WoL, It's from this site.

deters Do Everything Thoroughly Except Rearing Sheep.

NGONGE, In your recent posts, you seem irate over non-state terrorism and at the same time seem to somehow condone (or at least entertain) state terrorism. Would it be better if these terrorists had a seat, a leader, an army and a state-like structure? You seem to be under the illusion that those who perpetrate state-terrorism can somehow be held accountable for their actions (Iraqis, Afghans, Chechens, Palestinains etc probably would beg to differ).

*********** Commentary: By Those Which Raid At Dawn. As it was said earlier, this Sura begins with some awakening oaths. At first, it says: "By the panting chargers." Some believe that the verse means: 'By the camels, of pilgrims, which run with panting breath from 'Arafat to Mash'ar (Sacred Monument) and run from Mash 'ar to Mina.' The term / 'adiyat / is the plural form of / 'adiyah / based on /'adw/ that originally means 'to pass; to separate' and also 'enmity; running', but, here it means 'to run swiftly'. The term / dabh / means 'the sound of breathing hard of a running horse.' As mentioned above, there are two different ideas in commenting on this verse. The first idea says that the objective point of the oath is the horses which run swiftly towards the battlefields of Holy War, and since Holy War is a sacred action, these animals that run on its path are so worthy that they deserve to be sworn to. The second idea considers the oath to be to the swift camels, of pilgrims, that run fast between the sacred places of Mecca and for the same reason they have a kind of sacredness that is fit to be sworn to. On the occasion of revelation, of this Sura, some people, such as Ibn-Abbas and so on, have said that they are the horses that the Muslim fighters rode on to fight in the Battle of Badr, but Amir-al-Mo'mineen Ali (a) is narrated to have rejected this idea and said that there were only two horses in the Battle of Badr: One belonged to Zubayr and the other was Miqdad's. On the contrary, they were the camels that ran from Arafat to Mash'ar and from Mash'ar to Mina'. Ibn-Abbas said when he heard that meaning from Hazrat Ali (a) he changed his mind and accepted the latter. It is also probable that / 'adiyat / has such a vast meaning, that consists of both the horses of the fighters and the camels of the, pilgrims, and the purpose of the above narration is that its meaning should not be limited to horses, because this meaning is not right everywhere such as the clear example of it being the camels of pilgrims. In some respects, this commentary seems more appropriate. *********** "And by those that sprint striking fire (with their hooves)." The chargers pant, in war, obeying their masters. They sprint so fast that fire, which can be seen brighter at night, strikes from their hooves. Or, the camels, in Hajj pilgrimage, that run swiftly from one station to another, kick gravel from under their feet which strike each, other and sometimes causes sparks to appear. The term / miiriyat / is the plural form of / muriyah / derived from / ira' / which means 'to make fire'; and the term / qadh / means 'to strike pieces of stone, wood, iron or flint to each other in order to produce sparks.' *********** Then, in the third oath, it says: "And by those which charge at dawn." It was a custom of the Arabs, as Tabarsi cites in Majma'-al-Bayan, that they used to approach their foe by night and waited until dawn to make their attack. In describing the occasion of revelation of these verses (or one of its clear examples) it was said that the troops of Islam under the leadership of Hazrat Ali (a) went toward the enemy by night. After reaching the foe they waited nearby until dawn when they attacked them quickly and violently and defeated them before they could show a considerable reaction. And if the oaths refer to the camels of pilgrims, the purpose of this verse is 'the rush of camels from Mash'ar to Mina at the dawn of the Day of Sacrifice'. The term /muqirat / is the plural form of /muqirat / based on /iqarat / with the sense of 'to invade; raid; attack', and since this invasion is sometimes done with the purpose of taking the wealth of others, it is also used in the sense of 'predatory invasion'. ********** Then, it points to another speciality of those warriors and the mounts they ride on, saying: "And stir thereby the dust aloft". Or, because of the invasion of the camels, of pilgrims, from Mash'ar to Mina, the dust raised in the air. The term /aearna/ derived from / iθarah / has the meaning of raising 'dust or smoke' and sometimes, it has been used in the sense of 'evoking, stirring' and also with the