Theologians of Monotheistic religions have been interested in the issue of evil and suffering, or “theodicy” as it is more often referred to, for over millennia, and for good reason, because it brings into question the fundamental pillar of religion: How can a powerful, just and perfect God allow evil and suffering in a world which He says He has created in perfect balance, with a purpose, and for the well-being of His servants? The underlying assumption that a good God should not let evil and suffering coexist may be true with some Judeo-Christian view of God, but is an unthinkable disregard to God`s omnipotence, omniscience and benevolence in Muslims’ understanding. Thus, the objective of theodicy in Islamic thought is not to question God’s existence or His power, justice and wisdom, but rather to help man navigate through the existing imperfect world with practical guiding principles to overcome some of the challenges of evil and suffering. This paper will argue that human and animal suffering in this world is compatible to belief in a compassionate God, destiny and free will. 

Does the human understanding of “good” and “evil” concurs with that of the divine message? Human beings generally assume “good” as something beneficial in terms of immediate pleasure, neglecting any long-term effects , but the Qur’an points out that people are often mistaken in their judgement about “good” (khayr) and “evil” (sharr) . Usually, “when we suffer a loss, that is evil for us and when we receive a benefit, that is good for us. Typically, your loss is someone else’s gain. What is evil for you is good for someone else, and vice versa. What appears evil today, may turn out to have been good in the long run.”  The context of which these terms are used in the Qur’an does not imply right and wrong, rather the benefit or loss that something brings . For example, sharr is presented in the Qur’an in two distinct sets of narratives. 

The first set suggests that sharr is the situation that man creates for himself. The Qur’an states that the creation of the universe, and by extension, of mankind - is purposeful, not in vain . Man, therefore, must strive to live his life according to God’s cosmic plan. When man, through his own volition, acts against his own innate nature, he creates an undesirable living condition for himself, and that is sharr. 

The second set suggests the presence of evil and suffering in this world is not a “problem”, rather an instrument in the actualization of God’s purpose.  These narratives overwhelmingly illustrate that various forms of evil and suffering serve as a test, warning and deterrence for man in this life . Testing requires that man be exposed to a variety of life situations and experiences, good and evil.  People may suffer as a test while others may suffer from past, present or future sins just to secure them from their erroneous choices which may otherwise make their present or future life miserable. Therefore, there is no contradiction between the divine attributes of a compassionate God and the fact that evil and suffering exist in this world . 

One of the earliest debates in Islamic theology and at the core of Mu’tazilites-Ash’arites split was on how to reconcile God’s omnipotence, destiny and the notion of human free-will, the broader framework with which evil and suffering was enclosed. 

The Mu’tazilites, also known as the rationalists, opposed the idea that God creates human acts that include evil because of His attribute of justice.  They saw evil as the direct result of man’s free-will . This view does not account for the “unmerited” suffering due to illnesses and natural disasters or suffering of animals and children. If God wills for illnesses and natural disasters or suffering of children and animals, how can He be just? The Mu’tazilites justified the “unmerited” suffering as serving a higher purpose in the creational cosmic plan.  This point can be demonstrated by the Qur’anic story of Prophet Musa and Khidr . 

The Ash‘arites uphold God’s exclusive power, unfettered will, metaphysical self-sufficiency. God originates all creations, His and those of humans  and He is subject to no external constraint. He creates all things - good and evil - without deliberation, cause, or rational motive.  “The creation of evil is not evil but the action of evil is evil.”  On the question of destiny and free-will, the fact that God has prewritten everyone’s destiny doesn’t contradict with the ability of people to exercise their free-will in their actions and to be accountable for them. “Knowledge depends on the evident but evident does not depend on knowledge.”  Ash’arites also argued that we cannot apply the same idea of justice to God as applied to humans because it will put a limit to the all-powerful all-knowing Creator. God is just in whatever He does, He is just due to His perfection - a trait that requires Him to act justly. God’s will also require no reason or purpose.  For the Ash‘arites, God’s creation of evils such as unbelief and injustice are susceptible to no explanation except that God wills them. In fact, all that God wills is just and fair including all harm encountered by man, simply by virtue of the fact that God wills it. 

