The Bidah Of One Witness Only!

[aladdin]

The Bidah Of One Witness Only!

It abu Bakr who started the bidah of one witness only when narrating hadiths and went against the Holy Quran.

Usually, the Holy Quran requires at least two witness, this is the minimum requirement according to the Holy Quran. Based on the situation and the type of witnesses, it could be up to eight witnesses.

Here is how abu Bakr started the bidah of requiring only one witness when narrating hadiths and went against the Holy Quran.

1. It was abu Bakr who started going against the Holy Quran on the issue of Fadak. Being the caliph, the judge, the jurors, the prosecutor and the only witness, he decided that only one witness is sufficient (himself) alone that he has heard the rasool Allah Mohammad (pbuh) say that alhulBayt are not entiled to inherit.

2. Thus this bidah of requiring only one witness for the transmission of the hadith, was from none other than abu Bakr.

3. Even though he required Bibi Fatima (as) to produce two witnesses for her claim on Fadak. He was sufficient enough to be the only witness. Of course being the caliph, the judge, the jurors and the prosecutor who can argue with him.

4. Bibi Fatima (as) produced, imam Ali (as), the two imams Hassan (as) and Hussain (as), and the house help as her witnesses. Abu Bakr rejected the testimony of bibi Fatima (as) giving the excuse that she has stake in the Fadak. He also rejected the testimonies of the two imams, giving the excuse they both being minors. He accepted the testimony of Imam Ali (as) and the house help. He said that it makes 1 and 1/2 witnesses as the house help is female, less than the two witnesses required by the Holy Quran.

Any thoughts!

[Nader Zaveri]

(salam)

(bismillah)

2. Thus this bidah of requiring only one witness for the transmission of the hadith, was from none other than abu Bakr.

Astaghfurullaah! Are you saying our great scholar, Shaheed Al-Thaanee (whom I quoted about the one persons testimony on a narrator is sufficient), is following the bid'ah of Aboo Bakr?! Astaghfurullaah! What has SC become! A mere 58 year old shiachatter accusing one of our greatest scholars of doing bid'ah, and not just any bid'ah, but the bid'ah of Aboo Bakr!

(salam)

Edited June 30, 2010 by Nader Zaveri

[aladdin]

Astaghfurullaah! Are you saying our great scholar, Shaheed Al-Thaanee (whom I quoted about the one persons testimony on a narrator is sufficient), is following the bid'ah of Aboo Bakr?! Astaghfurullaah! What has SC become! A mere 58 year old shiachatter accusing one of our greatest scholars of doing bid'ah, and not just any bid'ah, but the bid'ah of Aboo Bakr!

What choice imam Ali (as) and AhlulBayt (as) had. His right to imam was upsurged. His livelihood was taken making him penniless overnight. The biggest political move. The Fadak was taken. All the houses which belonged to the Prophet (pbuh) in which bibi Fatima (as) had 7/8 shares and all the wives had 1/8 share were completely given to the wives of the Prophet. The caliph abu Bakr and the wives of the Prophet were set up with monthly payments from the bayt al-mal.

Who could stand up to the army of abu Bakr, the wrath and madness of Omar. Bibi Fatima was murdered. Imam Ali was dragged with rope in his neck. Bibi Fatima was buried secretly during the middle of the night. Hadiths books were burned by all three, abu Bakr, Omar and Osman. People were flogged for narrating hadiths.

Hadiths were recollect after 200-300 years later, when it become the norm to require only one narrator to narrate the hadiths. The bidah became the norm. The 124,000 companions couldn't lie when narrating the hadiths as they were inspired, which is the biggest kakaa. Taking this from the Jews and the Christians. Even the Christians believe only from 4 to 20 companions of the Prophet Isa (as) were inspired.

And, without any doubt the Shia sunnah and hadiths were preserved by the imams (as) themselves.

[GhulameSayyeda]

(salam)

(bismillah)

Astaghfurullaah! Are you saying our great scholar, Shaheed Al-Thaanee (whom I quoted about the one persons testimony on a narrator is sufficient), is following the bid'ah of Aboo Bakr?! Astaghfurullaah! What has SC become! A mere 58 year old shiachatter accusing one of our greatest scholars of doing bid'ah, and not just any bid'ah, but the bid'ah of Aboo Bakr!

