By on ( Leave a comment )

Free Will and Predestination (Qadar) in the Qur’an and Islamic Theology

Written and collected by Zia H Shah MD, Chief Editor of the Muslim Times

If my articles are boring to you, it may be that you need to read more of them, as was suggested by John Cage, one of the most influential American composers of the 20th century, “If something is boring after two minutes, try it for four. If still boring, then eight. Then sixteen. Then thirty-two. Eventually one discovers that it is not boring at all.”

Introduction

The question of human free will versus divine predestination (al-qadar) has been a central theological puzzle in Islam for centuries. On the one hand, the Qur’an affirms that God is all-powerful and all-knowing, with a divine decree encompassing everything. On the other hand, the Qur’an also holds humans responsible for their choices, promising reward or punishment based on one’s deeds. This apparent paradox – how can humans have meaningful free will if God has already decreed all things? – sparked one of the earliest theological schisms in Islam​. By the late 7th and 8th century, Muslim scholars split between the Qadariyya (who upheld absolute human free will) and the Jabriyya (who argued for absolute divine determinism)​. Each extreme was deemed problematic: if God has no control over human actions, why pray to Him or trust His plan? And if humans have no free choice, why would God hold anyone accountable for their deeds?

Mainstream Islamic thought sought a middle ground that upholds both God’s total sovereignty and human moral responsibility​. Sunni Islam even regards belief in al-qada wa’l-qadar (the divine decree and destiny) as one of the six articles of faith​. Shi’a theology, by contrast, does not list predestination as a tenet of faith, emphasizing instead God’s justice (al-ʿadl) and often rejecting any notion of fatalism​. Over time, diverse Islamic theological schools – Sunnis (Ash’ari and Maturidi), Muʿtazilites, Shi’as, and others – developed nuanced interpretations to reconcile scriptural statements on destiny with human free agency. This article will explore key Qur’anic verses on predestination and free will, and examine how different Islamic traditions have interpreted them. We will also discuss the philosophical arguments about human actions being determined or freely chosen, the concepts of qada’ (divine decree) and qadar (divine measure), and the implications of this debate for accountability, divine justice, and life’s purpose in Islam.

Qada’ and Qadar: Divine Decree and Measure

In Islamic belief, al-qada’ wa’l-qadar refers to God’s divine providence – His decree and the foreordained measure of all things. Classical scholars often distinguish the two terms for clarity. As one definition puts it: “the divine decree (al-qada’) consists of the entire and complete judgment forever, and the divine measurement (al-qadar) consists of the particulars of the judgment and its details.”​

In other words, al-qadar is the “measuring out” of destiny – God’s eternal plan down to every detail – while al-qada’ is God’s actualization of that decree. The Qur’an itself uses the root Q-D-R (qadar) in the sense of measuring or determining with precision​. For example, the 97th chapter is Surat al-Qadr (“The Decree”), and the Qur’an states “Allah has created everything in precise measure.”​ Belief in this all-encompassing divine decree affirms that nothing in the universe falls outside of God’s knowledge, will, and power​.

At the same time, the Qur’an and Hadith emphasize that humans are not mere automatons; we have been given intellect and will, and we bear responsibility for our choices. The synthesis often presented is that God’s decree is absolute and all-encompassing, yet operates in a way that does not nullify human free will. As Ibn Hajar (a notable Sunni scholar) explained, texts about destiny can be seen in two categories: those describing an unchanging divine decree and those implying a conditional or modifiable destiny​. The two are “reconciled towards the united purpose of guiding us to right behavior”​ – meaning that the Qur’anic revelations about God’s power and human choice are ultimately meant to guide human conduct, not to paralyze us with philosophical conundrums.

Qur’anic Verses on Predestination and Human Free Will

The Qur’an contains numerous verses that on the surface support a strong doctrine of predestination, and numerous others that uphold human free will and accountability. Islamic scholars stress that these verses must be understood together to grasp the Qur’an’s balanced view. Below are some of the key Qur’anic passages on both sides, with brief explanations:

