commands and prohibitions. The Qadariyyah thus held it to be wholly incompatible with commands and prohibitions, while a group of the Jabriyyah held it to be incompatible with the goodness and badness of acts. They relied on this to deny that acts possess an intrinsic goodness or badness discernible by reason.

It is well known that it is no more incompatible with this than with an act’s being agreeable and beneficial to its agent, or disagreeable and harmful to him.

It is also well known that this meaning—which they called compulsion—does not preclude an act from being beneficial or harmful, conducive to welfare or corruption, or a source of pleasure or pain.

It follows that it does not preclude the goodness and badness of acts, just as it does not preclude those qualities, whether that goodness is known by reason, known through revealed law, or established by revealed law rather than disclosed by it.

As for the questioner’s words:

[Response to the Sixth Question]

“What wisdom is there in the absence of a text from the Lawgiver on this matter that would safeguard against falling into ruin, when he was so eager to guide his community?”

We say:

This question rests on the aforementioned false premise, which combines turning away from the Quran and Sunnah with seeking guidance in the assertions of disputants who oppose one another in affirming and denying ambiguous, equivocal expressions. They are those of whom Allah said:

“Indeed, those who differ concerning the Book