Talk:Predestination in Islam

message: The Shia say that predestination is not real as it means that God sends us to hell for something that he decided we would do, making God sadistic rather than benevolent.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.150.15.99 (talk) 16:39, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shia View 

message: In Arabic, Al-Qadar means Destiny, Qada means Decree
They are two distinct and different words
I will edit this article to reflect this
(Aboomusa (talk) 02:23, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Qada does not have the same meaning as Al-Qadar

message: The Lauhul Mahfooth (Preserved Tablet) is where the unchangeable destiny of everything is recorded. I think this article needs to be reviewed by a scholar because destiny is one of the deeper topics in Islam. The 3 levels are more or less correct, with Humans having the ability to alter their destiny through prayer and supplication. This causes Allah to change the degrees the He issues to the angels. This is demonstrated by hadiths such as the one mentioned in this article that say if you perform haj, your lifespan increases, etc. However, the change in decrees and the final results are recorded in the Preserved Tablet.
There is a hadith to that effect that states that “Verily, the first thing Allah created was the pen. He said to it: ‘Write.’ It replied: ‘My Lord, what should I write?’ So He said: ‘Write all that will occur.’ So in that hour, everything that will occur until the Day of Recompense was recorded.” - Sunan Abu Dawood: Book of Sunnah (4700) and Sunan At-Tirmidhee: Book of Divine Pre-Decree (2) And that is what is recorded on the Preserved Tablet 
Also from http://fortyhadith.iiu.edu.my/hadith04.htm
- Al-Qadar can be categorized as:
- Al-Qadar al-Kulli - the general qadar which has been recorded by Allah in Al-Lauhulmahfudz or the Preserved Tablet. 
- Al-Qadar al-Sanawi - the annual qadar which takes place once a year (Lailatul qadar) - where it matchs what has been written in Al-Lauhulmahfudz
This shows that decrees are dispensed at different times. Furthermore, there are decrees made when the person is in the womb at 120 days after conception. 
I hope that this information is sufficient. Aboomusa (talk) 02:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Incorrect information regarding the Preserved Tablet

message: The intro was way too long, as the tag indicated.  It was also unreferenced.  Also, much of the grammar was questionable.  In addition, it really did not deal with qadar, but instead with the subject of criteria for something being aqidah or not.  Thus, I created a subheading called 'Problems with Qadr as Aquidah' under the concept section.  I also edited much of the text I moved, as I found it to be very conversational and used far too much of the second person.    —Preceding unsigned comment added by Meson537 (talk • contribs) 11:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: reorganized article

message: Qadar has been merged into Qadr (doctrine), the only thing left is to make Qadar into a redirect. The reason Qadr (doctrine) is preferable is that the correct transliteration is "Qadr", per Al-Qadr (sura) and Laylat al-Qadr. --Striver 02:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As Qadr (doctrine) now redirects to Qadar (doctrine) nstead, I'm simply going to move the page. ɱўɭĩєWhat did I dowrong 20:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: merge

message: Is the doctrine of Qadr distinct from the idea of kismet?  Should kismet link here?  Pirate Dan 15:22, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kismet 

message: Most of the descriptions are quite innacurate. Funnily enough, my edit with references was reverted - i wonder why.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.104.39.44 (talk) 02:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is sure correct.  Someone needs to pick up an Islam 101 book and fix this.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.194.243.180 (talk) 04:52, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Highly inaccurate 

message: It seems to me that a summary of the the major schools of thought and major thinkers should be added to this page.  It seems to me that this would be the #1 most useful section in an article of this sort.  I will await feedback before adding these myself. LUbunkerman (talk) 00:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Should major thinkers be added to this page?

message: The current one is too short:
:Qadar is divine destiny in Islam[1].
Yeah, well, but from the context it is actually sunni islam, and it would be profitable if the intro actually drew an overview: such at how it interacts with free will, and as I've heard it the ultimate final grace of God, according to islamic thinking. ... said: Rursus (mbork³) 10:34, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Some material is now added to the article regarding free will but needs expansion. Shaad lko (talk) 15:31, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: More intro!