(salam)

I see you are astaghfirulla(ing) away, but, al-Thani studied from nearly twelve sunni ulama e fiqh and was known and respected by sunnis in Balabeck for this. He was authorized to teach Muslims in the Nouriyah Islamic school according to all 4 sunni madhabs as well as the shia school of thought.

as we see, not that I have any disrespect for him, but he was so tremendously influenced by sunni ulama and sunni fiqh that the sunnis had certified him to teach them as well as us..... so yes, he could have easily learned such a thing from the sunnis and brought this (bidah) into our school

as far as making the accusations fly, at least we found out that Nader has respect for someone, it just happens to be a someone every sunni in the entire universe has a lot of respect for too.....

still, he has accused Allamah Majlisi and other great SHIA scholars of much worse than this!

Edited June 30, 2010 by GhulameSayyeda

[aladdin]

as far as making the accusations fly, at least we found out that Nader has respect for someone, it just happens to be a someone every sunni in the entire universe has a lot of respect for too.....

still, he has accused Allamah Majlisi and other great SHIA scholars of much worse than this!

Salam brother,

Mr. Zaveri is lying, cheating and deceiveing when he is claiming that I have accused the Ulemas. This is his usual tactics.

You are right that he is the one, who accuses the Ulemas and the Marjas of Shia.

[Nader Zaveri]

(salam)

(bismillah)

Mr. Zaveri is lying, cheating and deceiveing when he is claiming that I have accused the Ulemas. This is his usual tactics.

How is this a tactic? I presented a quote from Shaheed Al-Thaanee's book concerning only needing one witness, then you go off saying the Qur'aan needs 2+ witnesses, and this 1 witness was started by Aboo Bakr. Then, you make a thread saying 1 witness is bid'ah started by Aboo Bakr, and within the points you mentioned, you've stated the bid'ah of one witnesses for narrators. So, you've accused of Shaheed Al-Thaanee of following the bid'ah, and that of Aboo Bakr.

(salam)

[aladdin]

How is this a tactic? I presented a quote from Shaheed Al-Thaanee's book concerning only needing one witness, then you go off saying the Qur'aan needs 2+ witnesses, and this 1 witness was started by Aboo Bakr. Then, you make a thread saying 1 witness is bid'ah started by Aboo Bakr, and within the points you mentioned, you've stated the bid'ah of one witnesses for narrators. So, you've accused of Shaheed Al-Thaanee of following the bid'ah, and that of Aboo Bakr.

What does bidah mean?

It means innovation. Innovation can be good or can be bad. Innovations after some time becomes the norm.

For example, you think that saying the third shahadah in the Adhan is innovation. So what! We Shia believe in the wilayah of imam Ali (as), maybe you don't. Our Marjas who we do the taqlid consider it good.

Now, the innovation of only one witness to narrate the hadith is a very, very bad innovation and against the Holy Quran, which become the norm 200-300 years later.

If you are a Shia, which I don't think so, then you should be aware that we the Usuli Shias do the taqlids of a living Marjas. We take our fiqhi issues from the Marja who we do the taqlid. In a household, the dad might be doing the taqlid of one Marja, the wife of another Marja and yet the children of some other Marjas.

Sayyid Grand Ayatollah Sistani (ra) is the greatest living Marja for the Shias. Even though the Wahhabis call the Marja magicians, he is highly respected Ulema with both the Shias and the Sunnis. Somewhere, I have read that 80% of the Shias in the whole world do his taqlid. You don't have the right to be derogatory towards him and/or any of our Ulemas and Marjas. Neither, you have the right to come between between us and the taqlids of the Marjas.

The following rules apply in both the Forum and the Chatroom.

Disrespect to any Mujtahid, Marja' Taqleed, or religious authority will not be tolerated whatsoever.

Now, see if you can go back to the OP of this thread and stay on the subject.

[akamp]

Nader. This thread was about Abu Bakar.

We were examining his conduct in the said event. What did he have to do to confiscate Fadak from Fatima . What lengths did he go to deny her right.

Were his actions justified in the light of Quran and Hadith.

Are you saying in response that Abu Bakar was right because Shaheed AlThani also applied the priniciple of one witness in the science of Rijjal.

Did you not rationalize the atrocity directed at Ahlu Bayt.

Do you want to do away with the Quranic requirement of witnesses.

If you don't justify Abu Bakar's actions; did you just said that to get back at aladdin at the cost of weakening the case of Fatima .

Edited June 30, 2010 by akamp

[akamp]

Nader. This thread was about Abu Bakar.

We were examining his conduct in the said event. What did he have to do to confiscate Fadak from Fatima . What lengths did he go to deny her right.

Were his actions justified in the light of Quran and Hadith.

Are you saying in response that Abu Bakar was right because Shaheed AlThani also applied the priniciple of one witness in the science of Rijjal.

Did you not rationalize the atrocity directed at Ahlu Bayt.

