42 M. Sait Özervarli
of their actions but only the acquirers of them.^14 The Māturīdīs have a
similar approach by suggesting that actions have different aspects (sg.
jiha), some of which are connected to God’s creation and the others
to humans’ acquisition. Thus, both schools try to propose an alterna-
tive view to the absolutist interpretations regarding human agency or
predestination.^15
Addressing mostly the Ashʿarīs, Ibn Taymiyya criticizes the acquisi-
tion theory of Sunni theologians and blames it for being quite similar
to the Jabrī position, which denies the role of humans in their actions.
According to Ibn Taymiyya, although human actions are a part of
God’s creation, individuals are the genuine agents of their deeds. In
other words, God is the ultimate Creator by providing circumstances
and offering the power of action; individuals, however, are uniquely
responsible for owning the actions by acting freely through their will.^16
But Ibn Taymiyya does not regard the acquisition theory as being suf-
ficient to explain human free will and full responsibility. The theory
is both ambiguous and incoherent in opposing rival theories by other
schools. Therefore, he says, Muslim scholars regarded three theories,
namely Naẓẓām’s (d. between 220–230/835–844) “leap” (ṭafra), Abū
Hāshim al-Jubbāʾī’s (d. 320/933) “modes” (aḥwāl), and al-Ashʿarī’s
(d. 324/935) “acquisition” (kasb) as the least comprehensible and most
peculiar theories in the history of Muslim thought.^17
Trying to find solutions to the problem, Ibn Taymiyya describes
two aspects of divine will. One of them is the creative predestined will,
which plans major events in the universe (al-irāda al-qadariyya al-
kawniyya), and the other the religious moral will, which guides daily
14 For the theory of acquisition see Swartz, Merlin: Acquisition (kasb) in Early
Kalām, in: Samuel Miklos Stern, Albert Hourani and Vivian Brown (eds.): Islamic
Philosophy and the Classical Tradition, Columbia 1972, pp. 355–387; Abrahamov,
Binyamin: A Re-examination of al-Ashʿari’s Theory of Kasb according to Kitāb
al-Lumaʿ, in: Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society 1–2 (1989), pp. 210–221.
15 On details of the Ashʿarī and Māturīdī positions, see al-Ashʿarī, Abū al-Ḥasan:
Kitāb al-Lumaʿ fī al-radd ʿalā ahl al-zaygh wal-bidaʿ, edited by ʿAbd al-Azīz
ʿIzz al-Dīn al-Sayrawān, Beirut 1987, pp. 116–123; al-Māturīdī, Abū Manṣūr:
Kitāb al-Tawḥīd, edited by Bekir Topaloğlu and Muhammed Aruçi, Ankara
2003, pp. 357–410.
16 Ibn Taymiyya, Minhāj al-sunna, vol. 2, pp. 294–302, vol. 3, pp. 13–14, 145–146;
Ibn Taymiyya, Taqī al-Dīn: Darʾ taʿāruḍ al-ʿaql wal-naql, edited by Muḥammad
Rashād Sālim, Riyadh 1979–1983, vol. 1, pp. 81–86.
17 Ibn Taymiyya, Kitāb al-Nubuwwāt, pp. 199 and 206; Ibn Taymiyya, Majmūʿ
Fatāwā, vol. 8, p. 467.
Brought to you by | Nanyang Technological University
Authenticated