Abstract:

Motgomery Watt, "Free Will and Pre-Destination in Early Islam", which was translated as "Free Will and Fate in the First Period of Islam", has discussed the fate of Islam in his doctoral study, and has sought to support his canat with his comments to the verses and hadiths. In this study he claimed that there was a gap between the hadiths and the verses, and in the verses he accepted the existence of the emphasis on the freedom of will while presenting the hadiths as fatalistic/cebriatic. He also claimed that he had been a fate. Is it possible to see all the signs and hadiths about it? Why did he not have the signs of the Qur’an, but have the signs of the Qur’an? Does the concept of fate want to show the will outside of fate by preferring its work to be called "Free Fate and Fate" while also containing free will? Or did he not understand the fate of the Islam? In Watt’s work, it appears that the opinions are not consistent with truth. The Qur’an and the Hadith are contradictory, and if a wide-ranging examination on the contradictions is done, it can be reached with skin-filled knowledge, and the Qur’an and the Hadith have caused the formation of two large flows opposed to each other between the Muslims, and the Hadiths contain foreign materials to the Qur’an. In this study, in light of the verses, the assessments of the Islamic thought ecologists will also be taken into account and will be examined whether the hadiths carry a fatalist/cebriating content, the source of the hadiths will be identified and the answer to the above mentioned questions/problems/idds will be tried to be made clear. The judgments and the judgments of Watt's work will be discussed.

Keywords:

Abstract:

Motgomery Watt, in his doctoral study titled "Free Will and Pre-Destination in Early Islam" translated as "Free Will and Pre-Destination in Early Islam", dealt with the belief in fate in Islam and wanted to support his opinion with the interpretations he brought to verses and hadiths. In the aforementioned study, he claimed that there is a conflict between the hadiths and the verses, while accepting the existence of the emphasis on freedom of will in the verses, he wanted to present the hadiths as fatalistic/forced. Has he been able to look at the verses and hadiths on the subject holistically? While there are verses expressing algebra, why did he target hadiths and not verses? While the concept of destiny includes free will, did he prefer to call his work "Free Will and Destiny" and want to show the will outside of destiny? Or has he not grasped Islam's belief in 'destiny' correctly? It is seen that there are interpretations in Watt's work that are inconsistent with the truth. He claimed that the Qur'an and the hadith are inconsistent, that if a wide-ranging study on the contradictions is done, volumes of information can be reached, that the Qur'an and the Hadith cause two major currents to be formed between Muslims, and that the hadiths contain materials foreign to the Qur'an. In this study, in the light of the verses, taking into account the evaluations of the Islamic schools of thought, it will be examined whether the hadiths have a fatalist / algebraic content, and it will be tried to clarify the questions / problems / claims mentioned above. The hadiths that Watt included in his work and his evaluations about the hadiths will be discussed. Watt started his work with a brief evaluation and an introduction to the sources he used. He started the second part by giving verses about destiny, then proceeded to evaluate the subject with hadiths, and in the following parts he tried to deal with the views of Islamic schools of thought. It can be said that Watt made relatively accurate assessments of the verses he included in his poem. However, he could not/did not show the same approach in the hadiths. In order to make people feel that the understanding of destiny, which is emphasized in the hadiths, is in a structure that does not allow freedom, he has especially included news that can be interpreted as algebra with a superficial view. According to him, completely free will never exists in Islamic thought. The hadiths promote fatalism. The Qur'an and the hadith are in dispute, volumes of material can be reached if this subject is researched, the Qur'an and the hadith have caused two major opposite tendencies and the hadiths contain materials foreign to the Qur'an. Watt tries to justify his argument by giving examples from the hadiths to which he attributed the meaning of coercion. In this article, related hadiths will be determined from the sources, then Watt's claims will be evaluated. Watt did not understand the concept of destiny correctly or did not want to understand it. Naming his work "Free Will and Destiny in the Early Periods of Islam" is the most striking example of this situation. Therefore, Watt could not or did not want to convey the Islamic understanding of destiny correctly. Instead of reaching an opinion based on the hadiths, he chose the hadiths that would confirm his preconceptions, and failed to interpret the hadiths he chose correctly. He did not look at the analyzes of the hadiths and the narrators of the hadiths he included in his work, he focused directly on the analysis of the text, and compared the hadith texts, which he assumed to express compulsion, to the verses emphasizing the full independence of man from the Qur'an, and claimed that the hadiths contradicted the hadith and therefore the hadiths were fabricated. He failed to present the hadiths to the Qur'an. Watt's assessment of two separate Islamic trends, one based on hadith and the other advocating the understanding of free will and the other of compulsion/fatalism, is not accurate either. Islamic schools of thought; It is possible to gather them under three headings: 'Fully Independent Man', 'Man Under Coercion' and 'Man with the Freedom to Make Choices Alongside Allah's Absolute Will'. These differences are not based on verse or hadith alone, but because of the success/failure of looking at the verses and hadiths holistically. In the verses and hadiths, there are content that can be interpreted as coercion, as well as content that can be understood as a fully independent human being. Unilateral approaches could lead to different results.