meaning of the 'broadcasting of the sound waves in space' . The term /naq'/ means 'dust' and it originally means 'to sink in water; to soak' and since going through dust is similar to that, this word has been employed for it. *********** For the last characteristic of their specialities it says: "And penetrate into the midst ( of the enemy) ". That attack was so quick and all of a sudden that the believers could cleave the enemy's force in a very short time and rushed into the midst of them to destroy them. That victory was obtained because of a swift action and the awareness, preparedness and courageousness of the believing warriors. Or, it refers to the arrival of the pilgrims from Mash'ar into the center of Mina. On the whole, we can conclude that the oaths are made to the chargers, to the brave defenders of Faith, to the panting breaths of the mounts of the warriors, to the striking fire from their hooves, to their swift attack, to the particles of dust scattered in the air, and finally to their penetration into the midst of the foe and to their victory. Although these ideas are not totally mentioned in the meanings of these oaths, they are all gathered in the implication of the words. Furthermore, they show how important the Holy War is. Some have said that the oaths refer to the persons who can convey their virtues to others, make the sparks of knowledge manifest with their thoughts, attack at low desires and raise the level of the love for Allah both in themselves and others, and finally, dwell in the midst of those who are in 'llliyin, 'Heaven'. [5] But, it clearly seems that these interpretations cannot be accepted as the commentary of the above verses except as being as a comparison regarding the commentary of the verse which is under discussion. *********** The substantive proposition of the great oaths, that is, what the oaths are taken for, is mentioned in verses 6-8 below. It says: "Surely, man is ungrateful to his Lord". Man, i.e. unregenerate man who forgets or denies the divine guidance and the Prophets' preachings, and submits himself to his lusts, is surely ungrateful, and grossly selfish to his Lord and Cherisher . The term / kanud / is used for 'a land wherein nothing grows, or a person who is ungrateful and miserly'. Commentators have cited about fifteen different meanings for the term / kanud /, but, they are, more or less, branches of the same as the original meaning cited above. The holy Prophet (s) said about it in a tradition: "The one who with holds his help (from others), and beats his servant is 'kanud'. [6] On the whole, / kanud / 'an ungrateful man', here is in contrast with those who receive guidance and wage unceasing war with evil, then, some have commented on it as being an 'unbeliever'. *********** "And surely he is a witness to that". Man is a witness to that because he has insight into himself. If he could conceal his true inner character from others he would not be able to hide it from Allah and his own conscience; whether he confesses this fact or not. Some have said that the pronoun in /innahu / refers to Allah, i.e. Allah is the witness to Man who has the quality of being 'ungrateful'. But, regarding the verses before and after this verse whose similar pronouns refer to Man, this possibility seems very improbable, though many commentators have preferred this commentary. It is also probable that the purpose is the witness of Man to his sins and wrong actions on the Day of Judgement, as many verses of the Qur'an confirm. This very last commentary, here goes without saying that Man is his own witness. The verse has a broad meaning so that it envelops the idea that Man is witness to his own ungratefulness and miserliness in this world, too. It is true that Man is sometimes unable to know himself so he deceives his conscience and then his hideous evil behaviour with the ornament of Satan, appears to him beautiful and correct; but for the problem of ungratefulness and miserliness, the case is so clear that he cannot conceal it or deceive his conscience. *********** Again, in the next verse, it says: "And most surely he is tenacious in the love of wealth". And the same tenaciousness in the love of wealth causes his ungratefulness and miserliness. The term /xayr/ has a vast meaning including any good or goodness such as charity, gifts of money or kind, public welfare, knowledge, Heaven, happiness, etc. Certainly, the love of them is not a reproachable thing that the Qur'an blames in the above sense. That is why the commentators have rendered it, here into 'wealth' which has sense both in the above verse and in some other verses of the Qur'an. For example, Sura Baqara, No.2, verse 