Ahmad bin Isa Never Migrated to Hadramaut

5/30/2026

Book Title: Exposing the Scholarly Scandal of Ba’alwi History and Genealogy: The Finalization of the Ba‘alwi Genealogical Severance from the Prophet Muhammad PBUH
Original title in Indonesian: Membongkar Skandal Ilmiyah Sejarah dan Genealogi Ba’alwi: Finalisasi Keterputusan Genealogi Ba’alwi Kepada Nabi Muhammad Saw.
Author: KH. Imaduddin Utsman Al-Bantani, head of Pondok Pesantren Nahdlatul Ulum (Islamic Boarding School), Banten
First Edition: 1445 AH / 2024 AD
Publisher: Maktabah Nahdlatul Ulum Banten
Translated into English and Published by: Al-Khoirot Research and Publication
Previous Book: Measuring the Authenticity of the Habib Lineage in Indonesia (Menakar Kesahihan Nasab Habib di Indonesia)
Field of Study: Ba'alwi History, Genealogy (Ilmu Nasab), Islamic History

Table of Contents

Ahmad bin ‘Isa Never Migrated to Hadramaut

The Ba’alwi claim that their genealogy connects to the Prophet Muhammad SAW through Ahmad bin Isa. Ahmad bin Isa has been confirmed by genealogical texts as a descendant of the Prophet through the lineage of Ali al-Uraidi (d. 210 AH). To reach the conclusion that Ahmad bin Isa has descendants in Hadramaut, it requires the historical reality that Ahmad bin Isa, or one of his descendants, actually migrated there. Unfortunately, not a single contemporary genealogical text or historical record—nor those closest to his era—confirms that Ahmad bin Isa ever went to Hadramaut, let alone migrated to settle there. Ba’alwi writers in the ninth century Hijriah wrote that Ahmad bin Isa and Ubaidillah moved to Hadramaut in the year 317 Hijriah. This can be read in their books: Al-Burqat al-Musyiqah Fi Dikri Libas al-Hirqah al-Aniqah (hereafter referred to as Al-Burqoh) by Ali bin Abu Bakar al-Sakran (d. 895 AH) and Al-Jauhar al-Shafaf by Al-Khatib (d. 885 AH). Regarding the latter, Al-Jauhar al-Shafaf, the author views it as a problematic book because it was written by someone completely unknown to the historians of Hadramaut. There was no scholar in Tarim named Al-Khatib who died in the stated year of 885 Hijriah. Therefore, the book Al-Jauhar al-Shafaf should rightfully be dismissed as a reference.

Ali bin Abu Bakar al-Sakran can be considered the first person to formally write that Ahmad bin Isa migrated from Basrah to Hadramaut. According to Ali al-Sakran, Ahmad bin Isa did not migrate from Basrah directly to Hadramaut; instead, he first headed to Madinah, then to Makkah, then to various villages in Yemen, and only after that did he proceed to Hadramaut. Ali al-Sakran did not record the specific year this migration took place. The first book to mention the migration of Ahmad bin Isa complete with its year is Gurar al-Baha’ al-Dawiy wa Durar al-Jamal al-Badi’i al-Bahiy (hereafter referred to as Al-Gurar) by Muhammad bin Ali bin Alwi Khirid Ba’alwi. According to Khirid, Ahmad bin Isa migrated from Basrah to Hadramaut in the year 317 AH. Consequently, we find that the story of Ahmad bin Isa migrating to Hadramaut in that year only emerged after 578 years from when the event was assumed to have occurred.

Many questions will arise in the minds of researchers: from where did Ali al-Sakran and Khirid learn about the migration of Ahmad bin Isa and its specific year without mentioning any sources whatsoever, given that the event took place so long ago, spanning a gap of 578 years? A past event can only be designated as a truly historical event if it is confirmed by contemporary historical sources, or at the very least, historical sources closest to it. Such is the standard procedure in historical science.

