Is Cause and Effect real?

 I was rather surprised when I found out that the vast majority of our Sunni scholar over the last thousand years have believed that there is no cause and effect in the universe, which meant that everything we do is determined and there is no free will. At face value, this seems to be absurd and totally non-sensical because when I throw a glass on the floor, it breaks; which means I broke it right? Right? Well, many orthodox Sunni scholars, those belonging to the theological schools of Al-Ashari and Al-Maturidi, would disagree and might even accuse me of heresy. For them, an intermediary in whatever occurs would undermine the Omnipotence of God. Contrary to the denial of causality by the Asharis and Maturidis; the philosophers of Islam, those associated with the Avicennian school of theology, could not deny causality as a fundamental principle that governed the universe. As I dug deeper into this debate between our theologians and philosphers; it could not be denied that both, the theologians and philosphers, inferred their understanding of causality from the Quran itself. Both had strong arguments and one's own personal inclination makes one choose either of the two. For ease, I will highlight the point of view of the theologians by Al-Ghazali and, the point of view of the philosphers by Ibn Rushd. 
For Al-Ghazali, an Ashari theologian, accepting causality would mean that the absolute Omnipotence of God would be compromised. He postulated what came in the West to be known as Occasionalism. Occasionalism means that all events that occur in the world are caused by God. So, God is directly involved in the world in every moment. I want you, to whoever is reading this, to think for a moment that if you throw a glass on the floor, it is not you who would cause its breaking but, it would be God who would cause it to break. No matter how absurd this may sound to us folks who have been nurtured on Newtonian physics, the Ashari and Maturidi theologians had good reasons to deny causality the way we understand it. Al Ghazali argues that if  God says that, "He is over all things (Shay'in) competent", then there is no way that any event in the world can occur without God's will. According to Al-Ghazali, God creates everything at every moment; which also helped the Ashari theologians to fit miracles into their rational conceptualization of  the universe. To support this argument, Al-Ghazali argued in his Tahafut-al-Falasifah as follows: "The philosophers, however, deny this possibility and claim that that is impossible. We shall choose one single example, namely the burning of cotton through contact with fire; for we regard it as possible that the contact might occur without the burning taking place, and also that the cotton might be changed into ashes without any contact with fire although the philosophers deny this possibility." For Al-Ghazali, it was absolutely possible for God to have the cotton unaffected by the fire or for a knife to not cut; demonstrating the ability of God to do whatever He Willed. Witnessing such an event would obviously seem to us like a miracle which is exactly what the Ashari theologians were trying to prove rationally. As I was grasped by this concept, I decided to look at the verses of the Quran which might imply a denial of causality and what I came across was absolutely awe-inspiring. God says, in the context of the battle of Badr, "It is not ye who slew them; it was God: when thou threwest (a handful of dust), it was not thy act, but God’s” (8:17). Another verse addressing the event of Prophet Abraham's life is crucial, “O Fire! Be thou cool, and (a means of) safety for Abraham!” (21:68-69). For me, this had me inclined towards the Ashari conceptualization of the universe and I couldn't help but agree with what Al-Ghazali was arguing for. Another verse that highlights the denial of causality is, "It is He Who sendeth down rain from the skies” (6:99). It is not the water cycle that causes rain, but in reality, it is God who causes rain. Having read all these arguments and verses, I could not help but reevaluate my whole life and blame every thing that happened on God's Will. This would have helped me to shamelessly free myself of any responsibility and label whatever that had happened in my life as God's Will. All those bittersweet moments, moments where had I acted differently; things would have been different, made sense to me because, after all, it was all God's plan. But, this still did not put my heart at ease and I could not help but think of the verse where God said, "Allah will not change the condition of a people until they change what is in themselves" (13:11). This verse not only gives us some authority but also persuades us to take action. Consequently, I studied the arguments postulated by the philosophers who were pro-causality.
Ibn Rushd wrote a critique of Al-Ghazali's work called Tahafut-at-Tahafut in which he addressed the Ashari conceptualization of causality. He argues, "To deny the existence of efficient causes which are observed in sensible things is sophistry." The Muslim philosophers never denied the reality of God as the Ultimate Cause of all things, nor did they ever deny the possibility of miracles, as often alleged by their opponents. But as men of science, they emphasized the importance of immediate and secondary causes, without, however, forgetting their divine origin. Their doctrine of a vertical causal chain, beginning with physical causes and ending up finally with the Necessary Being (God) as the First or Ultimate Cause, appears to its opponents as compromising or undermining the idea of God as absolute determination and freedom. As I read the Quranic verses that the Philosophers used to arrive at their understanding, it was hard to deny their evidences too. God says, “By the (winds) that scatter broadcast; and those that lift and bear away heavy weights; and those that flow with ease and gentleness; and those that distribute and apportion by command” (51:1-4). Here it seems that the winds have been given authority by God to perform certain tasks. This, however, does not mean that God is not the Ultimate Cause. The very verse about Prophet Abraham that the theologians used, could also support the philosopher's argument. “O Fire! Be thou cool, and (a means of) safety for Abraham!” (21:68-69).  If indeed fire is not a burning agent, then God would not have commanded the fire to cool! The philosophers could have argued that the fire was inherently hot which is why God commanded it to be cool. The problem, however, with the philosphers was that they could not rationally prove miracles. This was problematic for me because miracles are an integral part of our faith. The Quran itself is the greatest miracle about which the philosophers had a warped understanding.
Personally, it is hard to deny causality or Free Will because of our everyday experience. It is clear that we choose to do certain things and leave others. While the theologian's perspective freed me of responsibility and sorrow of what had occurred, the philosopher's understanding led me to again feel sad about how I could have done certain things differently in my past. The former helped me to be more dependent on God while the latter accused me of being inadequate in my course of actions. I will conclude with a statement of Imam Ali which probably sums up this whole debate. When asked whether we were determined or possessed free will, Imam Ali asked the questioner to lift his left leg. Upon doing so, Imam Ali asked him to lift his right leg without putting down the left one. The questioner admitted his incapability of doing so upon which Imam Ali said,
"Between the Two".