Reason #47: Witnesses Deriving Benefit
This is a further rebuttal of KQ’s allegationthat ‘the mansoos alone to his nass’ can suffice without any other witnesses.
‘La yanqudh al shakk al yaqeen’ – لا ينقض الشك اليقين – [Suspicion or doubt cannot break absolute certainty].
This is a universal rule of Fiq’hAhl al Bayt (Fatemi Jurisprudence) that KQ has used to manipulate and fool his followers into believing his self-proclaimed lies.
In kutub al da’wah, such as Syedna al-Qaadi al-Nu’mans RA Kitab al Tahaaraat the rule is primarily mentioned with reference to wuzu. If one is certain that he or she has performed wuzu but is unsure whether or not his/her wuzuhas broken afterwards, the wuzu can be considered intact and Namaz can be offered. That is because la yanqudh al shakk al yaqeen; the doubt of hadath (an act that nullifies wuzu) cannot break the certainty of having performed wuzu.
Yes, the rule does transcend Shariatnaahkaam and can be applied to Fatemi theology and philosophy for a better understanding of both, but not if the doubtful is labeled certainty and certainty is labeled as doubt.
This is precisely what KQ’s slippery tongue tries to do. He deceptively equates the witnessing of his own nass- to yaqeen; and the testimonies of several HududFozala and Mumineen, along with the Nass e Jali in RaudatTahera – to shakk.
In KitabDa’aim al-Islam VII, in the beginning of the Chapter on Testimonies (Kitab al-Shahaadaat, Zikr man yajuzshahaadatuhuwa man laayajuzshahaadatuhu) Syedna al-Qaadi al-Nu’maan RA clearly lists the criteria of a fair witness which includes:
‘He who does not draw benefit to himself’
He further quotes Imam Ja’fer al Sadiq SA saying:
‘The testimony of a witness from which he himself may profit cannot be accepted’
And here, KQ vehemently and righteously claims in his address ‘aa toh yaqeen nij waat che, manej farmayu che [ke maney qaa’im kida che]’ Let’s suppose KQ and his lackeys choose to be selective in accepting ‘principles in Fatemi law’ and disregard a Dawat Kitaab like they repeatedly have; any layman can understand that the man is bearing witness to his own benefit. Google it; you will find that the results almost unanimously accord that the witness to a will cannot be the beneficiary. That is due to conflict of interest and hence such a witness is subject to doubt and suspicion.
On the other hand, the number of witnesses to the nass on Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin TUS is well known by now; the number of instances as well. Not to mention the written documentary evidence attested to by Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin RA in His own writing.
Now THAT is something that is absolutely certain. It is also absolutely certain that there is NO witness to or any other evidence or document quoted on the fatemidawat website that alleges a straightforward unambiguous nass by Syedna Mohammad Burhanuddin RA on KQ.
The only witness to such a simple, straightforward, alleged nass is the beneficiary himself. Is that not suspicious enough?
I ask the fair, unbiased, truth-seeking reader: what do you think should be labeled ‘suspicious’ and ‘absolute certainty’?
Remember la yanqudh al shakk al yaqeen – ‘suspicion cannot break absolute certainty’.