that you believe in God and His Angels and His Books and His Messengers and the Hereafter and the good and evil fate [ordained by your God].” Muslim, Al-Jami’ al-sahih, 22, (no. 93).

“Ibn Abbas narrates that the Angel Jibril once asked the Prophet: “Tell me what is Islam?” The Prophet replied: “Iman is to believe in Allah, the Day of Judgment, His (Allah’s) Angels, Books and Prophets and to believe in life after death; and to believe in Paradise and the Fire, and the setting up of the Mizan (scales) to weigh the deeds; and to believe in the Divine Decree, the good and the bad of it (all). Jibril then asked him: “If I do all this will I be with Iman?” The Prophet said: “When you have done all of this, you will be having Iman.” (Musnad Ahmad).

Christianity- a Logical Model for the Interaction of our Will with God’s

These terms “determinism” and “free will” are the simplest of theological terms and anyone that over-complicates the issue is really doing the reader a disservice. It’s like preaching to the simple minded that they do not even understand what freedom is unless they go to theology school, and I’ll explain why this is, in case its not already obvious.

The importance the foundations of the concept of free will cannot be overemphasized- were “free will” not authentic, then man is not a true moral agent, since he does not authentically choose good and evil. Were this the case than God could not be justified in condemning souls to Hell. That’s really what’s at stake here and the chief reason to reject any philosophy that seeks to blur the authenticity of human freedom- the justice of God himself.

But stated simply, and paraphrasing Aquinas: Man genuinely/ authentically has the choice to choose the ultimate moral good, which is God himself. Not only is the wording important but the terms used cannot further be reduced. So free will, for the reasons we have stated in the previous paragraph, is primarily related to morality and the ability to make moral choices, and morality itself must necessarily be predicated of God himself and man’s choice to follow him, if anything else, then morality is made subject to precisely that which it inimical to it and its antithesis- subjectivity.

Whether under any religious system the act of “following God” is truly moral depends upon the merits of that particular system and would be up for debate, but this also means that not every relgious system can be accepted as the “choice for God”, for that reason. It can hardly be a merely presumed that a religious teaching is truly divine. For this reason a religious teaching can also be rejected based upon moral criteria and this is where “problem of evil” type arguments get their strength, for example. IF it is true that God gave us an authentically choose morality, then it must also be true that we are able to make moral judgements and accept or reject reliigious systems based upon those.

But this too is Christianity’s greatest claim to the authenticity of free will in its own system, since it is a morality based system. In a system in which “God so loved the world that he sent his only Son…” and “greater love hath no man than this that he give up his life for his friends”, one derives a basis for morality premised upon the sentiment of the deity himself, where the words “…the truth will set you free…” can be justified as promising free will and true freedom itself. Becasue as much as it is true that the justice of God us at stake in this discussion, so as it corollary it is also true that our freedom is at stake as a consequence- the reward for true goodness and not a counterfeit. This is why the premise of judgement in Christianity is unapologetically morality based “by this will all men know that you are my disciples- if you have love- one for another…”, “…love one another as I have loved you…”, “…whatever you did to the least of my brothers, you did it to me…”, “…I am Jesus Christ whom you are persecuting…”, and so on.

So once you have that background, there is no significant issue. “God’s Will is that we have free will”, and free will is the authentic ability to choose him out of all the competing interests in our earthly existence. Does this mean that God is non-interventionist and simply sits back and allows history to unfold in whatever way? Not necessarily, God can certainly affect us and our environment in a manner that does not conpromise the free will that we have described, on the contrary, enables us to continue exercising it, and he might do this in answer to prayers or even otherwise.

But it is probably also important to recognise the possibility that there are times God does not intervene in history, or does not answer prayers in the manner that we might expect him too, or we could never reconcile the occurence of mass natural disasters or genocidal acts and other terrible atrocities. Entire nations have been subjected to inhuman conditions- Rwanda, Nazi-era Poland, the Soviet era nations like Ukraine, local populations among Oriental victims of European colonization like India, other victims of Communism like Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam, civil war and drug wars that have affected almost every South American country, civil war and slavery in North America and Africa, and it just goes on, victims of the nuclear fallout in Chernobyl and Fukuyama and so on.

