would not act—with an incapable person who could not perform the act even if he wished to do so has conflated two cases whose difference is self-evident, both rationally and religiously. This is among the issues that stir up doctrinal passions between the Qadariyya and their brethren, the Jabriyya.

Once this is understood, the unqualified assertion that people are charged with what lies beyond their capacity is among the innovations introduced into Islam, as is the unqualified assertion that people are compelled to perform their actions. The early generations of this community and its leading scholars unanimously rejected this […] nor that He willed all that exists. They said: “He has countered one innovation with another, the unsound with the unsound, and falsehood with falsehood.” Were it not that this answer does not allow for an extended discussion, I would quote their statements demonstrating their rejection of this.

However, if the speaker’s intended meaning is explained in detail, the truth is expressed in language that does not confuse it with falsehood, and truth is distinguished from falsehood, then this constitutes discernment between the two. The person providing this clarification thereby escapes the censure directed at people whom the leading scholars described as disagreeing over the Book, opposing the Book, agreeing to abandon the Book, and speaking in ambiguous language,