Since both schools base their assertions on God’s attribute of justice, by observing evil and suffering in this world without considering the final outcome in the hereafter may distort human view of what is just. God’s justice, however, will prevail in the hereafter where all those who have served God or who have suffered as the result of moral or natural evil are generously rewarded and admitted into the eternal paradise satisfied; and all those who disobeyed God or who perpetrated crimes and got away in the worldly courts are punished and admitted into the eternal hellfire. 

Theodicy brought the fundamental question whether this world in which we live is the best that God could have created. From a moral perspective, the world is imperfect because there is evil and injustice that cause suffering. Mulla Sadra objected the Mu’tazali position of putting limits on God’s power and the Ash’ari position of collapsing the world-order into arbitrary will of God “devoid of any wisdom”.   The “best of all possible world” argument that was originally put forward by Abu Hamid Al-Ghazali  was reformulated by Mulla Sadra to enabled viewing evil and suffering as the “accidental” outcomes of the world of “contingencies” in which we live.  The weaknesses and frailties of human beings contribute to the creation and exacerbation of evil and suffering in the world, therefore, it’s only reasonable to take a “situational” position and attribute evil and suffering to ourselves rather than to the divine. In fact, this is what the Qur’an holds vis-a?-vis evil and man’s accountability . 

Sadra argued that God acts not only freely but also optimally, and that comes from His essence rather than His will.  God acts wisely and optimally by the way of necessity, and since God is the most perfect being, what emanates from Him also has a degree of perfection. God is also free from any material limitation to which other free beings are subject, therefore, His acts are not inhibited by any constraint, external or internal, in creating what is the best.  

We may reasonably argue that evil is part of the divine providence of creation and it is necessary. In a moral sense, evil is part of divine providence because it is what we are tested with . Without evil, there will be no free-will and thus no accountability. In an ontological sense, it is a necessity because the world is by definition imperfect, the ultimate perfection belonging to God only. Thus, evil as imperfection, is what separates between the divine and the non-divine. Ultimately, all is from God . This implies that evil as the “contrastive” manifestation of the good, ceases to be evil and instead contributes to the “greater good”.  In a rather paradoxical way, one cannot object to the existence of evil itself because it is what makes the world possible. The world has been created is such a way to contain coercion, destruction and contradiction. The world-order in which we live cannot be free of changes and transformation. This can be construed as imperfection, but a necessary component of the way the world is. “To speak of the world and then to demand absolute perfection is, for Sadra, not logical”  Since it is impossible that fire be fire and not burn, therefore, fire cannot be found in such a way that it leads to no evil. Same pertains to the world.

The notion of evil as both necessity and contingent has important implications for how we look at the world. From a spiritual perspective, the acceptance of evil as a transient yet necessary phenomenon, prevents us from being agitated in the face of all that is imperfect.  It gives us a sense of moral security against the assault of evil, which must be fought with a firm belief in the ultimate supremacy of the good. It also enables us to see the world as it is and for what it is and strive to make it a better place. This also underscores the relative nature of evil. Evil acts are evil only in relation to the moral requirement that they should be avoided, but they are not evil by themselves.  Sadra gave two reasons why these acts in and of themselves are not evil. First, they serve other purposes for the material welfare of human beings; second, all acts of obedience and disobedience are matters of being, and being cannot be devoid of degree of goodness.  Something that appears evil to us may not be necessarily evil and vice versa when everything is placed within a larger context. The Qur’an says the same thing. 

Keeping with the hierarchical view of the cosmos, Sadra observed lesser beings and lesser causes serve higher beings and higher purposes. For example, plants have been made a nourishment for animals and a support for the animal’s subsistence. Animals have also been made a nourishment for humans and a support for human’s subsistence. The same rule applies to the subordination of certain animals to others, and why the eating up of some animals by others is not evil in and of itself but rather serves the higher purpose – preservation of the animal species and a host of other benefits. In the same manner, the closer a being is to “pure goodness”, the more beingly it becomes, and this enables it to have a bigger share in goodness. A plant has more being and thus more goodness than a stone because plants contain more life and complexity, and therefore, they benefit other beings in the cosmos.  Since “pure goodness” belongs to God only, all contingent beings contain a degree of goodness in proportion to their proximity to God but cannot claim to be on a par with the source. In other words, the world has to be less than God to be what it is. 

