The Intellect is not Sufficient in Guiding Man towards Respect of
the law
The guidance we are considering here is that which emanates from the
wisdom of the Creator; this wisdom has created man and alloted him his
goal of well-being just as it has assigned a path and goal to all creation.
This goal of happiness and well-being is the path of self-fulfilment based
on correct behaviour in a social setting. It is clear that, of necessity,
there can be no inconsistencies or shortcomings in the work of the creator.
If, at times, one cannot discern His aim or it seems hidden from normal
perception, it is not through lack of reason or cause on the part of God,
but rather that the cause is linked to other causes which obscure the one
in question. If there were no hindrances to a clear perception of the causal
chain of events, two given actions would never appear inconsistent or contradictory
to the harmony of creation. Nor would the work of the Creator appear (as
it sometimes does to those whose perception is hindered by the intricacy
of the causal chain of events), inconsistent and imperfect.
Guidance towards the law, whose function is to remove differences and
conflict between individuals in society, is not a matter for the intellect
since it is this very intellect which causes man to dispute with others.
It is the same intellect which incites man to profit at the expense of
others and to preserve, first and foremost, his own interest, accepting
justice only when there is no alternative.
The two opposing forces, one causing difficulties and one doing away
with them, are qualities of man's character; they do not obviously exist
in the Creator: the countless daily transgressions and violations of the
law, in effect, all result from those who use their intellect incorrectly;
they themselves are the very source of their own difficulties.
If the intellect was truly a means of removing wrong action from society
and was itself a trustworthy guide to man's well-being, it would recognize
the validity of the law and prevent man from violating it. The intellect's
refusal to willingly accept what is obviously given for the well-being
of man is confirmed when we realize that its acceptance of a society based
on just laws is only out of necessity. Without this compulsion, it would
never accept to know the law.
Those who transgress the law do so for many reasons: some oppose it
without fear, because their power exceeds that of the law; others, because
they live outside the reach of the law, through deceit or negligence on
the part of the authorities; others are able to invent reasons which make
their wrong actions appear lawful and acceptable; some make use of the
helplessness of the person they have wronged. All, however, find no legal
obstacle in their wrong aims; even if an obstacle appears, their intellect,
rather than guiding them to an acceptance of the law, renders the obstacle
right and ineffective.
From these examples we are left in no doubt that the intellect, far
from controlling, restricting or guiding man, merely uses its influence
to its own purpose. We must include, therefore, that it is incapable of
guiding man towards a social law which guarantees the rights, freedom and
well-being of all the members of society.
god says in chapter xcvi:6-7 "Indeed man truly rebels when he
thinks him self independent. " The independence referred to here
includes the independence of those who imagine that they can claim their
rights through other than the path of legality.