Is "free will" limited by omniscience?

[neb87]

How is a god free in any way? What about most merciful? Is this not a restriction?

The Sims is the perfect example of how free will does NOT work. But I agree it is tempting.
Do you, the player, know what the Sim you control will do the next moment? No, you don't know if they are tired, hungry and dirty, whether they will first eat, sleep or take a shower. You CAN find out because there are priority setting in the code within the game, because they are controlled by code without free will. It is apparent "free will", just as what humans are made to believe they have.

That's why I am curious what people here believe is the case with "free will" when pointing out that the decision is already known beforehand. Or is it?

To answer your first question; In my opinion, Most Merciful, like all of God's attributes, is a self-imposed restriction which does not negate Absolute Free Will. Just as when a human chooses to do one thing over another it doesn't negate their free will.

As for the second part, I don't believe in predetermination in the traditional sense, which is why I qouted Sytall's thoughts on how existing in time limits our understanding of infinite. For God, there is no "beforehand" or "future", because time itself is created. So, how can a Creator be bound by an aspect of His own creation?

Within my analogy for The Sims I may not know exactly what the Sim is going to do at any given moment, (since I'm not omniscient and exist within time) but I do know what every possible action is. If I don't like some actions, I can fiddle with the code and make those actions impossible within my world, I can pause the game and cancel it, or I can just let it happen and decide how to react to it.

Within my understanding of God The universe was created with laws (or code) that limit our free will but don't negate it entirely. This is why we're only held responsible for things that are within in our control. He is constantly and immediately aware of every possible action that has ever been taken or ever will be taken, so control is maintained at all times, as any of the negative actions that humans can take can be counteracted easily by a Being who exists outside the confines of time.

[aabdul]

So, if Allah says (or knows) that you will steal a car, there's no way that you can NOT steal the car; the action is predestined and inevitable, and you can't make the "choice" not to commit the crime.

Salam,

Take care. You are putting the ultimate responsibility of all crimes on God. This is wrong. You are completely contradicting Quran. The attitude of ?I would not have sinned if You (Allah) had not wished so? is the line always taken by infidels and polytheists. They attribute their way of life to Allah?s will -- ?we are what we are because Allah wills so?. As it is said in Sura An?aam ?When you question their (erroneous) way of life, the polytheists will say - ?It is Allah?s will that we are, and our ancestors were, polytheists? (6149). Allah rebuts that statement with ?Whatever you say (and follow) is nothing but pure conjecture (and ignorance)?. In Sura Zakhraf, it says that when you (the Prophet) question them, they say ?We would never have prayed to these idols if God did not will it?. Allah said, ?this is just ignorance. They are nothing but conjectures.? (4320). Sura Yaseen reports that when the rich are asked to let their wealth flown down to the poor, the infidels reply ?How can we enrich those who are poor by Allah?s will??. The Quran?s response to that is ?surely, you are in grave ignorance!? (3647).

In fact, aspects of the Qur'aan even state that Allah makes specific decisions for us, e.g. choosing to guide some and not others, etc.

Again your assumption Allah whimsically guides some and misguides some has no basis. Kindly read the following chapter;

http//www.tolueislam.org/Parwez/kt/kt_11.htm

[aabdul]

Salaam
God knows Future. That means that he can see it and that he is not submitted to what we call time dimension (i think).
The history we are living can thus be considered as a result of all "human free wills" and God already knows how it will end for us.
So, if God is over what we call time, there is no contradiction between free will and "knowing" future.

Peace

very nice comment dear noshirk!

[Zulf]

Salaam
God knows Future. That means that he can see it and that he is not submitted to what we call time dimension (i think).
The history we are living can thus be considered as a result of all "human free wills" and God already knows how it will end for us.
So, if God is over what we call time, there is no contradiction between free will and "knowing" future.

Peace

Exactly!

Also, it gets silly when we think of God as some character who perceives time, present, future just like us human beings do. This just shows we have no idea what God is... and therefore we make an image of God resembling a human but with superpowers... and since the whole ideas is stupid, we reject the idea of a God, and the following discussions carry this inherent silliness. So, the problem is not God, but the problem is our silly images of God. The problem is also how we understand the concepts we discuss, such as infinity, omniscience, predestination, free will. What do we really know about these things? What does "know the future" mean when talking about God (note I'm not talking about human beings knowing stuff)? What do we understand when we talk about God "doing" something? What do we imagine? A spirit-guy sending mental, telepathic orders to the world of energy and matter? How well do we grasp such things actually? What do we imagine? Do we handle such concepts in everyday life just like we handle pencils, dead lines, promises and cucumbers, with the result of being very familiar with them? We throw so many things into a discussion that are just vague concepts. No matter what the dictionary says, we will still have our own individual perceptions of them all. The discussions will be accordingly.... like parallel monologues as far as conceptual understanding is concerned...

I've always wondered one thing... Are there atheists who sincerely accept the possibility that they (the atheists) are currently unable to perceive that which is God (existing and real) but that God actually exists. I mean, something can be real even though one doesn't believe in it's reality and one haven't had any evidence or experience of it's reality. It's not a difficult thing to think... it's not a far stretch at all, and it doesn't require faith. It's just plain logic. I wonder if any atheists can accept this possibility in all sincerity and honesty. With sincerity I mean that they would actually believe in this possibility. Now, this is not the same as believing in pink elephants with four ears living in ice tunnels in Antarctica. One could argue the same possibility of that. But that is purely made up for the sake of the argument. The notion of a Living Source behind that which is referred to as Creation, is not that far fetched. It's not far fetched to consider a source of everything. The idea of God is not made up just for the sake of the argument. But again, what we think of God as will differ from person to person...