Historical sources are divided into primary sources and secondary sources. A primary source is one whose original structure originates from the past—that is, contemporary with the object of research, such as an inscription (epigraph) made by a king. An example is the Batutulis inscription in Bogor, dating to 1533 AD, which serves as a primary source for the figure of King Sri Baduga Maharaja. This inscription proves that Sri Baduga Maharaja was a historical figure in the year 1533 AD. Primary sources allow researchers to get as close as possible to the actual events that transpired during a specific historical event or time period. Historians exert their best abilities in utilizing primary historical sources to understand the past on its own terms, rather than through a modern lens.

In addition to inscriptions, primary sources can take the form of coins, pottery, and so forth. In this modern era, if we want to be believed without being deemed liars when claiming we attended the final match between Brazil and Italy in 1994, we must possess primary evidence of it. This evidence includes an admission ticket to the Rose Bowl stadium in California, United States. Furthermore, it must be proven by external records from the stadium that logged the names of all spectators. If we want to be believed to have been present at that match but cannot present any evidence, on what basis should others believe it?

A secondary historical source is a historical source in the form of a book that describes events that occurred in the past. The closer its era is to the event, the more trustworthy it becomes. Secondary sources usually utilize primary sources as evidence, or other secondary sources closest to the event. For a more distant secondary source, its substance must possess a connection to a closer source. The urgency of a secondary source disappears if it contradicts a closer source. If a distant source contradicts the information of a closer source, yet this distant source possesses primary evidence, then the distant source must be prioritized over the closer source that contradicts the primary evidence.

Because neither Ali al-Sakran nor Khirid included any primary sources at all, we are forced to state scientifically that the migration of Ahmad bin Isa to Hadramaut never occurred. Then, what is the author's accountability when firmly believing that this migration never happened? Can the author provide "evidence to the contrary" stating that Ahmad bin Isa did not migrate to Hadramaut? If what is desired by "evidence to the contrary" is an explicit sentence stating that Ahmad bin Isa never migrated to Hadramaut, of course that does not exist, and such a demand is fabricated. How can an event that never occurred require a negative statement documenting its non-existence? As a shared example, we all know that the State of Indonesia, since its independence, has never had a president named Samlawi. To know that there has never been an Indonesian President named Samlawi, we do not require the testimony of a history book written from independence until today stating that Indonesia never had a president named Samlawi. It is sufficient for us to list the names of Indonesian presidents from independence until today, wherein the name Samlawi does not appear.

Furthermore, can the author present an explanation as to where Ahmad bin Isa was during his lifetime? Is it true that he was in Basrah? Ahmad bin Isa was reported by a scholar named Abu Ja’far Muhammad bin al-Hasan al-Tusi (d. 460 AH) in his book Al-Gaybah. Al-Tusi mentions that Ahmad bin Isa met Abul Hasan (d. 254 AH) in the village of Surya in the city of Madinah. On that occasion, Abul Hasan stated that his son, Al-Hasan (d. 260 AH), would later become his successor as the 11th Shia Imam. Below is the excerpt from the book Al-Gaybah by Al-Tusi:

عنه عن أحمد بن عيسى العلوي من ولد علي بن جعفر قال: دخلت على أبي الحسن عليه السلام بصريا فسلمنا عليه فإذا نحن بأبي جعفر وأبي محمد قد دخلا فقمنا إلى أبي جعفر لنسلم عليه فقال أبو الحسن عليه السلام ليس هذا صاحبكم عليكم بصاحبكم واشار إلى أبي محمد عليه السلام

"165- It is narrated from him (Sa’ad bin Abdullah), from Ahmad bin Isa al-Alawi, from the lineage of Ali bin Ja’far, he said: 'I met Ali Abul Hasan, peace be upon him, in Surya, so we greeted him with peace. Then we met Abi Ja’far and Abi Muhammad, both of whom had entered, so we stood up for Abi Ja’far to greet him with peace. Then Abul Hasan, peace be upon him, said: "He is not your companion (leader); look to your companion," and he gestured toward Abi Muhammad, peace be upon him.'"