Do you want to do away with the Quranic requirement of witnesses.

If you don't justify Abu Bakar's actions; did you just said that to get back at aladdin at the cost of weakening the case of Fatima .

and Nader escapes again.

[aladdin]

and Nader escapes again.

Salam brother,

He is nowhere to be found. Though, I will wait for his response so that we can proceed! ;)

Though, might be long time waiting.

[GhulameSayyeda]

Salam brother,

He is nowhere to be found. Though, I will wait for his response so that we can proceed! ;)

Though, might be long time waiting.

he was earlier in the organ donation thread trying to refute the fatwa I had posted by Ayatollah Sistani with another fatwa by the Ayatollah on blood donation though and was trying to say that because Ayatollah Sistani said that we can donate our blood to non-muslims then it meant the Ayatollahs fatwa saying we cannot donate our organs to a non muslim could now be ignored...... he just really amazes me sometimes

Edited June 30, 2010 by GhulameSayyeda

[akamp]

he was earlier in the organ donation thread trying to refute the fatwa I had posted by Ayatollah Sistani with another fatwa by the Ayatollah on blood donation though and was trying to say that because Ayatollah Sistani said that we can donate our blood to non-muslims then it meant the Ayatollahs fatwa saying we cannot donate our organs to a non muslim could now be ignored...... he just really amazes me sometimes

He also implied Azadari to be a joke, but quickly backed of when confronted.

His attempted clarification is even more weird.

[GhulameSayyeda]

He also implied Azadari to be a joke, but quickly backed of when confronted.

His attempted clarification is even more weird.

yeah I know, did you see my response to him on that?

[akamp]

yeah I know, did you see my response to him on that?

Yeah I did. Don't you sometimes feel as if a few people are paid to come here. I mean if it's there job, they will continue no matter what we say.

It kind of explains.

[GhulameSayyeda]

Yeah I did. Don't you sometimes feel as if a few people are paid to come here. I mean if it's there job, they will continue no matter what we say.

It kind of explains.

yeah I really do feel like that sometimes...... that the forces that be will use anything in their power to silence truth.....

but usually it is simply ignorant people chasing after their own ignorances and trying to convince others they are not ignorant

with this person, I really have no clue, but bound and determined is he to make sunnis out of every shia on the planet... wonder why that would be?

Fi Aman Allah

Edited June 30, 2010 by GhulameSayyeda

[aladdin]

Salalm You All.

Give us the link for these juicy threads so that we all might enjoy it too.

Abu Bakr rejected bibi Fatima (as) to be the witness in her own case, saying that it is conflict of interest. If he had accepted bibi Fatima's as a witness, then it would have made two complete witnesses and he had no choice but to hand back the Fadak.

However, he didn't think that there was conflict of interest when he testified as a sole witness against bibi Fatima, keeping in mind that he was the king, the judge, the jury and the prosecutor. Thus, he had four conflict of interest when he testified. Add, to that he went against the Holy Quran, which required at least two witnesses in every case.

1. Now, the big questions is, what was his motive to take away Fadak from bibi Fatima (as).

2. And, more importantly what affect this action had on the whole family of imam Ali (as).

[GhulameSayyeda]

organ transplant thread;

my post here with Ayatollah Sistanis ruling;

5 posts later here is Nader

what is your favorite aspect of shia islam thread;

Naders post

admins post in response;

Naders weird response

I of course after made a witty comment :) (I do find myself to be witty at times, the rest of the world may disagree at will! lol)

now, back to origional topic.......

Edited June 30, 2010 by GhulameSayyeda

[aladdin]

LOL! Thanks brother,

Mr. Zaveri once again proved that he is no near to being a Shia. I loved the Mod's angry rebuke to him.

Why is mourning for Ahlulbayt (as) a joke to you? and I understand you don't want the 'biddah of matam' around but do you have to point this out in every single topic where someone mentions the word azadari or matam, that too in this bad manner?

LOL! You were real witty in your comment to him. We all get that bolt of mischievous in us, once a while! ;)

[akamp]

Nader. This thread was about Abu Bakar.

We were examining his conduct in the said event. What did he have to do to confiscate Fadak from Fatima . What lengths did he go to deny her right.

Were his actions justified in the light of Quran and Hadith.

Are you saying in response that Abu Bakar was right because Shaheed AlThani also applied the priniciple of one witness in the science of Rijjal.

Did you not rationalize the atrocity directed at Ahlu Bayt.

Do you want to do away with the Quranic requirement of witnesses.

If you don't justify Abu Bakar's actions; did you just said that to get back at aladdin at the cost of weakening the case of Fatima .