[Hoppean]

You are putting the ultimate responsibility of all crimes on God. This is wrong.

All things owe their existence to God, including each sin that has ever been commited. If this is what you mean by "responsibility" then yes he is "responsible". If you mean the moral responsiblity of each sin, then that lies with those who commited them. They are responsible because 1) They desired to commit their sins, and are not compelled against their own wills. It is simply that they cannot will anything, but that which they do. 2) They are creatures subject to the natural dominion of their Creator. 3) Necessity does not absolve before the law. In other words, the fact that God had created all the sons of Adam with an inclination to do only that which is evil, does not make them any less culpable before his judgment seat.

You are completely contradicting Quran.

The citations you provide do not say what you're saying. None of those texts you cite below are of any help to you.

The attitude of ?I would not have sinned if You (Allah) had not wished so? is the line always taken by infidels and polytheists. They attribute their way of life to Allah?s will -- ?we are what we are because Allah wills so?.

1. These are not quotes from the scriptures. No where in the Quran will you find people saying "we would not have sinned...had it not been God's will".
2. They do not simply "attribute their way of life" they attribute the correctness of their way of life, to God's will. As we shall see below, in the text you have cited.

As it is said in Sura An?aam ?When you question their (erroneous) way of life, the polytheists will say - ?It is Allah?s will that we are, and our ancestors were, polytheists? (6149). Allah rebuts that statement with ?Whatever you say (and follow) is nothing but pure conjecture (and ignorance)?.

Again you are not citing the text! You have not even paraphrased the verse in question accurately. The text says "They will say, those who ascribe equals (to God), that not we, nor our fathers, would have ascribed equals (with God) if God had not willed, nor would we have prohibited anything. Thus lied those who came before them, until they tasted our punishment. Say Is there any knowledge with you, which you could bring forth for us? You do not follow anything, except conjecture, and you do not follow anything, but guesswork." Then the next verse says " Say With God is the most sufficient argument. If he willed he would have guided you all."

1. Are you claiming that these polytheists did not believe in their own religion? For this is the implication of your interpretation.
2. Where does it say that it is "complete guesswork" to ascribe to God's decree, all those things which happen in this world?
3. Is it not true that what "conjecture and guesswork" refer to, in this verse, are their religious practices?
4. If it's true that God did not decree the sins of these pagans then what sense does it make to say "if God willed he would have guided you all"?

In Sura Zakhraf, it says that when you (the Prophet) question them, they say ?We would never have prayed to these idols if God did not will it?. Allah said, ?this is just ignorance. They are nothing but conjectures.? (4320).

More poorly paraphrased texts, but similar questions apply.

1. So these pagans thought their religion was actually false? They believed that worshipping angels was false; why would they even bother defending their religious practices if they believed them to be false anyway?
2. "If the most Gracious had willed we would not worship them.." Does it sound like they were trying to absolve themselves of moral responsibility (as you claim)? Or that they thought that their religious practices, handed down from their fathers, were pleasing to God, and thus in conformity with his will?
3. 4321 "Or have we given them a book before this, to which they are holding fast?" This verse and v.22 make your interpretation impossible. For, what is the point of asking them by what authority they practice their religion, if these pagans are only appealing to God's eternal decree? In other words, if they got their practices from revelation or from their own made up traditions, it's all completely irrelevant to the argument which you claim they're making.

Sura Yaseen reports that when the rich are asked to let their wealth flown down to the poor, the infidels reply ?How can we enrich those who are poor by Allah?s will??. The Quran?s response to that is ?surely, you are in grave ignorance!? (3647).

Wow this is absolutely not what the text says. 3647 "And when it is said to them, spend out of what God has provided for you as sustenance. Those who reject say to those who believe Do you feed those who, if God willed, He could feed. Your are on nothing, but clear error." Nevertheless, I am happy you cited this text, for it completely demolishes your position.

1. In order to be consistent, please tell us whether God is capable or incapable of feeding those who are in need? If he is capable, and they are hungry, it is because he has willed it; that is to say, he has decreed it as such. If he is not capable, then he is not the God of scripture. This absolutely proves your interpretation to be false, since you claim that 3647 is to be understood as referring to God's decree and not his pleasure.

All of the texts you've cited are extremely simple to understand, and none of them are even remotely teaching the doctrine of free will. Those appealing to God's will, in these texts, are appealing to his pleasure. That is, he has willed it therefore it is pleasing to him. They do not even consider that God has decreed evil for the purpose of glorifying his justice. The idea that these texts are somehow promoting "free will" cannot withstand any serious scrutiny or exegesis.

Again your assumption Allah whimsically guides some and misguides some has no basis. Kindly read the following chapter;

The basis of his guiding and misguiding is his decree of election or reprobation.

[Zulf]

1. In order to be consistent, please tell us whether God is capable or incapable of feeding those who are in need? If he is capable, and they are hungry, it is because he has willed it; that is to say, he has decreed it as such. If he is not capable, then he is not the God of scripture. This absolutely proves your interpretation to be false, since you claim that 3647 is to be understood as referring to God's decree and not his pleasure.

I believe that people are hungry because it serves a purpose, to them... a purpose that is good, in the big picture, but that this purpose may be impossible to see if you don't believe in a God. Anything that happens, serves the purpose of being a potential source of strengthening our connection/relationship to Source/God/Allah... i.e. to open our eye to truth and reality. I actually think it is impossible to see the real purpose of anything that happens to someone else. We are not them, so how can we know. People can hardly understand that which happens to themselves.