IN SUMMARY, the very point of morality- based eternal outcomes in Christianity, implies that humans require to be able to make choices that are contrary to the divine will. That leaves no room for hard detemrinism, while the presence of any hard determinism will leave no room for the presence of love, by precluding morality.

It is also true that God does not hinder environmental calamities that befall people en masse. It is hardly likely that entire nations simultaneously ceased praying, like the ones that we described, and countless others, and it is hardly likely that none commenced praying even at the commencement of the atrocities.

Finally, it is also not conflicting to hold simultaneously with free will that God, isnpite of certain poor moral choices made by certain persons, can influence background events (Analogously, i believe that God similarly also influences biological evolution in nature) so that broader outcomes are indeed in accordance with his Will. If there is any room left for a “divine decree” of sorts, then that is it. This is that even in the case of natural disasters, there is some greater outcome being worked out that is not apparent to us.

The logical problem of the Islamic “divine decree”.

Given all the foregoing, it should be apparent that there really is no room left for a “divine decree”. If it is true that God does not impair the ordinary exercise of our moral choices, it is necessarily also true, at least in the ordinary sense that God does not also impair the moral choices of others that affect us, whether good or bad. One cannot have one without the other. It is necessarily true that in a morality based system, God does not hinder the ordinary exercise of ours and others’ moral choices.

The existence of something like a “divine decree” implies something like an unchanging command of God regarding outcomes. But if a human being is to be free to make choices, it is hard to see how the choice might be authentic were it not to have any effect on those outcomes. So it is difficult to know just what this “decree” might refer to, other than human choices being overridden.

I’ve heard muslims reply that while outcomes are indeed fixed, yet human beings can “change their fixed outcomes” through prayer and obedience to Allah, and so preserving free will. However were this the case then it is not clear why the outcome was initially “fixed” in the first place, unless Allah lacked foreknowledge of future events. The latter would be unacceptable- how could Allah decree anything if he was not prescient with regards to outcomes anyway?

Some Muslims would say that the decree simply implies that God creates the conditions under which a human being can exercise his free choice. This is not even saying anything more than that God created free moral agents, and again, it is hard to see why the additional term “divine decree” was necessary. All this would imply is that God sits back and allow persons to make their choices anyway. This would mean that people choose or “decree” what happens, not God.

In summary, it seems that Muslims, based on a set of Qur’anic verses (and in denial of a different set of verses which support free will), and in conjunction with hadithic teachings, are required to dogmatically hold to a term “divine decree”, which at best is redundant and indefinable and at worst, is contary to the exstence of free will.

So without defending that further in this article, I might say that any other definition will fall prey to those impediments. Read a full article on the topic here if you think you require further convincing:

Deterministic Qur’anic verses?

These Qur’anic verses might legitimately be taken as deterministic, because they literall state, for example “you cannot will” which is a direct denial of free will. Muslims might want to interpret them as meaning that we have the ability to choose goodness and belief only because Allah gives us that ability:

“Whosoever wills, let him take a (straight) Path to the Lord. but You cannot will, except that (the particle “an”- YA translates it “as”) God wills. God is Knowledgeable, Wise. He admits whoever/ whomever He wills to His mercy. As for the wicked, He has prepared for them a painful retribution.” (Q.76:29-31)

Ibn Kathir’s comment on this is: “But you cannot will, unless Allah wills.) meaning, no one is able to guide himself, enter into faith or bring about any benefit for himself” (from the English translation)

Other verses that imply God wills one to have faith or not to a=have faith are as:

“No! Indeed, the Qur’an is a reminder. Then whoever wills will remember it. None will take heed (remember it) except if God wills. He is the source of righteousness and the source of forgiveness.” (Q 74:55-56)

