These scholars say:

“The distinction between punishing a person for a voluntary act and punishing him for something that was not voluntary is firmly rooted in innate human reason. If a man had a son (1) who suffered from a bodily illness (2) or a flaw in his natural disposition, it would not be right (3) to censure or punish him for it. But if his son wronged someone, it would be right (4) to punish him for that.”

They also say:

“That invoking predestination as an excuse for sins is invalid is known by rational necessity. If a person who wronged another were to invoke predestination, anyone who wronged him could likewise invoke predestination (5). If predestination is a valid excuse for the former, it is equally valid for the latter; otherwise, it is valid for neither. (6)”

The proponents of the first position also reject invoking predestination as an excuse, for the invalidity of doing so is unanimously recognized by people of religion and sound reason. Only someone whose statements are contradictory and who follows his own whims invokes predestination to justify vile deeds and injustices. As one scholar said:

“When obedient, you are a Qadarī; when sinful, a Jabrī. Whichever doctrine accords with your whim is the one you adopt.”

If predestination were a valid excuse for one who perpetrates obscenities and injustices, it would not be right for anyone to blame (7) or punish anyone else. It would then (8) be permissible for a person to commit whatever injustices and vile deeds he desired (9) against another’s life, property, and family, and to plead that all this had been decreed for him (10).