It's tragicomic to see people that don't really believe in a God in the first place, hit by adversity (or see adversity elsewhere), and then using that adversity, claiming the event is in essence unfair and bad, to prove that there cannot possibly be a God (since God is supposed to be merciful, all-powerful, all-knowing etc). What a limited perception of everything. People try to prove or disprove God with a frame of reference that is just totally subjective and useless for the intended purpose.

That's why they cannot prove God, 'coz they're looking for the wrong thing, in the wrong place, using the wrong method. How could they possible even come near the truth?

Peace and cheers

[Ahmad_Bilal]

Peace, aabdul.

You are putting the ultimate responsibility of all crimes on God. This is wrong. You are completely contradicting Quran. The attitude of ?I would not have sinned if You (Allah) had not wished so? is the line always taken by infidels and polytheists. They attribute their way of life to Allah?s will -- ?we are what we are because Allah wills so?. As it is said in Sura An?aam ?When you question their (erroneous) way of life, the polytheists will say - ?It is Allah?s will that we are, and our ancestors were, polytheists? (6149). Allah rebuts that statement with ?Whatever you say (and follow) is nothing but pure conjecture (and ignorance)?. In Sura Zakhraf, it says that when you (the Prophet) question them, they say ?We would never have prayed to these idols if God did not will it?. Allah said, ?this is just ignorance. They are nothing but conjectures.? (4320). Sura Yaseen reports that when the rich are asked to let their wealth flown down to the poor, the infidels reply ?How can we enrich those who are poor by Allah?s will??. The Quran?s response to that is ?surely, you are in grave ignorance!? (3647).

I see this, like many other things mentioned in the Qur'aan, as being open to interpretation. And, in any case, you're missing the point. According to the general Islamic view of Allah, he is all-knowing (omniscient), aware of all past and future events. The key position, of course, is knowledge of the future. If God knows all future events, then the future must be predetermined, 'written in stone'. Correct? That's where the problem with "free will" comes into play. If "free will" is the proposing and execution of a choice without any controlling or determining influence(s), then we can't really say that we have free will - because the future has already been determined for us!

From a practical perspective, we can look at things from the view of a righteous man versus a wicked man. If a righteous person gives money to poor people, then the act of him giving this money to those who need(ed) it was known by Allah before the action was actually taken. Since the future is already prewritten, then there's no way that this person could have NOT given the money to the poor - since, as mentioned, it was already predetermined. Similarly, if a wicked person steals money from others, Allah already knew that (1) this man would be wicked and (2) this man would become a thief and steal from others. Due to the future being prewritten, there's no way that this wicked man could've avoided stealing - again, because it was already predetermined for him to do so.

I'm not 'blaming God' for the actions of wicked people, nor am I crediting him with the actions of righteous people. However, we also need to look at things rationally... If Allah predetermines (or "knows&quot that righteous people will perform righteous works, is there any way for them to avoid performing these actions? And if Allah predetermines that wicked people will conduct wickedness, is there any way for them to be righteous? In other words, can they bypass God's decree (or knowledge) and do the opposite of what's been written concerning them?

Again your assumption Allah whimsically guides some and misguides some has no basis. Kindly read the following chapter;

http//www.tolueislam.org/Parwez/kt/kt_11.htm

The article you posted has some serious philosophical problems associated with it. For example, the Qur'aan says that Allah 'seals the hearts' of some people - it doesn't say anything about these people sealing their own hearts! The same concept is relayed in the Bible, where it states that God 'heardened the heart' of the Egyptian pharaoh, causing him to reject Moses' message. Again, it doesn't say that these people choose rejection; it is forced upon them by God! We can attempt to devise any interpretation we choose concerning this matter, but the words are very clear and direct - God guides certain people and misguides (or, chooses not to guide) others.

In the Qur'aanic story of Adam's creation, Ibliys accuses Allah of misguiding him (Q. 1532-44). Did Allah deny the charges? No, believe it or not, he didn't! In fact, certain aspects of the Qur'aan agree with Ibliys' position concerning misguiding people, again, depending on how one interprets the message. It all depends on perspective.

Peace,

Ahmad

[Zulf]

According to the general Islamic view of Allah, he is all-knowing (omniscient), aware of all past and future events. The key position, of course, is knowledge of the future. If God knows all future events, then the future must be predetermined, 'written in stone'. Correct? That's where the problem with "free will" comes into play.

No.

Check noshirk's most recent post in this thread.

Your understanding is sensible and logic, but it sort of makes Allah dependent on the time dimension.
Let's look at it the way noshirk put it

Our world evolves as on a time line, i.e. time is linear to us and the events in our world. The past is the past, the now is the only thing that really exists, and the future hasn't yet happened. BUT, since time is just an aspect of Creation, then Allah is not bound, limited or dependent on time, because Allah is not a thing or person. Allah is something greater, independent of Creation, that we cannot fully grasp. So Allah is independent from the dimension of time and knows that which has not yet happened, because it is not a matter of past, present and future to Allah. It only appears like this to us... time. Allah is not "sitting" somewhere waiting for everything to play out. The main point is that Allah is not of this world. You can also see it like going back in a time machine as a detached observer. Things are happening for the first time, but you know it in advance because you've broken free from time. Perhaps not a great example. In any case, Allah is not illogical just because our logic cannot handle it.

