The Core Argument Against Volitional Acts
Ibn Taymiyyah starts by explaining that many philosophers and theologians, including Ar-Razi and Al-Amidi, denied that volitional acts for Allah.
Their main argument was that if such an act is a perfection, then its absence before it occurred must be a deficiency. And if deficiency is impossible for Allah, then the act must have always existed, or not be possible at all. Ibn Taymiyyah points out that this argument is even weaker than the arguments those same scholars themselves rejected.
Comparison Between Internal and External Acts
He argues that the discussion about volitional acts from Allah’s essence is similar to that about acts that produce external effects. Those who claim the universe is eternal faced the same dilemma: if action is perfection, then not acting would be deficiency. Their solution was to claim it is neither. Ibn Taymiyyah uses this inconsistency to challenge their position.
The Misuse of Capability and Power
Ibn Taymiyyah critiques Ar-Razi’s attempt to distinguish between “power” and “capability”, showing that both are subject to Allah’s will and control.
He points to Quran verses and hadiths where Allah clearly states His power over creating, resurrecting, and punishing. This includes Allah’s power over His own actions and His own being, not just over external effects.
Temporal Acts Cannot Exist Eternally
He also says that if something is temporal, it cannot exist eternally. Therefore, if something does not exist in eternity, its nonexistence cannot be described as a deficiency. He also says that the belief of power requires the object of power to be possible. If it is impossible, there is no meaningful power.
Perfection Lies in the Ability to Act
Ibn Taymiyyah argues that the ability to speak and act whenever one wills is perfection. The timing of when something occurs does not in itself make its absence before that moment a deficiency. Rather, Allah acts in accordance with His wisdom, choosing when to bring about certain events.
False Assumptions About Deficiency
He challenges the vague use of the word “deficiency” by the opponents.
If by deficiency they mean Allah lacked an attribute, then that is false. If they mean the act simply did not happen yet, then this is not a real deficiency.
He turns their reasoning back on them: they claim that reason alone cannot prove Allah’s transcendence from deficiency and that revelation is needed. Yet they reject these acts even though revelation does not deny them.
The Creator Deserves Every True Perfection
Ibn Taymiyyah says: every praise worthy attribute found in creation, if free from deficiency, must be more applicable to the Creator.
If even created beings are praised for being able to see, hear, act, and speak, then the Creator must be more deserving of those attributes in a perfect way.
The Absurdity of Denial
He shows the contradiction of denying that Allah acts, while claiming to avoid the lesser issue of temporality.
In doing so, they attribute a greater deficiency to Allah, depicting Him as completely inactive and lifeless, like an inanimate object. He shows that they end up portraying Allah as more deficient than even a being who has potential but cannot act yet.
Sequential Acts Are Not a Flaw
Ibn Taymiyyah explains that the timed occurrence of acts is not a deficiency. Events cannot all happen at once and must therefore come sequentially. Their being brought into existence gradually is an act of wisdom. Creating events is a perfection; refraining from creating them entirely would be a deficiency.
Events Require a Volitional Cause
He argues that witnessed events must have a cause. That cause must either be volitional or non-volitional.
Describing Allah as causing events without any act or change in Himself is irrational. Events require something occurent to arise in the cause. The philosophers’ view that the universe arises from an eternal unchanging being is even more flawed than the theologians’ position.
Wisdom in Action
He acknowledges two views about Allah’s actions—some attribute them only to His will, others to His wisdom.
If His actions result in wisdom, and that wisdom is a perfection, then the act that brought it must also be a perfection. If the wisdom is not a perfection, then neither is the act. Either way, there is no reason to deny the possibility of volitional acts from Allah.
Rejecting False Definitions of Deficiency
He refutes the belief that emergent acts implies Allah completes Himself through others. Rather, Allah is entirely independent. He inspires repentance, accepts it, causes people to act righteously, and rewards them. But all of this originates from Him alone. He creates both the causes and the effects, including the actions of people that He loves or hates, based on wisdom.
To conclude this summary, Ibn Taymiyyah’s refutation centres on exposing the flawed reasoning behind denying Allah’s volitional actions (non essential acts).
He shows that denying these acts out of fear of attributing deficiency results in greater theological problems and logical contradictions. He asserts that Allah’s ability to act whenever He wills, with wisdom and power, is a true and necessary perfection that must be affirmed.
