the position of those who say:

“The act depends upon the motive. When capacity is present and the motive is added to it, the two together constitute a cause necessitating the act.”

He said(1): “This is the position of the majority of philosophers and the view chosen by Abū al-Husayn al-Basrī among the Muʿtazila. Although he claimed an extreme commitment to Muʿtazilism—going so far as to assert that it is necessarily known that the servant originates his own acts—his position was nevertheless that the act depends upon the motive. If the act cannot occur when the alternatives are equally balanced, it is even more impossible for it to occur when it is the less favored alternative. If the less favored alternative is impossible, the favored one must occur, since there is no possibility outside the two contradictories. This is precisely the doctrine of compulsion, because the act(2) must occur when the determining factor is present and cannot occur when the determining factor is absent. It is therefore established that Abū al-Husayn went to great extremes in affirming compulsion, even though outwardly he claimed to go to great extremes in Muʿtazilism.”

I say: This position is(3) the position of the great majority of Ahl al-Sunnah and their leading imams(4). The positions of Abū al-Maʿālī al-Juwaynī, Judge Abū Khāzim(5), son of Judge Abū Yaʿlā, and the Karrāmiyya are close to it. It is the very essence of the position that Allah creates the servant’s act, and it is evident according to(6) the position of the majority of Ahl al-Sunnah who affirm causation and say, “The servant’s capacity has an effect on the act.”