The core tension: The Quran affirms both divine predetermination (‘We have created everything according to a measure’, 54:49; ‘No calamity befalls except by God’s permission’, 64:11) and human accountability (‘Whoever does an atom’s weight of good will see it’, 99:7). Reconciling these is the central problem of Islamic philosophical theology (kalam).

Positions: (1) Qadariyya — humans have genuine power (qadar) to act; divine justice requires real freedom. Condemned. (2) Jabriyya — humans have no power; all acts are God’s compulsion. Condemned. (3) Mutazilite — God cannot will evil or injustice; humans must be free for divine justice to make sense. God is bound by rationality. Condemned by Ashari orthodoxy. (4) Ashari — humans have ‘acquisition’ (kasb) of acts that God creates; God’s will encompasses everything including sin, but humans acquire responsibility through intention. This is the mainstream Sunni position — a carefully constructed middle that critics argue is logically unstable. (5) Maturidi — similar to Ashari but gives slightly more weight to human agency; dominant in Hanafi/Turkish tradition. (6) Shia — ‘Neither compulsion nor complete freedom, but a middle way’ (attributed to Imam Jafar al-Sadiq) — humans act freely within a framework God knows completely.

The debate maps precisely onto Christian Augustinianism vs Pelagianism, and Buddhist karma debates — the same logical structure appears wherever a theology affirms both omnipotent divinity and meaningful human action.