also, I think even in shia thought the need for ijtihad is admitted... and ijtihad ultimately comes down to analyzing based upon the textual sources, which ultimately makes the sources of Islam, whether the Quran and sunnah and the ijma of the Companions as the basis of law in sunni thought, or the Quran, sunnah and opinions of the Twelve Imams in shia though the foundation... the foundation is not in practicality somebody speaking to us and telling us what is the deen for us based upon his 'position' with God...

I have heard that certain strains of shia thought hold that certain elect speak with the 12th imam somehow for proper explanation, but I do not find this to be valid...

also, when I say linguistic principles, this does not mean I deny the socio-historic context in which the Quran was revealed... if this were the case, we'd never know hajj, salaat, or the rate of zakaah

And, also, the concept of infallibility does not entail that a Prophet (S) could not make mistakes...

"O Prophet, why do you make that God has made lawful for you, unlawful for you."

"Do not leave as the Companion of the Fish (i.e. Yunus) left."

But the difference is that these mistakes were not sins per say, but based upon the Prophet's trying to do what they believed was right. The infallibillity entails that God corrects them through revelation, so that the people also learn a lesson and do not fall under the assumption that this is what the religion entails.

We often confuse infallibility with perfection, and perfection belongs to God alone.

We are in firm agreement when we say:

"But the strength here is the Quran, a source of guidance, which we would die fighting to protect because we know of its purity, its excellence and best of all its divine inspiration."

Thus, the basis to determine the truth of a position should be grounded in the Quran...

Also, remember that the Quran is not a book of history... though it contains historical truths, it is meant for moral admonition.. this is why we find that the Quran leaves out a lot of detail when relating the stories...

Also, when you say interpretations may vary, interpretations can only be valid if they are based on the language... thus, one cannot say, "well this is what the Quran means", if this meaning does not satisfy linguistic principles. Thus, I do not agree that one can say,

'well, there are certain people who have been rightly guided' as justification that they alone have access to interpreting the Quran.. it puts a condition on interpretin that nobody has access to.. further, rightly-guided and infallibility are mutually exclusive... one can be rightly-guided but still make mistakes, or incorrect judgements.. it is part of being human...

this is why I do not agree with most of sufiism, or shiaism... in fact, I believe they both originated out of the same cultural surroundings...

Wazz... I don't think I disgaree with you when you say:

"But as you said, if we analyse both sides of the story, we can always conjure up the truth, thus why the intellect serves as the best comrade in identifying from good and evil. But the strength here is the Quran, a source of guidance, which we would die fighting to protect because we know of its purity, its excellence and best of all its divine inspiration."

We can always conjure up a truth to some extent, but never the full extent. History is a matter of probabilities. This is why I had said that one must look at all the narrations and try and gain a complete picture. This is including HADEETH... now scholars have developed certain methodologies in accepting hadeeth, and these two are subject to human criteria... hadeeth also depend on the understanding of the narrator.. this is why in hadeeth it is always stated, He reported that he reported and so on... the human element of reporting is acknowledged.. also, we find in hadeeth that there are variations of an incident even with the SAME Companion at the end of the chain...

Further, the Quran's preservation is one of DIVINE nature and does not suffer from these faults... this is why it has been preserved from the collobaration and hypocrisy of men... but even if we examine it from a 'secualr' point of view, the Quranic transmission was an ORGANIC phenomenon, so to prevent it was beyond the grasp of ordinary mortals... recitation in the masjid five times a day, coupled with the rapid expanse of the Muslim empire prevented it from being tampered with...

This is why I hold that one must analyze narrations, irrelevant of their 'strength' from the Quran... it is not just a matter of 'theological acceptance' but the nature of transmission...

Sometimes what we are provided with are not accusations, but the acceptance of such becomes a failure since the quoted chains of narration may not suit the readers liking or even better the author?s script may not be acceptable since he/she may form a party that is negligent to our own. Precisely why sometimes the character and events aren?t worth mentioning but understanding the cause of their existence or their objective means according to Logic is better achieved through independent thought, providing the element of contemplation heals within the boundaries of scripture and the traditions of the Holy Prophet. Just like we both believe we need to understand the full story before passing a judgement, which brings me to start with the 2nd Question, "the 12 Imams (Ahlul Bayt)", why we shias consider them the rightly guided and consider those who fought or opposed them in the annals of history as hypocrites.

