|
It is very fashionable today to question this responsibility by saying that man, being driven by his impulses and social pressures, has no freedom of action. This attitude has grave consequences for the individual who believes in it as well as for the society which treats him according to this belief. That man is, to a great extent, exposed to pressures and determined by them, is undeniable. But that man has the freedom of choice between good and evil is a fact which each one of us can experience every day and a truth proclaimed by all religions. And just as everyone is able to recognize God and His Manifestations, everyone also has the capacity to accomplish the will of God as it manifests itself in the divine law; "God will not burden any soul beyond its capacity." (Qur'an 2:286) "Man has the power both to do good and to do evil." (Pt 60) The idea that God, the law-giver, provides men with an absolute rule of conduct and imposes upon them the duty "to testify unto that which the Lord hath revealed, and follow that which He hath ordained in His mighty Book", and that at the same time as creator, he has not endowed them with the capacity to fulfil this law, contradicts the concept of God's justice and is absolutely unacceptable to religious thought. In this context, the statement: "Thou canst for thou shouldst" (Immanual Kant) is important. Therefore no one 'has' to steal, no one 'has' to commit adultery, no one 'has' to get drunk, no one 'has' to smoke hashish. The theory which denies all human responsibility on the assumption that man, bound by society's restrictions and his own impulses has no freedom of action, is the logical consequence of atheism: "If God does not exist", (Dostoyevsky).. "then everything is permitted; if there is no God, then everything is indifferent." Dostoyevsky means here that when man is his own law-giver and acknowledges no higher responsibility than the state courts, he can justify any crime.
(38:2)
see
|