From the narrative above, we can conclude several things: first, that Ahmad bin Isa was an "Imami Shi'ite" (Syi’iy Ima’miy), because it is rare for a non-Shia to be included among the transmitters of Imami Shia history. Second, the text also explains to us the closeness between Ahmad bin Isa and Abul Hasan, who was the 10th Shia Imam. The lineages of both Ahmad bin Isa and Abul Hasan converge at Ja’far al-Sadiq, and both represent the fourth generation from him. The lineage of Abul Hasan is Abul Hasan bin Muhammad bin Ali bin Musa al-Kadim bin Ja’far al-Sadiq. Meanwhile, the lineage of Ahmad bin Isa is Ahmad bin Isa bin Muhammad al-Naqib bin Ali al-Uraidi bin Ja’far al-Sadiq.

It appears that Ali al-Uraidi and his descendants were always loyal to Musa al-Kadim and his descendants in their political and religious stances. Ibnu Inabah (d. 828 AH) explicitly mentions in the book Umdat al-Talib that Ali al-Uraidi was a follower of Shia. Similarly, it is stated in the book Masa’il Abi Ja’far that Ali al-Uraidi was a Shia follower, and he was always with Musa al-Kadim at home as well as when traveling. If people wished to meet Musa al-Kadim for a certain need, Ali al-Uraidi was the path through whom they had to pass. He also demonstrated this loyalty to the son of Musa al-Kadim, Ali al-Rida, and his grandson, Muhammad Abu Ja’far al-Jawad. It is mentioned by Al-Umari in the book Al-Majdi that Ali al-Uraidi deeply respected Abul Hasan's father, namely Muhammad Abu Ja’far, even though Ali was the uncle of Muhammad Abu Ja’far's father. Al-Umari also narrates that one day Muhammad Abu Ja’far visited Ali al-Uraidi, whereupon Ali al-Uraidi invited Muhammad to sit in his chair while Ali al-Uraidi stood without speaking a single word until Muhammad left.

From the citation of Al-Tusi as well, we can learn that Ahmad bin Isa was in the city of Madinah at around 20 years of age. This estimation of Ahmad bin Isa's age is based on the age of Abul Hasan when they met in Madinah, where both Abul Hasan and Ahmad bin Isa belonged to the same fourth generation from Ja’far al-Sadiq. Nevertheless, there is no source yet that can serve as a guide to show whether he was born in Madinah, or if he was born in another city and was merely visiting Abul Hasan in Madinah. If he was born in Madinah, and at the age of 20 he was still there, is there any source mentioning that he went outside the city of Madinah after that? When a conclusion has been found—namely that Ahmad bin Isa was in Madinah at around 20 years of age—and there is no source mentioning that he departed from Madinah, then we should let that conclusion remain as it is: that Ahmad bin Isa never left Madinah, until there is evidence to prove otherwise. Even if, for example, an account of Ahmad bin Isa relocating from Madinah after his meeting with Abul Hasan were to be found, it is highly probable that he moved to the city of Samira to accompany Abul Hasan. Al-Khatib al-Baghdadi (d. 463 AH) in his book Tarikh Baghdad mentions that Caliph Al-Mutawakkil invited Abul Hasan to live close to him, so Abul Hasan moved to Samira and lived there for twenty years before he passed away in the year 254 AH and was buried there as well. Al-Baghdadi also notes that Abul Hasan was born in 214 AH, which means when he died he was 40 years old, and that migration event occurred in the year 234 Hijriah. Seeing the closeness of Ahmad bin Isa to Abul Hasan, it is highly probable that if news of his relocation were verified as true, he would have moved to Samira, not to Hadramaut. Samira was one of the destination cities that became home to the descendants of the Prophet Muhammad SAW through the line of Ja’far al-Sadiq, alongside Baghdad, Basrah, Qum, Ray, Najaf, Shiraz, Isfahan, Kufah, Sham, and several other cities in Iraq and Iran. No historical narrative has been found mentioning that any among them migrated to Hadramaut.

