With what right did you proclaim yourselves as representatives of the Imam al-Mahdi (as)? And how did you make the Taqlid mandatory (Wajib) otherwise actions (A'mal) are not accepted?
You take people as donkeys, you tell them that Taqlid is mandatory and the Ahlul-Bayt (as) are those who ordered you to do that. And for that you use narrations that were told in concealment of faith (Taqiyyah) and you abandoned tens of narration against following (doing Taqlid of) the non-infallibles except what is narrated by an Infallible.
بأي حق نصبتم انفسكم نوابا عن الامام المهدي ع ؟ وكيف جعلتم التقليد لكم واجب لا تقبل الاعمال الا به ؟
تستحمرون الناس وتقولون ان التقليد واجب و تقولون لهم ان اهل البيت ع امروكم بذلك ...و تستدلون برواية وردت تقية وتتركون عشرات الروايات التي تمنع تقليد غير المعصوم ع الا فيما يرويه عن المعصوم ؟!؟!
- Jurist of the end of day, official website of Ahmad al-Hassan.
The commentary of what he said is in two part.
First, he ask the twelver scholar [With what right did you proclaim yourselves as representatives of the Imam al-Mahdi (as)? And how did you make the Taqlid mandatory (Wajib) otherwise actions (A'mal) are not accepted?] I am asking him the same question: - by what right did you proclaim yourself as a successor of Imam al-Mahdi? And how did you make the Taqlid mandatory (Wajib) to you otherwise actions (A'mal) are not accepted? So if he says he has evidence to what he proclaims, we answer to him that we and the twelver scholars (Maraji') also have (evidence).
Second, Ahmad says [You take people as donkeys, you tell them that Taqlid is mandatory and theAhlul-Bayt (as) are those who ordered you to do that. And for that you use narratives that were told in concealment of faith (Taqiyyah) and you abandoned tens of narrations against following (doing Taqlid of) the non-infallibles except what is narrated by an Infallible.] This question is also to Ahmad al-Hassan as he ask this question to Shia scholars, and how did he know that these narrations were under concealement of faith (Taqiyyah)? And what is the balance as to whether a narration was under concealment of faith or if it was not? And then how can we combine the concealement of faith and infallibility? This raise another question, his word that the narrations were under concealement of faith has no evidence, and therefore it is possible for scholars that they also say that the narrations that Ahmad al-Hassan uses are under concealement of faith, so if he demand evidence that this was under concealement of faith we ask that he gives what he ask on the narrations that he refused.
At the end we come to several conclusions, that there is narrations about Taqlid of non-infallible according to him, he also gives no proof of what he says and what he says can be used against him. Is this how the Imam were? Is this how they used to answer the people i.e. without proof?
The commentary of what he said is in two part.
First, he ask the twelver scholar [With what right did you proclaim yourselves as representatives of the Imam al-Mahdi (as)? And how did you make the Taqlid mandatory (Wajib) otherwise actions (A'mal) are not accepted?] I am asking him the same question: - by what right did you proclaim yourself as a successor of Imam al-Mahdi? And how did you make the Taqlid mandatory (Wajib) to you otherwise actions (A'mal) are not accepted? So if he says he has evidence to what he proclaims, we answer to him that we and the twelver scholars (Maraji') also have (evidence).
Second, Ahmad says [You take people as donkeys, you tell them that Taqlid is mandatory and theAhlul-Bayt (as) are those who ordered you to do that. And for that you use narratives that were told in concealment of faith (Taqiyyah) and you abandoned tens of narrations against following (doing Taqlid of) the non-infallibles except what is narrated by an Infallible.] This question is also to Ahmad al-Hassan as he ask this question to Shia scholars, and how did he know that these narrations were under concealement of faith (Taqiyyah)? And what is the balance as to whether a narration was under concealment of faith or if it was not? And then how can we combine the concealement of faith and infallibility? This raise another question, his word that the narrations were under concealement of faith has no evidence, and therefore it is possible for scholars that they also say that the narrations that Ahmad al-Hassan uses are under concealement of faith, so if he demand evidence that this was under concealement of faith we ask that he gives what he ask on the narrations that he refused.
At the end we come to several conclusions, that there is narrations about Taqlid of non-infallible according to him, he also gives no proof of what he says and what he says can be used against him. Is this how the Imam were? Is this how they used to answer the people i.e. without proof?
