Islamic Determinism

Filed under: Apologetics — Barry Carey at 8:49 am on Monday, November 20, 2006

This is part 7 of a continuing series comparing Christian and Islamic worldviews.

In addition to the ethical problems discussed in my last post, another problem with the Islamic view of God and his relation to man is the extreme determinism which Islamic teachings support. God relates to human beings as the supreme sovereign and human beings are seen as obedient slaves. Geisler and Saleeb explain:

Despite protests to the contrary, orthodox Islam teaches the absolute predestination of both good and evil, that all our thoughts, words, and deeds, whether good or evil, were foreseen, foreordained, determined, and decreed from all eternity, and that everything that happens takes place according to what has been written for it. This is because God ‘is the Irresistible’.

This extreme determinism leads to the logical problem of God performing contradictory actions. He guides, yet at the same time, leads astray. Additionally, it is quite difficult to maintain any semblance of human responsibility while holding to this teaching. The Qur’an, itself, admits that God could have saved all, but chose not to do so.

Islam also makes God the author of evil. God wills unbelief and irreligion. Unbelief exists only because God willed it to be so. All one does, he does by God’s will. A metaphysical problem which results from this extreme determinism is that there is really only one agent in the universe. There are no other acting beings, only God. One Muslim scholar writes:

Not only can He (God) do anything, He actually is the only One Who does anything. When a man writes, it is Allah who has created in his mind the will to write. Allah at the same time gives power to write, then brings about the motion of the hand and the pen and the appearance upon paper. All other things are passive, Allah alone is active.

Islamic creedal statements echo the same teachings:

God Most High is the Creator of all actions of His creatures whether of unbelief or belief, of obedience or of rebellion: all of them are by the Will of God and His sentence and His conclusion and His decreeing.

God’s one possible quality is His power to create good or evil at any time He wishes, i.e. His decree… Both good things and evil things are the result of God’s decree. It is the duty of every Muslim to believe this… It is He who causes harm and good. Rather the good works of some and the evil of others are signs that God wishes to punish some and to reward others… God creates all things, good and evil.

Muslim determinism seems to lead to a pantheistic conception of the universe, in which God is all there is. In my next, and last, post in this series…a brief look at salvation in Islam.

9 Comments »

Comment by Kevin Winters

November 20, 2006 @ 7:56 pm

How is this different from Calvanism, which many Evangelicals accept? In both, God decrees that some will be saved and others damned; we have no choice in the matter.

A similar problem comes up in relation to creation ex nihilo: God decides which world to actualize in which I make certain actions, good and bad. Unless someone accepts transworld depravity (which I find a deprave doctrine if I’ve ever seen one), then God does control us in a very pronounced way. Let’s say that in world A God decides that I will be saved, but in world B God decides that I will not be saved. For a more pronounced thought experiment: in world A I sexually abuse my niece on multiple occasions, in world B I am a loving, caring uncle. Yet in either case everyone (myself included) am supposed to praise God for his goodness?

I fail to see the superiority of the above to what you’ve presented about Islam.

Comment by Barry Carey

November 21, 2006 @ 9:55 am

Kevin, Thanks for the comments. I don’t know of any Christians who would adopt the extreme determinism of which I spoke. I am not convinced of Calvinism myself, so I would probably not be the best person to defend that position. It is certainly possible that God could choose who would be saved and lost and still allow human freedom in other areas. The problem with Islam is that God is actually doing the evil and is viewed to be the direct cause of that evil…This is not the view held by Christian orthodoxy.

Comment by Kevin Winters

November 21, 2006 @ 10:45 am

Barry,

I don’t see how one can accept that God is not “the direct cause of evil” given creatio ex nihilo. For example, why did not God simply create beings who shared in his nature to begin with: who were incapable of sin, who lived in eternal bliss. Why, in short, did he create beings knowing full well and infallibly that he was creating certain of them for the ultimate end of eternal suffering. It is like birthing a child with the full knowledge that one will willfully, intentionally, and malignantly make their life a living hell, which intent is the reason for your bringing them into the world.