It is very difficult to understand and accept by a researcher's logic that an Imami Shi'ite like Ahmad bin Isa would migrate to Hadramaut, which at that time was controlled by the Ibadi community who were anti-Shia. Even if he had to move, he should reasonably have chosen San'a, which was controlled by the Zaidi Hadawi Shia. Though differing in certain religious views, it would certainly be more acceptable compared to the Ibadis. This circumstance subsequently forced Ba’alwi historians to labor extensively to fabricate an ahistorical tale wherein it is said, for instance by Al-Syatiri in his book Adwar al-Tarikh al-Hadrami, that upon arriving in Hadramaut, Ahmad bin Isa debated with Ibadi scholars and, as can be guessed, Ahmad bin Isa won the debate and silenced the Ibadi scholars. The author does not recommend readers to use Al-Syatiri's book as a reference for the history of Hadramaut, because what Al-Syatiri wrote, particularly regarding the story of the Ba’alwi family, is virtually devoid of references. Rather than a history book, it is more accurate to describe it as a novel with a scholarly background. Similarly, books authored or edited (tahqiq—published while rectifying various deficiencies such as typos or illegible letters due to age) by other members of the Ba’alwi family should not be used as references to view the history of Hadramaut from the third century until today. This is because the dominant spirit behind the editing and writing of that history is merely driven by efforts to reconstruct the historical gaps, contradictions, and ahistorical names within the Ba’alwi family lineage. By viewing Hadramaut historiography through untrustworthy books, we will not see the actual historical facts of Hadramaut, but only a history manufactured for a particular interest.

From Al-Tusi’s citation as well, we can see how the historical inventions of the Ba’alwi face contradictions when viewed from the chronological order they created. For example, the Ba’alwi record that the year of Ahmad bin Isa’s migration to Hadramaut was 317 Hijriah, and the year of his death was 345 Hijriah. If Ahmad bin Isa was 20 years old in the year 234 AH, it means that during the migration he would have been 103 years old, and at the time of his death he would have been 131 years old. It is highly awkward for an frail, elderly person of 103 years to relocate from Basrah to Hadramaut covering a distance of more than 2,000 km, just as it is highly improbable for someone to reach the age of 131. The 20-year age estimation for Ahmad bin Isa based on Abul Hasan’s age is an estimate made to maintain scholarly fairness; it is quite possible that when meeting Abul Hasan, Ahmad bin Isa was older than that. If Ahmad bin Isa’s age is estimated to have reached just 40 years old at that time, it means that when he died he would have reached 151 years of age. If it is argued that the reverse could also happen—namely that Ahmad bin Isa’s age when meeting Abul Hasan was less than 20 years—that possibility could indeed occur, but it would not be less than the age of puberty (baligh), which is 15 years old. This is because the conversation regarding the "Imamah" (leadership) from Abul Hasan to Ahmad bin Isa was an important testament or witness—namely that the one to succeed Abul Hasan would be his son named Al-Hasan, not his other children. Surely, this kind of testament and witnessing is invalid if given to a small child who has not reached puberty.

The story that Ahmad bin Isa lived in Basrah, according to the author, originated from the existence of a person named Ahmad bin Isa bin Zaid in Basrah, who was mentioned by Al-Khatib al-Baghdadi in his book Tarikh Baghdad. Subsequently, the Ba’alwi mistook him for Ahmad bin Isa bin Muhammad al-Naqib. Apparently, the Ba’alwi attempted to locate the name Ahmad bin Isa in destination cities of the sadat (descendants of the Prophet), so that the historiography already written claiming Ahmad bin Isa migrated from the cities of the sadat would have a historical foundation. Then, when a similar name was found in the city of Basrah, it was immediately claimed as the story of Ahmad bin Isa, whereas it was actually the wrong person. This carelessness in citation and erroneous claiming can be seen, for instance, in the book Al-Imam al-Muhajir Ahmad bin Isa bin Ja’far by Muhammad Diya’ Shihab Ba’alwi. In that book, he states that Ahmad bin Isa was recorded in the book Tarikh Baghdad by Al-Khatib al-Baghdadi. Muhammad Diya’ states:

وفي تاريخ بغداد للخطيب عند ترجمة محمد بن جريج الطبري (224-310) قال الطبري كتب الي أحمد بن عيسي العلوي من البلد بصر من الطويل

"And in the book Tarikh Baghdad by Al-Khatib, when explaining about Muhammad bin Jarir al-Tabari (224-310 AH), Al-Tabari says: Ahmad bin Isa al-Alawi from Al-Balad (Basrah) (from the Bahr Tawil meter)..."

