Title: Why was the Conscience not made Impregnable? Question: We know that God did not create human beings as rational automata, who lack free will and are simply programmed to perform the commands of their Engineer. We have been granted free will in a limited area of activities and for a limited period of time as well as generic knowledge of “good” and “evil”. According to Surah Al-Qiyamah 75:2, God designed the human being with a conscience, which encourages and instigates him to do good and that checks and discourages him from doing evil. One of my professors, the philosopher Carol Rovane, raises a philosophical question regarding God’s invention of the human being: Could He have done better with us when it comes to good and evil action? That is, could He not have created us to have free will, yet with a device that prevents us from doing any wrong whenever we are tempted to? The closest thing that I can think of in Islamic thought to such a device is the conscience or “self-reproaching spirit” mentioned in Surah 75:2. Yet it is not the absolutely failsafe one that Rovane has in mind, for we are capable of ignoring, silencing, and even destroying our conscience. A follow-up question is: why did God not make the conscience impregnable so that none of us would ever commit evil, even if we were tempted to? Please offer your answers to these two questions, tying these concepts to God’s test for mankind. Thank you. Omar Sarwar Answer: Being a student of religion, I do not consider myself qualified to discuss what God could or could not have done. As a matter of belief, I hold that God's plans and His decisions are the best when seen in the perspective of the objectives of these plans and decisions. I am sure, if the objective were to prevent man from doing any wrong, God would indeed have devised a different plan for the human life. Nevertheless, whatever that plan may have been it would not have distinguished the 'good' and the 'bad' in men from a moral perspective. To test man from the perspective of moral behavior, it seems necessary, as per my limited knowledge, to grant man freedom in this sphere; and freedom would invariably create the potential for deviations, mistakes and digressions from any prescribed or preferred mode of behavior. Limiting the potential of mistakes and digressions, at an absolute level, would obviously render the 'test' meaningless. In view of the fact that, due to our limited knowledge, we cannot pass a judgment regarding "could He have done better" or not, it would be more interesting and pertinent if someone could come up with an alternative proposal of how He could have done better. If I cannot think of a better way in which God could have achieved the stipulated objectives, this should not discourage anyone else from trying to layout a different and a better plan of doing so. As for the idea of 'impregnable conscience', it requires further elaboration. Does this imply that man should not have been able to do anything against the suggestions of his conscience? If that is the case then that would also have restricted man's freedom of choice and, thereby, would have rendered the concept of 'test' meaningless. I hope this helps. Regards, Moiz Amjad April 10, 2002