The problem of evil and suffering — Islam

What the specification asks for

Paper 1, Section 1, 1.7 (Islam). Assessed on AO1 (knowledge and understanding) and AO2 (analysis and evaluation), weighted equally. Incandio is aligned to this specification. It is not published by, endorsed by or affiliated with Pearson, and it reproduces none of Pearson's indicative content — the point numbers are given so you can check every unit against your own copy.

1 · Understand it

A child dies of something nobody chose and nobody could have prevented. No human being is to blame for it, so no answer about human freedom will help. This is the version of the problem that breaks most attempts at it, and it is worth noticing early that Islam's answer was built to reach exactly this case — and that reaching it costs something the tradition does not usually advertise.

What it means

Islam faces the problem in its sharpest form, and that is a point in its favour rather than a weakness to be hidden. It holds God to be all-powerful, all-knowing and merciful without qualification. There is no version of Islam that quietly reduces one of those to make the arithmetic work.

Its central answer is that this life is a test. The Qur'an names what people are tried with — fear, hunger, and loss of wealth, of life, and of crops — and holds that the results are settled in the akhirah, the afterlife. Suffering, on this account, can be a trial, a consequence of what people have done, or a purification.

Two distinctions do the technical work. Moral evil is suffering caused by human choices, which people are accountable for. Natural evil is suffering with nothing anybody chose behind it — earthquake, disease, flood. Keeping them apart is what lets you see which answers reach which cases.

The response Islam commends is sabr — patient endurance — and it is a virtue in its own right rather than a coping strategy. And all of it sits inside al-Qadr: suffering is not outside God's knowledge or will, which is precisely why it needs an answer at all.

Why believers hold it

The test framing does something the free-will defence cannot, and this is the most useful comparison available on the unit. A defence built on human freedom explains cruelty, because cruelty is chosen. It cannot explain an earthquake, because nobody chose it. A trial does not need a culprit — so the Islamic framing reaches natural evil, and the Qur'an names loss of crops and of life among the things people are tried with.

The scale objection — that there is simply too much of it — is met by the akhirah. If the afterlife is real and permanent, then a lifetime of suffering is finite against what follows. That is the tradition's own way of putting the weight into proportion, and it only works if the afterlife claim is doing real work rather than being mentioned.

Now the cost, because the strongest answer is the one with the most to lose. Making this life a test makes it instrumental: its value lies in what it leads to. A learner who notices that the most complete theodicy on this specification is also the one that says least about the worth of this life for its own sake has found something genuinely worth arguing about — and can argue it in either direction.

Where it comes from

• The Qur'an — Qur'an 3:185 (with 75:1–4) (translated)

  Every soul shall taste death ... and only then will you be paid your full recompense.

  Death is certain and judgement follows it. Akhirah — the afterlife — with Barzakh, the Day of Judgement, and Jannah or Jahannam.

  What it is doing here: Carries the whole answer in one line — the recompense is paid after death, which is what makes a finite trial intelligible rather than merely endured.

• The Qur'an — Qur'an 5:32 (translated)

  Whoever saves one life, it is as if he had saved all mankind.

  The sanctity of a single human life, made equivalent to the whole of humanity. The foundation of Muslim teaching on the value of life.

  What it is doing here: Sets the value of a single life at its highest, which is what stops the test framing sliding into indifference about suffering here and now.

• The Qur'an — Qur'an 9:60 (translated)

  Alms are for the poor and the needy, and those employed to administer them.

  The Qur'anic basis of zakat, naming the categories of people entitled to receive it. Zakat is an obligation, not a donation.

  What it is doing here: Zakat is where the answer becomes action — use it to show that sabr is not passivity, because relieving suffering is a religious obligation and not an optional kindness.

• The Qur'an — Qur'an 42:40 (with 42:43) (translated)

  The recompense for an injury is an injury equal to it; but whoever forgives ... his reward is with Allah.