  • “Indeed, all things We created with predestination.” (Qur’an 54:49) – This verse in Surat al-Qamar is perhaps the clearest declaration of qadar in the Qur’an. It states that everything in creation, big or small, comes into being according to Allah’s decree and foreordained plan​. Classical commentators note this affirms God’s total sovereignty over existence – nothing occurs by accident or outside His will​. Imam al-Qurtubi, in his tafsir on this verse, wrote: “Allah predestined things – He knew their destiny, conditions and timing before creating them, then He created them in accordance with His foreknowledge. No event occurs in the world unless it stems from His knowledge, power and will.”​ Thus, every happening unfolds by Allah’s decision, according to a measure already written in a “Preserved Tablet” (al-lawh al-mahfuz) as referenced in Islamic teachings​.
  • “No disaster strikes upon the earth or among yourselves except that it is in a register before We bring it into being – indeed that is easy for Allah.” (Qur’an 57:22) – Here the Qur’an explicitly says even the misfortunes or calamities that befall us are pre-recorded by Allah before they occur​. This corresponds to the belief that God’s knowledge and decree encompass when and how events will happen. For example, the time of each person’s death is fixed by divine decree (ajal) in advance​. This was highlighted in the Qur’an after the Battle of Uhud: “If you had stayed in your homes, those for whom killing was decreed would have gone forth to their death beds” (Qur’an 3:154)​. Such verses underscore that from an Islamic perspective, events like life and death are not random – they unfold according to God’s plan.
  • “And you do not will except that Allah wills – Lord of the worlds.” (Qur’an 81:29) – This verse (and a similar one in 76:30) is often cited in discussions of free will. It appears after the Qur’an invites humans to choose the right path, reminding us that even our willing to do so is subject to God’s will​. In context: “Whoever wills, let him take a path toward his Lord. But you will not will [to do so] unless Allah wills…” (76:29-30). The phrase “you cannot will unless Allah wills” affirms that human will is neither independent nor above God – it exists under God’s permission and power​. Muslims understand this to mean that our freedom to choose is a God-given faculty; we exercise will, but only because Allah, the supreme Will, allows it. It also humbles the believer – we say “Insha’Allah” (“if God wills”) about future plans, recognizing that nothing happens solely by our own will.
  • “Allah guides whom He wills and leads astray whom He wills.” – Variations of this statement recur in the Qur’an (e.g. 14:4, 16:93, 35:8, 74:31)​. For instance: “Allah sends astray whom He wills and guides whom He wills” (Qur’an 14:4)​. On the face of it, this sounds like pure predestination regarding faith: it is God’s will that ultimately decides who is rightly guided and who is not. Indeed, Muslims regularly beseech Allah for guidance (as in Surat al-Fatihah 1:6, “Guide us to the straight path”), acknowledging that guidance is in His hands​. However, these verses are complemented by others that indicate human receptivity is a factor in guidance. For example, Allah “does not guide the wrongdoing people” (Qur’an 2:258) and “Allah guides those who turn to Him” (Qur’an 42:13) – suggesting that those who want and deserve guidance receive it​. A harmonious understanding is given by scholars: “He thus guides only those who want and deserve to be guided, and leads astray only those who want and deserve to be led astray.”​ In other words, Allah’s guidance or misguidance is not arbitrary; it corresponds to the inclinations and choices of people themselves (more on this below).
  • “Whoever wills – let him believe; and whoever wills – let him disbelieve.” (Qur’an 18:29) – This verse is a direct affirmation of human free will in matters of faith. It presents belief as a choice of the individual: truth has come from the Lord, then it is “whoever wishes” who decides to accept it or reject it. Similarly, “There is no compulsion in religion” (Qur’an 2:256) makes clear that genuine faith cannot be forced upon someone; they must embrace it by their own volition. The Qur’an often addresses humans as moral agents capable of choosing: “The truth is from your Lord; so whoever wills, let him believe, and whoever wills, let him disbelieve” (18:29) and “This is a reminder, so whoever wills may take to his Lord a way” (73:19). Such verses would be meaningless if human beings had no real freedom to act. They indicate that people carry responsibility for whether they follow guidance or not. In fact, the Qur’an promises that on Judgment Day, individuals will be judged according to what they earned by their own deeds (e.g. “every soul will be compensated for what it earned”, 2:281), implying these deeds were performed by free choice.
  • “Allah does not change the condition of a people until they change what is in themselves.” (Qur’an 13:11) – Here the Qur’an teaches a principle of moral responsibility and causation: a community’s fate improves only when they initiate change within their own souls​. This verse is often quoted to emphasize human agency – people are not passive victims of fate; their collective choices and actions invite divine response. If people better themselves, Allah will grant them better circumstances, and if they persist in wrongdoing, Allah may allow deterioration as a consequence. Similarly, “whatever misfortune befalls you is because of what your own hands have earned” (42:30) underscores that humans face the outcomes of their own behavior, not blind fate. These teachings reinforce the idea that, within the framework of God’s knowledge and will, humans make real choices that impact their destiny.
  • “Whatever good befalls you is from Allah, and whatever evil befalls you is from yourself.” (Qur’an 4:79) – This verse offers a nuanced view: all good ultimately comes from God’s grace, whereas the evil that befalls us is attributed to our own doing. It does not deny that Allah willed or permitted the evil to occur (since nothing happens outside His will), but it assigns moral responsibility for it to human agency. Classical scholars explain that blessings are a direct grace from God, while hardships may befall a person as a result of their sins or errors – though even those hardships occur by Allah’s decree as a just recompense or a means of trial. Thus, in Islamic theology, God is never unjust to anyone; people wrong themselves (cf. Qur’an 10:44). This verse helped many theologians articulate that while Allah is the creator of all conditions, the blame for sin or suffering can be placed on the misuse of human free will, not on God “forcing” someone to transgress.