Tsk Tsk.

Hmmmm. I have to make a separate thread on the deviant views propagated by Nader and Jondab on this board.

Edited July 1, 2010 by akamp

[Nader Zaveri]

(salam)

(bismillah)

Nader. This thread was about Abu Bakar.

We were examining his conduct in the said event. What did he have to do to confiscate Fadak from Fatima . What lengths did he go to deny her right.

Were his actions justified in the light of Quran and Hadith.

Are you saying in response that Abu Bakar was right because Shaheed AlThani also applied the priniciple of one witness in the science of Rijjal.

Did you not rationalize the atrocity directed at Ahlu Bayt.

Do you want to do away with the Quranic requirement of witnesses.

If you don't justify Abu Bakar's actions; did you just said that to get back at aladdin at the cost of weakening the case of Fatima .

Akamp, if you are naive enough to think this thread was solely about Aboo Bakr, then I pity you. This was a thread directed towards me to attack what I had said concerning the amount of witnesses in order to the the ta'deel or jarH of a person (where I quoted Shaheed Al-Thaanee). Which I would like to add, none of the past scholars that I know has made an objection to what Shaheed Al-Thaanee has said. It is the ONLY feasible way to think of when concerning the outlook of hadeeth.

If you notice, the only thing I quote was regarding the transmission of hadeeth, nothing about what Aboo Bakr did against Sayyidah FaaTimah (SA), as we all know whatever happened was horrible and very wrong.

he was earlier in the organ donation thread trying to refute the fatwa I had posted by Ayatollah Sistani with another fatwa by the Ayatollah on blood donation though and was trying to say that because Ayatollah Sistani said that we can donate our blood to non-muslims then it meant the Ayatollahs fatwa saying we cannot donate our organs to a non muslim could now be ignored...... he just really amazes me sometimes

Your intelligence or lack of intelligence really amazes me. I only quoted Marbles on the part about the blood. I didn't try to compare the ruling and try to overthrow you. I simply posted the fataawa of our scholars regarding donating blood to non-muslims, not about organ donations. Please I suggest you to go to some reading comprehension classes, you and aladdin can both go together. Maybe we should start one here on these forums for free, since a lot of members are having trouble comprehending what is being said on here.

(salam)

Edited July 1, 2010 by Nader Zaveri

[lotfilms]

(bismillah)

(salam)

It's incredible how certain people on this forum who don't read the source material (al-Kafi, al-Tahdheeb, Bihar, etc etc) and clearly do not read the 50+ ayats of Quran a day (with contemplation) that our Imams (as) ask of us, try to say what is "Shia" and what is not and that people who don't agree with their view is deviant and not a real Shia. And yet, when we see our Imam's (as) definition of a Shia, we find that there are very very few real Shias.

The even stranger ones are the ones who take the time to memorize all of Ziyarat 'Ashura, Hadith al-Kisa, etc (even if they don't understand what they're saying) and yet haven't taken the time to memorize even 1 juz.

Or even the ones who know more from Sunni books than Shia books.

This isn't directed at one person, but rather a comment on a general trend i've noticed (and this is not just on this forum; it's in real life too)

was salam

[aladdin]

Before, we proceed further I want to ask you three simple question as you claim yourself to be a Shia. You can decline to answer these three questions as Mr. Zaveri did.

1. Are you a Usuli Shia?

2. If yes, do you do the taqlid of a Marja?

3. If yes, what is the name of your Marja?

You can choose not to answer the above three simple questions as Mr. Zaveri did.

If fact, Mr. Zaveri have claimed that his Marja was twelve years old, when he started to study under him.

[Nader Zaveri]

(salam)

(bismillah)

If fact, Mr. Zaveri have claimed that his Marja was twelve years old, when he started to study under him.

Once again, your lack of reading comprehension is insanely horrific! And you try to twist and put words in my mouth, itaqullaah!

He isn't my "marja", he is my ustaadh aka teacher. And I said he's been studying Islaam formally since he was about 12 years old, and now he is 28. I started to study under him for the passed 3+ years.

(salam)

[akamp]

Nader. This thread was about Abu Bakar.

We were examining his conduct in the said event. What did he have to do to confiscate Fadak from Fatima . What lengths did he go to deny her right.

Were his actions justified in the light of Quran and Hadith.

Are you saying in response that Abu Bakar was right because Shaheed AlThani also applied the priniciple of one witness in the science of Rijjal.

Did you not rationalize the atrocity directed at Ahlu Bayt.

Do you want to do away with the Quranic requirement of witnesses.

