One of the most controversial issues for the followers of great religions has been the scope of man’s determinism and choice with regard to the will of God, the creator of the universe. The Islamic sects of Mu‘tazilites, Zeydies, Ismailites, Imamites, MATURIDITES, Asha‘rites, and Jabrites have assumed the most and the least amount of determinism for mans respectively.In the light of Hakim Sanayi of Ghazna poems, this paper attempts to show that despite common beliefs, his ideas are in line with MATURIDITES and Imamites Shi‘ism and very much different from those of Ash‘arites and Mu‘tazilites.

There are different views among the Muslim scholars on the authority of consensus in doctrinal issues: All Asha’irites accept the validity of consensus in doctrinal matters, although some of them believe in some limitations in this matter. Mu’tazelites, except for Nazzam, believe that consensus is a prove in the doctrinal issues and it can be referred to in such matters but Nazza does not give any value to consensus, not in the rules of law nor in doctrinal issues. MATURIDITES believe in the validity of consensus on the condition that it is supported by the Qur’an and the Islamic traditions; so according to them the consensus which is not supported by the two mentioned sources, not only in not valid but is a cause of the deviation of the community. There are some groups among Imamites- like Akhbarites- who do not believe in the validity of consensus, not in jurisprudential laws nor in theological issues. But the scholars of the principles of jurisprudence believe in the validity of the consensus that reveals the verdict of the infallible Imam. Two general views can be obtained from their words. First: the majority of the ancient and resent scholars believe in the validity of consensus both in jurisprudential laws and all doctrinal issues unless in the matters that the authority of consensus itself is based on them, like the existence of God or the prophethood. second: majority of the scholars of the recent countries – particularly fallowing the time of Sheikh al-Ansari, Have believed in the validity of consensus only in the jurisprudential laws and in other than these, they do not believe that it is a revealer of the verdict of the infallible because they believe that it is just the task of the Imam and his duty to express the jurisprudential laws and religious verdicts.

One of the important principles in theology and Islamic studies is the intellectuality or religiosity of goodness and evil. It is based on this principle that the following questions can be answered: Does the goodness and praiseworthiness of good deeds such as saving the innocent emanate from their nature? Would the killing of innocent people be considered as a good deed, if God ordered people to do so? Does God follow the natural criteria of goodness and badness or is it that whatever he does is good? For example if God punishes a child in the dooms day, can this be viewed as an evil deed? Is it the case that God transcends the ordinary human values so that none of His deeds could be considered as evil? Will those who never heard prophetic messages be punished based on innate criteria? Are people obliged to know God even before accepting religion? Is it the case that whatever is called ethical and humane is also religious? The Mo’tazelites, the Shiites and the Matoridites believe in the innateness of goodness and evil, while the Ash’arites believe in their religiosity. The present article explores Rumi’s views in his Fihe Ma Fih and Mathnavi. The claim is that his position is not consistent with the Ash’arites views and that it is more consistent with Hanafi- Matridites, Mo’tazelites and Shiites.