So though history is known for its old account, it still produces truth no matter what anyone says. If the Quran, a Just source, can outlast all the collaborated ignorance and hypocrisy of men, then why can?t truth still exist in the new age aligned with those devoted characters of Islamic History. Unfortunately some of the Muslims have also uttered disbelief in passing the verdict that the Prophet can sin too, had made mistakes, had gone against the will of Allah (swt) and then was rebuked. If we cant regard and respect the status of the Prophet alone, then how can we distinguish between other men who were either Imams, leaders, kings, etc. So I surely agree that history is a bog-down of trivial thought which needs to be exercised from all angles but at the same time in the era of Imamah (3 generations) I also believe the truth is extremely evident and it cannot be said that history is unclear, or forever trivial or insignificant in any manner of acknowledgement. Whether we use Sunni or Shia sources or any other, like the Quran, the purity of truth can never be disguised nor altered, only takes time to unravel the bodge and its inscrutability, which is well documented and assertively informed.

Khiladi I definitely agree with you, but there?s just one problem. Though you and I are 100% certain that the Quran is a perfect source, its text is nothing other then the word of God and also if we were to commit to this revelation and openly accept all it entails, then surely you and I become distinguished on the straight path without wandering or err'ing. At the same time the Quran is A piece of ?history?, though it does not expire with the course of time, but still is a source that was revealed over 1400 years ago. Though history cannot bring any impairment to this Scripture as God protects its very nature, what we do know is, people can interpret the Quran with certain complexities based on their own personal understanding. So yes between Muslim factions/sects contradictory tafsir does exist or collective motives in which traditions (Hadith) are applied with conflicting elaborative views. But as you said, if we analyse both sides of the story, we can always conjure up the truth, thus why the intellect serves as the best comrade in identifying from good and evil. But the strength here is the Quran, a source of guidance, which we would die fighting to protect because we know of its purity, its excellence and best of all its divine inspiration.

lol missy LONDON CREW is "relaxed" me...here its "serious" me and anywhere else its "seriously relaxed" me.

Glad u take interest too!

WAZZ YOU NEVER WRITE ALL THIS ON LONDONCREW......

WHATS GOING ON WITH YOU BABEZ???

further, when we analyse historical events, we often don't look at the issue from multiple angles... interpreting the death of Uthman (S) as simply one of a mass conspiracy fails to recognize the extreme rapidity at which the Muslim empire grew and the mixture of many different cultures... how this affected contentment in the empire requires deep analysis.. and none of this should be mistaken as an attack on a specific character, including Uthman, Ali, Muawiya or anybody else...

so when we argue about events such as those between Muawiya and Ali, and Hasan and Ali, we need to try and understand the whole picture...

statements such as Yazeed was a drunkard are accusations that never help us in determing what really was happening... they help distort our vision on what really happened..

all history Wazz...

we often times fail to see the reason somebody did 'this or that' simply because we do not have access to what happened before... we may also interpet an event that happens before our eyes based upon some knowledge that was given to us before...

Take the following example:

Tom told Mike John is a bully.
Mike sees John beat up somebody.
Mike, in his own mind, confirms what Tom said,

What Mike did not know is that the somebody John beat up made a lewd comment about John's sister.

this is all of history... the most we can do is collect as many reports about an incident that one can gather, and try and collect the facts... history becomes even more problematic when emotions are involved...

(1. You said history is reported by ?how one perceives and understands certain events?)

Can you please explain further? What part of history are you referring to?

Salaam Khiladi

I finally got my head around it?been pretty busy lately, plus wohooo it?s Sundayyyy. I wanted to focus on your scripts listed in the "Sunnis are losers" thread. I was a little concerned with your remarks or queries in regards to the following 3 issues:

1. You said history is reported by ?how one perceives and understands certain events?

2. Successorship! 12 commanders?. vicegerents in reference with Quran and Hadith. Whether Imamate is the correct terminology to use in identifying these commanders and also of interest, the logic behind successorship and its legitimacy.

3. Finally, your statement ??it was those within Ali (R) group that split and originated separatism? and ?the only time the Muslim ummah did not face bloodshed after the death of Uthman (R) was during the reign of Muawiya (R)??and also ?Nahjul Balagha is full of statements of Ali (R) regarding his own peoples cowardice and treachery?.

I hope we can discuss all 3 of these issues one after the other in the same number sequence as presented above. I rather not touch on numerous issues at one time, since the complexity of seeking finality or formal conclusions remains impossible when subjected to multiple engagements.

ty

let it begin :)

very nice... let us discuss