180 says: "It is prescribed, when death approaches any of you, if you leave any goods, that you make a bequest to parents and next of kin,..." . Surely using the term /xayr/ for the sense of 'wealth' is for the sake of wealth, itself, which is a good thing because it can be the means of doing numerous kinds of good, however, the ungrateful disbelieving man changes its real goal and uses it in the way of self-interest. *********** Then, in the next verses, where interrogation is for an emphasis, with a threatening tone, it says: "Does he not know, when that which is in the graves is raised"? *********** "And that which is in the breasts is made known?" *********** "Surely their Lord is aware of them on That Day" The term / bu'θira / is based on /ba'θarat/ and originally means 'to scatter abroad; turn upside down' and since the graves turn upside down when the dead rise and what is in them appears, then, this meaning has been used for the Resurrection. The term / qubur / is the plural form of / qabr / 'grave' and is used for the place that covers the corpse from the sight of Mankind, because some people have no grave, for instance, like those whose corpses are sunk in the sea or are burnt and the remaining ashes scattered, so the term has a broad meaning here. The term / hussila / is derived from / tahsil / which means, here 'to make manifest'. The deeds of everyone, good or evil, will be made manifest on the Day of Judgement and they will be rewarded accordingly. It is similar to what Sura Tariq, No.86, verse 9 says: "On the Day when hidden things will be made manifest". We know that Allah always knows everything, but the idea of 'That Day' is an emphasis on this matter that He knows all their secrets and on that Day, which is the day of retribution, He will reward them their deeds and beliefs. Yes, Allah is always aware and in all circumstances, knows any secret that we have, inside or out, but the fruit of this awareness is more clear and more tangible for us in the Hereafter when we receive our reward or penalty. This is also a warning to all Mankind, the belief of which is a firm barrier between them and sins whether they are clear or hidden, outside or in. The training effect of this belief is not concealed from anyone. *********** Explanation: Is Man Naturally Ungrateful? It is possible that some persons think of the verse: "Surely man is ungrateful to his Lord" in a way that the state of being 'ungrateful' is within the nature of all men. If so, how does it adapt to the invitation of Man's innate nature and wakeful conscience to giving thanks to the Benefactor? A similar state to this question is found in many verses of the Holy Qur'an which introduces Man to some cases of his weaknesses. For example, in Sura Ahzab. No.33. Verse 72 it says: "...He was indeed unjust and foo[ish (ignorant)". Sura Ma'arij,. No.70. Verse 19 qualifies Man as 'impatient', saying: "Truly man was created impatient". Sura Hud, No 11, Verse 9 says: "...he is in despair and (falls into) blasphemy". And Sura 'Alaq, No.96, Verse 6 says about him: "Nay! Most surely man does transgress (all bounds)". Are all these weaknesses really found in Man ? Sura Asra, No.17, Verse 70 stipulates that: "We have honoured the sons of Adam, provided them with transport on land and sea; given them for sustenance things good and pure; and confessed on them special favours, above a great part of Our Creation". Taking note of one point makes the answer to this question clear. The point is that Man has two poles in his entity and it is for the same reason that he can be the best of all in one dimension, or be the worst unto the lowest of the low in another. If he accepts the guidance of the divine educators, the lessons of the prophets, and follows the inspirations of his conscience in self-perfection, he will become an example of those about whom Allah says: "We have honoured the sons of Adam, provided them with transport on land and sea, given them for sustenance things good and pure, and conferred on them special favours, above a great part of Our Creation". But, if he turns his back on Faith and piety and goes astray from the path of the divine prophets, he changes into an 'unjust', 'ignorant', 'desperate', 'impatient' and 'ungrateful' ingrate. Thus, there would be no contrast found in them, but, each of them refers to one of the dimensions (poles) of Man. Yes, Man can obtain all the good things, virtues, and honours whose origin is inside Man's own nature, as he can go unto the farthest point of the opposite direction. That is why no creature in the world is able to cover such a large and long distance between these two extremes of high and low.

