There are two schools of thought in the Muslim world in the good and evil case that started this debate since 684- 705 which does not continue with that intensity today.
Ash’arite says human actions are in themselves not inherently good or evil. The goodness and Wickedness of acts are related to what the Shari’a (God) says about them.
In other words, they say:
If justice is good, it’s because God has said so, and if oppression is bad, it’s because God has said so. The goodness and Wickedness of human deeds are not intrinsic and Reason cannot detect the goodness and badness of deeds.
According to Ash’arite If reason can recognize the good and evil of actions; it will be confronted with a contradiction. For example,” lying to save the life of the Prophet” is an instance.
If reason can recognize that lying is evil and the salvation of the Prophet is good it will face contradiction and will not know what to do. Therefore, wisdom must see what God says about good and evil. So, If God was said that oppression is good; we should say that oppression is good and so on.
There is another theological school called Mu’tazila that opposes the Ash’arite’s point of view.
The Mu’tazila believes that:
Wisdom has independence in the perception of these matters (Good and evil) and the intellect alone is capable of understanding and recognizing it before it reaches for it from the Sharia (Religion). The good and evil of human deeds are intrinsic and reason can recognize this good and evil.
If we say that oppression is bad, it’s not because the Shari’a has said but Before the Shari’a says something, we recognize with our own mind that oppression is bad. And if we say that justice is good, it is not because God has said so.
Even If God did not say, we also recognized that justice is good. And beyond that, Even God cannot judge the goodness of oppression and Wickedness of justice. The Mu’tazila ultimately concludes from this argument that What the Shari’a (Religion) says should not be in conflict with the wisdom.