message: The concept of divine decree as understood by earlier scholars must be given a thought in the editing of this article. For Example below is the translation in English by Hamza Yusuf of an article (Chess and the Divine Decree) written by EMIR ABD AL-QADIR AL-JAZI’IRI
It would be honor enough for the people of India had they bequeathed us nothing but chess, a game that, like the sun itself, has traversed the entire globe. Indeed, people everywhere hold high in esteem and deem intelligent anyone who masters it or even plays it well. Such being the case, in how much greater esteem should we hold the brilliance of its ingenious inventor?
His  name  was  Sissah  b.  Dahir,  and  he invented chess for Shah R¥m around 500 CE,  the  king  of  India,  after  the  Persian 
Ardashir  b.  Babak  (d.  393  BH/241  CE) invented  checkers  for  the  first  of  the latter  kings  of  Persia.  The  Persians  and 
their  king  took  great  pride  in  checkers, which  soon  became  their  national  pas-time. However, when Sissah b. Dahir, the 
Indian philosopher, introduced the game of chess to the world, all the sages of his time immediately recognized its superior-ity over checkers. 
After demonstrating the game to Shah R¥m, Sissah completely beguiled the king and overjoyed him with its ingenious qualities. Shah R¥m informed Sissah that he could “ask whatever reward desired, and it shall be granted.” Sissah replied, “I ask only that you take one grain of wheat and place it upon the first square of my board and then continue to double it with each additional square until the last square is reached, and bestow upon me all the grain that has accumulated.” 
The bemused king could only laugh at such a paltry request and informed Sissah that he could not comply with such an insignificant request for such a momentous invention; moreover, the king had already resolved to grant him a much greater prize. Sissah informed him that his original request was all he wanted. 
They continued to debate the point until the king realized how resolute Sissah was in his desire. Finally, the king commanded his factor to fulfill the inventor’s request, but when the ministers began to calculate just how much wheat would be needed, they realized the impossibility of the request. They explained that they did not have enough wheat in the royal storehouses to fulfill the request. The king scoffed and demanded an explanation. The ministers sat down with the king and illustrated their calculations, and he soon comprehended the reality of their conclusion. The king then turned to Sissah and said, “In your request, you have revealed to us something even more wondrous than your invention!” 
Whoever ponders the game of chess, and reflects deeply upon the nature of its pieces and the fixity of its patterns will realize that a profound secret concerning the nature of destiny has been disclosed to him by the simplest of methods. This could only result from 
its originator being a realized sage who revealed his profound wisdom in the arrangement and organization of his game. 
In fact, God, the Exalted, revealed to the formula-tor  of  chess  what  God  Himself  has  preeternally performed, what is preexistence in His knowledge, and  what  occurred  in  His  first  determination  of the cosmos. For this reason, no other person, save the  game’s  originator,  shared  with  him  its  creation. Moreover, this reveals why all those who play chess are constrained by the predetermined limits decreed by the game’s inventor. And, although the player of chess is in complete subordination to the originator’s  decreed  limitations,  the  player’s  own merit and effort or neglect and lassitude will deter-mine whether he wins or loses the game of chess. 
Indeed, both players, despite being entirely free to choose their actions, to deliberate their possibilities, to utilize their strategies, and to exert all of their personal efforts in their moves are nonetheless entirely circumscribed in their possibilities, due to the very limitations predetermined by the inventor himself. They cannot break the laws set, nor exempt  themselves  from  the  limited  possibilities  given.  In  this  way,  they  are  fated  yet appear free and, equally, they are free yet appear fated! 
The inventor caught a glimpse of a sacred secret among the paradoxes of providence and realized that all human beings are freely accruing their actions and either gaining the rewards of their right moves or suffering the consequences of their wrong ones. Furthermore, he realized that God, the Exalted, does not oppress His servants, but that they themselves are the oppressors. Human beings are fulfilling their destiny without being forced against their will in the paths they pursue. Indeed, God left the creation free to err or act appropriately. Analogously, the inventor of chess has decreed certain things for those who play his game, and while they are held to those limitations, they are nonetheless free to choose their moves while not being stripped entirely of their own volition. 
Hence, if one plays his game well, it is to his advantage, and if poorly, it is to his detriment. Neither of the two players can escape the limits of the squares, the pieces, their numbers, and their prescribed movements. Had its inventor allowed other possibilities, the players 
would have been constrained by them as well. 
Ponder this well, for chess is an edifying metaphor and a sagely invention. It develops the rational component; increases intelligence; diverts the mind from distressing matters; reveals hidden character traits in its players, as games are wont to do; and imitates very realistically military situations that result in the sweetness of victory over one’s opposition or the bitterness of defeat at his hands.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Syed Tahseemuddin (talk • contribs) 10:23, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Divine Decree In Islam as understood by earlier scholars 

message: How the terms Qadar and kismet  are related? Notice that kismet is a disambig page now, i.e., useless to answer my question. - Altenmann >t 02:22, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is Kismet? 

message: This article relies on a lot of sources that aren't reliable sources (see WP:RS), especially web sites. I might end up editing out the unsupported material. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 03:33, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  unreliable sources 

message: Predestination means that God will make you murder someone and then send you to hell because of that.
Fate means that God knows that you will murder someone, and he wrote that on the book because he knew you will do it.
Thus, all try to make them to separate articles. --Kuwaity26 (talk) 03:29, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like the article talks about all three types of predestination theories, including the two mentioned above --Kuwaity26 (talk) 03:57, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  There is a difference between fate/qadr and predestination

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Predestination in Islam. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add  after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20111208204654/http://www.freeweb.hu:80/etymological/AEDweb.htm to http://www.freeweb.hu/etymological/AEDweb.htm
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070929092948/http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=1&ID=131&CATE=24 to http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=1&ID=131&CATE=24
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20081203154722/http://www.learndeen.com:80/jm/deen-islam/aqueeda-a-tawheed/qada-wal-qadar1/44/57-concept-of-al-qadaa-and-al-qadar.html to http://www.learndeen.com/jm/deen-islam/aqueeda-a-tawheed/qada-wal-qadar1/44/57-concept-of-al-qadaa-and-al-qadar.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:51, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Sunni Muslims believe that Allah's will is so powerful that he can predict anything in the future and knows are every path in life. However just because he predicts it doesn't actually mean that he made are life plans, Sunni's believe that Allah can only see what will happen in our lives, but cannot change anything even if he really wanted to.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.174.139.55 (talk) 19:44, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sunni's views 

message: I'm confused about what the problem is supposed to be. Why is "predestination" an issue? I'm not even a Muslim, but I'm not seeing the issue. If an author writes a book, does that mean the characters aren't free to decide what to do? Obviously not. In addition, there's a distinction between fatalism and determinism; there's also the view of free will known as compatibilism. I don't know if some Muslim scholars have similar views to that of Thomism or Molinism: the article doesn't say.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:840:8681:9690:0:0:0:B103 (talk) 19:33, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's the problem???? 

message: " Attempts by theologians to make them so are logically incoherent, not unlike the doctrine of the Trinity in Christianity." <--- dose not feel like lit fits with the Wikipedia unbiased thing. I would understand if this was in a quote but this seems like a statement under the criticism section. Maybe we can put that podcasters quote here? Roboduckdragon (talk) 01:13, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Feels biased a little