The world in which we live is one of the “potentialities” that the divine has brought into “actuality.” In this sense, the world is pure “contingent” and hung between “existence” and “non-existence.” It is perfect because actuality implies abundance and perfection whereas potentiality is privation and non-existence. Since the world has been created with care, order, and beauty, which the Qur’an invites its readers to contemplate at as God’s signs, it follows that evil is a phenomenon of this world, but not something that defines the essential nature of things. Moral and natural evil are then interpreted in light of the metaphysical sense of evil as “privation” and “non-existence”.  To give practical examples, sickness is the absence of health, blindness is the absence of sight, falsehood is the absence of truth, injustice is the absence of justice, etc. Things are known only by their opposites - illness is necessary to enjoy health, sadness is necessary to enjoy happiness, likewise, hell is necessary so that those in paradise realize their blessedness. God in his wisdom combines harmful and beneficial things as a tool to lead human beings to knowledge of God’s unity.  

Al-Ghazali’s theodicy is encapsulated in his famous maxim: “There is not in possibility anything more wonderful than what is”  as elaborated in his famous work, The Revival of Religious Sciences, in which he argues everything that God distributes among men such as sustenance, life span, happiness and sadness, weakness and power, faith and disbelief, is just and true otherwise would contradict with God’s generosity, divine justice, and the nature of His divinity. Thus, Al-Ghazali’s theodicy thoughts are established on a strong relationship between man and God and the need to reach an elevated level of trust in God (tawwakul) in the face of the world’s imperfections, adversities, and suffering without going into despair . Evil and suffering become issues to be dealt with in righteousness, rather than an argument against God’s existence or against His wisdom and justice.  

Rumi’s theodicy on the other hand, is formulated on the idea that the most important phase in man’s spiritual development is to get to know one’s self and to recognize that he has been separated from his original source.  This separation is the primary cause for human’s unhappiness and misfortune in this life, because man tends to forget his divine origin and occupies himself with the worldly attainments. In order to awaken himself from the state of negligence and forgetfulness, man will be faced with adversities and sufferings. Therefore, trials and tribulations in this life are necessary as they assist man in self-purification to freeing him from material attachments and the inclinations of his ego.  When a person is faced with any hardship, his attitude and response towards his condition are of primary importance. The person whose goal in life is to satisfy the inclinations of his animal self will complain and bring to question the wisdom and justice of God, but a person whose goal is to purify the self and to climb the spiritual ladder, will find a deeper meaning in learning the lessons hidden within this experience. 

Nursi’s approach is to connect theodicy and the divine names of God. According to him, God’s names of beauty and glory together in unity formed a “divine mosaic” pointing to the Creator. God always intervenes in keeping with God’s own nature and since God’s nature is understood to be beautiful, all of God’s works, therefore, are also beautiful. He addresses the problem of evil in this context – even things that appear to be ugly, are actually beautiful underneath because they come from the most beautiful God.  The Qur’an also confirms that everything in essence is beautiful , and if they are not appearing beautiful in essence, they are beautiful consequentially. It means, under the veil of their ugliness hides shining beauty and harmony. For example, hidden in the torrents of spring storms are smiling faces of summer flowers. Man is sometimes too quick to cast judgement on the apparent evil and usually judges from the angle that concerns him only. Nursi developed a unique existential theodicy that offers comfort to those inflicted with calamities by establishing a relationship between “sharr” and “worship”.  He introduced a new theological concept that he called “passive worship” consisting of illnesses, suffering and calamities in contrast to “active worship” that consists of the normal religious rituals such as daily prayers, supplications, fasting and God’s remembrance.  Passive forms of worship make man realize his impotence and weakness, and thus, with this awareness, he shall naturally take refuge in God. 

Islamic theodicy advocates optimism by relativizing evil and subsuming it under divine providence of creation - a contrastive and necessary component of a larger good built into the present world order. This religious optimism does not deny the existence of evil and suffering in the world, but rather takes the world as it is and constructs a system of morality and spirituality by which we can make sense of it and are able to pursue peace, justice, happiness and spiritual growth. This is precisely why Islam claims to be a guide for leading humans an ethical and virtuous life. The reason why human souls are found in this world in which there is evil and suffering is primarily the testing with these worldly misfortunes that have surrounded them because of sin and disobedience. The arguments presented here to support the motion are only examples of the subtleties of God’s providence and generosity for His creatures that are manifest. The question still remains a mystery to the human mind and no one can covet the knowledge of the subtleties and mysteries of God’s generosity and mercy. In His words, that “of knowledge you have been given but little”