After quoting Tarikh Baghdad, Muhammad Diya’ comments that Ibnu Jarir addressing Ahmad bin Isa al-Alawi with the title "amiri" (my governor/prince) is sufficient proof of Ahmad bin Isa’s high status. This address was not because Ahmad bin Isa was older; according to Muhammad Diya’, Ibnu Jarir was older than Ahmad bin Isa. This careless analysis by Muhammad Diya’ gives birth to an incorrect conclusion. When we want to know which Ahmad bin Isa al-Alawi was intended by Al-Khatib, we must find out whether Ahmad bin Isa al-Alawi is mentioned elsewhere in his book. Then we look to see if there are clues there that we can extract so we can know who Al-Khatib actually meant by Ahmad bin Isa. In another part of his book, Al-Khatib mentions the name Ahmad bin Isa al-Alawi as shown in the quote below:

"Ibnu Razak informed us, he said: Ali bin Abdurrahman bin Isa al-Kufi informed us, he said: Muhammad bin Mansur al-Muradi narrated to us, he said: Abu Tahir narrated to me, namely Ahmad bin Isa al-Alawi..."

From this quote, we learn that the Ahmad bin Isa al-Alawi intended in Al-Khatib’s narrative in his book is the one who had a student named Muhammad bin Mansur al-Muradi. Who was al-Muradi? Ibnu al-Nadim (d. 380 AH) in his book Al-Fihrasat states:

"Al-Muradi was one of the prominent figures of the Zaidiyyah; he was Abu Ja’far Muhammad bin Mansur al-Muradi al-Zaidi. He authored books: the book Tafsir al-Kabir, the book Tafsir al-Sagir, the book Ahmad bin Isa, the book Sirat al-’A’immati al-’Adilat, and he has a book on legal rulings..."

From this, we already know that the Ahmad bin Isa al-Alawi intended by Al-Khatib was not Ahmad bin Isa bin Muhammad al-Naqib, but the Ahmad bin Isa who held Zaidiyyah beliefs, namely the one who had the student Muhammad bin Mansur al-Muradi. Al-Muradi composed a book for this Ahmad bin Isa al-Alawi called the book Al-’Ulum, popularly known as Amali Ahmad bin Isa, which in the writings of Ibnu al-Nadim is referred to as the Book of Ahmad bin Isa. Today, that book has been published by Sayyid Yusuf bin Muhammad al-Mu’ayyad al-Hasani in the year 1401 AH. Furthermore, was Ahmad bin Isa al-Alawi contemporary with Ibnu Jarir al-Tabari, as in the account of them corresponding with each other? In the book Maqatil al-Talibiyyin by Abu al-Faraj al-Isfahani (d. 356 AH), it is mentioned that Ahmad bin Isa bin Zaid al-Alawi died in the year 247 Hijriah, which means he was contemporary with Ibnu Jarir, since Ibnu Jarir was born in the year 224 Hijriah and died in the year 310 Hijriah.

From the explanations above, it is proven that Muhammad Diya’ Shihab’s citation regarding Ahmad bin Isa was misdirected. He was not Ahmad bin Isa bin Muhammad al-Naqib, but Ahmad bin Isa bin Zaid. However, at least he made an effort to write scientifically by quoting primary books like Tarikh Baghdad, unlike other writers from the Ba’alwi circle who wrote history in the ninth century Hijriah about an event 550 years prior without any references at all. From this, the historiography of the lineage and ancestral names of the Ba’alwi—which was written down firmly from the ninth century onward—is proven to have been written from a vacuum. Forget presenting a source that mentions the migration of Ahmad bin Isa from Basrah to Hadramaut; they cannot even present a primary source mentioning that Ahmad bin Isa was ever in Basrah. This highly limited information regarding Ahmad bin Isa bin Muhammad al-Naqib, according to the author's assumption, could be due to several reasons, among which is that perhaps Ahmad bin Isa did not live a long life, so he did not play many recorded roles in the subsequent journey of Abul Hasan's family.

