If Shiaism is about "follow infallibles", why shia "follow fallibles"?

[Hadrami]

for shia, remember this is not a discussion about why imam have to be infallible

[_twelver]

There is a difference between the two '"followings." The following of the Ma'sum Imam [as] is a complete one, their word is ultimately the word of Allah [swt]. The following of the maraji' is merely a reference-point to the fiqh of the Imams [as].After the mujtahid has fulfilled the criteria they become a source to arrive at the rulings of the Imams. We have already seen the tightness of the criteria in brother Hani's thread where any minor deviance/sin cancels out there 'adalah. Also this is like me asking you if sunnism is about following the Prophet [saww] then why do you follow narrators of hadith instead? The underlying principals are the same, the latter are merely relayers of the message of the former.

[Hadrami]

There is a difference between the two '"followings." The following of the Ma'sum Imam [as] is a complete one, their word is ultimately the word of Allah [swt]. The following of the maraji' is merely a reference-point to the fiqh of the Imams [as].After the mujtahid has fulfilled the criteria they become a source to arrive at the rulings of the Imams. We have already seen the tightness of the criteria in brother Hani's thread where any minor deviance/sin cancels out there 'adalah.

I am not talking about whether one is followed fully or not. Go back to the core of shiaism which is that there has to be an infallible imam to be followed as to preserve the deen. If you can preserve the deen without infallible then that defeat the purpose of "have to have infallible" belief in the first place.

Also this is like me asking you if sunnism is about following the Prophet [saww] then why do you follow narrators of hadith instead? The underlying principals are the same, the latter are merely relayers of the message of the former.

Simple, because we are not shia. We believe there is nothing in al-Qur'an & Sunnah which command us to follow or that we need infallibles after Rasulullah shallallahu alaihi wasallam remember? It only becomes an issue if we believe we have to

[Hani]

There is a difference between the two '"followings." The following of the Ma'sum Imam [as] is a complete one, their word is ultimately the word of Allah [swt]. The following of the maraji' is merely a reference-point to the fiqh of the Imams [as].After the mujtahid has fulfilled the criteria they become a source to arrive at the rulings of the Imams. We have already seen the tightness of the criteria in brother Hani's thread where any minor deviance/sin cancels out there 'adalah. Also this is like me asking you if sunnism is about following the Prophet [saww] then why do you follow narrators of hadith instead? The underlying principals are the same, the latter are merely relayers of the message of the former.

I fully understand what you're saying and it makes perfect sense, but this is the belief of Ahlul-Sunnah mainly. The early Imamiyyah, they didn't see this as being valid and they criticized the rest of the Muslims for following Sahabah or Tabi`een, they said that for every time there must be an Imam who can guide people and explain their religion for them and he has to be from Ahlul-Bayt, they even narrated Ahadith about the fact that the world cannot be left without an Imam to guide and correct and explain.

Later on, Waqifi groups like the Ithna-`Ashariyyah claimed that the Imam is in hiding and we can no longer reach him, so they added to those narrations a section that said: "The world must always have an Imam whether apparent or hidden" Other Qat`i groups like the Isma`eeliyyah said that this Ghaybah was nonsense and it contracts intellect and justice, so they clung to the narrations that said: "The world must always have an apparent Imam".

Of course we as Ahlul-Sunnah say both beliefs make no sense, as relaying the Hadith of the infallible is a necessary process thus there has to be reliance on qualified fallible men to transmit what this infallible is saying to the people of the earth.

The same happened when it comes to leadership, early Imami groups saw that ONLY the chosen Imam has a right to rule and that humanity CANNOT ELECT OR CHOOSE whom they see fit to lead them. However, look at what's happening now, they're electing and choosing their own leaders, they only call them "representatives of Sahib al-Zaman" as a religious mask. I seriously doubt intelligent people like yourself brother would be tricked by what they're doing, I mean it's quite obvious what they've done isn't it?

[Husayn]

There is a difference between the two '"followings." The following of the Ma'sum Imam [as] is a complete one, their word is ultimately the word of Allah [swt]. The following of the maraji' is merely a reference-point to the fiqh of the Imams [as].After the mujtahid has fulfilled the criteria they become a source to arrive at the rulings of the Imams. We have already seen the tightness of the criteria in brother Hani's thread where any minor deviance/sin cancels out there 'adalah. Also this is like me asking you if sunnism is about following the Prophet [saww] then why do you follow narrators of hadith instead? The underlying principals are the same, the latter are merely relayers of the message of the former.

Hani already answered these points, but let me add my 2 cents.

Shiis constantly stress the point that you must take your religion from infallibles.

You brag about this, and belittle Ahlul Sunnah for taking their religion from fallibles - i.e. the Sahabah.

But hold on a second, did any of the "infallible" Imams ever write a book, that is perfectly preserved?

No - instead, their teachings are transmitted through fallibles.

So are the teachings of an infallible transmitted through fallibles still infallible?

No.

So then the question is - what are you Shiis bragging about?

We take our religion from fallibles - and so do you.

The only difference is - we actually know who these fallibles are, whereas the Shii fallibles are all majhool, and you will be lucky to even find a place of birth let alone a date of birth for most of them.

[Rationalist]

Also this is like me asking you if sunnism is about following the Prophet [saww] then why do you follow narrators of hadith instead? The underlying principals are the same, the latter are merely relayers of the message of the former.

What about the narrators of the Quran ? They are not your infallible Imams or the 12er Shia.

[Furkan]

It's not like he is obligated to answer directly. Let's take it easy

[Soccer]

Quran and Ahlulbayt words provide a solution to this paradox. 

Dividing on slogans like "we accept the companions and their Sunnah" or "we follow the Twelve Imams" and forming a group understand slogans has never proven slogans to be true.

This is why Shiism and Sunnism are both false sects, and Islam is a false religion.

Because neither the religion "Islam" manifests what it means to submit to God nor is Mohammad a Muslim nor a Shiite nor Sunni but rather was upright submitted to God and was a seeker of truth and guide towards it.

God's Messengers - Christians can claim Jesus, Muslims Mohammad, Shiites Ali, Twelvers, the Twelve Successors, but none of is true until what the actually teachings are of the book and household of guidance is implemented and upheld.

And so for this reason, titles, don't mean anything really when you make an issue of dividing humans from others.

Mohammad (s) and his followers submitted to God, but they weren't Muslims in what today it means to be Muslim nor their religion Islam for what the word Islam means today.

Islam today is undefined. Muslims are undefined definition. Shiism is undefined. Sunnism Undefined. IT means nothing really yet we fight over these boxes like they mean everything.

Ask a person who hasn't read Quran what ISlam and Muslims are, and he thinks he knows enough to not even read the Quran.

This is the truth of reality. Quran translations are also not Quran. And Quran we have today - there is a great sorcery upon it from Iblis and we have to see the trial so as not become blind like children of ISrael who thought there be no trial but became blind as a result of not being vigilant towards it.