Translation: The Invalidity of the Philosophers’ and Theologians’ Argument against Volitional Acts Arising from Allah
Now that what has been said by the people of all groups on the matter of volitional actions that from Allah’s essence has become clear, and the weakness of the evidence used by those who deny it, along with the admission of Abu Abd Allah ar-Razi and others to this weakness, and that his main reliance was on the argument of perfection and deficiency—which is also weak, as has been mentioned—and since both he and Abu al-Hasan al-Amidi, along with those who followed them, mentioned the arguments of those who deny this and refuted all of them, we see that they relied on nothing in rejecting it except for the claim that: “If what occurs from Him is an attribute of perfection, then its absence before it occurs must be a deficiency; and if it is a deficiency, then it would entail attributing deficiency to Him—and Allah is far above that.”
This argument is weak—perhaps even weaker than those they themselves refuted—for it can be invalidated in many ways:
The Comparison between His Internal and External Acts
One way is to say: the discussion about His actions that occurs from Him, those that occur by His will and power, is just like the discussion about His actions that are external effects—those things which He creates by His will and power. Those who argued for the eternity of the universe were presented with this same question: “If action is an attribute of perfection, then not acting in eternity means He lacked that perfection; and if it is an attribute of deficiency, then He would be characterised by deficiency.” They answered that it is neither an attribute of perfection nor deficiency.
The Claim That Accepting Temporal Acts Implies Eternal Acceptance
Similarly, one of the arguments of those who deny this is: if He were capable of having something occurent from Him, then being capable of accepting it would be a necessary part of His essence, and therefore the thing being accepted must exist in eternity.
But the response to this is that there is no difference between something occurent in Him or in something else. So if someone says: “If He were capable of producing temporal things, this would have to be part of His essence, and that is impossible in eternity,” then whatever response is given to this applies here too.
Ar-Razi’s Weak Attempt to Differentiate Between Power and Capabaility
Ar-Razi mentioned in one of his books that the one who possesses power precedes the thing he has power over, while the one who possesses capability does not necessarily precede what he receives. But this distinction is extremely weak, for several reasons:
One of them is that the discussion is only about what is accepted and also subject to His power—not about things He receives but cannot act upon. For whatever is temporal, the Lord has power over it. He has power over His own acts that come from Him, just as He has power over His created effects external to Him.
Allah says: “Is not He able to give life to the dead?” (al-Qiyamah: 40), and He says: “Say: He is able to send upon you a punishment from above you…” (al-Anam: 65), and He says: “Is not the One who created the heavens and the earth able to create the likes of them?” (Ya-Sin: 81), and He says: “And He is capable, when He wills, of gathering them together.” (ash-Shura: 29). So He has shown that He is capable of giving life, resurrecting, creating, and gathering—and all of these are acts.
The Prophet said to Abu Masud al-Badri when he saw him beating his slave, “Allah has more power over you than you have over him.” (This hadith is reported from Abu Masud al-Badri al-Ansari, with some variation in wording, in Muslim 3/1280–1281 (Kitab al-Iman, Bab Suhbat al-Mamalik); Sunan Abi Dawud 4/462 (Kitab al-Adab, Bab fi Haqq al-Mamluk); and Sunan at-Tirmidhi 8/128–129 (Kitab al-Birr wa al-Silah, Bab an-Nahy ‘an Darb al-Khadam wa Shatmihim); and in Musnad Ahmad (ed. al-Halabi) 4/120)
So it is clear that He has power over His own self.
The point here is that the discussion is about events that are subject to His power—not everything that is received. And if the thing subject to power cannot exist eternally, then it cannot exist as something received either. So there is no valid distinction between what is received and what is subject to power—both are subject to His power.
Eternal Existence of Temporal Acts Is Impossible
Another point: either the existence of a temporal thing in eternity is possible, or it is not. If it is possible, then the thing subject to His power can exist eternally. And if it is not possible, then its existence—whether as something received or as something acted upon—is impossible.
Contradiction in Attributing Power While Denying Its Object
Another: affirming that something is subject to His power while it is still impossible is combining two opposites. It is not rational to affirm power while the object of that power is impossible. Power can only be affirmed when the object is possible.
