And this is why, when Ghaylān al-Qadarī said to Rabīʿah ibn ʿAbd al-Rahmān, “Rabīʿah, I ask you by Allah: do you think Allah loves to be disobeyed?” Rabīʿah replied, “Do you think Allah is disobeyed against His will?” He thus left him speechless. In effect, he was saying: “You have declared Him free of loving sins, but have thereby stripped Him of will and power, making Him subject to coercion and constraint.”

Those who opposed the Qadariyyah said: “Rather, whatever He wills, He also loves and approves of.” Their position necessarily implied that disbelief, wickedness, and disobedience are loved and approved of by Allah.

They also said: “He commands what He does not will. Whatever good deeds He commands, He does not will them”—and sometimes they added, “nor does He love or approve of them”—“unless they actually occur. Yet He commands and requests them.”

They were therefore asked: “Can there be a request, a will, and a demand without any will, love, or approval? This combines two contradictory claims.” They were left bewildered.

The former thus denied the Lord His creation, power, and will, while the latter denied Him His love, approval, and religious will, and those aspects of these that accompany His commands and prohibitions. Just as the former did not affirm that one and the same person could be both rewarded and punished, but held that he must either be rewarded or punished, so these did not make clear that one and the same act could be willed in one respect but not another—willed without being loved. Rather, they held that it must either be willed and loved, or neither willed nor loved. They recognized only one kind of will. The truth is that an act may be willed without being