Free Will and Decree

A man comes home late. The pavement is deserted, poorly lit. At his feet, a thick envelope has slipped from the pocket of a stranger already walking away: banknotes, and a card bearing the owner's name. Nobody saw him bend down. For a few seconds, two roads open before him, equally open: return it, or keep it. Everything in this ordinary scene hinges on that tiny point. Is this choice truly his? Or was it already written for all eternity, inscribed in advance in the play of his neurons?

This essay makes a wager, to be earned step by step: freedom is not the opposite of divine order; it plays out within it. One clarification first: "what does the Quran say on free will" and "what does Islam say" are two different questions. The tradition built theological systems around the text, sometimes hardening vocabulary the text itself left open. This essay stays as close as possible to the Quranic text directly.

❦Framing the problem

The difficulty rests on three propositions, each one we would want to keep, but which seem to contradict one another together.

We can give up one to save the other two. Denying the first damages the idea of God; denying the third abolishes morality, since a cog deserves neither blame nor credit. What remains is the second, and it is this one, as we shall see, that rests on a logical slip. But before the logic, two concrete threats weigh on freedom: one from theology, one from science. Both must be faced.

❦An old quarrel, and a political one

The problem is not new. From the first century of Islam, the Jabrītes defend jabr, compulsion: everything is decreed, the human being merely unspools a thread already pulled taut. The Qadarītes, around al-Ḥasan al-Baṣrī, defend on the contrary the human capacity to decide, and therefore responsibility. And the stakes immediately became political: if everything is willed by God, the power in place, however unjust, is too. Fatalism suited the powerful; freedom armed those who contested them. The school of al-Ashʿarī attempted a compromise, kasb: God creates the act, the human appropriates it. Many found it more verbal than resolved. These quarrels, however, often ran aground on a confusion that must first be cleared up.

❦Distinguishing what must not be confused

Two ideas that have nothing to do with each other are constantly mixed up. Fatalism says: the outcome is fixed whatever you do, your efforts will change nothing. Determinism says something quite different: your choices are themselves links in the chain of causes, and they are precisely what produces what follows. The first cancels action; the second gives it full weight. The Quran comes down against fatalism, not against a rule-governed world:

إِنَّ اللَّهَ لَا يُغَيِّرُ مَا بِقَوْمٍ حَتَّىٰ يُغَيِّرُوا مَا بِأَنفُسِهِمْ"God does not change the condition of a people until they change what is within themselves." · Quran 13:11

The outcome depends here on what one changes within oneself: effort is the cause, not useless scenery. "Everything is written," in the fatalist sense, is therefore the error to be set aside. A world of laws has never been the enemy of freedom.

❦What the Quran weighs

The text holds both ends. On one side, verses of full responsibility, and therefore real freedom:

إِنَّا هَدَيْنَاهُ السَّبِيلَ إِمَّا شَاكِرًا وَإِمَّا كَفُورًا"We showed him the way: whether he be grateful or ungrateful." · Quran 76:3

"Whoever wills, let him believe; and whoever wills, let him disbelieve" (18:29); "no compulsion in religion" (2:256). On the other side, verses where God "guides whom He wills and leads astray whom He wills." The tension is real, and concealing it would be dishonest. But one fact is often forgotten: the formula al-qaḍāʾ wa al-qadar, decree and measure, is not Quranic; it is a later theological construction. The debate bears, for a good part, on the meaning of words that tradition gradually hardened.

❦Qadar: a measure, not a script

Everything turns on one word. Qadar comes from a root meaning to measure, to proportion, to give its just share, the same root as taqdīr, evaluation, or laylat al-qadar, the night of measure. The Quran uses it in this sense:

إِنَّا كُلَّ شَيْءٍ خَلَقْنَاهُ بِقَدَرٍ"We have created everything according to a measure." · Quran 54:49

Qadar is therefore not the detailed script of your life; it is the measure, the law, the regular order given to things, also called the sunan. God fixes the laws of the world; within those laws, the human acts. The philosopher-poet Muhammad Iqbal stated it plainly: taqdīr is not predestination but the inner reach of a thing, the set of possibilities it carries within it.

❦Shahrour: acting within the order

Muhammad Shahrour's reading pushes the distinction to its conclusion, faithful to his principle: two words with different roots are never synonyms. Qadar is the established divine order, the set of objective laws governing existence. Qaḍāʾ is the act of operating within that order, execution, accomplishment. Two images make this clear. The physician who heals yaqḍī: he accomplishes by relying on the laws of the living, without having created them. Similarly, the word qāḍī, judge, comes from this root: the judge yaqḍī, he rules according to established laws, he does not invent them. Qadar is the rule-governed field of possibilities; qaḍāʾ is the free gesture inscribed within it. Freedom, here again, is not an exception to order: it unfolds within it.

From this comes the theory of ḥudūd, the limits. Islam, says Shahrour, does not fix each act by a rule: it sets an upper bound and a lower bound, within which the human enjoys the greatest possible freedom. The Law is not a single rail, it is a bounded field in which one moves.

❦Resolving the contradiction: God outside time

Let us return to our second proposition, the real knot: "what God knows cannot fail to happen." It seems unanswerable. Yet it rests on a logical error identified as far back as Boethius, in the sixth century. From "God knows that you will return the envelope," one can conclude with certainty that you will return it. But this certainty bears on the link between knowledge and act, not on the act itself. It does not make your gesture necessary in itself; it says only that God's knowledge and your choice agree. Confusing the necessity of the link with the necessity of the thing is the error that makes one believe in a prison where there is only a mirror.