Anyhow, I don't claim to know it all, but I do understand noshirk's way of seeing it. And by the way, what does it matter to us anyway what we conclude about free will and Allah's all-knowing? Will it change how we act or look at things???

Peace! O0

[StopS]

Certainly not based on God's knowledge.

You have told me what it is not. Of course I don't have the knowledge of a god. Nobody has.
But what is it? How can I choose to "become a sceptic, realist or whatever"?

For instance, if you decide to have a daily 3- mile early morning walk, on your own accord, you are free and you can reap the benefits of walking, however, if you are made to, against your will, you are forced. Whatever actions you do it is your choice. You can act stupid blindly believing in advertising slogans or act rationally verifying facts. If you are sick, you can choose medicine for yourself (if you are a doctor), or visit a doctor of your choice, or not to visit any doctor at all and take the risk. The ultimate decision is yours not God's. God's knowledge of your ultimate decision which will not in any way affect your choice.

That is not the point. Your example is simple and straightforward. Mine is not. If I will be punished if I do NOT go for a walk, is this "free will"?
Can I choose to like going to the dentist?
Can I choose to like breaking my legs?

Imagine I am a teacher who teach science subject for 50 students. I may know which students are likely to pass in the examination based on my experience, knowledge about how brilliant and studious are the children, and how difficult and tough is the question paper, etc. Does my knowledge in any way influence their actuall passing/ failing in the examination? Also imagine I know one student who is the worst performer in the class is going to fail. And if this student fails, is it because of my knowledge this student failed???????? No idiot will say that.

That is completely and totally different. Your estimate is not the same as omniscience. Will you cut off a finger for every time you are wrong? I don't think so.

God knows what will be the actual decision one will be taking...myself turning right or left is NOT based/ resultant on God's knowledge of the "actual decision" I will be taking.......just like no man with sense will say it is because of a teacher's knowledge that someone passed or failed. The only difference in the knowledge is that in a teacher's case there is possibility of having "human error", but God's case the knowledge will be perfect without any question of going wrong.

Exactly! So you don't have "free will".

[aabdul]

In order to be consistent, please tell us whether God is capable or incapable of feeding those who are in need? If he is capable, and they are hungry, it is because he has willed it; that is to say, he has decreed it as such. If he is not capable, then he is not the God of scripture. This absolutely proves your interpretation to be false, since you claim that 3647 is to be understood as referring to God's decree and not his pleasure.

Insha Allah I will answer your comments point by points in different posts since it requires some explanation.

You are saying if Allah is Capable to feed the hungry and even then if people are hungry it would mean Allah willed people to go hungry. THIS IS COMPLETELY A WRONG CONCEPT AND IT HAS NO BASIS AND IT IS A FABRICATION. The point needed to be explained bit detail but I will try to reduce my comments as much as possible.

This provision of sustenance by Allah is not done directly by Him. No where Quran says Allah directly feed the poor. Allah is CAPABLE for directly feeding the poor but He would not directly interfere in the affairs of the world and feed the needy. Allah has created the means of wealth -- ?We put you in place on the Earth and for you made in it means of sustenance ? (710; 1520). Earth has been given the potential of producing food. He sends down rain which helps to produce food -- ?Allah is the one who created the skies and the Earth, and sends down from the sky rain and so brings out from it a variety of sustenance for you -- ? (1432); ?He provides sustenance for you from the sky and the Earth? (353); ?The Earth has an infinite potential of yielding food, but at a given time, only a finite amount may be obtained -- ?And We have stores of everything but We don?t send those down (bring out of the Earth) except according to known measure -- ? (1521). The term ?known measure? ( &#1605 clearly refers to established ways and means (natural laws) open to Man?s discovery and application.

The Quran declares desire and work as fundamental to obtaining rizq. It is termed as " ? the search for divinely-gifted sustenance. The Quran cites the movement of Earth to create day and night as one of His signs; they have been made bright ? so that you can search your Preserver?s bounty (rizq) ?. (1712) Incidentally, the expression - - refers to search as well as intention (plan), effort and achievement. With regards to search for sustenance, a special mention is made of boats which were the best means of transportation at the time. Sea-vessels are quite important even today. ?You see the boats sailing briskly in sea so that you can search His bounty --- ? (16.14); This search for sustenance is necessary for the believers and the dissenters alike. Hence, one of the characteristics of the Messenger and his group is that ?They search Allah?s bounty (and His approval) ? --- (4829; 7320). It even becomes obligatory for the believers ?When you have finished as-Sala, spread in the earth and search Allah?s bounty -- ? (6210). As a result of this effort, sustenance will come according to natural laws, which make no distinction between Muslim and non-Muslim. Whoever farms under the right agricultural laws shall reap a good harvest. It is clear, therefore, that rizq gets available to anyone who works according to natural laws.

Hunger is Allah?s Punishment

?Allah explains it with the example of a township. It was in peace and contentment. ?Rizq? came to them in plenty from all four directions. They denied and rejected these bounties of Allah. So, Allah had them taste the calamities of hunger and fear. It was all due to their own deeds! (16112).

Then the Quran goes on to say that when men face shortage of sustenance, they blame Allah for afflicting them without cause. It is said, ?Tell them that Allah doesn?t degrade anyone without due reason. You have been disgraced by our own wrongdoing -- you used to abandon the helpless of your society; you did not arrange to feed the hungry and were greedy; such actions brought ignominy to you, not Allah!?(8916-20).

In short, Allah has provided Man with rizq. But, the fair distribution of it is to be done by Man not by Allah! If it is done according to the system suggested by Allah, no man will go without sustenance. On the other hand, if it is done according to man-made systems, human society will turn into a den of beasts!