Murtada al-Zabidi (d. 1205 AH) in his book Al-Raud al-Jaly (a book discussing the Ba’alwi lineage) quotes that Al-Ubaidili (d. 436 AH) stated that Ahmad bin Isa al-Naqib migrated from Madinah to Basrah in the fourth century Hijriah, and then departed with his son toward the east. That quote was commented upon by Muhammad Abu Bakar Abdullah Badzib, a Yemeni historian who is also the editor (muhaqiq) of said book, noting that the quote is not found in Al-Ubaidili’s book, Tahdib al-Ansab. Badzib, although known to be close to the Ba’alwi family, is critical in commenting on the anomalies within the book Al-Raud al-Jaly. Aside from the unconfirmed citation of Al-Ubaidili, there are still many other issues in the book Al-Raud al-Jaly that do not align with historical facts. The citations made by Ba’alwi writers and the books of past scholars edited by them are indeed fraught with problems and can be categorized as a "scholarly scandal". The books edited and published by them must be read with high vigilance; if necessary, we must confirm them with the original manuscripts so that we do not get trapped in the history they manufactured. The way to read history is not by looking at the popularity of that history at present, but it must be traced whether there is alignment between that history and the discoverable contemporary sources. The historiography of the Ba’alwi lineage has indeed been widely written from the ninth century Hijriah up to this fifteenth century, but it remains fragile because it contradicts the contemporary or near-contemporary sources that have been successfully discovered.[]

The Tomb of Ahmad bin Isa

The defenders of the Ba’alwi lineage argue for the migration of Ahmad bin Isa to Hadramaut by citing archeological evidence in the form of the tomb of Ahmad bin Isa in Husaysah, Hadramaut. The question is, is it true that the tomb claimed to be the tomb of Ahmad bin Isa is authentic? Has that tomb been known since the passing of Ahmad bin Isa? What contemporary source can testify that Ahmad bin Isa was truly buried in Husaysah? A tomb in a certain location cannot serve as historical proof for the existence of a figure claimed to be buried there without supporting evidence in the form of records about it. If it were otherwise, then people in Banten nowadays could construct a beautiful and grand tomb, then write upon it in beautiful script as well, that this tomb is the tomb of Imam Syafi’i. Could it then be said that Imam Syafi’i migrated to Banten and left descendants in Banten?

Sheikh Ahmad bin Hasan al-Mu’allim stated:

لم يثبت في تاريخ اليمن وجود قبر معظم عليه مشهد أو مسجد مسجد قبل العقد الثاني من القرن الخامس إلا ما ذكر مما يسمى الشهيدين بصنعاء الذي قيل أنه على قبري قثم وعبدالرحمن ابني عبيدالله بن العباس

"There is nothing in the history of Yemen concerning an exalted tomb over which there is a mashhad (shrine) and a mosque up until the second decade of the fifth century, except what is mentioned regarding what is called the Syahidain mosque in San’a. Namely, that which is said to be over the tombs of Qatsam and Abdurrahman, the two sons of Ubaidillah bin Abbas who were killed by Basar bin Arto’ah, the official appointed by Muawiyah in Yemen."

