to me: ‘Ibn Rajā’ must ask his Lord’s forgiveness for saying, “He compelled His servants.”’ I then asked Abū ‘Abd Allāh: ‘What, then, is the answer to this question?’ He replied: ‘Allah leads astray whom He wills and guides whom He wills.’”

Concerning this issue, al-Marwadhī reported that he heard Abū ‘Abd Allāh, when he censured the man who said, “He did not compel,” and the man who answered him, “He compelled,” say:

“Whenever a man introduces an innovation, people broaden the scope of their response to it.”

He also said: “The man who answered them with his own newly introduced expression should ask his Lord’s forgiveness.” He censured anyone who responded with something of the nature of speculative theological discourse if he had no earlier imam to follow on that issue.

Al-Marwadhī said:

“Very soon afterwards, Ahmad ibn ‘Alī arrived from ‘Ukbar, accompanied by a group of elders and carrying a letter from the people of ‘Ukbar. I brought Ahmad ibn ‘Alī before Abū ‘Abd Allāh, and he said: ‘Abū ‘Abd Allāh, here is the book. Give it to Abū Bakr so that he may tear it up. I shall stand on the pulpit of ‘Ukbar and ask Allah—Mighty and Majestic—for forgiveness.’ Abū ‘Abd Allāh said to me: ‘You should accept this from him.’ So they returned to him.”

We have discussed this matter at length elsewhere and addressed the unsound premise assumed by the divergent factions: that affirming the true meaning which they call “compulsion” is incompatible with commands and prohibitions. The Qadariyyah went so far as to regard it as wholly incompatible with commands and prohibitions. A group among the Jabriyyah regarded it as incompatible with the goodness and badness of acts, and relied on this to deny that acts possess inherent goodness and badness discernible by reason.

It is well known that this is no more incompatible with such goodness and badness than it is with goodness and badness understood as an act’s being agreeable and beneficial to the person performing it, or disagreeable and harmful to him.