[Zulf]

Allah has provided Man with rizq. But, the fair distribution of it is to be done by Man not by Allah! If it is done according to the system suggested by Allah, no man will go without sustenance. On the other hand, if it is done according to man-made systems, human society will turn into a den of beasts!

Are the hunger stricken people punished for something they have done, but the punishment comes in the form of something that is a result of what e.g. other nations are doing or not doing? How is it connected? Is there a specific and intended purpose for each individual in calamities, or are they just punishments for the sake of punishment?

Peace

[aabdul]

Second rebuttal-

Again you are not citing the text! You have not even paraphrased the verse in question accurately. The text says "They will say, those who ascribe equals (to God), that not we, nor our fathers, would have ascribed equals (with God) if God had not willed, nor would we have prohibited anything. Thus lied those who came before them, until they tasted our punishment. Say Is there any knowledge with you, which you could bring forth for us? You do not follow anything, except conjecture, and you do not follow anything, but guesswork." Then the next verse says " Say With God is the most sufficient argument. If he willed he would have guided you all."

1. Are you claiming that these polytheists did not believe in their own religion? For this is the implication of your interpretation.
2. Where does it say that it is "complete guesswork" to ascribe to God's decree, all those things which happen in this world?
3. Is it not true that what "conjecture and guesswork" refer to, in this verse, are their religious practices?
4. If it's true that God did not decree the sins of these pagans then what sense does it make to say "if God willed he would have guided you all"?

Firstly please check all Quran translations. Let me quote the translation by pickthall and Sher Ali here

(Pickthall) They who are idolaters will say Had Allah willed, we had not ascribed (unto Him) partners neither had our fathers, nor had we forbidden aught. Thus did those who were before them give the lie (to Allah's messengers) till they tasted of the fear of Us. Say Have ye any knowledge that ye can adduce for Us? Lo! ye follow naught but an opinion, Lo! ye do but guess.(614

(Sher Ali) Those who associate gods with God will say, 'If God had pleased, we would not have associated gods with Him, nor would our fathers, nor would we have made anything unlawful.' In the like manner did those who were before them accuse God's Messengers of falsehood, until they tasted Our wrath. Say, 'Have you any knowledge? Then produce it for us. You only follow mere conjecture. And you only tell lies..

The above verse clearly states the false justification of the idolaters that it is due to the reason of God's will that they associate gods with God which Quran strongly object as not true. The implication of my claim is not "polytheists did not believe in their own religion". Look for my next quote from Quran related to the same claim below (highlighted)

If it's true that God did not decree the sins of these pagans then what sense does it make to say "if God willed he would have guided you all"?

You are confused. Firstly look at another verse with similar wording.

And the idolaters say, 'If God had so willed, we should not have worshiped anything beside Him, neither we nor our fathers, nor should we have forbidden anything without command from Him.' So did those who opposed the truth before them. Are the Messengers responsible for anything except the plain delivery of the Message? (1635)

So it is clear that the messengers duty is to nothing but plain delivery of the message. It is the choice of the people whether to accept the message or not. If God willed he would have guided you all means Allah do not want to force anyone to believe in the message. Or Do you think it is Allah's Will that some people should not be guided to the truth???? If that is the case such people can not be held responsible for their actions. Allah says, ?O Messenger! You can?t make the ?dead? hear you. Allah makes listening only for those who want to? ? (3519-22), the next verse, "You are only a warner (3523). ?Whoever wishes to listen? means ?He guides to Him (only) the one who turns to Him? ? (1327). The Quran says in (9010) ? And We showed him two paths?. Also, (in 763) ?We have guided him to the right path. It is upto him now to accept or reject it.? It is further elaborated in 1829 ?Tell that Right (has arrived) from your God. It is upto you now to accept or reject it?. If there is no freedom of choice, no responsibility. That?s why the Quran says (in 1675-76) ?The subjugated and the free can never be equal. Subsequently, one will be answerable only for actions committed out of free will (16106). Also in 335 ?you won?t be held answerable for (an unintentional) mistake - only for one which you make with your heart?s intention?. The same principle lies under the normal judicial law which distinguishes between intentional (cold-blooded) and unintentional (warm-blooded or accidental) murder, proposing different punishments for them (492-93).

[neb87]

Are the hunger stricken people punished for something they have done, but the punishment comes in the form of something that is a result of what e.g. other nations are doing or not doing? How is it connected? Is there a specific and intended purpose for each individual in calamities, or are they just punishments for the sake of punishment?
)
Peace

I've always thought of situations like that one not as "punishments" for the oppressed, but as tests for the believers. For example, I live in the U.S., and I'm well aware that some of the practices of my government are directly responsible for the suffering of people in other countries. I don't see their suffering as a punishment for something they've done, but as a test for me and my fellow countrymen to see if we will put a stop to it.

In general, this is how I view all evil commited by humans on other humans. What they do isn't God's Will. His Will is for the believers to align their will with His and oppose those who commit evil. If God were to directly step in and stop people from commiting evil, that would negate free will, which could be seen as evil, itself. Instead, he encourages believers to use their free will to do His work on earth.

[aabdul]

Are the hunger stricken people punished for something they have done, but the punishment comes in the form of something that is a result of what e.g. other nations are doing or not doing? How is it connected? Is there a specific and intended purpose for each individual in calamities, or are they just punishments for the sake of punishment?