If you don't justify Abu Bakar's actions; did you just said that to get back at aladdin at the cost of weakening the case of Fatima .

Akamp, if you are naive enough to think this thread was solely about Aboo Bakr, then I pity you. This was a thread directed towards me to attack what I had said concerning the amount of witnesses in order to the the ta'deel or jarH of a person (where I quoted Shaheed Al-Thaanee). Which I would like to add, none of the past scholars that I know has made an objection to what Shaheed Al-Thaanee has said. It is the ONLY feasible way to think of when concerning the outlook of hadeeth.

I don't see your name in the OP, nor any mention of the thread where you advocated for doing away the Quranic requirement of witnesses for the sake of upholding Ilm ur Rijjal.

You are the one who made the thread about yourself and gave the chance to Shias on this thread to question your loyalties again. Why could not you come out with a post solely condemning the behaviour and the subject bida? That is the primary Shia requirement and it's impossible for someone belonging to the opposite group to act in this manner.

Since no body here knows you personally; why don't you stop for a second and think why so many people (tell me if you want links to see) have come out strongly against you. I have nothing against you, and you are not my enemy. I have written about you based on what I have observed about you on this board for a while.

Is it all that hard to understand? I think not.

Edited July 2, 2010 by akamp

[Vigilare]

Regardless my views on this matter, this is very dangerous for us. We can’t start a form of Inquisition because people disagree with certain views. It seems to me that all parties are very knowledgeable, so shouldn’t we try to understand each other and first find common ground? If Imam Ali (a.s.) could do what he did despite all that happened for the sake of Islam, then that is the example we should follow.

[aladdin]

Before, we proceed further I want to ask you three simple question as you claim yourself to be a Shia. You can decline to answer these three questions as Mr. Zaveri did.

1. Are you a Usuli Shia?

2. If yes, do you do the taqlid of a Marja?

3. If yes, what is the name of your Marja?

You can choose not to answer the above three simple questions as Mr. Zaveri did.

I wonder if Mr. lotfilms will ever reply to my above post. Being a Shia, he shouldn't have any problem to answer my above simple questions.

Though, I am not holding my breath.

[aladdin]

Simple - Money is power. He wanted the true heirs of Prophet (pbuh) to stay impoverished and unable to challenge usurpers using the wealth from Fadak

Salam brother,

Very true!

The immediate effect was to starve them to death. As imam Ali (as) job was to help the Prophet (pbuh) to spread Islam. Thus, he didn't have any regular job. Also, imam Ali whatever he got from his share of war booty, and what the AhlulBayt (as) got from the FADAK, he gave away everything in charity.

Therefore, at the death of rasool Allah Mohammad, the AhlulBayt had no money, expect only the revenues from FADAK. When abu Bakr upsurged the rights of imam Ali to succeed the Prophet, the first thing abu Bakr did as khalifa was to take the FADAK away on the death of the Prophet. The immediate affect of this action was to starve them. Now imam Ali had to find work to feed his family, and he no longer can have the time to demand his right of being the khalifa. Or, the other option for imam Ali was to rely on charity and/or gifts from his friends to feed his family.

It was coup d'état by abu Bakr. However imam Ali kept demanding this right during the times of all three abu Bakr, Omar and Usman to ensure that the people to remember about this aristocracy, but the revenue from the FADAK was no longer as important as it was at the death of the Prophet.

Now the question raises, when imam Ali become the caliph, why didn't he give back the FADAK to himself. If he had done that he would be accussed of theft and self interest. He would have become the khalifa, the judge, the jury, the victim himself and this was against the principles of imam Ali.

But after his death until the 12th imam (as), the issue of FADAK was always raised to make sure about this coup d'état by abu Bakr. However, the revenue from FADAK had no significance anymore. It was I believe our 7th imam (as) who was asked by the caliph of his time to give the description so that the FADAK can be returned back to the rightful AhlulBayt. The imam gave the description of the total territory controlled by the caliph, thus telling him that the caliphate was stolen from them.

This is what I think could be the reason.

Fadak was a land which generated high revenue and they did not want Ahlul bayt to get that income. It is a very common practice in this world that people tend to shift towards people who have money. Hence they had to block all sources of income so that Ali (a.s) did not get the support of common man to ask for his right of Caliphate. Otherwise how could it be that all the wives of the Prophet(s.a.w) get to live with the possessions of the Prophet(s.a.w) but not his(s.a.w) own daughter.

For more details on the history of Fadak, you can check this link: http://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/fadak/en/chap2.php

[aladdin]

Salam,

I have started a new thread here in Quran, Hadeeth & Du'a Forum: