There are five theories about Divine Providence (al-‘inayat العناية):

  1. Epicurus’ position: There is no providence; everything is governed by chance.
  2. Aristotle’s opinion: God’s providence extends to the realm of the heavenly spheres, but the sublunary world is subject to chance. Those things that have permanence are subject to providence; those that are transitory are not.
  3. The Ashari position: No part of the Universe is subject to chance; everything, large or small, happens by God’s will, intention and plan (irada, qasd, tadbeer بإرادة و قصد و تدبير)
  4. The Mutazilite position: Humans have free will; God’s acts follow from wisdom, and he does not afflict the good (لا يجوز عليه الجور la yajuz ‘alayh al-jawr)
  5. The Mosaic position: good and bad happens to all people according to their just deserts.

In a magisterial passage, Maimonides states

I do not consider it proper to blame the followers of any of the [last named] three theories on Providence, for they have been driven to accept them by weighty considerations

These ‘weighty considerations’ include

  • for Aristotle, “that which appears to be the nature of things”, i.e., natural philosophy
  • The Ashariyah did not want to ascribe to God ignorance of particulars
  • The Mutazilites did not want to ascribe to God injustice

He summarizes the varying theories’ explanation for good and evil in human affairs as follows:

Theory Explanation
Aristotle chance
Ashariyah Divine Will
Mu’tazila Divine Wisdom
Mosaic the merits of man

It will probably help if I gather Maimondes’ thoughts about the other systems in one place.

Epicurean position

There is no Providence at all for anything in the Universe; all parts of the Universe, the heavens and what they contain, owe their origin to accident and chance; there exists no being that rules and governs them or provides for them. This is the theory of Epicurus, who assumes also that the Universe consists of atoms, that these have combined by chance, and have received their various forms by mere accident. There have been atheists among the Israelites who have expressed the same view; it is reported of them: “They have denied the Lord, and said he is not” (Jer. 5:12). Aristotle has proved the absurdity of the theory, that the whole Universe could have originated by chance; he has shown that, on the contrary, there is a being that rules and governs the Universe

Aristotle’s position

According to Maimonides, Aristotle’s point of view

is closely connected with his theory of the Eternity, of the Universe, and with his opinion that everything different from the existing order of things in Nature is impossible. It is the belief of those who turned away from our Law, and said: “God hath forsaken the earth” (Ezekiel 9.9).

In the Aristoetlian point of view, the species of any particular organism in the sublunary part of the universe is subject to Providence and consequently has permanence, but individuals are subject to chance. There is an ‘order’ to nature that guarantees that, e.g., all the individuals of a species will have the material resources they need in order to grow and flourish; but chance dictates that sometimes, some individuals are harmed ‘randomly’; Providence does not govern individuals. We can sum this up by saying ‘God does not know particulars’.

Ashari position

According to this theory, there is nothing in the whole Universe, neither a class nor an individual being, that is due to chance; everything is the result of will, intention, and rule… each leaf falls according to the Divine decree; it is God who caused it to fall at a certain time and in a certain place; it could not have fallen before or after that time or in another place, as this has previously been decreed. The Ashariyah were therefore compelled to assume that motion and rest of living beings are predestined, and that it is not in the power of man to do a certain thing or to leave it undone. The theory further implies a denial of possibility in these things: they can only be either necessary or impossible.

The Ashari point of view contains ‘evident absurdities’; for one thing, it denies the role of causality in our world by positing God as the direct actor whenever any putatively natural act occurs. It also leads to a fatalism that denies agency to human beings by reducing all of their actions and intentions to the actions and intentions of God. It then follows that Divine commandments to humans are meaningless, since everything as pre-ordained by God anyway. Any evil in the world turns out to be a direct result of God’s actions. He completes the rather poor picture he is painting of the Ashari position by saying:

When we see a person born blind or leprous, who could not have merited a punishment for previous sins, they say, It is the will of God; when a pious worshipper is tortured and slain, it is likewise the will of God; and no injustice can be asserted to Him for that, for according to their opinion it is proper that God should afflict the innocent and do good to the sinner.

In critizing this position, Maimonides charges that “It is … possible, according to the Ashariyah, that God inflicts pain on a good and pious man in this world, and keeps him for ever in fire, which is assumed to rage in the world to come, they simply say it is the Will of God”. This was indeed the position of Ghazali, who believed that ‘justice’ is a human concept and we cannot place human-defined limits on Divine actions. No matter what happens, it is just according to God’s plkan, even if it doesn’t seem that way to us.

Mu’tazila position

Man has free will; it is therefore intelligible that the Law contains commands and prohibitions, with announcements of reward and punishment. All acts of God are due to wisdom; no injustice is found in Him, and He does not afflict the good. The Mu’tazila profess this theory, although they do not believe in man’s absolute free will. They hold also that God takes notice of the falling of the leaf and the destruction of the ant, and that His Providence extends over all things… they believe on the one hand that God knows everything, and on the other that man has free will. By a little consideration we discover the contradiction.

According to Maimonides, if a pious person were afflicted with pain in this world, “The Mu’tazilites would consider this as injustice, and therefore assume that every being, even an ant, that is stricken with pain [in this world], has compensation for it, as has been mentioned above; and it is due to God’s Wisdom that a being is struck and afflicted in order to receive compensation.”

The Mosaic position

In explicating the ‘Mosaic’ position, Maimonides tells us that the (Mosaic) Law tells us:

  • that God has decreed absolute free will for us: “ it is due to the eternal divine will that all living beings should move freely, and that man should have power to act according to his will or choice within the limits of his capacity”
  • Because “all his ways are judgement” (Deut.32.4), any evil that comes to humans arises ultimately from our own actions and does not originate from God. All good that comes to us is a reward, and all evil that befalls us is a punishment.
  • that reward for good and punishment for evil extends to everyone, even if no Prophet had enjoined that particular good or forbidden that particular evil; “he who does a good thing without being commanded, receives nevertheless his reward”.
  • Sometimes, bad things seem to happen for no reason; these are ‘afflictions of love’; “According to this doctrine it is possible that a person be afflicted without having previously committed any sin, in order that his future reward may be increased”. (this is the Mu’tazila position)
  • Providence does not extend to irrational beings; there is no concept of reward or punishment for them.

Maimonides’ own position (?)

My opinion on this principle of Divine Providence I will now explain to you. In the principle which I now proceed to expound I do not rely on demonstrative proof, but on my conception of the spirit of the Divine Law, and the writings of the Prophets. The principle which I accept is far less open to objections, and is more reasonable than the opinions mentioned before.

In the sublunary world, Divine Providence does not extend to individual members of a species, just to the genera … except for humans; mankind is the only species for which there is Divine Providence for every single individual.

I do not believe that it is through the interference of Divine Providence that a certain leaf drops [from a tree], nor do I hold that when a certain spider catches a certain fly, that this is the direct result of a special decree and will of God in that moment; it is not by a particular Divine decree that the spittle of a certain person moved, fell on a certain gnat in a certain place, and killed it; nor is it by the direct will of God that a certain fish catches and swallows a certain worm on the surface of the water. In all these cases the action is, according to my opinion, entirely due to chance, as taught by Aristotle

Why are humans special? Because “Divine Providence is connected with Divine intellectual influence”, and because humans are made in the image of God and with a divine intellect, they also receive Providence, what in commong English we have come to call ‘karma’.

It may be by mere chance that a ship goes down with all her contents … or the roof of a house falls upon those within; but it is not due to chance, according to our view, that in the one instance the men went into the ship, or remained in the house in the other instance: it is due to the will of God, and is in accordance with the justice of His judgments, the method of which our mind is incapable of understanding.