In summary, the Qur’anic evidence is twofold: Allah’s power and decree encompasses all events, yet humans have a will, make choices, and bear responsibility for those choices. The Qur’an does not present these as a logical contradiction so much as complementary truths about reality. Muslims are called to believe both that “everything is by Allah’s decree”​ and that “each soul is accountable for what it earns”. As one modern researcher put it, “The Qur’an and Sunnah take a middle path between the two historical extremes, upholding both Allah’s sovereignty and humankind’s responsibility.”​

Sunni Perspectives: Ash‘ari and Maturidi Solutions

Within Sunni Islam, two major schools of theology – the Ash‘ari and Maturidi – developed nuanced doctrines to explain the interplay of qadar and human free will. Both schools affirmed the Qur’anic middle path: they insisted that Allah is the sole creator of all actions and nothing lies outside His will, yet they also upheld that humans exercise choice and are justly held accountable. The differences between them are subtle and philosophical, but important to note:

Ash‘ari Theology: The Doctrine of Kasb (“Acquisition”)

The Ash‘ari school (established by Imam Abu’l-Hasan al-Ashʿari in the 10th century) strongly emphasized Allah’s omnipotence and creative power. Ash‘ari theologians taught that every event and human act is created directly by God at the moment it occurs​. If a person moves their hand or decides to give charity, that action comes into existence by Allah’s creation and permission. This view was in reaction to earlier thinkers (like the Muʿtazilites) who claimed humans create their own acts – the Ash‘aris considered that idea akin to associating partners with God in creation. Instead, the Ash‘ari solution was the concept of al-kasb (literally “acquisition”).

According to the doctrine of kasb, a human being “acquires” an act by choosing it, even though God is the one who creates the act. In Ash‘ari view, our free will is exercised in the form of choosing among the options Allah has created for us​. We do not originate any new action ex nihilo; rather, at the exact moment we will to do something, Allah creates that deed and we “acquire” responsibility for it. By this doctrine, Ash‘aris believed they could reconcile human accountability with God’s total causal power. All acts, even human evil acts, are ultimately created by God’s power, but the human being earns either blame or praise by virtue of his acquisition of the act through willing it. In effect, as one scholar summarizes, “humans only have the power to decide between the given possibilities God has created,” but that decision is enough to attribute moral responsibility​.

For example, if Ahmed decides to tell the truth while Omar decides to lie, both truth-telling and lying as actions were within Allah’s creation – He gave each the capacity and opportunity to do either. When Omar wills to lie, Allah brings into being the act of lying through Omar’s tongue, but because Omar intended it and chose it, he is accountable for it. In Ash‘ari thought, this is how punishment or reward is justified despite God being the creator of all acts​. They often cite the Qur’anic idea that “each soul earns only against itself” and that people will be rewarded “only for what they used to do” – indicating that what matters is the human acquisition of the deed, not who created the physics of it.

Some critics (historically and in modern times) have found kasb to be a subtle or even opaque concept. It can sound like a semantic trick – essentially saying “God creates the act, but we sort-of do it too.” Even medieval Islamic scholars quipped that kasb was the “least understood” aspect of Ash‘ari creed. However, Ash‘aris maintain that the exact mechanics of God’s predestination and human freedom are ultimately mysterious – kasb is an attempt to describe it in words, but it is not a fully comprehensible causal explanation​. The Ash‘ari stance is that one must affirm both realities (divine creation of acts and human responsibility) even if our minds cannot fully reconcile them. As Alfred Guillaume noted, this dilemma of reconciling an almighty God with meaningful human choice “has exercised the minds” of theologians in all religions​, and no solution is without difficulties​. The Ash‘ari approach essentially throws up its hands and says: we affirm it without asking “how” (bi-la kayf).

Importantly, Ash‘ari theologians found support in the Qur’an for their view. They pointed to verses like “Allah created you and what you do” (Qur’an 37:96) as evidence that human actions are God’s creation, not independent of Him​. They also interpreted the hadith, “Each of you has his place written for him in Paradise or Hell… The Companions said: O Messenger of Allah, then should we not rely on our destiny and give up work? He replied: No, act, for each will be facilitated to what he was created for”, to mean that people must act righteously even though Allah already knows and has written their fate. In essence, Ash‘arism upholds that God’s will is behind every occurrence (good or evil), yet human choice is still the basis for judgment – a view encapsulated by Imam al-Ash‘ari’s statement: “God willed to create a creature with free will.”

Maturidi Theology: Human Choice within Divine Will

The Maturidi school (founded by Imam Abu Mansur al-Maturidi, also 10th century) shares many similarities with the Ash‘ari position, as both are considered Sunni “orthodox” creed. Maturidis likewise assert that no act or movement occurs without Allah’s creation and permission. However, they explain the human role in a slightly different way, giving more emphasis to the reality of human choice. According to Maturidi teachings, God creates “all possible actions” beforehand, but the human being freely chooses which of those actions to actually perform​. In this view, every potential choice I could make is known and empowered by Allah, but which choice I go through with is up to me (by God’s granted capacity). When I make that choice, the act is then “acquired” by me (here Maturidis also use the term kasb, with a meaning close to the Ash‘ari concept)​.

In simpler terms, the Maturidi stance is that human free will is real and operative, but it operates under the umbrella of God’s will. They often quote the Qur’an, “Whoever wills – let him believe; whoever wills – let him disbelieve” to highlight human freedom, alongside the verse “You do not will except that Allah wills” to show God’s supreme will​. To a Maturidi, these are describing the same event from two perspectives: from our perspective, we genuinely will and act; from God’s perspective, our action only occurs with His creative power and knowledge.