This is why the Muslims, and others besides them, criticised the theologians who said: “He has power in eternity, even though the thing He has power over is impossible in eternity.” They said this is combining opposites, and leads to the claim that the object of power shifted from possibility to impossibility without a cause for that shift. It also implies that Allah only became capable of something after not being capable, without a cause for that change. This issue has been discussed in detail elsewhere.
Eternal Capability to Speak and Act Is a Perfection
Another point: to be able to speak and act whenever He wills is an attribute of perfection, and He has always been characterised by this. As for a specific action or event, its occurrence is neither a perfection nor a deficiency in itself.
What Does ‘Deficiency’ Mean in This Argument?
Another way to respond is to ask: What do you mean when you say its absence is a deficiency? Do you mean that His essence is deficient—that it lacks the necessary attributes of perfection? Or do you mean that something which would eventually happen simply did not exist yet? If you mean the first, then that is clearly false. And if you mean the second, then why claim this is impossible?
Their Own Principle Undermines Their Denial
Another: you yourselves have said—as mentioned by Abu al-Maali and ar-Razi—that knowledge of Allah’s transcendence above deficiencies comes through revelation, not reason. So when you say reason does not negate these things, then denial of them must come from revelation, which according to you is consensus. And it is known that this consensus and other forms of revelation do not deny these acts, but only deny what contradicts the attributes of perfection—like death, which contradicts life; sleep, which contradicts self-subsistence; and fatigue, which contradicts complete power.
Therefore, the correct view is that Allah is free from all deficiencies, both according to Sharia and reason. For just as reason proves that He possesses attributes of perfection—knowledge, power, life, hearing, sight, speech—it also proves the absence of their opposites. Affirming a thing entails denying its opposite, and deficiencies are nothing but what contradicts the attributes of perfection.
The Creator Is More Deserving of Every Perfection
Also, every perfection found in a created being—so long as it contains no deficiency—then the Creator is more deserving of it, for He is the one who gave it. And every perfection found in a contingent and temporal being, the Necessary and Eternal Being is more deserving of it. And every deficiency that a created and temporal being is free from—so long as there is no deficiency in that—then the Creator is more deserving of being free from it.
The Superiority of a Living, Acting Being over Inanimate or Impaired Ones
Another point: if we compare two beings—one that has no knowledge, no power, no life, does not speak, hear or see, and cannot even acquire these attributes; and another that is alive, knowledgeable, powerful, capable of speech and will—then reason clearly affirms that the latter is more complete. In fact, even the being that is capable of acquiring these attributes is better than one that cannot.
It is obvious to reason that the Creator of all beings and all their perfections is more deserving of every perfection—and of the highest kind of perfection that distinguishes Him from all creation. This line of reasoning and others like it are what the affirmers of attributes have followed.
So, when we compare two beings: one that cannot act, move, ascend or descend, approach or withdraw, grasp or fold, or bring anything about through an action arising from itself; and another that can do all these things and bring things into being through its own acts—then the latter is undoubtedly more complete. The former is like an inanimate object, or like a living but crippled being without limbs. A living being is more complete than an inanimate one. And a living being that can act is more complete than one who cannot. Just as one who cannot hear, see, or speak is like an inanimate object, or like one who is blind, deaf, and mute—while the living, hearing, seeing, and speaking being is more complete.
Denying Action to Avoid a Lesser Deficiency Leads to a Greater One
So if someone denies that Allah acts, in order to avoid attributing to Him the deficiency of not acting in eternity, and says: “If He always acted, then the later act must not have existed before it occurred, and this absence is a deficiency”—then such a person is like someone who says: “He cannot bring about events or act, because if He could and did so, then the second event would not have existed before it happened, and that absence would be a deficiency.”
But we say to him: You have described Him as complete in order to avoid a deficiency you imagine—but in doing so, you have actually attributed to Him a greater deficiency. For one who never acts, and cannot act, is more deficient than one who can act and does act—even if the action only occurs sequentially.
This is typical of those who deny the attributes: they only deny something out of fear of a supposed problem, but end up affirming something even worse. Like the deniers of the attributes among the Batiniyyah and the philosophers, who were told: “If He is not described with knowledge, power, and life, then He must be described with their opposites—ignorance, incapacity, and death.”
