What is the ruling on resorting to the intellect in matters of jurisprudential disagreement and creed, and how does one respond to those who say that religion is based on intellect, citing that the irrational person is not held accountable?

Religion elevates the status of the intellect by making it the basis of accountability (taklif). Its role is to receive legal evidence and texts, not to control them. The intellect is a condition for accountability, but it is not prioritized over the Sacred Law nor does it govern it. If the Sacred Law and the intellect contradict, then the Sacred Law must be given precedence, because the intellect affirms the Sacred Law in what it has conveyed, whereas the Sacred Law has not affirmed the intellect in everything it has conveyed. The intellect guides you to the truthfulness of the Messenger, whom you must affirm in what he has conveyed and obey in what he has commanded. Prioritizing the statement of the infallible (Messenger) over intellectual reasoning is more appropriate.