Should we be following scholars debate.

[robvalue]

These sound to me like people who presume to speak for god. I'd have nothing to do with such people.

[Mystic]

Scholars exist to impart knowledge, not to be followed. If they want to be followed they become something other than scholars.

This is my view as well. This is what I'm arguing for.

[Minimalist]

Any one who says "god says" should be ignored.

[dyresand]

For those who are interested, I am having a discussion on whether or not scholars should be followed in the sense that one is picked and then followed with regards to everything he teaches about Islamic law.

Here is the thread:
http://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/2350...nd-reason/

You're asking this on a majority atheist site like we care about what shit heads have to say about religious law. 
In all honesty islam is barbaric so is christianity, catholicism and judiasm. And i really do not care what they have say about their fictional book.

[The Atheist]

I'm no scholar, but if you're Muslim, I have some advice:

If believing your religion's holy book requires you to assume that evolutionary biologists, geologists, neuroscientists, scholars, archaeologists, and historians are "attacking" your holy book, then maybe it's your holy book that's wrong.

Just a suggestion.