Shaykh al-Islām—may Allah sanctify his soul—was asked:
(*)
Is it permissible to discuss questions concerning the fundamentals of religion that people have debated, but about which no statement has been transmitted from our master Muhammad, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, or not?
If this is deemed permissible, on what basis? For we have understood from him, peace be upon him, that he prohibited discussion of certain questions.
If it is deemed permissible, is it also obligatory? Has anything been transmitted from him, peace be upon him, that entails its being obligatory? Is a strongly probable conclusion reached by a scholar exercising independent reasoning sufficient in this regard, or must he attain certainty? If he cannot attain certainty, is he excused, or does he remain obligated to attain it? Under these circumstances, does this amount to imposing an obligation beyond a person’s capacity, or not?
If it is deemed obligatory, what is the wisdom behind the absence of an explicit text from the Lawgiver on this matter that would safeguard people from falling into ruinous pitfalls, when he, peace be upon him, was so eager to guide his community? And Allah knows best.
(*) Shaykh Nāsir ibn Hamad al-Fahd stated (p. 26):
This fatwa appears in al-Fatāwā al-Kubrā, 1:373; the marginal notes to Mukhtasar al-Misriyya, 1:213–241; and Dar’ al-Ta‘ārud, 1:25–78.
Before this fatwa, the Shaykh—may Allah have mercy on him—stated in al-Dar’:
“When I was in Egypt, some of its learned men asked me about this matter. They said in their question”—he then quoted the question and the fatwa.
In al-Majmū‘, the fatwa ends at 3:326 with his words:
“We have discussed this matter at length elsewhere and addressed the false premise assumed by the divided groups: that affirming the true meaning they call jabr (compulsion) is incompatible with commands and prohibitions. The Qadariyya thus deemed it incompatible with commands and prohibitions altogether. A group among the Jabriyya deemed it incompatible with the goodness and badness of acts, relying on this to deny the goodness and badness inherent in an act and discernible by reason. It is well known that it is no more incompatible with this than with an act’s being congenial and beneficial to its agent, and its being adverse and harmful to him.”
Some questions raised here by the questioner remain unanswered in al-Fatāwā. Their answers appear in al-Dar’, from 1:72, line 5, through p. 78, line 7.