  Justice permits proportionate retaliation, and forgiveness is explicitly the higher path. Both are held in one verse.

  What it is doing here: Useful on moral evil specifically: it permits a just response to injury and rates forgiveness higher, which is the tradition's position on what a wronged person should do.

Where it bites

It shapes how a Muslim responds to loss. The words said on hearing of a death — to God we belong and to him we return — frame grief inside the test rather than outside it. That is a practice you can name, and naming it develops the point in a way that restating the doctrine does not.

And it shapes action, which is where most answers go wrong. Sabr does not mean passivity: seeking medical treatment, giving zakat and working against injustice are how the test is answered, not distractions from it. A tradition that thought suffering should simply be accepted would not have made relief of the poor one of its five pillars.

What people get wrong

People think: Murder and theft are examples of natural evil.

Actually: They are moral evil — somebody chose them. Natural evil is suffering with no human choice behind it: earthquake, disease, flood. This exact mistake is named in an examiner report, and it is expensive because the whole answer depends on the distinction.

People think: Suffering is God punishing that particular person.

Actually: The tradition rejects that reading. Suffering may be a trial or a purification, and treating an individual's misfortune as their individual punishment is a position Islam argues against rather than one it teaches.

People think: Sabr means accepting suffering and not intervening.

Actually: It means patient endurance while acting. Medical treatment is a duty, zakat is a pillar, and working against injustice is commended. Patience and effort are not alternatives here.

What the examiner expects you to understand

• Separate moral and natural evil explicitly and use the right examples for each — this is the single commonest accuracy failure on the unit.
• Show that the test framing reaches natural evil where a free-will answer cannot. That comparison is doing analysis rather than description, which is what the higher bands are for.
• An argument about suffering with no religious content is capped at the bottom band however forceful it is. The marks here are for religious reasoning.
• Naming a practice — the words said on hearing of a death, zakat, seeking treatment — turns the belief into a developed point.
• For the twelve-mark question, the honest hinge is whether later compensation answers cruelty or only answers unfairness. You can conclude either way, and the strongest answers concede what the other side has before deciding.

2 · Grade 9 Notes

Core belief / issue

Islam faces the problem of evil in its sharpest form, because it holds Allah to be all-powerful, all-knowing and merciful without qualification. Its answer is that this life is a test — a short examination whose results are settled in the akhirah — and that suffering can be trial, consequence or purification. The strength of the answer is that it does not have to make suffering good; the weakness is that later compensation addresses fairness without addressing cruelty.

Key terminology

Incandio's mark schemes credit the religion's own vocabulary; spelling variants are accepted, a vague paraphrase is not.

Akhirah (also akhira)

The afterlife, where the accounts are settled and justice is completed.

Test

The Qur'anic framing of this life: people are tried with fear, hunger and loss of wealth, life and fruits.

Sabr

Patient endurance — the response Islam commends to suffering, and a virtue in its own right.

Al-Qadr

Allah's decree, within which suffering falls; it is not outside his knowledge or will.

Moral evil

Suffering caused by human choices, for which humans are accountable.

Natural evil

Suffering with no human choice behind it — earthquake, disease, flood.

What Islam teaches

• shared — This life is a test, and how a person responds to hardship is part of what is being tested.
• shared — Justice is completed in the akhirah. Nothing goes unaccounted for, which is why apparent unfairness in this life is not the last word.
• shared — Much suffering is caused by human beings misusing their freedom, and they are accountable for it.
• shared — Sabr — patient endurance — is the commended response, and it is paired with action: seeking treatment, helping others, and working against injustice are all religious duties.

Why it teaches this

The test framing does something the free-will defence cannot: it covers natural evil. An earthquake is not caused by anyone's choice, but it can still be a trial, and the Qur'an names loss of wealth, life and crops as things people are tried with. And because Islam holds the akhirah to be real and permanent, the test's brevity matters — a lifetime of suffering is finite against what follows, which is the tradition's own way of putting the scale objection into proportion.