From this explanation by Sheikh Ahmad bin Hasan al-Mu’allim, it can be concluded that the tomb currently existing in Husaysah, which is attributed to Ahmad bin Isa, was not yet known in Yemen until the year 450 AH, even though Ahmad bin Isa had passed away 105 years prior (?). Al-Janadi (d. 732 AH), as a historian who was fond of recording the existence of the tombs of figures visited by people for pilgrimage, also did not record that there was a tomb of Ahmad bin Isa in Husaysah. Meanwhile, the two figures mentioned by Sheikh Ahmad bin Hasan Al-Muallim had their existence recorded by Al-Janadi in Al-Suluk Fi Tabaqat al-Ulama wa-al-Muluk. He stated:

وقبر الطفلين مشهور بصنعاء في مسجد يعرف بمسجد الشهيدين يزار ويستنجح من الله فِيهِ الْحَاجَاتِ

"And the tomb of the two children is famous in San’a inside a mosque known by the name of the Al-Syahidain mosque, visited for pilgrimage, and where supplications are made to Allah for the fulfillment of needs."

Aside from those two tombs, Al-Janadi was also diligent in making pilgrimages to the tombs of various figures. For instance, he recorded the tomb of an Iraqi doctor who was considered a hero in Qinan, and he went on a pilgrimage there. He said:

وقبره هنالك وهو مسجد جامع له منارة يزار ويتبرك به دخلته في المحرم أول سنة ست وتسعين وستمائة

"And his tomb (the doctor from Iraq) is over there (Qinan); it is a congregational mosque that has a minaret, is visited for pilgrimage, and is considered a source of blessing. I entered it in Muharram at the beginning of the year 696 AH."

Al-Janadi (d. 732) did not record the existence of the tomb of Ahmad bin Isa, even though he was a historian diligent in recording the names of tombs visited for pilgrimage and considered a source of blessing. This means that in the year 732 AH, the tomb of Ahmad bin Isa was not yet known (read: 'did not exist') as it is today. A span of 387 years had passed since his death, yet the tomb of Ahmad bin Isa was not known to the people. Then when did the story begin that Ahmad bin Isa was buried in Husaysah? The earliest account obtained is the account from Bamakhramah (d. 947 AH) in his book Qaladat al-Nahr Fi Wafayyat A’yan al-Dahr. In that book, it is mentioned that there are two opinions regarding the tomb of Ahmad bin Isa: the first opinion states that he died and was buried in Husaysah; the second opinion states that he died in Qarah Jasyib. Based on what, then, was this tomb of Ahmad bin Isa certain to be in Husaysah, as is currently famous as his tomb? Bamakhramah mentioned that the tomb is believed to be the tomb of Ahmad bin Isa because Sheikh Abdurrahman visited it for pilgrimage and there was a light that could be seen from the place believed to be the tomb of Ahmad bin Isa. So it was not based on prior data and sources. Bamakhramah said:

يرى عل الموضع الذي يشار اليه ان قبره الشريف فيه النور العظيم وكان شيخنا العارف بالله عبد الرحمن بن الشيخ محمد بن علي علوي يزوره في ذالك المكان

"A great light is seen from the place pointed out that his noble grave is therein. And our teacher, Al-Arif Billah Abdurrahman bin Sheikh Muhammad bin Ali Alawi, used to visit that place for pilgrimage."

That is how the tomb of Ahmad bin Isa was found, which is to say, not based on a manuscript stating that he was indeed buried in Husaysah, and not because the tomb had actually existed since the day of his passing in the year 345 AH, but it was established based on ijtihad (independent reasoning). This means that the tomb of Ahmad bin Isa was only recently found, and even built, in the ninth or tenth century Hijriah, which is around 602 years after the day of his passing. From there, the existence of Ahmad bin Isa’s tomb in Husaysah, based on the conclusion of the non-existence of his migration event to Hadramaut, is highly convincing to be labeled as a fake tomb.