One Maturidi formulation states: “All active possibilities are created by God, and humans act in accordance with their free intention to choose which action they follow. The intention precedes the created action and the capacity by which actions are acquired.”​

This is a very subtle distinction, but it leans slightly more towards affirming human agency than the Ash‘ari formulation does. The practical upshot is that Maturidis strongly emphasize that God is not pleased with evil and does not force anyone to sin – when people commit evil, it is by their misuse of the divine gift of free will. Allah’s will in allowing it is not a will that loves or accepts the evil; it is tied to His wisdom in testing humans. Maturidis, therefore, put a great stress on divine justice and wisdom: God’s qadar includes our free choices, and He is just in rewarding or punishing us for them since they truly proceeded from our will (even though enabled by His power).

In everyday terms, an Ash‘ari and a Maturidi would behave and preach almost identically: both will say “obey Allah’s commands, avoid sins, trust in Allah’s decree, and if you fall into sin, blame no one but yourself.” Their differences are more about metaphysical description. For instance, some Maturidi scholars criticized the Ash‘ari doctrine of kasb as being too deterministic – they felt it didn’t sufficiently differentiate a voluntary human act from an involuntary one. In response, Ash‘aris like Imam al-Baqillani clarified that an “acquired” act is not the same as an involuntary occurrence; rather, an acquired act is one done “with a capability and choice given by God”, thus carrying moral weight​. In essence, both schools aimed to avoid the extremes of denying either God’s omnipotence or human responsibility.

Athari (Traditionalist) Views

Alongside Ash‘ari and Maturidi thought, it’s worth noting the more traditionalist (Athari) approach upheld by early scholars like Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal and later by figures like Ibn Taymiyyah. The Athari creed, based on a literal trust in scriptural texts without much speculative theology, also affirmed both qadar and human choice. Athari scholars often contented themselves with quoting verses and hadith and saying, “We believe all of this, even if we don’t delve into how.” For example, they emphasized hadiths where the Prophet ﷺ said that belief in “al-qadar, its good and its bad” is part of faith​. They vehemently opposed the Qadariyya (free-will extremists) who said God had no role in human acts, citing the Prophet’s saying that “the Qadariyya are the Magians of this Ummah” (because by positing two independent powers – God and man – they resembled Zoroastrian dualism). At the same time, they condemned the Jabriya who negated human will, often quoting the Qur’an to refute both. For instance, Imam Ahmad reportedly recited Qur’an 6:148-149, where Allah critiques those who say “If Allah willed we wouldn’t have idolatred” by saying “Say: To Allah belongs the final argument. If He had willed, He could have guided all of you.” The Athari position was essentially that one should act as if one has free will but believe with certainty that nothing happens except by Allah’s will – a pragmatic balance rather than a philosophical one.

Mu‘tazilite Perspective: Emphasizing Human Free Will and Divine Justice

In contrast to the Sunni orthodox positions, the Mu‘tazila (8th–10th century Islamic rationalists) took a very strong stance in favor of human free will. The Mu‘tazilite school was founded on five principles, one of which was al-‘Adl (Divine Justice) – and for them, God’s justice demanded that human beings be the true authors of their actions. They were gravely concerned that attributing evil or sin to God’s decree would compromise God’s justice and goodness. Thus, Mu‘tazilites taught that when a human being commits an evil act, it is entirely their own creation, not God’s​. They argued that if God pre-created our actions or compelled us to sin, then to punish us for those sins would be blatant injustice – something impossible for God to do​.

One Mu‘tazilite theologian stated: “All human acts of injustice, transgression and the like cannot be His (God’s) creation. Whoever attributes those to Him has ascribed injustice to God… and thus strayed from the doctrine of justice.”​

For the Mu‘tazila, good and evil are objective realities, and human reason can recognize that injustice is evil. Therefore, they asserted, God must grant humans real freedom so that His judgment of them is just and meaningful​. They often cited Quranic verses such as “Your Lord is not ever unjust to His servants” (Q 41:46) and the many verses where Allah blames communities for wrongdoing, which imply those communities had the ability to do otherwise.

In Mu‘tazilite doctrine, humans have complete free will (ikhtiyar) and are the creators (khāliqūn) of their own deeds (in a limited sense)​. God does not create an individual’s act of obedience or disobedience; the individual does. God’s role is to create the human, endow him with reason and capacity, and present guidance or misguidance to him – but the choice and act itself originates from the human. This position led their Sunni opponents to label the Mu‘tazila as “Qadariyya”, implying they limited God’s power by giving humans a share in qadar. The Mu‘tazilites, however, felt this was the only way to absolve God of wrongdoing and to uphold true accountability. They frequently invoked the moral logic: “It is unthinkable that God would punish man for what He Himself had commanded (or caused).”​

For them, verses like “Allah guides whom He wills and leads astray whom He wills” were interpreted to mean that God wills guidance or misguidance as a consequence of a person’s own choices. In other words, God’s “will” in such verses was understood as His permissive will or His establishment of natural consequences, rather than an arbitrary imposition. They also emphasized verses where Allah’s knowledge of human actions is mentioned, but not an active causing. For instance, a Mu‘tazilite statement preserved in an early text says: “God knows that men will commit crimes, but His foreknowledge does not compel them to do so. God wills nothing but that which is good.”​

Here we see the Mu‘tazilite distinction: God’s ilmu’l-qadar (knowledge of destiny) is perfect, but his fiʿl (action) in people’s deeds is only in the form of creating their ability and circumstances, not the evil act itself – because God “wills nothing but good.”