The Asian looking man who was seen running (and chased by other passengers) from one of tube stations was heard shouting "What's wrong with these people?" Perhaps someone accused him of being a suicide bomber and he then decided to run for his life. Something fishy is going on; apparently an Al-Qaeda splinter group has claimed responsibility but AGAIN (just like two weeks ago) the people claiming responsibility have made mistakes quoting the Qur'an. What are these extremists that can't even seem to get the verses of the Qur'an right? Some things don't add up!

Originally posted by Zephyrine: The cancer stick doesn't discriminate. It's addictive for both genders. Funny how Hadeeth's are always waved at females...like it is only ever relevant for them alone. How incredulous. Zephy, It is indeed addictive for both genders but scientific research shows that alcohol and smoking does actually discriminate despite popular modern belief. Recently, it was discovered that women become alcoholics a lot easier/quicker than men and suffer from diseases connected to it much earlier. The same with smoking; women have a smaller heart and lung capacity, plus the toxins in cigarettes easily pass through the blood-placenta barrier. The Hadith Khayr produced has nothing to do with the person as a woman but he quoted it to show his displeasure with the act (he opted for the weakest of the three options). The same Hadith can be used when people discuss i.e. American foreign policy especially towards Muslims. Nothing to do particulalry with gender.

NGONGE, Everyone chooses the words they use for a certain reason. The author's reason can't be verified but yours can. The first sentence written on the piece is..."Serious rethinking within Islam is long overdue. Muslims have been comfortably relying, or rather falling back, on age-old interpretations for much too long." This leads me (and my ilk) to conclude that the author chose the topic (Rethinking Islam) in order to draw people's attention, and thereafter go ahead and explain what was on his mind. Are you going to agree with the author’s arguments and “rethink†Islam or, like Nur and Baashe competently just demonstrated, are you going to oppose them (author’s points) and clarify your position? This question prompts me to assume that you either haven't read what I said or (you have read it) but simply feel like taking the mickey.

Nur, I don't think the author is saying that Muslims should intepret the Law according to our whims but according to the time we live in. He states the Abasid era as a time from when the endeavor to intepret Shari'a stagnated. I haven't seen any clear poins made by the author that I disagree with, he sounds like someone who wants what is best for Muslims in accordance to the Qur'an and the Sunnah. NGONGE, Islam doesn't need to change, Muslims do. As the author stated, the Qur'an and the Sunnah stay static but our intepretations of them should change with time (or when the need arises). Jamaal, saaxib, I’ve never known you to be this sloppy in the past. This is a case of semantics and not dogma. Islam and Muslims are interchangeable words. Allah SWT clearly states in Suratul Ma'idah that He has chosen Islam as our religion... This day have those who reject faith given up all hope of your religion: yet fear them not but fear Me. This day have I perfected your religion for you, completed My favour upon you, and have chosen for you Islam as your religion. (Ma'idah 5:3) So since Islam is decreed upon us by the Lord, we (as Muslims) have the task of understanding what is it that has been decreed upon us (Islam). It seems to be an issue of semantics and not essence that has become an obstacle for you to understand what is being asked of you by J11.

True, the other teams have better and stronger midfielders; but remember that the resources differ greatly between these clubs. Chelsea are capable of buying anyone they want while Arsenal are currently being out-gunned by Spurs in the chase for Julio Baptista.

Originally posted by NGONGE: If you wish, we can talk about Islam, the problem with it, the problem I have , the one you have, etc. A discussion where we both hopefully will learn, saaxib. NGONGE, Isn't that what he asked for? That is before all this p*ussyfooting.

BOB, No doubt Vieira is a good player but Arsenal can cope without him. Gunners started last season without him and I think they won six-seven games in a row with the young Fabregas in the midfield. Wenger has never shown to be dumb, he has made the best buys in English football and continues to produce rough diamonds each year. -He bought a young Vieira from AC Milan and made him into a world-class player who has won everything except the CL -He brought a distraught Henry from Juve and made him one of the best strikers in Europe -And he has brought loads of inexpensive young talent that will grow up to be top class players in the coming years; players like...Van Persie, Fabregas, Senderos, Asare, Lupoli, Clichy etc. I thought he was dumb to let Anelka go to Real Madrid, but he brought Henry and Arsenal supporters nowadays go...Anelka who? He has done it many times before and he can definately do it again. He is not ****** to let Vieira go, he probably thinks it's time for others to step in his shoes. North, L'pool needs Gerrard more than Arsenal needs Vieira. L'pool would be in major trouble if he left, but Vieira's departure will prompt the rough diamonds (Fabregas, Flamini et al.) to step up a gear or two and get ready for the show.

NGONGE, You asked Nur... What I found fascinating in your reply and, is also really the crux of this matter, was the tentative way you seem to be supporting these terrorists! Do you BELIEVE in their cause, saaxib? If you do, why are you sitting on the fence? If you don’t, why are you trying to explain it away? I think Nur was rather clear when he said... "As for those who've committed the attrocities against innocent civilians in New York and London, whoever they are, and whatever their religion, ignorant zealots, masterminds who brainwashed them, or any other political beneficiaries Framers from this mayhem, there is no justification in our faith, and those who have committed these crimes against defenseless civilians going about their daily lives, have indeed committed a crime against all of mankind, they will have to answer to Allah SWT for their crimes, in addition to their painting of our faith a non befitting image which is contrary to all of basic tenets in Islam." What hapenned here in London last week is NOT an isolated incident. However evil the actions of those four bombers was, it was a reaction to the atrocities committed by their soldiers abroad.

Nur, I can see that you are closing one door after another, trying to get me to condemn the beliefs of the Shi'a There are various actions and beliefs that can make your faith invalid. Equating anyone or anything to Allah SWT is top of the list. The claims that Allah SWT is NOT perfect and hence changes His mind is one of the things that can make your faith void, this would be implying that He is not All-Knowing and that goes against the core beliefs of Islam. But then again, it is the task of the Shi'a in the forums to come forward and clear this issue up by confirming or refuting them. What I think about them (whether they are in the fold of Islam or not) is not important and will not change anything. Salafi, I understand how simple this must seem to you. You have gone out in the open and criticized well known and respected Sunni scholars based on the opinions of other scholars whom you believe to share an Aqeedah with; this must seem like a walk in the park for you. I'll stick to my position and not accuse anyone of kufr, call it rhetoric or what not, I call it common sense. Abdi2005, All you need to do (for starters) is google the word "Abu Hanifa" and "Salafi" and you'll probably find something to read on the subject. As for Salafis, they are originally Hanbalis. This is a fact and is not even worth arguing over, you can confirm with bro Nur here if you doubt what I say.

bint abee saeed, It isn't only on "that day" as you put it. There are examples in the Qur'an where people ask for intercession from righteous people who are alive; look at these two verses... "We sent not an apostle, but to be obeyed, in accordance with the will of Allah. If they had only, when they were unjust to themselves, come unto thee and asked Allah's forgiveness, and the Messenger had asked forgiveness for them, they would have found Allah indeed Oft-returning, Most Merciful." (Nisa'a 4:64) Another example is found in Sura Yusuf... They said: "O our father! ask for us forgiveness for our sins, for we were truly at fault." He said: "Soon will I ask my Lord for forgiveness for you: for he is indeed Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful." (Yusuf 97-98)

Bro Nur, There is one thing I avoid very much, that is saying who can be considered a Muslim and who can not. You question is clear; you asked, given my understanding...Can the Shia be a fourth Mad-hab? or part of islam? Now this might prompt someone to say an YES or NO, but in reality, it isn't as easy. You (claim) to quote from Shi'a sources and to which I said I (and many other nomads) could not confirm or refute your quotes from Shi'a sources because we have no access to them. Likewise, someone can quote from the Qur'an by saying that Suratul Ma'un says..."Ah woe to the worshippers", and anyone who doesn't know what the next verse says ("Who are neglectful of their prayers") will believe that worshipping is lamented. I'm not implying that you were quoting out of context but would like to see what Mutakalim's take is on the issues you raised because they are grave. That is why I said we are better of waiting for his response to the issues you raised. This might seem as "dodging" the question to some and a simpleton might intepret it as "hiding" my beliefs. But neither are true because I have no authority or cilm to declare someone who says THERE IS NO GOD BUT ALLAH a non-Muslim and have no reason at all for concealing my beliefs. There is a lot of controversy when it comes to what can or can not be considered part of Islam. Currently, the "Salafi" (as I've understood) are against the following of any particular madhab. Although they hail from the Hanbali school, they do sometimes write pretty nasty stuff about Abu Hanifa, a man whose contributions are widely rspected and appreciated by Muslims in general.

bint abee saed, Could you please explain what the following verses from the Qur'an are referring to... "No intercessor (can plead with Him) except after His leave (hath been obtained)." (10:3) "Who is he that can intercede with Him except with His permission?" (2:255) "On that Day, no intercession shall avail, except the one from whom Allah the Most Gracious has given permission and whose word is acceptable to Him." (20:109) "And they cannot intercede, except for him with whom He is pleased." (21:28) "None shall have the power of intercession except such a one as has received permission or a promise from Allah the Most Gracious." (19:87) "Intercession with Him profits not except for he whom He permits." (34:23)

I thought Brother Viking...we got you...are you still in SHIA group..and your reasons? Rendezvous, Wewe ni Druze? Ulifunzwa kushuku watu madrasa huko western? Shaka ni kitu mbaya na Qurani Karimu imepiga marufuku kushuku mtu kwa sababu shaka ni dhambi. Ni wapi uliona nikisema kuwa mimi ni shia? Just a few days ago you hardly knew anything about Shi'a and posted questions here and there inquiring about them. I think you should take one step at a time rafiki.

Miskiin.

