Taqdir versus qadar in Utrecht, 1619

In the study of Islamic theology the concept of God's absolute will and power is important. It is often simplified as if Muslims confess predestination: all human actions are already from eternity fixed by God's will, taqdir. Some theological schools, however, were seen as 'liberal' giving more place to human will and planning, like the Maturidi, Mu'tazila, who thought that human responsibility (and divine reward or punishment) is only possible when human freedom is recognised, man as master of his own action, qadar.
Yesterday I saw a new book on a similar debate in the Netherlands, exactly 400 years ago, in 1619, at the Protestant Synod of Dordt or Dordrecht. This church council opted for taqdir: humans cannot do anything good unless decided and steered by divine taqdir.
This year there is much debate about this event, related also to the 'President' (or high administrator) of the Duch Republic, Johan van Oldenbarnevelt, who was executed because he opposed the feudal warlord Prince Maurits of Orange. In the theological debate it was Protestant minister Arminius who defended free will or qadar, while Prince Maurits took the side of the theologian Gomarus and the people of taqdir.
But it was not only a theological debate, it was also a struggle for political power. Between 1612-1621 the Dutch had a treaty of armistice, suspending the war with Spain. Prince Maurits was the leader of the army and had nothing to do in this period. He wanted to continue fighting and also conquer the region which is now Belgium. There was a peaceful party who wanted trade and expand the VOC for trade with Indonesia. Maurits won in 1619 and could continue fighting in 1622.

Frits Broeijer, my colleague at Utrecht University, wrote a book about the situation in my town of Utrecht. Between 1610-1618 all eight preachers in the Gomarus style, or defenders of taqdir were suspended from their churches and only sympathizers of Arminius were allowed in Utrecht. In 1619 Prince Maurits took over power in the town: he disbanded the local soldiers of the municipality, banned preaching in the Arminius tradition of qadar and he took over the city council, replacing all members with promotors of his party. In this vision there was some theological debate, but behind it was a political fight for power, then won by the feudal party of the Orange family, in case prince Maurits.
One conclusion from this: in theological debates one should also look for the political implications.