عنوان مقاله [English]
Without doubt, one of the important schools of thought in Islam is the Muʿtazilite rationalism school of thought and, in addition, one of the most challenging historical discussions also revolves around the decision of “determinism (jabr) and delegation (tafwīḍ).” Based on many accounts, the theory of “delegation” meaning human independent power in performing actions has been attributed to the Muʿtazilites as one of the important Islamic sects; a theory that, according to many of the Ashʿarite and Twelver Shiite thinkers without doubt belongs to them. However, nowadays, this attribution has been challenged by some researchers and, in contrast, some have risen in support of it.
This article utilizes a library method and through investigation of the intellectual foundations of the Muʿtazilites in the discussion regarding the method of creation of human actions and on one hand, striving to understand their words and on the other, by relying on ancient historical records in the works of sect-researchers and rhetoric tactics in the typology of the terms “delegation (tafwīḍ) and destiny (qadar)” seeks to pass judgment and give fruit to logical contributions in response to the main question of “how the link between the Muʿtazilites and delegation can be evaluated?”
Based on this, citing assemblage of that which has passed to understand the relationship between the “Muʿtazilites” and “tafwīḍ,” the following can be mentioned as the main points:
1. The word qadar can mean “ikhtiyār (free will)” and “tafwīḍ (delegation)” and is equivocal. By studying the works of the Muʿtazilites, we can see that the attribution of the qadar to them has mostly been line with the meaning of free will regarding this term. Therefore, it cannot simply be deduced from the attribution of this term that the Muʿtazilites believe in delegation because we would suffer from the fallacy of equivocality.
2. According to experts in the area of sects, and considering the different evidence in historical books, the “qadariyya” and “mufawwida” are different from the “Muʿtazilites” and for this reason they must not be considered as one group. According to some sources, these two even had disputes between themselves. For this reason, it is not right that we consider the Muʿtazilite scholars as “qadariyya and mufawwida.”
3. The philosophical system accepted by most of the Muʿtazilites is based on accepted the linear cause and effect system along with and aligned with the theory of “denial of delegation” and can be evidence of the Muʿtazilites not accepting delegation because the theory of delegation of free will results in the violation of the law of causality by a precise breach of it and this is a serious challenge for this philosophical system.
4. Shiite scholars such as Shaykh Mufid, Syed Murtada, and Shaykh Tusi who lived in the age of development of the Muʿtazilites did not only not approve of the attribution of the theory of delegation of free will to them; rather, in some instances, they considered the beliefs of the Muʿtazilites to be the same beliefs as that of the Twelver Shiites.
5. The evidence that some of the opponents of the attribution of the theory of delegation of free will to the Muʿtazilites have presented such as “denying fate and destiny by the Muʿtazilites” and “accepting the impossibility of the gathering of two powerfuls over a single object of power” are not acceptable because, firstly, the Muʿtazilites do not deny fate and destiny and believe in them and secondly, the aforementioned law is not correlated to the theory of delegation in a correct reading of it in the discussion of the creating actions.