The Mu‘tazila buttressed their view with philosophical arguments. They posited that justice is a rational necessity (wājib ‘aqli) upon God – meaning God, by His very nature, must do what is wisest and best and cannot do injustice. This led to doctrines like “al-salah wa al-aslah” – that God is obligated to do what is most beneficial for His creatures. Giving humans genuine freedom (and thus responsibility) was seen as part of God’s justice and wisdom. If God forced humans into belief or disbelief, the whole purpose of ethical striving and prophecy would be nullified. The Mu‘tazilite view makes human beings true free agents in the modern sense; in fact, some modern commentators note the Mu‘tazila espoused a form of libertarian free will long before Western philosophy coined such terms.

It’s important to note, however, that even the Mu‘tazila did not deny God’s foreknowledge or His overarching providence. They agreed that God has eternally known every choice each person will make. But they insisted this foreknowledge does not cause the action – an analogy given by later scholars (including some Shi’a) is that of a weather forecaster or a time-machine: knowing the future doesn’t mean compelling it to happen​. A contemporary Shi’a scholar, Ayatollah Makarim Shirazi, used a similar analogy: if a super-intelligent machine could predict someone’s behavior in advance, that wouldn’t mean the machine caused the behavior​. Likewise, God’s perfect knowledge of our future choices doesn’t mean we didn’t choose them freely. The Mu‘tazila would wholeheartedly agree with this reasoning.

Historically, the Mu‘tazilite doctrine held sway at certain times – notably, it was endorsed by the Abbasid Caliph al-Ma’mun, leading to the famous miḥnah (inquisition) in the 9th century where scholars were tested on their beliefs. However, Mu‘tazilism waned in Sunni lands after the 10th century, as Ash‘ari theology became dominant. Nonetheless, Mu‘tazilite ideas did not disappear – they continued to influence Zaydi Shi’a thought and even re-emerged among some modernist Muslim thinkers who emphasize rationality and human agency.

Shi‘a Perspectives: Al-Amr Bayn al-Amrayn – “The Matter Between Two”

Shi’a Islam (especially Twelver Shi’ism) developed its own nuanced stance on free will and predestination, often echoing some Mu‘tazilite principles but framing them within the teachings of the Imams. A famous doctrine attributed to Imam Ja’far al-Sadiq (the 6th Shi’a Imam) is: “Lā Jabr wa Lā Tafwīḍ, bal Amrun Bayn Amrayn” – “There is neither compulsion (jabr) nor complete delegation (tafwīḍ), but rather a matter between two matters.”​

This concise formula captures the Shi’a view that the truth lies in a middle position between absolute predestination and absolute free-will.

Early Shi’a scholars and Imams ardently rejected the idea of jabr (that humans are forced in their actions). Imam al-Sadiq is reported to have said that whoever claims God compels people to sin and then punishes them for it, is attributing injustice to God​. Such a view is intolerable since one of the core tenets of Shi’a theology is ‘Adl, the Divine Justice (the Shi’a list it among the “Roots of Religion”). On the other hand, Shi’a authorities also rejected pure tafwid – the idea that God entirely withdrew control and “left everything” to human beings. Imam al-Sadiq clarified that Allah does not order people to do good or evil without providing them the capacity to obey or refrain​, and that while some things are decreed by God, others are left to human agency​.

What does “between two matters” mean in practice? Later Shi’a theologians explained it with examples. They said, for instance, that a human being cannot accomplish anything without God’s creative power and permission – that is one side of the equation. But God granting that power and permission does not mean He forces a particular choice – the human being uses the granted power to do as he wishes, and thus earns the outcome. As one early Shi’i scholar, Hisham ibn al-Hakam (a student of Imam al-Sadiq), said: human actions are both “free actions” and “acts of God.” How so? Hisham explained that an act is free “as long as no one is coercing the person to do it,” but it is also attributed to God in the sense that every action proceeds from the faculties and opportunities God produced​. In this way, Shi’a thought did not shy away from saying human acts are “created by God” – but they stressed that this does not mean humans lacked choice. The very same action can be described on two levels: by looking at the ultimate cause (God’s creative will) and by looking at the immediate cause (the human will).

Over time, Shi’a theologians had internal debates. Some, like Shaykh al-Mufid (d. 1022), took a stance closer to the Mu‘tazilite one, arguing that God cannot be considered the creator of any of man’s evil actions​. Mufid was inclined to say evil comes purely from human willing. Others, like the school of Qom and Kulayni (d. 941), were comfortable with Hisham’s formulation that actions are “created by God” in one sense yet freely done by humans in another​. Despite these differences in phrasing, all agreed on al-amr bayn al-amrayn: a middle path where God and man both have roles in each action.

