We have proven our argument with legitimate and rational proof, and it is published in the books and the latest one is The Book of the Sacred Will, and they do not have a response other than lying and the craftiness of the incapable one which is questioning the chain of narrators of the Will, the Will that is frequently narrated and is mentioned in other places and also, its chain of narrators was declared authentic by al-Toosi, as he described the narrators to be Shia [particular ones]. And they, and all the clerics after al-Toosi, are dependent upon the sayings of al-Toosi concerning the narrators, and they cannot refute the saying of al-Toosi about the narrators with the sayings of the recent clerics, otherwise, even the crumbs between their hands that they call “Biographical Evaluation” will be destroyed, so the truth about the sayings of the recent clerics concerning the narrators is that it is worth exactly nothing as long as they are sayings void of legitimate proof.
They are incapable of giving a legitimate or rational proof for their ideology of imitation upon which they build their clerical religion. So they do not have a Quranic verse with explicit proof or an absolute narration with absolute proof and they do not have complete rational proof. So the rule that referring to the knowledgeable one is obligatory does not apply when it comes to them because they present suppositions and they are supposers, at best. And the truth is that they sometimes present nothing but delusions such as the verdict of prayer in areas near the north or south pole. Moreover, some of those who call themselves clerics do not understand what is being said to them, so at a time when we demand a proof from them for their ideology of imitating the non-infallible, we find them presenting a proof being that one would rationally refer to the expert in a particular field [refer to clerics as they are the experts of the religious field]. And this saying means it is permissible and not that it is obligatory, at best. And there is even a discussion concerning this permissibility. And when they present this saying as a rational proof, this means that either they do not understand what we are saying to them or they admit that their ideology is an innovation and it is false and has no proof, and that they relinquished the ideology of the obligation of imitating the non-infallible after we clarified its falsehood to them, and they resorted to the ideology of its permissibility or that it is favored. And if this is the case, they should announce that they relinquish their false ideology and that they changed from believing it is obligatory to believing it is permissible, in order for us to move our discussion with them to that point and discuss their new ideology.”
I am waiting for the response of the clerics and their defense of the ideology of the obligation of imitating the non-infallible or for them to announce that it is an invalid ideology and that they were mistaken to adopt it.