“…If We had sent down to them the angels, and the dead spoke to them, and We had gathered before them everything, they still would not acknowledge except if God wills. But most of them are ignorant.” (Q.6:111)

“For whoever wills among you to take a right course. And you do not will except that (illa an) Allah wills – Lord of the worlds” (Q 81:28,29)

Here we see a blanket statement made regarding those who do not accept Muhammed’s message:

“As for the unbelievers, alike it is to them whether thou (Muhammed, as in v.4) hast warned them or hast not warned them, they do not believe. Allah has set a seal on their hearts and on their hearing, and on their eyes is a covering, and there awaits them a mighty chastisement.” (Q 2:6,7)

Here it is not even clear what is being said, but once again we see “disbelief” as willed by Allah:

“And those Messengers, some We have preferred above others; some there are to whom God spoke, and some He raised in rank. And We gave Jesus son of Mary the clear signs, and confirmed him with the Holy Spirit. And had God willed, those who came after him would not have fought one against the other after the clear signs had come to them; but they fell into variance, and some of them believed, and some disbelieved; and had God willed they would not have fought one against the other; but God does whatsoever He desires.” (Q 2:253)

Men (and jinni) which are Created for Hell:

“We have destined many men and jinn for hell. They have hearts but do not understand, eyes but do not see. They have ears but do not hear. They are worse than lost cattle. These are the heedless ones.” (Q 7:179)

Deterministic Hadith

What is written determines how a person behaves. The Arabic literally just states “the book precedes him”, rather than “determines his behaviour” which sunnah.com has chosen to go with (see part in parenthesis). So this can be read as no more than divine foreknowledge in order to avoid a deterministic interpretation.

“Narrated `Abdullah bin Mus’ud: Allah’s Messenger, the true and truly inspired said, “(The matter of the Creation of) a human being is put together in the womb of the mother in forty days, and then he becomes a clot of thick blood for a similar period, and then a piece of flesh for a similar period. Then Allah sends an angel who is ordered to write four things. He is ordered to write down his (i.e. the new creature’s) deeds, his livelihood, his (date of) death, and whether he will be blessed or wretched (in religion). Then the soul is breathed into him. So, a man amongst you may do good deeds till there is only a cubit between him and Paradise and then what has been written for him decides his behavior (فَيَسْبِقُ عَلَيْهِ كِتَابُهُ – then his book precedes it) and and he starts doing (evil) deeds characteristic of the people of the (Hell) Fire. And similarly a man amongst you may do (evil) deeds till there is only a cubit between him and the (Hell) Fire, and then what has been written for him decides his behavior, and he starts doing deeds characteristic of the people of Paradise.”” (Sahih al-Bukhari 3208-Book 59, Hadith 19)

Here Adam indicates his fault was really God’s fault. Muslims might counter by saying that Adam did repent of his sin in the Qur’an, so this should not be taken literally, some will state it is was said in a manner of jest.

Repentance itself is not impossible in determinism, since it one might continue a sin an repentance cycle upto their last moments at which they die unrepentant, as was seen in the last hadith, so this does not need to be argued. Further we cannot know the sincerity/ part sincerity of any individual’s repentance. As for it being a joke, we can accept that a deterministic model seems like a joke, but it does not sound like Muhammed was jesting here, for he repeated what he says “three times”.

The Prophet said, “Adam and Moses argued with each other. Moses said to Adam. ‘O Adam! You are our father who disappointed us and turned us out of Paradise.’ Then Adam said to him, ‘O Moses! Allah favored you with His talk (talked to you directly) and He wrote (the Torah) for you with His Own Hand. Do you blame me for action which Allah had written in my fate forty years before my creation?’ So Adam confuted Moses, Adam confuted Moses,” the Prophet added, repeating the Statement three times. (Bukhari 6614)

Unborn babies can go to hell in Islam, if this is what was written for them:

“It was narrated that ‘Aishah the Mother of the Believers said: “The Messenger of Allah was called to the funeral off a child from among the Ansar. I said: ‘O Messenger of Allah, glad tidings for him! He is one of the little birds of Paradise, who never did evil or reached the age of doing evil (i.e, the age of accountability).’ He said: ‘It may not be so, O ‘Aishah! For Allah created people for Paradise, He created them for it when they were still in their father’s loins, And He has created people for Hell, He created them for it when they were still in their fathers’ loins.'” Ibn Majah, Sahih (Darussalam) Book 1, Hadith 82; Eng: Vol. 1, Book 1, Hadith 82; Ar: Bk1,Vol.86).