Shi’a theology also uniquely developed the concept of Badā’ (literally “appearing” or “alteration”) with respect to destiny. Badā’ means that from the human perspective, God may alter what was destined based on new circumstances – for example, God may extend a person’s lifespan or change a calamity to a blessing due to the person’s prayers, charity, or righteousness. The Shi’a do not mean that God actually didn’t know and then changed His mind (they affirm God’s omniscience). Rather, they distinguish between a “definite” (final) destiny and an “indefinite” (pending) destiny​. The indefinite aspects are those that can change based on human behavior, even though God always knew they would change. This is very similar to what some Sunni scholars describe about divine decree having conditional elements (for instance, a hadith in Sunni sources says “nothing averts destiny except supplication (du’ā)”, implying certain decrees are contingent on prayer). Shi’a scholars often cite Qur’an 13:11 (the verse about God not changing a people’s condition until they change themselves) as evidence that some destinies improve or worsen depending on human free will​. At the same time, they cite Qur’an 57:22 (no disaster occurs except it was in a Record) to affirm that all of this – including the changes – is encompassed in God’s eternal knowledge. In short, Shi’ism places strong emphasis on both God’s knowledge/power and on human moral responsibility, packaging it in the slogan of neither predestination nor absolute freedom, but something in between.

Practically, Twelver Shi’a belief in qadar is similar to the Sunni belief: “Whatever God wills happens, and whatever God does not will does not happen.” But they hesitate to say “everything is predestined” without qualification, because to them that implies fatalism. In fact, classical Shi’a authorities sometimes flatly said “belief in complete predestination (jabr) is a denial of God’s justice.”​ And as a community, Shi’as historically aligned more with free-will views (so much so that early Sunni sources sometimes simply described Shi’as as deniers of predestination​). However, it would be wrong to think Shi’a theology gives human free will too much reign – they equally stress that nothing lies outside of God’s rubūbiyyah (Lordship). In contemporary Twelver creed texts, one finds statements that Shi’as “subscribe to the doctrine of divine determination with a nod in the direction of free will.”​

That is, they do believe God “determines” outcomes, but they insist this determination operates in a way compatible with human choice. The net effect is that Sunni and Shi’a viewpoints have grown closer over time on this issue – both accept a nuanced middle position – even if the terminology and emphases differ (Sunni talk of kasb, Shi’a talk of amr bayn al-amrayn, but both aim to safeguard God’s sovereignty and justice).

Philosophical and Theological Debates

Behind these different schools’ views lie deep philosophical questions that Muslims have debated for ages: Is the future already “written” and, if so, can it be changed? Does God’s foreknowledge imply fate? How do we reconcile God’s omnipotence with human freedom? These debates mirror similar ones in Christian and Jewish theology and even in secular philosophy (the problem of determinism vs. free will).

Several arguments have historically been made in Islamic discourse:

  • Foreknowledge vs. Predestination: All Muslims agree that Allah’s knowledge is all-encompassing – He knows every detail of past, present, and future (Qur’an 6:59 states that not a leaf falls but He knows it​islamqa.info). The controversial question was whether God’s prior knowledge of human actions means those actions are predetermined or compelled. Some, like the Jabriyya, effectively said yes: if God knows infallibly that you will do X tomorrow, then you have no choice but to do X. But the majority refuted this, drawing a line between knowing and forcing. As the Qadarite/Mu‘tazilite argument we saw: “God knows men will commit crimes, but His foreknowledge does not impel them to do so.”​en.wikipedia.org Knowledge, even certain knowledge, need not eliminate the reality of choice. The analogy given by Imam Maturidi and others is that of God being beyond time: Allah’s knowledge sees the future as clearly as the present, but we still experience events unfolding with freedom in real time​yaqeeninstitute.org​yaqeeninstitute.org. From God’s vantage, everything is “already” known and recorded; from our vantage, we are making genuine decisions. Thus, foreknowledge is seen as an aspect of God’s eternity, not a negation of human freedom.
  • Causality and “No Compulsion”: Philosophically, the Ash‘ari school embraced a kind of occasionalism – the idea that God is the only true cause of all effects. Fire does not burn by itself; God creates the burning when fire touches something, and so on. Extending this logic, human will is not a cause of outcomes on its own; God must create the outcome. The Mu‘tazilites and others critiqued this as making God the direct cause of evil acts. The Ash‘ari counter-argument was that God’s creation of an evil act in a human does not mean compelling the human to sin – because the human had the choice and intention, which is sufficient to assign blame. They differentiate between compulsion and creation. For example, if a tyrant forces someone at gunpoint to commit a crime, that person isn’t morally liable (because he was compelled). But in Ash‘ari view, when a person sins, although God created the physical ability and opportunity for that sin, God did not compel the choice – the person’s own will was the driver. So they say the individual was not compelled, but the act was still created by God’s power. This fine distinction was not accepted by Mu‘tazilites, who basically argued that if God “creates” the sin act at the moment of your choice, then God is too involved – effectively making Him responsible. The Ash‘aris responded that God’s involvement is necessary for metaphysical reasons (nothing can exist outside His creation), but moral responsibility lies on the human’s intention. This debate delves into metaphysics of causation and is quite complex; ultimately it boiled down to different conceptions of what justice demands and what omnipotence entails.
  • Divine Justice and Theodicy: A key part of this discourse is theodicy – explaining the presence of evil or injustice in a world under God’s control. Mu‘tazilites, and later many Shi’a thinkers, were deeply concerned with defending God’s justice. They believed it would be unjust for God to decree or will a person’s misguidance or sin and then punish them for it. The only just scenario is one in which the person had full ability to do otherwise. Hence, they constructed a theology where God does not decree evil at all – humans originate it by misusing their autonomy. On the other hand, Ash‘ari theologians like Al-Ghazali held a view akin to divine-command theory: something is just because God does it or wills it; God by definition cannot be unjust. So even if it seems to us that predestining someone to sin and punishment is unfair, we must trust that Allah’s perspective resolves it – perhaps those individuals still had a kind of choice, or perhaps God’s punishment serves a wise purpose we cannot see. Ash‘aris were comfortable with mystery in this regard, whereas Mu‘tazilites wanted a logical justice that humans could grasp. In Sunni tradition, a common maxim is “Allah does not wrong anyone; people wrong themselves”, preserving both God’s justice and His decreeing role. Shi’a imams similarly insisted God never forces someone then blames them – hence their rejection of pure predestination. In short, the balance between God’s justice and God’s power is at the heart of these philosophical arguments. Each school’s doctrine can be seen as an attempt to preserve both, with varying priority: Mu‘tazila prioritized justice (even if it meant limiting power), Ash‘aris prioritized power (even if understanding justice required humility), and Maturidis and Shi’a sought a balanced refinement (power with justice).
  • “No Solution is Perfect”: It is worth acknowledging, as some modern scholars do, that the free will vs predestination paradox remains, in a sense, unresolved by human reason. Each theological school’s solution has been criticized by the others as either making humans too independent of God or reducing humans to puppets. A Western observer might quip that Ash‘ari kasb is merely verbal gymnastics, or that Mu‘tazilite free-will reduces God’s sovereignty. Muslim scholars themselves recognized the difficulty. The Ash‘ari Al-Baqillani, for example, admitted that determining the exact boundary between God’s creation and human acquisition is problematic, but it must lie in “the joining of the act to the servant’s capacity in the moment of choice.” In modern times, some Islamic philosophers note that this is a perennial philosophical problem not unique to Islam​ – free will and determinism are still debated in secular philosophy, physics, and neuroscience. Thus, the Islamic theological discourse often ends by saying the truth of how God’s decree and human will cooperate is ultimately known fully by God alone. Humans must operate with the light given by revelation: act righteously as if your choices matter (because they do), and trust in God as the ultimate disposer of affairs.

Implications for Accountability, Divine Justice, and Life’s Purpose

The debate over qadar (predestination) and free will is not merely abstract – it has practical implications for how Muslims understand moral responsibility, Allah’s justice, and the very purpose of life.

