and they do not listen to the words of God Who says: ﴿أَوَلَوْ جِئْتُكُمْ بِأَهْدَى مِمَّا وَجَدْتُمْ عَلَيْهِ آبَاءَكُمْ ۖ﴾[1]; “Even if I brought you better guidance than what you found your fathers upon?!” So in this way they do not, in fact, worship God, but they worship their predecessors, and it is not strange; because worshipping the predecessors is one the oldest types of polytheism in the world!

Of course, those who do not consider the intellect as proof look at the limitation of its perceptions and think that with this limitation it cannot be the criterion of cognition, whereas the limitation of the perceptions of the intellect does not mean that they are not correct, nor does it obstruct its authority, but rather it means that they are less compared to the divine perceptions, which is the requirement of the intellect being a created being and the inherent limitation of created beings. Therefore, the intellect does not know everything, but whatever it knows is considered correct, and this is sufficient for its authority; as the eye does not see everything, but whatever it sees is considered correct, and the ear does not hear everything, but whatever it hears is considered correct, and this is sufficient for their authority. Perfect cognition belongs to God alone, and no one else can gain perfect cognition, and therefore, Sharia which He has sent down is perfect, but the perfection of Sharia does not necessitate its conflict with the intellect; because in matters about which the intellect speaks, Sharia does not say anything contrary to the words of the intellect, and in matters about which the intellect is silent, Sharia says something that is not contrary to the words of intellect; because the intellect does not say anything about them so that the words of Sharia may conflict with it; such as the detailed descriptions of Heaven and Hell whose nature is a matter of the unseen and, accordingly, the intellect is silent about them, but Sharia speaks about them, and therefore, its words are not considered contrary to the words of the intellect, as well as the manner and amount of acts of worship that have legal nature and, accordingly, the intellect is silent about them, but Sharia speaks about them, and therefore, its words are not considered contrary to the words of the intellect; especially in view of the fact that the intellect perceives the authority of Sharia and, accordingly, accepts its practical considerations and its definite reports about possible events.