created things, cites His words:

“Allah’s command is a decree firmly ordained,”

and says, “Actions are His decree and His command, and His command and decree are uncreated,” he is told:

His command and decree that constitute His attributes, like His will and His speech, are uncreated. But His command that is a firmly ordained decree is created. What is decreed is created, and what is commanded is created, even if they are called “command” and “decree.”

Then these misguided people are told: Grant that what is commanded may be called a command and religious law. What is forbidden, however, is neither commanded nor prescribed by religious law. Rather, it contravenes the command and religious law and is forbidden. How, then, have you called disbelief, wickedness, and disobedience religious laws? They are not religious laws, but things that religious law has forbidden. When He, glorified be He, said:

“Then We set you upon an ordained way in religion, so follow it,”

did this ordained way include disbelief, wickedness, and disobedience? Was the Messenger commanded both to follow such things and to avoid and guard against them?

As for the questioner’s words, “What argument can be made against someone who says that the actions of servants, including their movements and other acts, are part of the decree determined before the creation of the heavens and the earth?”—he is told:

Whoever says this has spoken well and correctly. There is no argument against him on this point. Rather, this statement is evidence for the opposite of what he seeks to establish. For the wording of the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, as narrated from him by ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿAmr and recorded by Muslim in his Sahīh, is:

“Allah decreed the destinies of all creatures fifty thousand years before He created the heavens and the earth.”

Thus He decreed their deeds, their provisions, their forms, and their colors, all of which are created. This demonstrates that deeds are among the created things that have been decreed. Would any rational person say that a servant’s action existed