Bizarrely, babies who are buried go to Hell, period:

“The woman who buries alive her new-born girl and the girl who is buried alive both will go to Hell. This tradition has also been transmitted by Ibn Mas’ud from the Prophet (May peace be upon him) to the same effect through a different chain of narrators.” (Grade Sahih: Al-Albani, Sunan Abu Dawud 4717)

This hadith had troubled Muslim scholars for centuries (I won’t list all the scholars, since they will inevitably be quoted to you should you raise this point with a Muslim, so I’ll save my strength). The strategy in the defense is to state that there is a missing particle in the narrative that makes all the difference. The term for “girl who is buried” mawduda which is used in exactly this manner also elsewhere and is therefore not denied, is said to be missing a particle which when included makes it into “the one for whom she was buried” mawduda laha and this indicates the midwife (not the mother since the mother is already indicated).

This strikes me as somewhat bizarre- how is the midwife (who admittedly might be the one doing the burying, if indeed we are to believe this practice ever took place which itself is poorly attested and only in later Islamic sources, namely the Sira literature) be called “the one for whom the baby is buried”- is it not obvious it should be “by whom the baby is buried” were this the case?

The following hadith seem to indicate that sin is the will of Allah, that he might show his mercy. It seems here that God desires sin. What kinds of sin are they that God desires, because this is not stated and it seems Allah desires even the most heinous of crimes. This to a Christian would seem severely disordered. To contrast this with the Christian paradigm, we know that sin is inevitable, yet we would never state that it were God’s Will. God does everything possible to prevent people sinning, but showing his example of Mercy. Sin is abhorrent to God. On the other hand this hadith seems to demonstrate that Allah “ensures” sin is part of creation and such and “ensuring” would indicate determinism, and especially so when taken with all the other hadith:

“By Him in Whose Hand is my life, if you were not to commit sin, Allah would sweep you out of existence and He would replace (you by) those people who would commit sin and seek forgiveness from Allah, and He would have pardoned them.” (Muslim 2749)

this one is graded hasan, not sahih:

“I was behind the Prophet(s.a.w) one day when he said: ‘O boy! I will teach you a statement: Be mindful of Allah and He will protect you. Be mindful of Allah and you will find Him before you. When you ask, ask Allah, and when you seek aid, seek Allah’s aid. Know that if the entire creation were to gather together to do something to benefit you- you would never get any benefit except that Allah had written for you. And if they were to gather to do something to harm you- you would never be harmed except that Allah had written for you. The pens are lifted and the pages are dried.'” (Tirmidhi 2516, graded hassan).

The Decree is in a “Preserved Tablet”

“Didst thou not know that God knows all that is in heaven and earth? Surely that is in a Book (fi kitabin); surely that for God is an easy matter.” (Q 22:70)

This excerpt from a longer hadith implies that what is written is fixed:

“…The pages have dried and the pens have been lifted...” This is hadith 19 in the 40 Hadith of an-Nawawi, also mentioned in ibn Kathir commentary on surah 39:36-40

“There was Allah and nothing else before Him and His Throne was over the water, and then He created the Heavens and the Earth and wrote everything in the Book.” Saheeh al-Bukhari 6982, 3192.

‘Indeed the first thing that Allah created was the Pen.’ (Reported by Ahmad 23197. Abu Daawood, 4700. At-Tirmidhee, 2155)

‘Allah wrote the decree of all of creation 50,000 years before the creation of the heavens and the earth. And His Throne was over the water.’ (Reported by Muslim, 2653)

When Allāh intended the decrees for creation He intended for them to be transcribed upon a tablet. He created the Pen and the Tablet. He thereafter commanded the Pen to write.

