in that he is granted bliss for the one and punished for the other. Attending to this concerns the self’s own interests, whereas the station of annihilation involves nothing but contemplating what Allah wills. Since al-Ash‘arī affirmed the distinction between the two from the creature’s perspective, he was more rational than they were, for they claim that the spiritual knower makes no distinction.

They erred concerning both the servant and the Lord. As regards the servant, their position requires that all events be alike to him, which is utterly impossible. Thus, they set aside the distinction established by the Most Merciful and instead made distinctions based on instinct, caprice, and satanic influence. Consequently, many of them fell into sins, others into flagrant disobedience, and others into unbelief, even permitting the worship of idols. Many of them then proceed to the doctrine of oneness and openly profess the worship of everything that exists.

Our concern here is to discuss those who followed Jahm in denying wisdom, causation, and justice in the divine decree—this being his second innovation, unlike irjā’, which is also attributed to groups other than his. These people say:

“The Lord may do anything He has the power to do.”

This is why you find that their followers do not hold the commands and prohibitions, or the promises of reward and threats of punishment, in due reverence. Rather, they cast off all or some of this and strain to uphold their beliefs. For when they agree with Jahm and al-Ash‘arī that goodness and evil consist in a thing’s being commanded or forbidden—a distinction relating to the servant’s own interests—while claiming to have become oblivious to such interests, they sometimes say that complying with the commands and prohibitions belongs to the station of concealment. At other times they say:

“He does this for the sake of the inmates of the asylum”—meaning the common people—as the Maghribī shaykh puts it. They make various other claims of this kind.