According to the law of causality, every effect is in need of a cause. When a perfect cause exists the effect will necessarily come into being. This law is apparently in contradiction with free will we find in ourselves intuitively. This is because based on this law, the preference of doing an action over not doing it is an act in its own right, needing thus a cause with the existence of which preference is possible. Thus free will does not have a sound meaning, for the application of free will is also bound to the existence of its cause. In other words, a voluntary deed like eating food is one that definitely comes into being when its perfect cause is available. It will not however come into being when its perfect cause is not available. Thus there is no room for free will and the choice a free agent makes. That is to say one cannot equalize between eating food and not eating food and eating when willing and not eating when not willing. If it said that it is a necessary truth that a voluntary deed is caused by its perfect cause, but free will is a part of perfect cause, we can ask again: what is the cause of free will? When this cause is available then the preference will be necessary. To solve this problem, many solutions are put forth, among which are imposing restrictions on law of causality, finding a cause like intense desire for preference, etc. None of these solutions is correct. The correct answer to this problem is to say that one can inherently prefer doing something over no doing it. This preference is not in need of an independent cause. Thus the issue under discussion is beyond the domain of the law of causality. As a result, Allah causes free will and free will causes preference without needing any further cause.
)