Sources of authority

• The Qur'an — Qur'an 3:185 (with 75:1–4) (translated)

  Every soul shall taste death ... and only then will you be paid your full recompense.

  Death is certain and judgement follows it. Akhirah — the afterlife — with Barzakh, the Day of Judgement, and Jannah or Jahannam.

  How to use it: Because reward and punishment come after death, this life is a test rather than an end in itself — which is why Muslim answers about suffering and about the purpose of life run through akhirah.

  What it does not settle: Resurrection in Islam is BODILY. Writing about reincarnation here is the confusion the 2021 report records.

• The Qur'an — Qur'an 5:32 (translated)

  Whoever saves one life, it is as if he had saved all mankind.

  The sanctity of a single human life, made equivalent to the whole of humanity. The foundation of Muslim teaching on the value of life.

  How to use it: Because one life stands for all, the argument does not weaken as the number of people shrinks — which is why it applies to abortion and euthanasia as strongly as to war.

  What it does not settle: It does not settle when life begins. Muslim scholars differ on abortion, particularly before 120 days, and citing this verse as settling it is inaccurate.

• The Qur'an — Qur'an 9:60 (translated)

  Alms are for the poor and the needy, and those employed to administer them.

  The Qur'anic basis of zakat, naming the categories of people entitled to receive it. Zakat is an obligation, not a donation.

  How to use it: Because it is a duty with named recipients and a fixed rate, Islamic giving is closer to a tax than to charity — a distinction that scores well on 4.5.

  What it does not settle: Zakat is a minimum; sadaqah is voluntary giving beyond it. Confusing the two is an accuracy error.

• The Qur'an — Qur'an 42:40 (with 42:43) (translated)

  The recompense for an injury is an injury equal to it; but whoever forgives ... his reward is with Allah.

  Justice permits proportionate retaliation, and forgiveness is explicitly the higher path. Both are held in one verse.

  How to use it: It gives an Islamic answer that is neither purely retributive nor purely forgiving, which is why it is far better than citing 'an eye for an eye' alone.

  What it does not settle: Whether forgiveness should be the state's policy or the individual's choice is not settled by it.

Different interpretations

• Suffering as trial: the primary framing, covering both moral and natural evil.
• Suffering as consequence: some hardship follows from human choices, individually or collectively — which is not the same as saying an individual's suffering is their punishment.
• Suffering as purification: hardship borne with sabr removes sins, a strand in the recorded sayings that offers comfort without claiming to explain.

Differences within Islam

Sunni and Shi'a agree on the test framing, on al-Qadr, and on sabr. Shi'a devotion adds a strong emphasis on the redemptive meaning of the suffering of Husayn at Karbala, which is emphasis rather than a different doctrine.

The traditions broadly agree here. Saying so is a stronger answer than inventing a division.

Application to the issue

It shapes how a Muslim responds to loss: 'to Allah we belong and to him we return' is said on hearing of a death, which frames grief inside the test rather than outside it. And it shapes action — sabr does not mean passivity, so seeking medical treatment, giving zakat and working against injustice are how the test is answered rather than distractions from it.

Arguments supporting

• The test framing reaches natural evil, which the free-will defence does not. — The Qur'an names loss of wealth, life and crops among the things people are tried with — none of which requires a human choice. (islam)
  Answered by: Calling an earthquake a test explains its function without explaining why a merciful God chose that method.
• Justice completed in the akhirah answers the fairness objection. — Nothing goes unaccounted for, so the innocent who suffer are not simply abandoned. (islam)
  Answered by: Later compensation addresses fairness and not cruelty; being repaid does not make the injury intelligible.

Arguments challenging

• An all-powerful, merciful God would prevent suffering. — The classic problem, in the form the specification words it. (non-religious)
  Answered by: It assumes no reason could be good enough, which is a claim about all possible reasons and cannot be established.
• The scale is the problem, not the fact. — Some suffering might test character; the quantity and distribution look arbitrary. (non-religious)
  Answered by: The strongest form of the objection. The Islamic reply is that finite suffering set against an infinite akhirah is not the ratio it appears to be — which is coherent and hard to feel.