“The first thing Allāh created was the Pen. He said to it: Write. It asked: What should I write, my Lord? He said: Write what was decreed about everything till the Last Hour comes.” (Dawud 4700)

So the Pen wrote upon the Preserved Tablet.

lastly, this hadith denotes the angels doing the work of actually scribing the decrees:

The Prophet said, “Allah puts an angel in charge of the uterus and the angel says, ‘O Lord, (it is) semen! O Lord, (it is now ) a clot! O Lord, (it is now) a piece of flesh.’ And then, if Allah wishes to complete its creation, the angel asks, ‘O Lord, (will it be) a male or a female? A wretched (an evil doer) or a blessed (doer of good)? How much will his provisions be? What will his age be?’ So all that is written while the creature is still in the mother’s womb.” (Bukhari 6595)

HOWEVER, the divine decree can change

very strangely, the divine decree can also change. this is evidenced in the verse:

“In fact it (what they deny) is the Noble Qūr’ān. In the Preserved Tablet.” (Q 85:21,22)

This is a real issue which is also iterated in various hadith as we shall see.

Ibn Abbas explained the verse, saying, “There are two books: a book in which is erased whatever Allah wills, and with Him is the mother of the Book.” (al-Ṭabarī, Abū Ja’far. Jāmiʻ al-Bayān ‘an Ta’wīl al-Qur’ān. (Bayrūt: Mu’assasat al-Risālah, 2000), 16:480 13:39)

Ibn Hajar, the commentator on the authentic collection Sahih al-Bukhari, writes:
What proceeds from the knowledge of Allah does not change and is not replaced. That which is allowed to change and be replaced is what appears to people of the deeds of the doer… Thus it falls under wiping away and affirming, such as the increase and decrease in lifespan. As for the knowledge of Allah, it is not wiped away or affirmed, as all knowledge is with Allah. (Ibn Ḥajar, Fatḥ al-Bārī, 11:488.)

the hadith say:
“The Prophet said: Good works protect from evil fates. Charity in secret extinguishes the wrath of the Lord, maintaining family ties increases lifespan, and every good deed is charity. The people of good in the world are the people of good in the Hereafter, and the people of evil in the world are the people of evil in the Hereafter. And the first to enter Paradise are the people of good” (al-Ṭabarānī, Sulaymān ibn Aḥmad. al-Muʻjam al-Awsaṭ. (al-Qāhirah: Dār al-Ḥaramayn, 1995), 6:163 #6086; declared authentic (sạ hị̄h)̣ by Al-Albānī in Sạ hị̄h al-Jāmi’ al-Sạ ghīr ([Dimashq]: al-Maktab al-Islāmī, 1969), 2:708 #3796)

And Abu Huraira (ra) reported, The Prophet would seek refuge in Allah from the evil of the divine decree, from falling into misery, from his enemies rejoicing at his misfortune, and from a difficult trial. (Muslim, Sạ hị̄h Muslim, 4:2080 #2707)

Abu Uthman Al-Hindi witnessed Umar ibn Al-Khattab (ra) performing Tạwaf around the House and he was weeping, saying: O Allah, if You have written me among the blessed, then affirm it therein. And if You have written me among the sinful and the damned, then wipe it away and affirm me among the blessed. Verily, You wipe away and affirm whatever You will, and with You is the Mother of the Book (al-Ṭabarī, Jāmiʻ al-Bayān, 16:482 #13:39)

The Prophet said: Nothing repels the divine decree but supplication, and nothing increases lifespan but righteousness. (al-Tirmidhī, Sunan al-Tirmidhī, 4:16 #2139; declared fair (hạ san) by al-Tirmidhī in the commentary.)