They replied: “That only follows if He is capable of acquiring such attributes. For in privative-oppositive pairs, like existence and non-existence, the absence of one necessitates the presence of the other. But in the case of possession and privation pairs, like life and death, sight and blindness, the subject may have neither—like in the case of inanimate objects, which are not described by either.”
But it is said to them: You fled from likening Him to a deficient living being who cannot hear or see, even though it is possible for him—yet you ended up likening Him to an inanimate object that cannot be described with either attribute. So the thing you ran to is worse than the thing you ran from. There are many other examples of this elsewhere.
The point here is: whoever denies the volitional acts that occur from Him in order to avoid the belief that He was deficient before such acts existed, has actually attributed to Him complete deficiency, trying to escape what he imagined to be a lesser one.
The Timed Occurrence of Acts Is Itself Perfect
Another point: acts that occur after not having existed before—such that their existence only comes later—were not a perfection when they did not exist, nor was their absence a deficiency. A deficiency only exists when something is absent that ought to exist, or would lead to perfection, or is proper to exist. And Allah is wise in all His acts. He is the one who brings things forward or delays them. Whatever He brings forward is perfect in being brought forward, and whatever He delays is perfect in being delayed. Just as whatever He specifies of attributes is done with wisdom, even if we do not know its full details. Consider this in the way He brings things into existence.
The Impossibility of All Events Existing Simultaneously
Another point: events cannot be eternal, and they cannot all exist at once. If they all existed together, they would not be events. And it is known that when one must choose between bringing events into being and not bringing them into being, creating them is more perfect. But they cannot be created unless none of them existed in eternity.
If that is the case, then it would be like saying that something is both present and absent at the same time. So it cannot be said that not acting—or not applying power to an event—is a deficiency. Rather, the real deficiency would be not being able to make it exist. And if He can make it exist, then He possesses the attribute of perfection that cannot be otherwise. Likewise, the one who brings about successive things is characterised by the perfection that no other way of bringing about events could equal.
Events Must Come from an Agent Who Acts Voluntarily
Another point: there is no doubt that events are witnessed, and it is necessary that they have a cause which brought them into being. That cause must either bring them about through volitional action arising from Himself, or they must occur from Him one after another without any act arising from Him or any change occurring in Him. And it is known that describing Him with the first is more fitting—even if the second were possible. But the second is actually impossible, because the occurrence of events without a emergent cause is impossible.
If His state before and after the event is the same, while the events occur in both cases, then He has not actually done anything nor brought anything about. The event would have occurred by itself.
This argument has been explained in detail elsewhere, where the falsehood of the position of the eternalist philosophers is shown—those who say that the motions of the heavens come from an eternal being from whom nothing ever changes. Their view is more corrupt than that of the Mu‘tazilah and others among the theologians.
These philosophers argued for the eternity of the universe with their greatest argument: that if it began after not existing, it would have required a occurrent cause—and the same question would apply to that cause, leading either to infinite regress or to something being preferred without a preference.
The Greater Contradiction in Denying Volitional Acts While Affirming Continuous Events
They are told: You claim that events come into being, one after another, from an agent who exists in Himself, yet He neither possesses any attribute nor does any action from Him, nor does anything occur in Him—not an act nor anything else. But to say that diverse, continuous events originate from one who has no action, no attribute, and from whom nothing occurs, is even more corrupt than saying that sometimes events occur from Him and sometimes they do not. For if it is impossible for events to occur from Him without anything occurring in Him, then for them to occur constantly without anything happening in Him is even more impossible.
The Connection Between Action and Wisdom
Another point: Allah’s actions are either aimed at achieving some wisdom or they are not. People differ on this, and there are two well-known views: one group affirms only His will; the other affirms wisdom—either existing within the created thing, or within the Creator Himself. These three positions are known among the groups who follow Ahmad and others.
If you deny wisdom, then you are allowing that He does acts that do not result in any perfection for Him. So it is said to you: say about the volitional acts that occur from Him what you say about the created things that result from Him, since you consider that to be the act itself.
And if you affirm wisdom, it is said to you: the wisdom achieved through a created act comes about only after that act. So when this wisdom occurs after not existing, whether it exists in Him or in something else—does it count as an attribute of perfection or not?
If you say: it is an attribute of perfection, then say about the act itself what you say about the wisdom it brings.