Time completes the dispelling of the illusion. The proposition assumes that God knows before, that his knowledge precedes the act and drives it. But if God is outside time, there is no before: He sees all moments in a single present. His knowledge is not a fore-sight that constrains; it is a vision that accompanies. In the spirit of Shahrour: God knows all possibilities, the entire tree of roads, and it is the human who, by acting, actualizes one of them.

Physics offers an image here, and only an image: before measurement, a quantum system holds several states at once, and the famous thought experiment imagines a cat both alive and dead until observed. Similarly, before a choice, all branches coexist as possibilities. One must not push the analogy into proof — the Quran is not a physics manual — but it helps picture a knowledge that embraces all possibilities without fixing any of them. Astrophysicist Nidhal Guessoum, who claims Averroes as a forebear, refuses to make science a proof of God: science describes how He created, through laws, and it is the theistic framework that makes the very rationality of the universe intelligible.

وَأَنَّ اللَّهَ قَدْ أَحَاطَ بِكُلِّ شَيْءٍ عِلْمًا"And that God has encompassed all things in knowledge." · Quran 65:12

Thus "God knows everything, absolutely everything" remains true, and freedom remains intact. He sees that a being could take the wrong road as well as the right one, in the same way that, from a height, one sees all the roads a traveler might take without pushing him onto any. Seeing the path is not walking it in his place. The second proposition falls: knowing is not constraining.

❦The test of science

The second threat remains, more modern, and it must be taken seriously. In 1814, Laplace imagined an intelligence knowing all positions and forces of the universe at one instant, from which it could deduce all the future: if the world is like this, our decisions would be mere effects, calculable in advance. Spinoza had sensed it with a sharp phrase:

"Men believe themselves free because they are ignorant of the causes that determine them."
SPINOZA

Neuroscience seemed to deliver the decisive blow. In the 1980s, Benjamin Libet measured a cerebral "readiness potential" that anticipates by a fraction of a second the conscious decision to move a finger. Consciousness would arrive after the fact, a mere spectator. Here is the threat in full force: what if the man on the pavement were only a witness to what his brain had already decided?

The answer is not to flee but to look closely. Libet's experiment bears on a trivial gesture, with no deliberation or stakes, far removed from a moral choice; Libet himself reserved a right of veto, a freedom not to act; and recent rereadings see in this potential a simple accumulating noise, not an order already given. Above all, the debate rests on a misunderstanding that compatibilist philosophers, from Hume to Daniel Dennett, have dismantled: the freedom that matters has never been that of a cause without cause. To be free is to act according to one's own reasons, without external constraint; a choice can be both caused and mine. Determinism, even if true, does not abolish this freedom.

At the other extreme, Sartre declared that "man is condemned to be free": a magnificent formula, but excessive, since we choose neither our birth, nor our brain, nor our era. The truth lies between Spinoza and Sartre.

❦The tumor, and degrees of responsibility

A clinical case puts the thesis to its hardest test. Around the turn of the 2000s, a man in his forties, with no prior history of this kind, experienced surging pedophilic urges. Doctors discovered a tumor compressing his orbitofrontal cortex, the region governing inhibition, the brake. Once the tumor was removed, the urges disappeared. They returned months later; examination found the tumor had regrown. A decisive detail: the man knew it was wrong; he simply could no longer stop himself.

What to conclude? Not that freedom is an illusion, but that responsibility is not all-or-nothing: it is graduated, proportioned to the capacity for self-governance. One is never responsible for having an urge, which one does not choose; one is responsible for what one does with it, when one can. The tumor did not corrupt a free man: it destroyed the very faculty of resistance, that is, the conditions of freedom.

Islamic law has stated this for a long time. Obligation, taklīf, presupposes reason (ʿaql) and capacity (qudra):

لَا يُكَلِّفُ اللَّهُ نَفْسًا إِلَّا وُسْعَهَا"God does not burden a soul beyond its capacity." · Quran 2:286

A well-known hadith lifts responsibility from three beings as long as their condition persists: the sleeper until waking, the child until maturity, the one who has lost reason until its return. And involuntary thoughts, wasāwis, are not sin: only what one adopts and carries out is. In Quranic language, the tumor removes the wusʿ, the capacity, and the taklīf falls with it.

❦A situated freedom

From all of this emerges a tenable position, and our wager is held: we are neither gods without cause, capable of creating ourselves from nothing, nor automatons. We deliberate within what we have not chosen, and we answer for our acts in the exact measure in which we could govern them. Freedom is not absolute; it is situated, real between laws and limits. It does not oppose divine order: it is its living part.

Let us return to the pavement. The man hesitates, then hands the envelope to the stranger coming back. Nothing forced him to: neither the laws of nature, which made both gestures possible, nor the knowledge of God, who saw both roads without walking either one in his place. That is why this gesture belongs to him, and honors him. Dignity is owed only to a free being: a cog deserves neither blame nor praise.

Two drifts, and an objection. On one side, the fatalism that excuses passivity or injustice, "it was written": the Quran cuts it short (13:11). On the other, the illusion of total freedom, which forgets all that we do not choose. The honest path refuses both.

One objection remains to the idea of a God outside time: how would He act in history, respond to a prayer, guide at a particular moment, if there is for Him no "moment"? But the objection assumes that timelessness would be a cage. For a sovereign God, it is a point of view, not a prison: He embraces all of time in a single gaze, and can act within it if He wills. Time is one of His creatures, and what He has created cannot limit Him.

On the pavement, the man chose. God saw both roads; He walked neither in his place. All of this is only an attempt at understanding, and on such a mystery, وَاللَّهُ أَعْلَم (God alone knows).

A pushback, an idea, a different reading? Write to the journal — every response counts.

← All essaysLire en français →