Qur’anic verses that Support Free Will

It is true there are verses that contradict hard pre-determinism as well. On the face of it, for a book like the Quran that seems to have been written in layers of redactions whether by the same or multiple authors, this is not surprising and such conflicting implications are not an uncommon finding.

First, it could be pointed out that some verses rather than simly stating a blanket misguiding of disbelievers, rather state that it is only for those that either choose to do evil and disobey him: 2:26, 7:30, 22:4, 33:36, 14:27, 25:44, 33:67, 17:72, 6:116, 6:56 (in verse order), who are transgressors, who take the shayateen as friends and protectors, who disobey Allah an his messenger, who are oppressors and are unjust, who do not use their reasoning, who follow the opinions of their leaders, who are blind to the message and finally those who follow their own desires.

There are other verses which clearly indicate free will is present for humans:

“And say, ‘The truth is from your Lord, so whoever wills – let him believe; and whoever wills – let him disbelieve.’” (Qur’an 18:29)

“Surely, Allah does not change the condition of a people unless they change themselves.” (Qur’an 13:11)

“That is because Allah does not change a favour that He bestowed on a people until they change what is within themselves…” (Qur’an 8:53)

Early Islamic Philosophical Discussion

From Fakhry:

” Most ancient authorities agree that the first abstract issue on which the earliest theological controversies hinged was the question of free will and predestination (qadar). Some of the first theologians to discuss this subject were Ma’bad al-Juhani (d. 699), Ghailan al-Dimashqi (d. before 743), Wa$il b. Ata’ (d. 748), Yonus al-Aswari, and ‘Amr b. ‘Ubaid (d. 762).’1 Other theologians, like the famous Hasan al-Ba$ri (d. 728), who is at the center of many later theological developments, tended to confirm the traditional repudiation of free will in the interest of a quasi-absolute predestinarian eschatology. Some ancient authorities, however, attribute to him belief in free will.

Were the caliphs infallible?

Both Ma’bad and Ghailan were executed by order of the Umayyad caliphs ‘Abdul-Malik (685-705) and Hisham ( 724-743) respectively, apparently on account of the challenge to the authority of the caliph and the threat to the stability of the political order which their concept of free will posed. A belief in free will meant, of course, that the caliph could no longer be relieved from the responsibility for his unjust deeds on the grounds that they were the result of the inexorable decree of God (p44)

significant association between the Mu’tazilah anda contemporary ofWa$il, Jahm b. Safwan (d. 745), founder of the rival Jabmite school, which upheld the unqualified doctrine of divine omnipotence and the consequent absolute determination of all human actions by God…whose exponents are generally referred to as Jabrites (Determinists)… (p46).

the Mu’tazilah, whose leading doctors flourished during the ninth century and whose cause was so zealously championed by the great ‘Abbasid caliph al-Ma’mnn. “Jahm maintained, however, in addition to his denial of free will, a belief in the ultimate destruction of heaven and hell, together with all their occupants, UJ a view which was entirely at variance with the Mu’tazilite concept of eternal punishment and reward and the consequent eternity of heaven and hell, which will be discussed in due course. In advancing this extraordinary view, Jahm appears to have been inspired by the desire to place a purely literal construction upon those verses in the Koran that speak of God as the “First and Last” (Koran 57, 3), or of the perishability of everything at the end of time, “save His face” (Q 55:27) (p47)

Although the Koran emphatically affirms the justice of God and equally emphatically denies His injustice or wickedness, a number ofkoranic verses bearing on such concepts as the guidance or misguidance of God (Koran 7· 178; 32, q; 3· 154; 18, 16; 24· 21, etc), the “sealing of the heart” (2, 5-6; 6, 125; 16, 95; 61, 5, etc.), the appointed term (ajal) (6, 2; 7, 32, etc.), provision for human needs (rizq), the book of fate (69, 17, 27), and especially the overwhelming picture of hell it depicts, exhibit a dazzling spectacle of the unlimited and arbitrary power of God, which can hardly leave scope for any power other than God in the world. (48)”

Summary

In this article we have seen:

Hard determinisimm is where human willing is an illusion, and decisions are made by an external force(s), Allah in this case. Certain Qur’anic verses clearly seem to indicate a hard determinism, using literal words like “…you DO NOT WILL”.
There are also some hadith that clearly make the existence of free will impossible.
Muslims must dogmatically hold to something called “divine decree”. This could mean that while local decisions can indeed be made freely by humans, yet God remains in control of broader outcomes, even of ultimate outcomes. This in itself is not inherently problematic.
Holding to a determinism or fatalistic thinking is incompatible with the existence of true morality or love, since te definition of moral accountability is freedom to make moral choices.
Certain verses in the Quran that reject determinism contradict those that assert it.
Christianity has similar verses in the Bible which might seem at a surface reading to negate free will and there has been debate within the religion regarding this. However because in Christianity eternal outcomes are morality based, the verses that assert the ability of humans to make authentic moral decisions must take the precedence in the overall interpretation.

Appendix

The Problems with Determinism God only loves Believers:

A belligerent attitudes towards apostates, disbelievers and detractors seems to support a deterministic interpretation. One would not end the life of these unless it was presumed they were hated by God too, from being pre-deterined for Hell. Further, being pre-determined for Heaven might provide some with psychological itigation for violent acts.

Any deterministic model necessitates a two-tier attitude of God toward created beings: Hatred to those who will die disbelieving in the end and love to those who will believe. God knows the eventual outcome of a soul at the moment of its creation, therefore he does not require to make grace available to the ones created for hatred.

In contrast, the Christian God who “makes his rain to fall both on the godly and the ungodly”, and strongly expresses his desire for their conversion, a sentiment that can only be born out of love. This is played out in Calvinism’s “total depravity” doctrine.

Finally, this belief in disbelievers being misguided makes it possible to inculcate an aggressive attitude toward them, as played out in the Qur’an’s violent verses and the history of Islam.

It is not really a coherent position, since violence toward unbelievers does not taken into account that some of those might themselves be predestined to convert. But at the point that determinism has been accepted, one has already accepted contraries as a way of life. This is possibly justified with the thought that the lives of any such persons might be saved by God in spite of the believer’s bloodlust, or that their souls might be preserved anyway, since not everyone is killed in a battle, usually. Not fighting is not well looked upon in Islam anyway, as we have seen in the Violence essay, so the rule tends to be “when in doubt, fight”.

Further it is also going to be inimical to peaceful evalgelisation and debate since as we have seen the deterministic verses are cleary stating even to Muhammed that preaching is futile. This too is going to be conducive to violent spread as an alternative.

Taking from the “logical problem” section:

The logical problem of the Islamic claim for the existence of a “divine decree”. First, this decree is something like an unchanging command of God regarding outcomes. If Muslims want to hold to the existence of free will inspite of this, then it cannot be that the decree also entails some sort of negation or overriding of the human willing. But failing this, it is difficult to know just what this “decree” might refer to. I’ve heard muslims reply that while outcomes are indeed fixed, yet human beings can “change their fixed outcomes” through prayer and obedience to Allah, and so preserving free will. However were this the case then it is not clear why the outcome was initially “fixed” in the first place, unless Allah lacked foreknowledge of future events. The latter would be unacceptable- how could Allah decree anything if he was not prescient with regards to outcomes anyway?

Probably the weakest argument for the compatiblity of free choice and “divine decree” is to say that The decree simply implies that God creates the conditions under which a human being can exercise his free choice. This is not even saying anything more than that God created free moral agents, and again, it is hard to see why the additional term “divine decree” was necessary because it sounds like a decree to himself that he act in creating humans in a certain manner, rather than a decree to anyone else. All this implies in practise is that God sits back and “allows” persons to make their choices, whether right or wrong. Thus simply stating “God “does not force us to choose” even in the presence of a “divine decree”, from this would follow that people choose what happened. That means God does not decree what happens, people do. So where’s the room for the “divine decree” now?