Peace

The Quran holds society as a whole responsible for their situation. We behave strangely in a society, benefiting from the good - facilities, benefits etc. - one never refuses them on the grounds that one is not directly responsible for them. On the other hand, however, one is always complaining about the badness of society for which, again, one is not directly responsible. This attitude is referred to in the Quran ?When Man is enjoying Our bounties, he turns away (arrogantly from Allah?s law), but when evil comes to him, he raises hue and cry? (1783). It goes on to say ?Say, everyone works according to one?s tether? (1784), therefore man is directly or indirectly responsible for what happens in society. A society is nothing but a collection of individuals who have the potential of enforcing change. An individual is a part / member of a society and, as such, is affected by it anyway. For example, a good harvest benefits even those not connected with farming at all. On the other hand, a bursting dam extends its damage even to those who have nothing at all to do with its construction or maintenance. This is why the Quran say ?Try to protect your society against a danger which is not restricted to the people responsible for it? (825). Please note that the Quran does not accept as valid the excuse of being helpless from free-willed Man. It is possible, though, that individuals fail in their initial attempt(s) to bring about change in their society. But this is very different from presenting helplessness as an excuse. People who try are commended by Allah (2157), others will naturally go to hell (497). The Quran emphasizes reformation of society as a whole which will automatically affect individuals. Quran exhorts capable group (having the physical qualities as well the guidance of permanent divine values) shall take control of society to carry out divine responsibilities on behalf of Allah --- ?It is Our promise (firm law) that those of you who become convinced of Allah?s laws, and do ?saleh? deeds, shall inherit the control of the Earth ?. ? (2455).

[aabdul]

Third Rebuttal-

My comments in Blue

More poorly paraphrased texts, but similar questions apply.

For your satisfaction, I will quote from Pickthal; "And they say If the Beneficent One had (so) willed, we should not have worshipped them. They have no knowledge whatsoever of that. They do but guess."(4320)

1. So these pagans thought their religion was actually false? They believed that worshipping angels was false; why would they even bother defending their religious practices if they believed them to be false anyway? The verses does not say tha pagans thought their religion was false. The pagans only stating that it is the Will of Allah they continue to worship their dieties implying, therefore, there is nothing wrong.

2. "If the most Gracious had willed we would not worship them.." Does it sound like they were trying to absolve themselves of moral responsibility (as you claim)? Or that they thought that their religious practices, handed down from their fathers, were pleasing to God, and thus in conformity with his will? It is about their claim that their religous practicies being in conformity with God's will

3. 4321 "Or have we given them a book before this, to which they are holding fast?" This verse and v.22 make your interpretation impossible. For, what is the point of asking them by what authority they practice their religion, if these pagans are only appealing to God's eternal decree? In other words, if they got their practices from revelation or from their own made up traditions, it's all completely irrelevant to the argument which you claim they're making. Verse 22 only means this. (They do not have any rational proof based on knowledge. And) We had not sent any 'book' to them, wherein were written such beliefs to which they now hold steadfastly. (Therefore the concept of ?taqdeer? is contradictory to Divine Guidance, as well as human knowledge and intellect. If they had known the facts they would not have said that all this happens due to God?s will; and that they had no choice. In reality the human being has been endowed with the ability to choose his actions. He is thus always responsible for his deeds ~ 6149; 3647)

[aabdul]

Peace, aabdul.

I see this, like many other things mentioned in the Qur'aan, as being open to interpretation. And, in any case, you're missing the point. According to the general Islamic view of Allah, he is all-knowing (omniscient), aware of all past and future events. The key position, of course, is knowledge of the future. If God knows all future events, then the future must be predetermined, 'written in stone'. Correct? That's where the problem with "free will" comes into play. If "free will" is the proposing and execution of a choice without any controlling or determining influence(s), then we can't really say that we have free will - because the future has already been determined for us!

From a practical perspective, we can look at things from the view of a righteous man versus a wicked man. If a righteous person gives money to poor people, then the act of him giving this money to those who need(ed) it was known by Allah before the action was actually taken. Since the future is already prewritten, then there's no way that this person could have NOT given the money to the poor - since, as mentioned, it was already predetermined. Similarly, if a wicked person steals money from others, Allah already knew that (1) this man would be wicked and (2) this man would become a thief and steal from others. Due to the future being prewritten, there's no way that this wicked man could've avoided stealing - again, because it was already predetermined for him to do so.

I'm not 'blaming God' for the actions of wicked people, nor am I crediting him with the actions of righteous people. However, we also need to look at things rationally... If Allah predetermines (or "knows&quot that righteous people will perform righteous works, is there any way for them to avoid performing these actions? And if Allah predetermines that wicked people will conduct wickedness, is there any way for them to be righteous? In other words, can they bypass God's decree (or knowledge) and do the opposite of what's been written concerning them?

Salaam brother Ahmad,

Your typing in red would not absolve yourself from the blame you make GOD responsible for our actions. Do you know, in the battle of Uhud when Muslims received a set back and they pondered upon the setback with ? How did it happen??, Allah?s reply to that was ?Tell, (them O Prophet!), that was from your own selves.? (3165). Allah is not a whimsical dictator. He rules by set laws not by arbitrary decrees. Sadly, when Muslims abandoned the Quran (at the end of the period of ?the righteous caliphate?), their concept of Allah changed to one of an emperor. Allah became an absolutely tyrannical dictator ruling the universe and humans according to His moods.