Comment by Kevin Winters

November 21, 2006 @ 1:35 pm

I want to frame my comments with a few more ideas. If it is the case that God is that-than-which-nothing-greater-can-be-thought, why did he merely make us “good” rather than “great” or “incredible”? It is better to not be able to choose evil, according to most classical Christian theologians, but ever only choose the good. Then why did God create us as lesser beings? We cannot argue that this is because it is “better” for us to learn from our mistakes, for then God, as the being who is ontologically incapable of making mistakes, would be “less” because of his inability. Nor can we even say that it is for the glory of God for 1) nothing we do can add to or decrease from God’s glory and 2) surely a million beings incapable of sin can glorify God better than 100,000 “saved” beings who glorify God and 900,000 beings who do not. If not we then come to the same dillemma: God, then, is not that-than-which-nothing-greater-can-be-conceived as he is then lacking in a good, namely the ability (even the bare possibility) to sin and to learn from mistakes.

I hope that clarifies my issue here.

Comment by Aaron Snell

November 27, 2006 @ 8:20 pm

Hi Kevin,
Good to see you over here. Hope things are going well. In answer to your first question in post 10288, a couple of things. First, Barry was careful to say “the DIRECT cause of evil” (emphasis added) - there is a difference between a direct cause and an indirect cause. Specifically, Barry’s point of contrast between Islam and Christianity was that, in Islam, God is directly causing evil to befall, whereas in Christianity, God is for a time allowing evil to occur. Second, read Augustine on the nature of evil - he posits that evil is not a “stuff”, not *something* God created, but rather the privation of good, which only requires agents capable of choosing a lesser good over God.

Also, which classical Christian theologians said it was better not to be able to choose evil? If you actually have names, please provide them. The rest of your concerns are answerable, but I’d like to get this issue out of the way before I attempt to deal with them.

Comment by Aaron Snell

November 27, 2006 @ 8:23 pm

Oh, one other thing - the form Calvinism you describe in your first post is historically known as hyper-Calvinism, and is not representative of most evangelicals who hold Reformed beliefs in regard to soteriology. If you’d like more info, please let me know.

Regards.

Comment by Kevin Winters

November 28, 2006 @ 10:31 am

Aaron,

While I see the distinction, I don’t know if one is better than the other for the simple reason that God could have made us otherwise. He could have made us holy, he could have made us such that we are already in a state of grace. In short, he could have made us like him and wholly dispensed with the whole eternal damnation thing, comiting millions of his creations to eternal fire and brimstone…out of love?

As for the question of God being able to or not being able to sin, you can find many theologians on both sides, generally centered around the question of God’s omnipotence. But your own words show what I mean: if sin is a lack and God cannot have lacks without being imperfect (which seems to be true by definition, given traditional metaphysics), then God cannot sin (you can find this in Aquinas or Augustine easily enough). This is also implicit in claims to God’s unchangability and being actus purus, which has a long tradition within the “Great Tradition” (despite its being found in disfavor today). Why couldn’t God create us like that?

As for your last point, can’t you guys make up your minds? I swear that every Evangelical I have talked to has a different take on these issues. Sure, they all say the same thing–it’s all by grace–but then they all mean different things in relation to it: hyper-Calvinism, reformed soteriology, etc. People complain about the flexibility of Mormon doctrine, but you guys sure have more than your fair share. ;o)

Comment by Aaron Snell

November 28, 2006 @ 4:57 pm

Kevin-
I don’t have time to give a full response right now, but really quickly, my request was not, “Show me some theologians who think God is capable of sin”; it was “Show me some theologians who said it was better for humans not to be able to choose evil.” I hope you see there’s a difference, and that you can back up your claim that, according to “most classical Christian theologians”, it is better not to be able to choose evil. To me this seems rather outlandish, but I’m willing to be corrected if you can cite your sources.

I’ll try to get back to respond more fully later today, or possibly tomorrow.

Comment by Aaron Snell

November 28, 2006 @ 5:00 pm

Sorry, Kevin - one more question to help me frame a response: do you have children?

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>