Subtleties and Allusions

1) The Mutual Influence of Action and Agent

Based on the system of cause and effect, the action of an individual or society is their effect, and every effect is only related to its own cause. This means it is neither unrelated to anything else nor is its relationship incoherent and scattered to be dependent on anything or anyone. The real action is that which is found within the realm of human life, and what is outside the sphere of their existence is a peripheral aspect of their action. For example, the object of correct work or incorrect action is outside the realm of the agent’s existence; however, the essence of the action, which is trustworthiness or betrayal, resides in their existential domain and will never be found outside the sphere of their existence.

What is outside the existential sphere of the agent is the object of their action and has no effect on the agent’s soul. For example, a sturdy building they constructed or a weak wall they built, the building or wall is outside the agent’s soul; however, that trustworthiness and this betrayal are lodged within their life, transitioning from being an effect to becoming a cause and ascending, just as the agent descends from being a cause to becoming affected. In other words, the agent becomes bound by their own action and subject to its influence, thus that action becomes the cause of the agent’s happiness or misery and the means of their ascent or descent.

All these demonstrable points are contained in the wise Qur’an, and it has placed them as “teaching of wisdom,” a guiding light for the wayfarers on the path of research and realization. That is, the principle of causal order, the principle of life and the living nature of action, the principle of the exclusive relationship between action and agent, the principle of distinguishing between real action and the object of action, the principle of the transformation of action to the status of becoming an agent and the descent of the agent to becoming an effect, and so on.

The aforementioned knowledge should be sought in the text of Islam, which is the unified religion of all prophets, not in specific laws and methods. Some of these principles can be derived from the following verses: “Has he not been informed of what was in the scriptures of Moses, and of Abraham who fulfilled his duty: that no bearer of burdens shall bear the burden of another, and that there is nothing for man except what he strives for, and that his striving will be seen.”(402), “Every person is held responsible for what he has earned.”(403), “Every soul is held in pledge for what it has earned.”(404), “Indeed, whoever earns evil and his sin has encompassed him.”(405), “No! Rather, the stain has covered their hearts of that which they were earning.”(406), “To Him ascends good speech, and righteous work raises it.”(407) Since good speech is united with the soul of the doer, and righteous work causes the elevation of good speech, it will therefore cause the elevation of the soul of the doer. This is the transformation of the deed into the doer and the descent of the doer to the status of the deed, just as a pledged item is under the control of the pledgee and cannot be released without their permission.

2) Various Opinions on Attributing Actions and Their Results to Humans

In the previous exegetical discussion, it was mentioned that the apparent meaning of the verse in question attributes actions to humans and attributes the results of actions to them through acquisition (kasb). The analysis of the nature of human agency in terms of determinism (jabr), delegation (tafwīḍ), free will (ikhtiyār), and the unity of actions (tawḥīd afʿālī) is a subject of debate among theologians, philosophers, and mystics, with each field of theology, philosophy, and mysticism fulfilling its role. Part of this difficult, even extremely difficult, discussion was presented in the previous discussions of the verses of Sūrah al-Baqara, and it is possible that new points may be raised in the future.

What is briefly mentioned here is a point that Abū Ḥayyān al-Andalusī presented better than Fakhr al-Rāzī and far more completely than al-Zamakhsharī, which is:

The schools of thought among Muslims on this matter are four:

The view of the determinists (jabrīyah) who say: The servant is compelled in his actions and has no free will, and the attribution of action to him is like attributing the movement of a branch to itself when something moves it.

The view of the Qadarites (qadarī), which is that the servant is not compelled in his actions, but rather has the power to bring about actions.

The view of the Muʿtazilites, which holds that the servant has a power before the action that God has created for him, and he is capable of doing or not doing the action.

The doctrine of the Sunnis and the community (ahl al-sunna wa-l-jamāʿa), which is that God creates for the servant the ability and power along with the action (not before it), and with this power, he performs good and evil actions without compulsion or coercion, and this ability is the basis of obligation upon which punishment and reward are based.

The Sunnis and the community, after agreeing on this principle, have differed in its interpretation with three approaches:

a) The view of Abū l-Ḥasan, which states that power is an attribute related to the object of power without influencing it. Rather, both power and its object are produced by God’s creation. However, what is produced by God’s creation, which is the object of temporal power, is acquisition (kasb).

b) The view of al-Bāqillānī, who says: The essence of an action does not acquire the attribute of obedience or disobedience, but this attribute is acquired through the temporal power.

c) The opinion of Abū Isḥāq al-Isfarāyinī, which states that when both eternal and temporal powers are related to an object of power, that object will occur through these two. Thus, the servant’s action occurs with assistance, and this is acquisition (kasb).(408)

Some of the evolving or chosen topics of the Ashʿarites are difficult to conceive, although acknowledging their falsehood is easy. What has been said about the futility of the state of Bahshamī (the view of Abū Hāshim on the meaning of state) and the acquisition (kasb) of the Ashʿarites is of this kind.