And if you say: it is not an attribute of perfection, then say the same about the act that brings it about.
Therefore, whether you affirm wisdom or deny it, the same conclusion applies to the act itself. This is clear and obvious.
Affirming That Action and Wisdom Are Perfections
One who affirms that there is an act arising from Him and wisdom existing in Him would say: it is known through clear reason that this is an attribute of perfection, and that one who is like this is more complete than one who does not act, or acts without wisdom. So why do you claim that this is impossible?
And if it is said: so that we do not affirm perfection after deficiency, then the response is: why do you claim that the presence of this perfection is impossible?
The term “deficiency” is a vague word, as mentioned earlier. At most, it refers to the absence of something before it came into existence. So it just returns to the belief that if something exists after it did not exist, then before it came into being it was not there.
So it is said: how do you know that something existing after not existing is impossible? This does not mean that the Lord is dependent on something else, nor does it mean that He completes Himself through the act of another.
Rather, He is the Living, the One who acts as He wills, the All-Knowing, the All-Powerful, the Wise, the Aware, the Loving, there is no god but Him. Everything besides Him is in need of Him, while He is free of need from everything else.
He is not completed by anything other than Him, He does not require anything besides Him, and He is not aided by anything outside of Himself in His actions. His servants cannot bring Him benefit to benefit Him, nor harm to harm Him. He is the Creator of causes and effects. He is the One who inspires His servant to supplicate, then answers him, makes it easy for him to act, then rewards him.
He is the One who inspires him to repent, loves him, and rejoices at his repentance. He is the One who puts the believers to work in what pleases Him, and is pleased with them—not because He needed anyone to help Him do what pleases Him, but because He Himself created the movements of His servants that He loves and is pleased with.
He is also the One who created what He does not love from their actions, because of the wisdom He loves and is pleased with. And He is Allah,there is no god but Him. “To Him belongs all praise in the beginning and the end, and to Him belongs the command, and to Him you will return.” (al-Qasas: 70)
There is no god but Him: “Had there been other gods besides Allah in them (the heavens and the earth), they would have both been ruined.” (al-Anbiya: 22) He alone deserves to be worshipped. Every deed not done for His sake is worthless and brings no benefit.
A god without whom nothing can happen—indeed, there is no power nor strength except through Him.
And anything not done for Him brings no benefit and does not last. As He says: “We will turn to whatever deeds they did and make them scattered dust.” (al-Furqan: 23), and: “The deeds of those who disbelieved in their Lord are like ashes blown away by the wind on a stormy day—they will have no power over anything they earned.” (Ibrahim: 18). He loves His servants who love Him, and whatever is loved for His sake is more deserving of being truly loved.
So if we love something for Allah’s sake, then Allah is the One truly loved, and our love for the other is only secondary. And if we love someone who loves Allah because he loves Allah, then Allah loves those who love Him. So He alone deserves to be the One truly loved, worshipped, and the ultimate subject of all love.
How can it be otherwise, when He is the One who praises Himself and calls for His creation to praise Him?
The Prophet said in an authentic hadith: “No one loves praise more than Allah.” (The hadith is from Abd Allah ibn Masud with some variation in wording, in: Bukhari 6/7 (Kitab at-Tafsir, Surah al-An’am, Bab: ‘…and do not commit immoralities…’); 7/20 (Kitab an-Nikah, Bab al-Ghayrah); 9/120 (Kitab at-Tawhid, Bab: The statement of Allah: ‘And Allah warns you about Himself’); Muslim 4/2113–2114 (Kitab at-Tawbah, Bab: Allah’s Ghayrah); Tirmidhi (with Ibn al-Arabi’s commentary) 13/103 (Kitab ad-Da’awat, Bab: Hadathana Muhammad ibn Bashar); Musnad Ahmad (ed. al-Ma’arif) 10/219–220, 4/248; and it is also reported from al-Mughirah ibn Shuʿbah in Muslim 2/113 (Kitab al-Liʿan, Hadith no. 17)
And when al-Aswad ibn Sariʿ said, “O Messenger of Allah, I have praised my Lord with praises,” he replied: “Your Lord loves praise.”
And in an authentic hadith, the Prophet used to say in his prostration: “O Allah, I seek refuge in Your pleasure from Your wrath, and in Your pardon from Your punishment. I seek refuge in You from You. I cannot praise You enough. You are as You have praised Yourself.”
