This article was written to discuss and evaluate ʿAbd al-Hamīd Hamdī alHarputi’s views of human deeds. Undoubtedly, “the freedom of man in his
deeds” is one of the debatable issues that has preoccupied the minds of Muslim
scholars throughout the history of Islamic thought. The nature of human freewill, as opposed to the absolute will of Allah, its role in human actions, and the problems arising from this have been a matter for intense debate between
madhabs in the history of Islamic thought. There is no doubt that the practices of the rulers at the time, along with some outside influences, also had an impact on the emergence of this debate, which is considered based on Halku afʿali'l-ʿibad. Such factors prepared the grounds for the emergence of the Qadariyyah and Jabriyyah sects, which can be considered as ifrad and tafrid. The Qadariyyah sect maintained that humans should be free in order for them to be held responsible for their deeds, and therefore humans themselves create their own deeds. In contrast, the Jabriyyah sect claimed that human will and power should be understood in a metaphorical sense, unlike God's absolute will. Moreover, by saying that no action can truly be attributed to man, it envisioned man as a being with no willpower at all. The Qadariyyah sect argued that in order to be held responsible for his actions, man must be free and must be able to create his own actions, whereas Jabriyyah viewed the will and power of man, as opposed to God's absolute will, in a metaphorical sense. Being considered as representatives of Ahl al-Sunna, the Ashʿarīyyah and Māturīdīyyah schools, although having different views regarding details, tried to adopt a moderate path by offering the idea that it is only Allah who has the power to create and that kasb belongs to His servants. This critical issue is one of the basic issues of kalām, and many works have been composed to address it. One of those interested in this issue is ʿAbd alHamīd Hamdī al-Harputi, a scholar who lived in the late Ottoman Period. ʿAbd al-Hamīd Hamdī al-Harputi addressed the issue of human actions in his work entitled al-Simṭ al-ʿabqarī fī sharḥ al-ʿiqd al-jawharī fī l-farq bayna kasbay al-Māturīdī wa-l-Ashʿarī (Fabulous pearls, composed as a commentary on al-ʿIqd al-jawharī, written about the difference between the theory of kasb in Māturīdīyyah and Ashʿarīyyah). This work is the commentary of Risalat al-ʿIqd jawhari by Khālid al-Baghdādī, one of the sufis of the Naqshbandi sect (d. 1242/1827). In the present study, only the opinions of ʿAbd al-Hamīd Hamdī al-Harputi provided in the afore-mentioned work were addressed while the those of Khālid al-Baghdādī, the author of the work, were not discussed. The work also includes many Kalāmi issues related to human deeds. However, only the views that are directly related to human deeds were addressed in the present study. ʿAbd al-Hamīd Hamdī al-Harputi discussed the issues by adhering to the main text in his commentary, yet he did not refrain from expressing his disagreement with the author of the text and from criticizing him whenever needed. He noted that al-Ghazālī’s accusations (d. 505/1111) against Islamic philosophers are unfair because these hilosophers adhere to a monotheistic belief, and they maintain their belief that the creator of all deeds is Allah Taʿala Himself. However, alHarputi stated that these cholars adopted a deterministic approach which resulted from their devotion to the theory of reason, thereby noting that he did not agree with al-Ghazālī’s
riticisms about them.
Being a member of the Māturīdī madhab, ʿAbd al-Hamīd Hamdī al-Harputi
sometimes criticized Ashʿarī views while highlighting his Māturīdī views; this
presents the evidence that he was influenced by the representation of his madhab.
In his work, it is possible to come across conflicts regarding the information he
provided when comparing the views of Ashʿarīyyah and Māturīdīyyah on the
issue, and he failed to present a coherent theory of kasb in Ashʿarīsm in plain
words. Moreover, it can be said ʿAbd al-Hamīd Hamdī al-Harputi repeated
himself as he failed to get rid of the influence of the literature on the issue, and he was rather hesitant to say something new. In conclusion, noting that the Jabriyyah represented the ifrad while the Muʿtazila represented the tafrid side in the issue of human deeds, ʿAbd al-Hamīd Hamdī al-Harputi evaluated the
shʿarī and Māturīdī understanding as sects representing the center line. He considered it as a correct attitude for these schools to take a middle path between jabr and tafwid in terms of human deeds. Although he sometimes criticized the views of Ashʿarīsm, he described the Ashʿarī and Māturīdī madhabs as the extensions of the Salafist tradition in this issue
