In order to prove their religion, the Mu’tazila have also argued from the area of reason that its content is this: punishment is a favor to the obliged, canceling punishment is ugly, and doing what is ugly is impossible on the part of Allah Almighty; Therefore, it isn’t right to remove the punishment from the perpetrator of a major sin; Because the permissibility of pardon and remission of major sins is an incitement and motivation to commit an ugly and Bawdy act, and this work [that is, removing the punishment from the perpetrator of a major sin] doesn’t happen.
Judge Abdul Jabbar describes this reason for us as follows: “If the transgressor knows that he will not be prosecuted and punished if he commits a major sin, he will be incited to do an ugly thing and he is like someone who is told: Do this work, for you at all. no problem.”
Mu’tazila believe that Allah doesn’t do what is ugly, forgiveness is ugly and Bawdy for them, so it is not possible for it to happen on behalf of Allah Almighty.
These were the reasons given by the Mu’tazila for not pardoning the perpetrators of major sins, but it should be known that these reasons are not without objections. Rather, these reasons can be answered in several ways, which we describe below:
Ahl al-Sunnat’s response to Mu’tazila
A response to the Mu’tazila’s argument from the verses
1. As these verses are conditional on non-forgiveness, they are also conditional on non-repentance, and this is due to the addition of the verses of Waad and Waed.
2. These verses of the Waed are contrary to the verses of the Wa’ad.
3. General prohibition in these verses; Even if it is accepted that they were established for the public; But this is definitely not the general meaning.
4.The ultimate purpose of the texts is only the occurrence of punishment, and the occurrence of punishment doesn’t require its obligation on God Almighty, and the absence of obligation doesn’t entail the occurrence of falsehood and falsity, and there is no difference in the occurrence, but the difference is in the obligation…”
Answer to arguments from hadith
Of course, in this hadith argued by Qazi Abdul Jabbar, it should be noted that from the last part of the hadith: “One who has in his heart the weight of a sandalwood grain of arrogance will not enter heaven.
has argued; because the appearance of this part confirms his religion; But he has been unaware from the beginning of the hadith. The beginning of this hadith is as follows: “No one who has a grain of faith in his heart will enter Hell. Because its appearance is in conflict with his religion.
Allameh Taftazani’s answer to Mu’tazila reasons
It was stated earlier that the Mu’tazila consider the perpetrator of a major sin to be eternally deserving of Hellfire for two reasons:
The answer to the first reason: the term of duration is prohibited here, but the meaning of entitlement in the sense that they mean here, which is the same as obligation to God Almighty, is incorrect. The reward is a blessing from God Almighty and the punishment is justice from the Lord of the worlds. If he wants, he pardons and forgives, and if he wants, he punishes him for a while, then he brings him into Jannah.
Answer to the second argument: A believer’s murderer becomes an infidel because he is a believer, and so does a person who transgresses all limits, and also a person whose mistakes surround him and cover him from all sides, even if we accept [that he commits a sin Kabira al-Mukhlid is in Hell], so Khulud is used here to mean a long pause, as it is known among the Arabs:«سجن مخلّد “An immortal prison; However, if this statement is accepted, it is in conflict with the texts that indicate the absence of silence.
Mu’tazila’s rational answer
This reason can be answered as follows:
This reason indicates the existence of punishment and its occurrence, not its obligation, and there is no difference in the occurrence of punishment, but the difference is in its obligation, as mentioned before. This is from one area; But from another point of view, their [Mu’tazila] explanation is that if the punishment wasn’t obligatory, here there was an incitement to sin and ugly work.
If punishment is mandatory, it isn’t necessary to have hatred and disgust for obedience, so it is not necessary to give permission and encouragement from the permissibility of abandoning the sin. Because along with its preference over the mere prescription of abandoning it, the preferred prescription of permission and stimulation isn’t proven.
This reason of yours is violated by repentance; Because if the knowledge of the permissibility of forgiveness is an incitement to an abominable act, then the knowledge and awareness of the fall of punishment and punishment with repentance is also an incitement to an abominable act.