Allah does not pre-determine what cause of actions man will be talking, if that is the case there is no free will for man. Consequently Allah can not hold man responsible for his actions. However Quran states; ?Deeds bring results and responsibility to the doer (s)? (2286). ?People are destroyed by their own actions? (279). that ?Everyone is mortgaged by his own actions? (743. ?You get what you do? (982). ?Allah created the skies and the earth (the universe) rightfully to get everyone the result of his actions and to stop all wrongdoing? (4522). ?whoever does wrong shall bear the consequence? (4123) and ?Whatever on does produces results? (982; 995; 1451; 1696-97; 4017). Elsewhere, the Quran states ?everyone shall get the result of one?s actions? (3433). It is repeated in (7147; 5216; 5624; 8336) etc. Again, it states ?Allah doesn?t let go wasted any deed of a doer?.(3197). Also ?Allah never wastes the return of good doers? (1290; 3144).

Quran says ?Do whatever you wish. Surely, whatever you do (will bear a result, as it) is watched by Him? (4140). Even Allah doesn?t interfere. He just keeps a watch ?Allah sees your actions? (2237). ?He knows them? (2234). ?No action can go unnoticed by Him?. (2144), even ?Allah knows what is in your hearts? (2235). ?Allah surrounds whatever you do? (3119). It means Man should bear in mind the Law of Returns which oversees his actions. In other words, Man is free to choose his action but is not free to change the natural consequences of that action. That is why every responsible action by Man produces a reaction and every man has to bear the consequences of his actions.

The article you posted has some serious philosophical problems associated with it. For example, the Qur'aan says that Allah 'seals the hearts' of some people - it doesn't say anything about these people sealing their own hearts!

You are totally confused due to surperficial reading of certain verses thinking that there is an element of "compulsion" involved in such statements. Quran says ?Don?t they ponder over the Quran? Have their hearts locked themselves shut?? ? (4724). Please note the very important suffix - - (of them) with the word - - (locks) in this verse. It very clearly shows that men seal their own hearts, shut to calls of reason. Elsewhere, the same idea is put in other words ?When they went crooked, Allah crooked their hearts? (His law of Returns did it) ? (615; 519; 9127).

Let me quote a verse from Sura 83 which clarifies the phrase ?Allah has sealed their hearts? beyond any shadow of a doubt. It says ?No, it?s not like that! But (the reality is that) their hearts get rusted because of their own deeds! (8314).

Also verses like from chapter 7, (Conventionally translated) ?And We have created a lot of Jinns and Men for Hell". You may think this supports the concept of pre-destiny? No. The rest of the verse clears the confusion ?They possess hearts but don?t use them for thinking, they have eyes but don?t use them to look, they have ears but don?t use them to hear. They are the ones who are like animals, nay, even worse (7179).

I would suggest you to read Book of Destiny (Kitab-Ul-Taqdeer) By Parwez, which you can download from http//resurgentislam.com/ for more clarification and indepth study.

Hope the point is clear to you

Peace

[Hoppean]

Insha Allah I will answer your comments point by points in different posts since it requires some explanation.

You are saying if Allah is Capable to feed the hungry and even then if people are hungry it would mean Allah willed people to go hungry. THIS IS COMPLETELY A WRONG CONCEPT AND IT HAS NO BASIS AND IT IS A FABRICATION.

aabdul, I have read through all your responses, and you are mixing together alot of issues. In addition, you did not answer my questions, you only continued making unsubstantiated assertions. For simplicity, let's break down your argument by points.

1. The texts you have cited where heathens are saying"...had God so willed etc" do not support your position (which is the traditional islamic position) that these heathens were justifying their crimes/sins, by citing God's decree. In order to understand the text in this way, one must presuppose that these heathens acknowledge that they're doing something wrong, which would imply they do not believe their own religious practices to be true. On the other hand, as I already demonstrated, these heathens do not acknowledge their religious practices to be false inventions (that's why they cite it as handed down from their fathers); to the contrary, they believe their practices to be legitimate and therefore when they say "had God willed..." they are saying "if God were not pleased with our religion, he would not have allowed us to practice it". This is because they do not see any of God's purposes in creation, but only their own.

2. Another problem that you have is with the word "will"; in itself it is ambiguous, it could refer to either God's decree, or it could refer to God's pleasure. As I said your interpretation of "God's will" meaning "God's decree" is unjustifiable exegetically.

Once it has been made obvious that your first point is invalid, then the whole structure you have built on it collapses.

Allah is CAPABLE for directly feeding the poor but He would not directly interfere in the affairs of the world and feed the needy

3. This, like so many other statements you have made, is gratuitous; you have never bothered to establish it exegetically. You admit God is "capable" yet there is still hunger in the world; the conclusion is inevitable. If God does not "directly interfere", according to you, then it is either 1) Because he is incapable, something you deny, or 2) It is because he is unwilling. You can play with words all you like, but according to your own beliefs God has chosen/willed not to "interfere". Notice, how here you have now equivocated on the word "will"; for now what you mean is Yes God willed/decreed not to "interfere", and there is still hunger, but this is not pleasing to God, because it is the result of man's sin/crime etc. This clearly shows that you understand the distinction that I made above, regarding the word "will".

Now if you will simply admit that your presuppositions are false, and that therefore these texts you have cited are of no help to you, then we can move on to those other texts which you have recently brought forward, allegedly teaching "free will".

[Ahmad_Bilal]

Peace, Zulf.