  • Moral Accountability: All Islamic schools agree that human beings are accountable for their deeds. No interpretation of qadar negates the fact of Judgment Day, when each person will answer for their life. The Qur’an repeatedly says that no soul will carry the burden of another and that people will be judged justly on what they earned. Therefore, any theological model had to ensure that accountability remains meaningful. The Mu‘tazilite model makes this straightforward: since you truly originate your actions, you fully deserve punishment or reward for them. The Ash‘ari model ensures accountability by the doctrine of kasb: you chose the action, so you “own” its moral weight, even if God created it. Both Sunnis and Shi’as commonly say that God’s predestination is not an excuse for sin. The Prophet Muhammad ﷺ warned against fatalistic excuses. In one narration, when someone asked, “If God has written our destiny, why should we do good deeds?,” the Prophet replied, “Do good, for everyone will be facilitated toward what he was created for” – meaning the righteous will find doing good easier at the end, and the wicked will find doing evil easier​. Thus, Muslims are taught to live as if their choices make all the difference (because, in terms of earning Paradise or Hell, they do). From an Islamic standpoint, we are free within the human realm of decision-making, and that is all that is required for moral responsibility. We are not free from God’s encompassing will – but that does not undermine our duty to obey Him. An analogy often given is that of a teacher who knows students very well and predicts who will pass or fail – the prediction doesn’t force the student, and the student doesn’t know it, so he must still work hard. Likewise, we do not know our own final destiny; thus we strive and pray, and blame only ourselves if we go astray.
  • Trust and Effort (Tawakkul vs. Action): A related implication is the attitude one has in life. Over-emphasizing predestination can lead to fatalism – a feeling that “it’s pointless to exert effort, since whatever is decreed will happen anyway.” Over-emphasizing free will can lead to anxiety or arrogance – thinking one’s success or failure is entirely in one’s hands, forgetting the role of God’s favor or tests. Islam teaches a balance: put in your best effort, but trust the result to Allah. There is a famous Prophetic saying: “Tie your camel [take precautions] and then trust in Allah.” This captures how a Muslim reconciles free will and qadar in daily life. One does everything one can (exercise one’s God-given free agency), yet recognizes that the outcome is ultimately by Allah’s decree (so one isn’t devastated if things don’t go as planned, nor boastful if they do). Theological debates aside, this balance is something even the simplest believer intuitively practices: if sick, you take medicine (use your will and knowledge), but you pray for shifa (healing) knowing that cure is from Allah’s qadar.Historically, some regimes or factions leaned on predestinarian ideas to promote passivity. It’s noted by scholars that during periods of tyranny, rulers encouraged people to think “all misfortune is just God’s will, you cannot change it” – effectively using theology to quash political dissent or social reform. Opponents retorted with the Qur’an’s empowerment of human action (like 13:11). Indeed, believing in some free will can inspire people to improve their situation, while fatalism can breed stagnation​. Thus, the stakes of this issue also touch governance and social ethics. Islam’s “middle way” ideally motivates individuals to do good actively (since they choose their path) while remaining patient and content with what befalls them beyond their control (since God’s decree is behind all things).
  • Divine Justice and Mercy: The conception of qadar affects how one views Allah’s justice and mercy. If one leaned fully Jabri (determinist), one might secretly harbor a notion that God is like an arbitrary puppet-master – rewarding and punishing without reason – which could make it hard to love and trust God. If one leaned fully Qadari (absolute free will), one might feel that God is distant or not involved in guidance, which could make one overly reliant on oneself and under-appreciative of God’s grace. The mainstream Islamic stance that Allah decrees with justice and wisdom means that a believer should feel that Allah is ultimately fair and compassionate in how He judges us. The Qur’an often says that those who go to Hell chose that fate by persistently rejecting truth, while those in Paradise chose faith and righteousness – yet in both cases it was by God’s grace that they had guidance. The balance gives hope and humility: a Muslim has hope that by choosing right, Allah will guide them further and reward them out of proportion to their little deeds (because He generously decreed mercy on Himself), and has humility that they are never independent of God (we cannot simply “earn” Paradise without His aid). In fact, the Quranic view of purpose of life is that it is a test (ibtilā’) such that God may reward those who believe and do good – this inherently requires free will to have meaning. “He who created death and life to test you [to see] which of you is best in deeds” (Q 67:2). Thus, life’s purpose in Islam – to freely worship God and abstain from sin as a test of faith – assumes that we have the capacity to obey or disobey. Qadar, in this context, is seen as God’s knowledge of and control over the context and outcome of that test, not a negation of the test.
  • Psychological Comfort: Belief in qadar is also meant to provide psychological comfort in the face of trials. The Prophet Muhammad ﷺ said, “Amazing is the affair of the believer – if something good happens, he thanks God and it’s good for him; if something bad happens, he patiently accepts and it’s good for him.” This reflects the idea of rida bi’l-qada – being content with God’s decree. Knowing that an event (good or bad) was not outside of God’s plan helps a believer cope, avoid excessive regret (“if only I had done such and such…”), and find meaning in hardship. It instills the attitude: “What struck you could not have missed you, and what missed you could never have struck you.” However, importantly, this consolation applies after one has done what is in one’s power. It should not breed laziness or despair. For example, if a business fails despite one’s best efforts, one says “QadarAllah (God decreed it)” and moves on, rather than being consumed by guilt or what-ifs. On the flip side, if one didn’t make any effort and the business fails, one cannot rightfully shrug and blame destiny – Islamic teaching would say you have only yourself to blame in that case. Thus, the doctrine of qada and qadar, properly understood, encourages a proactive life combined with trust in God’s wisdom regarding results.

Conclusion

The reconciliation of human free will with divine predestination in Islam is a delicate balance that Muslim scholars have approached from multiple angles. The Qur’an itself affirms both truths: that Allah has full knowledge and control of all that happens, and that human beings choose their path and are responsible for it. Different Islamic traditions – Sunni (Ash‘ari/Maturidi), Mu‘tazili, Shi‘i, etc. – all attempted to resolve this mystery in line with their theological principles, whether by emphasizing “acquisition” of acts, or absolute justice, or a middle ground “between two matters.” Despite varying terminologies, there is a broad agreement that Islam avoids both extremes: it neither renders humans as helpless puppets of fate nor imagines God as a passive spectator of a universe running on its own.

Each person is thus called upon to live their life as a morally responsible agent. The proper attitude is encapsulated in the Prophet’s teaching: “Rely on Allah, but tie your camel.” This means one should strive for good, make choices sincerely, and then trust Allah’s decree for the outcome. In Islamic thought, this world is a meaningful testing ground – our free choices in following guidance or misguidance are the very purpose behind creation (Qur’an 67:2) – yet it is also a world firmly in the grasp of Al-Qadir (the All-Powerful) who preordains its course. In the end, Muslims affirm that Allah’s decree is always just, and our choices matter. Any apparent contradiction between the two is due to the limitations of human understanding, not a flaw in the divine reality​. As a famous saying (attributed to Imam Ali) goes: “Know that you have free will, but know that you do not have power over anything except that Allah has power over it.” Embracing both aspects leads a believer to humbly submit to God’s will while actively obeying His guidance – fulfilling the twin role of being servants of the All-Powerful and architects of our own souls’ fate.

Sources:

Categories: Predestination, Quran

Leave a Reply