So He praises Himself, and He is as He has praised Himself. Even the best of His creation cannot praise Him as He deserves.
“Thanaa’” (praise) means repeating and multiplying expressions of praise. As in the authentic hadith: The Prophet said, “When the servant says: ‘All praise is for Allah, Lord of the worlds,’ Allah says: ‘My servant has praised Me.’ When he says: ‘The Most Merciful, the Most Compassionate,’ He says: ‘My servant has extolled Me.’ When he says: ‘Master of the Day of Judgement,’ He says: ‘My servant has glorified Me.’” (The hadith is from Abu Hurayrah. In some versions, it begins with: “Allah says: I have divided the prayer between Myself and My servant…” It appears earlier in this book, volume 2, pages 121–127. Also found in: Musnad Ahmad (ed. al-Ma’arif) 13/15–17, 14/231–233.)
(And in another authentic hadith, the Prophet would say after rising from bowing: “Our Lord, to You belongs praise, filling the heavens, filling the earth, filling whatever is between them, and filling whatever You will beyond that. You are worthy of all praise and glory. The most truthful statement a servant can say—all of us are Your servants. None can withhold what You give, and none can give what You withhold. And the wealth of the wealthy cannot benefit him against You.”)
(The hadith is from Abu Sa’id al-Khudri and appears in: Muslim 1/347 (Kitab as-Salah, Bab: What to say after rising from rukuʿ); Sunan an-Nasa’i (with as-Suyuti’s commentary) 2/156 (Kitab at-Tatbiq, Bab: What to say when rising); Musnad Ahmad (ed. al-Halabi) 3/87. It is also found in Muslim from Shuʿbah ibn al-Hakam 2/343 (Kitab as-Salah, Bab: Straightening the parts of prayer); and see: al-Adhkar of an-Nawawi, pp. 52–53 (Bab: What to say when rising from rukuʿ and standing upright).)
He mentioned praise, thanaa’, and majesty here—just as He did at the start of al-Fatiha. “Hamd” includes all kinds of praise; “thanaa’” means repeating and increasing the number of praises; and “majd” means making them greater in significance, depth, and description.
Therefore, He alone deserves praise, repeated praise, and majestic glorification. No one can praise Him as He praises Himself, nor extol Him as He extols Himself, nor glorify Him as He glorifies Himself.
As in the authentic hadith from Ibn Umar: when the Prophet recited on the minbar: “They did not give Allah His due estimation, and the whole earth will be in His grip on the Day of Judgement, and the heavens folded in His right hand” (az-Zumar: 67), he said: “Allah will grasp the heavens in His hand, and the earths in His other hand, then glorify Himself, saying: ‘I am the King, I am the Holy, I am the Peace, I am the Believer, I am the Guardian, I am the Almighty, I am the Compeller, I am the Proud, I am the One who began the universe when it was nothing, I am the One who restores it. Where are the kings? Where are the tyrants? Where are the arrogant?’” (This narration is quoted by as-Suyuti in ad-Durr al-Manthur in the tafsir of az-Zumar: 67, volume 8, p. 335 (ed. Tehran), and also found in: Musnad Ahmad (ed. al-Ma’arif) 7/247–248; Sunan at-Tirmidhi (with Ibn al-Arabi’s commentary) 12/119–120 (Kitab at-Tafsir, Surah az-Zumar); Sunan Ibn Majah 2/1429 (Kitab az-Zuhd, Bab: Mentioning the Resurrection). (And in another hadith, Allah says: “I am Generous, Majestic, and Possessor. My command, when I will something, is only to say: ‘Be!’ and it is.” (This hadith is part of a longer report from Abu Dharr, beginning with: “O My servants, all of you are astray except for those I guide…” It is found in Tirmidhi 9/304–305 (Kitab Sifat al-Qiyamah, Bab: Hadathana Hammad…), and Tirmidhi said: “It is a good hadith.” Also in: Ibn Majah 2/1422 (Kitab az-Zuhd, Bab: Mentioning repentance); Musnad Ahmad (ed. al-Halabi) 5/154, 177.)
Darʾ taʿāruḍ al-ʿaql wal-naql (4/3-18)