Our world evolves as on a time line, i.e. time is linear to us and the events in our world. The past is the past, the now is the only thing that really exists, and the future hasn't yet happened. BUT, since time is just an aspect of Creation, then Allah is not bound, limited or dependent on time, because Allah is not a thing or person. Allah is something greater, independent of Creation, that we cannot fully grasp. So Allah is independent from the dimension of time and knows that which has not yet happened, because it is not a matter of past, present and future to Allah. It only appears like this to us... time. Allah is not "sitting" somewhere waiting for everything to play out. The main point is that Allah is not of this world. You can also see it like going back in a time machine as a detached observer. Things are happening for the first time, but you know it in advance because you've broken free from time. Perhaps not a great example. In any case, Allah is not illogical just because our logic cannot handle it.

I think you're still missing the point. You're alleging that Allah is potentially, somehow, in all places and times, since (according to you) he's not limited to time and space. This idea, however, isn't logical at all. Time can't be described as totally linear; if anything, time is merely the measurement and determination of change. The Qur'aan says that Allah doesn't change, meaning his positions (and statutes) are "timeless". That's one way of looking at things. Yet, if he can somehow see, and inhabit, the future, then we're STILL proposing that the future is already predetermined. Whatever God sees (or experiences) in the future is bound to happen, and there's no way that we can alter his position concerning future events. Therefore, again, if one is "destined" to become a bank robber, there's nothing the person can do to NOT become a bank robber - his future is already written in stone. That directly conflicts with the concept of "free will".

Let's look at it analytically. Allah placed a tree - according to the Bible, "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil" - in the garden that he built for Adam and Eve. Afterwards, he restricted Adam and Eve from eating, or even touching, this tree. Did he know that they were going to eat from it anyway? According to the Islamic scope of predetermination, he absolutely did! Yet, he still placed the tree in the garden, even though he knew that they'd fall victim to it... The question is Could Adam and Eve have avoided eating from this tree? Again, according to the Islamic scope of predetermination, they couldn't have prevented it at all, since Allah already knew that it would happen. In other words, their sin against him was unavoidable. If we stretch this idea along the line of a "timeless" deity, then we'd form the conclusion that Allah deliberately created Adam and Eve to transgress his commandment; he placed an object in their midst that he knew they'd fall victim to; he created Ibliys specifically for the purpose of defying his command (e.g. to submit to Adam) and becoming the tempting agent of humanity; he placed Adam and Eve in a garden that he knew they'd be ejected from due to their disobedience; he sent prophets to lands knowing full well that they'd be rejected, persecuted, and even killed by the residents; etc.

This falls right in line with the 'problem of evil' concept. If Allah knew all of these factors beforehand, then he could've changed them. For example, he could've avoided the creation process altogether. Otherwise, he could've avoided creating a tree (and placing it in the garden) that he knew his servants would fall victim to. He could've warned Ibliys about his disobedience prior to it actually taking place. He could've told the prophets to give the people books and flee for their lives, etc... The problem? If God knew the future, he should've changed it (in the past), since the refusal to do so restricts him from being omnibenevolent, most merciful, etc. If he couldn't have changed it, then that restricts him from being omnipotent (all-powerful). If he didn't know those things would happen, then that would restrict him from being omniscient, etc.

I understand the views of "noshirk" and "aabdul"; but that doesn't make their views correct or sensible.

I don't understand your other point, concerning Allah NOT being illogical merely because 'our logic can't handle it'. What does this mean? Who determines what's logical or illogical, if not us (humanity)? If we can't identify God through a logical medium, then how is he NOT illogical? The idea of something being "logical" means it is characterized by clear, rational thinking, generally as it relates to something verifiable... Can you explain how Allah (God) can be authenticated via logic or rational thinking, especially if we can't even specifically identify what he/she/it is?

Peace,

Ahmad

[Ahmad_Bilal]

Peace, aabdul.

I'll check out the website you recommended. Thanks for your clarification, and I'll revisit this topic after I've finished reviewing your source. Thanks again.

Peace,

Ahmad

[aabdul]

The texts you have cited where heathens are saying"...had God so willed etc" do not support your position (which is the traditional islamic position) that these heathens were justifying their crimes/sins, by citing God's decree. In order to understand the text in this way, one must presuppose that these heathens acknowledge that they're doing something wrong, which would imply they do not believe their own religious practices to be true. On the other hand, as I already demonstrated, these heathens do not acknowledge their religious practices to be false inventions (that's why they cite it as handed down from their fathers); to the contrary, they believe their practices to be legitimate and therefore when they say "had God willed..." they are saying "if God were not pleased with our religion, he would not have allowed us to practice it". This is because they do not see any of God's purposes in creation, but only their own.

This is the arabic of verse 6148. And the transliteration is this

Sayaqoolu allatheena ashrakoo law shaa Allahu ma ashrakna wala abaona wala harramna min shayin kathalika kaththaba allatheena min qablihim

Now the main words;

law shaa Allahu = If God had willed/ intended/ desired

Ma ashrakna wala abaona wala harramna min shayin = Neither we nor our ancestors would have committed Shirk (associating partners with Allah) or regarded anything as Har?am of our own accord.

It is clear they are justifying that they associating partners (ashrakna) with Allah is something what God had willed / intended/ desired for them to do. As for me, it is clear that they knew they are doing wrong, but they are justifying their wrong action on pre-destiny/ fate. They wanted to follow the way of their forefathers blindly. If they thought what they were doing right, I think, in that case, there is no logic in coming up with a justification of pre-destiny/ fate. Even assuming, not admitting they considered what they were doing as right, still the point I am highlighting is still valid. They claim their actions are based on pre-destiny. Allah counters them saying they are wrong and they are only following conjectures and indulging in speculations. I do not think this is a major issue to argue about and establish. We are deviating from the main discussion.