Secular / non-religious perspective

Suffering has causes and no purpose. Tectonics, pathogens and human cruelty are sufficient explanations, and an indifferent universe is exactly what we should expect to observe. The response is medicine, justice and kindness rather than reconciliation to a plan, and many hold this more honest than any theodicy — since no explanation can be offered to a bereaved parent without cruelty.

Examinable throughout Paper 1. Nothing here earns a mark on Paper 2.

Evaluation

The hinge: That the problem arises only for a God who is both able and willing to prevent suffering. Islam holds both without qualification, so it cannot escape the problem the way Buddhism and Hinduism can.

Defensible conclusions

• The test framing is the most complete theodicy on this specification because it covers natural evil, and it purchases that coverage by making this life instrumental — which is a real cost.
• Justice deferred answers fairness and not cruelty, and separating those two objections is what a Level 4 answer does here.
• The problem is a cost of holding both omnipotence and mercy without qualification, and Islam accepts the cost rather than weakening either — which is a defensible position and not a refutation.

Not defensible

• Saying Islam teaches that a person's suffering is punishment for their sin — the tradition explicitly warns against judging another's suffering that way.
• Confusing natural and moral evil, which the 2023 report records costing marks.

Exam use

• Identify · 3 marks — Three responses to suffering, or three reasons suffering makes people doubt. Keep natural and moral evil apart.
• Outline · 4 marks — Two Muslim beliefs about suffering, developed. Test and akhirah make two genuinely different points.
• Explain · 6 marks — Explain how Muslims explain the existence of suffering: the test, human misuse of freedom, al-Qadr and sabr — with what each means for how a Muslim responds.
• Evaluate · 12 marks — 'Suffering is part of the test of life.' This is a real set statement and the Islamic answer is the closest fit to it on the whole specification — which means the interesting work is in the objections.

Common mistakes

• Offering murder or theft as natural evil — named in the 2023 report.
• Presenting suffering as individual punishment, which the tradition rejects.
• Arguing about suffering with no religious content, which the grid caps at Level 1.

“Natural evil means things like murder and theft.” — Murder and theft are chosen by human beings, which makes them moral evil. Natural evil is suffering caused by the world itself, with no human decision behind it.

Write instead: Moral evil is suffering caused by human choices — murder, theft, war, cruelty. Natural evil is suffering that no one chose — earthquakes, disease, famine, flood. The line blurs in real cases: a famine may be natural in origin and moral in its distribution, and that observation is a top-band point rather than a muddle. (Named in the 2023 examiner report for Paper 1.)

“Karma is God punishing you for what you did wrong.” — Karma is a law of cause and effect, not a verdict. No one weighs the evidence and no one sentences you; the action itself conditions what follows.

Write instead: Karma is the principle that intentional action produces consequences which shape future experience. In Buddhism it turns on intention specifically. Sikh teaching holds karma alongside God's hukam and God's grace. Sikhism is the genuine middle case: karma operates, and liberation comes by God's grace rather than by accumulated merit. Saying so is a strong distinction.

Grade 9 insight

Islam's answer covers more ground than Christianity's and pays a price nobody usually names. The free-will defence cannot reach earthquakes; the test framing can, because a trial does not need a culprit. But making this life a test makes it instrumental — its value lies in what it leads to — and a learner who notices that the most complete theodicy is also the one that says least about the worth of this life has found the real cost of the strongest answer.

Carry on through Islam

• Previous unit: 1.6 · Belief, uncertainty and unbelief
• Next unit: 2.1 · Death and life after death
• The problem of evil and suffering in the other religions: Buddhism · Christianity · Hinduism · Judaism · Sikhism
• All of Islam · Incandio Religious Studies · The 4RS1 specification