Scholars

[کیش]

says the self proclaimed agnostic "muslim".

now answer this question

is imam also an intermediary? and shirk?

An imam is a hafiz who leads people in prayers.

the viewpoint on scholars is like someone with a P.hD in a field. but Islam isn't a field, its everything. and it all comes from the Qu'ran and Sahih hadiths. these books are available everywhere, and you don't need a scholar to help you read. unless your blind.

[Shamlawar Khurasani]

That's shirk. once again a mediator between you and God. Islam abolished these principles. So both the scholar and "all rational people" are guilty of shirk

You are a kaafir. Who cares what you believe.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

Who gives you the authority to declare him a kafir?

[RevolutionThroughReason]

says the self proclaimed agnostic "muslim".

now answer this question

is imam also an intermediary? and shirk?

Listen you don't even know what your aqidah is, you blindly believe like a robot without questioning. This can't even be categorized as genuine belief.

as for your question; If you believe that an Imam is an absolute authority that can simply GIVE HIS OPINION without THOROUGH evidence that would demonstrate that his claim is he MOST likely case. Then this would be SHIRk and taking an intermediary.

The role of a Scholar is to educate people about the information and make sound conclusions, but not to be an unquestionable authority. Minute he becomes unquestionable or that his conclusions cannot be challenged with similar arguments by LAYMEN or SCHOLARS. That's when it is shirk and taking an intermediary.

[Shamlawar Khurasani]

The role of a Scholar is to educate people about the information and make sound conclusions, but not to be an unquestionable authority. Minute he becomes unquestionable or that his conclusions cannot be challenged with similar arguments by LAYMEN or SCHOLARS. That's when it is shirk and taking an intermediary.

How can a layman challenge the conclusion of a scholar while not being firmly grounded in the subject?

Only another scholar with equal amount of knowledge and understanding can do that.

[Shamlawar Khurasani]

Who gives you the authority to declare him a kafir?

Allah does that in the quran.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

How can a layman challenge the conclusion of a scholar while not being firmly grounded in the subject?

Only another scholar with equal amount of knowledge and understanding can do that.

By DOING research, getting informed, learned and studying. Examining the logical merits of a claim. In other words becoming to a certain degree , grounded. Same as in many fields. Do you think people don't challenge the opinions of scholars in other fields? It happens all the time. In FACT Scholars in OTHER FIELDS welcome challenges.

It doesn't necessarily make you an "expert" but it it gives you the tools to examine the credibility of a scholar's statements. And that is the right of everyone. Scholars should not be given a free pass from criticism just because they're scholars.

Even in the Medical field when a Doctor gives an opinion, LAYMEN, go to other sources to either verify or challenge those opinions. The only thing is in certain circumstances and fields Laymen don't have the tools for research and thereby would be less likely to give accurate analysis. Like advanced instruments for testing and exploration and such. Things which are known as verified facts by numerous studies and research are generally not challengable by laymen, but they could try.

In Law a person can represent himself/herself in Legal course if he/she studies the Law and gets versed in it. They can also challenge legislators if they're making a Law which contradicts the constitution if they violate the basic tenets of Consttutional Law.

Most Islamic Legal arguments are equal to Legal Analysis, there's very few things a Scholar says that cannot be changeable even by laymen.

I am not saying Scholars are not needed or unencessary, they are necessary. I'm saying that Their statements are not UNQUESTIIONABLE>

If AFTER being challenged and questioned that it turns out the Scholar was RIGHT all along. Then we accept the statement. But Challenging is important to KEEP scholars from merely taking liberties tossing their opinion around. This is why doing otherwise could potentially lead to shirk.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

Allah does that in the quran.

Show us where in the Qur'an does Allah (swt) grant you the authority to takfir someone?

[Shamlawar Khurasani]

By DOING research, getting informed, learned and studying. Examining the logical merits of a claim. In other words becoming to a certain degree , grounded.

If a layman can do that, what makes him a layman? That what you describe is the work of scholars. A layman is an uninformed person with shallow understanding.

A student is a person process of learning.

A scholar is one who is grounded in the sciences.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

Exactly, the line between layman and scholar is really more of effort and accreditation.

The scholars do not have a monopoly. They're just individuals who concentrated more on a specific subject. But it does not make them absolute or unchallengable It takes more than simply being a scholar to have credibility, you have to be able to demonstrate and support your claim WHENEVER asked.

Someone grounded in sciences can handle most relevant question and use evidence in response to them. The reason we don't go to laymen is because a layman is not expected to know these things, BUT that doesn't mean laymen are incapable or that they don't know enough to challenge a scholar

Otherwise it's just a PERSONAL opinion. Personal opinions are not much better than any layman.

I challenge Muslim scholars all the time and sad to say I usually stump them; they don't know how to handle logic.

[Shamlawar Khurasani]

I challenge Muslim scholars all the time and sad to say I usually stump them; they don't know how to handle logic.

[کیش]

Allah does that in the quran.

o word. I guess that's the end of me.

should I say: see you in hell?

[Shamlawar Khurasani]

o word. I guess that's the end of me.

should I say: see you in hell?

Kaafir, you accused all Muslims of being mushriks for obeying Allah:

فَسۡـَٔلُوٓاْ أَهۡلَ ٱلذِّڪۡرِ إِن كُنتُمۡ لَا تَعۡلَمُونَ

You are basically saying, we are committing shirk because we obey Allah.

This does not just qualify you as a kaafir, it also affirms why you need to stay on medication.

[کیش]

Kaafir, you accused all Muslims of being mushriks for obeying Allah:

فَسۡـَٔلُوٓاْ أَهۡلَ ٱلذِّڪۡرِ إِن كُنتُمۡ لَا تَعۡلَمُونَ

You are basically saying, we are committing shirk because we obey Allah.

This does not just qualify you as a kaafir, it also affirms why you need to stay on medication.

I said you are committing shirk for using scholars as a mediator to God.

like I said, if I go to hell, I guarantee your a$$ will be there right next to me.

[Shamlawar Khurasani]

I said you are committing shirk for using scholars as a mediator to God.

like I said, if I go to hell, I guarantee your a$$ will be there right next to me.

r

That's shirk. once again a mediator between you and God. Islam abolished these principles. So both the scholar and "all rational people" are guilty of shirk

Ask your doctor to give an auditional dose of mefication for your memory loss.