Ma`rifat

The relationship between free choice and the philosophical principle of "causal" predestination is an issue that has long been the subject of controversy among Islamic scholars including philosophers, theologians and fundamentalists. The renowned Islamic scholars do not consider free choice inconsistent with this rational and necessary law, but most theologians argue that it is against free choice. Therefore, they regard the law of "causal predestination" as invalid. Some of fundamentalists believe in the differentiation of this law, and hold that this law applies only to natural and material causes, not to free-willed actions. Considering the fact that the subject of this paper is an issue that must be studied in the works of philosophers, thinkers and experts in this field, the paper uses library sources for data collection; it has a descriptive –analytical research method and is fundamental in terms of purpose. While explaining and proving the philosophical law of "causal predestination”, this paper analyzes the opponents’ views and their arguments, and tries to resolve the apparent incompatibility between free choice and the rational law of "causal concomitance" or "causal predestination". Reflecting on this rational principle and law and its analysis, it becomes clear that famous scholars are right about the point that no effect has the possibility of violating its complete cause and, with the existence of complete cause, the realization of the effect is definite and certain. There are no exceptions to this rational law, even in the case of free-willed actions. Moreover, its acceptance never requires predestination; conversely, if we do not accept this law in the case of free-willed actions, the agent’s free choice will be under question, because violation from free choice will be necessary, and this is inconsistent with the causality of the free agent’s will in the occurrence of the action.