And the third category is where the wisdom arises from the command itself, while there is no benefit whatsoever in the act. Rather, the purpose is to test the servant: will he obey or disobey? Once he believes the act to be obligatory and resolves to perform it, the purpose of the command has been achieved, and it is then abrogated. This is what happened to Allah’s intimate friend in the account of the sacrifice. The sacrifice itself offered no benefit, nor was it what the Lord actually sought. Rather, the Lord intended to test Abraham so that he would give obedience to his Lord and love for Him precedence over his love for his son, and no attachment to anything other than Allah would remain in his heart. He loved his son deeply and had asked Allah to grant him that son—yet he was Allah’s intimate friend. Thus, Allah Most High wished to perfect his intimate friendship with Him, so that nothing would remain in his heart to rival his love for his Lord:

“And when they had both submitted and he laid him down upon his forehead, We called to him, ‘O Abraham, you have fulfilled the vision.’ Indeed, thus do We reward the doers of good. Indeed, this was the clear trial.”

Similar to this is the hadith in Sahīh al-Bukhārī concerning a leper, a bald man, and a blind man: the purpose was to test them, not the act itself.

This category and the preceding one escaped the Mu'tazilah. They did not recognize the wisdom arising from the command itself, or that arising in the commanded act by virtue of its being commanded. They recognized only the first category. As for those who deny wisdom, all these cases are alike to them. They take no account of wisdom, or of a particular act being singled out for a command, or anything else of this kind, as is already known from their fundamental position.

Yet many from both groups discuss Quranic exegesis, hadith, and jurisprudence, building upon their own principles, while the true import of their statements is understood only by