Shamsudin, What issue am I "evading"? Where did I claim (or support the claim) that Allah SWT is in any way "deficient" and changes His mind? Or where did you see me support such claims? Who has insulted Abu Bakr and Umar(RA) here? I don't like insulting anyone but surely, my words are nothing compared to the grave accusations and name-calling you are throwing my way. Perhaps it would have been more appropriate for you to first ask me whether I am Shi'a Ithna Cashari before you started throwing stones. Now please, get off your high horse mister, drop the holier than thou attitude and lets start afresh. What say ye?

As described below, the most serious terrorist acts of the decade--in terms of the number of people killed or the political implications--all have had a significant religious dimension. Nur, So, according to Hoffman, the 4 000 000 who died in DRC the past few years and 1 000 000 who died in Rwanda's genocide in 1994 aren't PEOPLE.

Nur, It is evident bro that there isn't anyone (besides Mutakalim - although he is taking a long time to adress the issues you took up) who is able to adress the issues you raised. So far, your points have been used by other nomads to criticize the Shi'a althought they have no way of verifying if they are true or not. I'm not doubting what you said, but we can only derive any good from this discussion if there is someone with knowledge and acess to Shi'a literature adressing the issues you brought up. As for the fatwas, we do have the duty of scrutinising them and not accepting them blindly. I wanted to find out your opinion as to why the Ja'fari Madhab is recognised by Al-Azhar and not by scholars from Hijaz. Some dubious fatwas have come come from both Egypt and the Hijaz, but does this particular fatwa have any underlying motives?

Abdi, I understand what you are getting at bro. But you still haven't responded to my initial question; since the decisions from Al-Azhar are not of any "value" (as you put it), which scholars (or institutions) do you suggest the contemporary Muslims look to? Also, in his fatwa, Sheikh ibn Baz said that the world is flat (a huge error), would that disqualify him as a scholar to follow if we were follow your logic? As for Viking and the fatwa he brought forward, one must remember that the same sheikh had made a fatwa supporting atheistic system of socialism. He was not the only career mufti then, and definitely not the only one now. Come up with proofs from the clear sources of guidance (I have proposed to you the Quráan), if you are not a liar! This is a challenge to your evil self, that which you camouflage behind others and in the name of the quest for the truths. Come out and show your true face if you dare. Shamsudin, I don't know what hole you crawled out of before you spilled your bile on these pages, but I'd advice you to think before you type. I've been discussing with bro Nur for over three years and he (although we disagree at times) has never used the words liar and evil when adressing me. I don't see how some holier than thou git can do that the first time he EVER adresses me and to make things worse, the oaf in question is in his 2nd month.

Very important issue you took up bro Nur. Often, when we say Iyaaka Nacbud wa Iyaaka Nastaciin, some other thoughts are running through our minds. We could be thinking about i.e. what one is going to eat later etc (is that what we are pledging to?).

Originally posted by Nur: Brother, We Ahlul Sunnah wal Jamaacah believe that our scholars are not devine, thus prone to make a mistake of judgement, as a control for this risk, we depend on the Quraan and the Sunnah as a check, if the scholar can defend his fatwa accordin g to a daleel from Quraan, we accept, if he cant, we simply dont, and that is the major difference between Sunnah and Shia in a nutshel. I have clearly showed from Shia literature what they believe, to the page number , author and book, brother Viking, If indeed thesed beliefs are found to be true in the Shia Madhab, do you think with your understanding of Islam that it can be a fourth Madhab? or part of Islam? Nur, They are not infallible. I agree with your logic bro, but do you think that the research you have done is more than what the scholars of Al-Azhar have done from 1959 and beyond? Don't you think that they went deeper into Shi'a doctrines than you did? Some Muslims (belonging to the four madhabs) view Sufis as heretics while others don't, isn't it simply the same case here too? We are all responsible for the choices we make in the end but we (people of SOL) aren't scholars and rely a lot of the research done by them. What we aim for in the end is to find out the truth.

Mutakalim has posted an article about Shi'ism and intends to talk about it extensively. Why don't those who have questions start by reading the post and start the discussion from the beginning (from the issue of the Caliphate) instead of using Nur's quotes as evidence? If OG was (hypothetically) to say that all the quotes are fabricated, none of you (Rendezvous, Salafi, bint et al.) could prove her wrong because you don't have al-Kuleiny's works lying on the shelf. Abdi2005, If the fatwas from Al-Azhar are not of any "value", which scholars (institutions) do you suggest the contemporary Muslims look to?