Ahmad Bin Isa Was Not Titled "Al-Muhajir"

In the book Uqud al-Almas, Alwi bin Tahir al-Haddad (d. 1382 AH) strives with all his might to maintain that Ahmad bin Isa was titled "Al-Muhajir". He wishes to demolish the reality that the title recorded by lineage scholars from the 5th century until the 9th century for Ahmad bin Isa was "Al-Abah" and "Al-Naffat"; there was no title of "Al-Muhajir" for Ahmad bin Isa. In fact, Ahmad bin Isa had not yet been attributed the title "Al-Muhajir" by the founder of the Ba’alwi lineage, Ali bin Abubakar al-Sakran (w. 895 H) in his book Al-Burqoh Al-Musyiqoh. Similarly, the title "Al-Muhajir" had not yet been attributed by Abu Bakar bin Abdullah al-Idrus (d. 914 AH) in his book Al-Juz’ al-Latif when he traced the chain of his lubs al-khirqah (the donning of the Sufi order garment). Other tenth-century Ba’alwi scholars such as Muhammad bin Ali Khirid Ba’alwi (d. 960 AH) also had not yet attributed the title "Al-Muhajir" to Ahmad bin Isa. Likewise, in the eleventh century Hijriah, the title "Al-Muhajir" was still not known. Abdul Qadir bin Sheikh al-Idrus (d. 1038 AH) in his book Al-Nur al-Safir and Al-Syili Ba’alwi (d. 1093 AH) in his book Al-Masra’ al-Rawi did not attribute the title "Al-Muhajir" to Ahmad bin Isa. The first mention from the Ba’alwi family referring to Ahmad bin Isa by the designation "Al-Muhajir" was made by Ahmad bin Zein al-Habsyi (d. 1144 AH), a twelfth-century Hijriah scholar. Thus, the title was attributed to him after 799 years, calculated from the passing of Ahmad bin Isa until the passing of Ahmad bin Zein al-Habsyi. The title "Al-Muhajir" (the emigrant) was given to Ahmad bin Isa as an "alibi" that he truly migrated to Hadramaut, whereas there has never been any primary source stating that Ahmad bin Isa migrated from Basrah to Hadramaut. Let alone reports of Ahmad bin Isa migrating from Basrah to Hadramaut, even reports regarding his presence in Basrah have never had their records found in primary sources.

This title of "Al-Muhajir" is today even more famous than the name of Ahmad bin Isa himself; he is now more popularly called "Ahmad al-Muhajir". Even Muhammad Diya’ Shihab wrote his biography with the grand title Al-Imam al-Muhajir. The effort to popularize the title "Al-Muhajir" is accompanied by the efforts of the Ba’alwi family to destroy other titles for Ahmad bin Isa written by lineage books from the 5th century until the 9th century, namely the titles "Al-Abh" and "Al-Naffat". This is like what was done by Alwi bin Tahir al-Haddad mentioned earlier, regarding how he challenges those earlier lineage scholars by considering it a carelessness when they gave the titles "Al-Abh" and "Al-Naffat". Alwi al-Haddad stated:

"The conclusion of this lengthy discussion is that Imam al-Muhajir (Ahmad bin Isa) bin Muhammad bin Ali al-Uraidi was not given the titles 'Al-Abah' and 'Al-Naffat', as has been done by the scholars who came before."

This statement by Alwi does not accord with the reality that earlier lineage scholars gave Ahmad bin Isa the title "Al-Abh", some others "Al-Naffat", and some others both. For instance, in the book Tahdib al-Ansab by Al-Ubaidili (d. 437 AH), it is mentioned in that book that the title of Ahmad bin Isa was "Al-Naffat". Likewise, the book Al-Majdi by Al-Umari (d. 490 AH). There is no title of "Al-Muhajir" for Ahmad bin Isa. These two books are sufficient to be mentioned in order to refute Alwi al-Haddad’s thesis that Ahmad bin Isa was not titled "Al-Naffat" and "Al-Abh", because these two books are among the oldest as books that mention Ahmad bin Isa and his descendants. The existence of another narration mentioning that the title "Al-Naffat" belonged to the grandson of Ahmad bin Isa, such as a narration from a book younger than both, is another matter whose validity and the strength of both narrations can be tested, because it is entirely possible for a grandson to have the same title as his grandfather due to occupation or other reasons. Alawi al-Haddad should not negate the reality of the narrations that clearly mention Ahmad bin Isa was titled "Al-Naffat" and "Al-Abh". In fact, on page eleven of his book, Alawi al-Haddad explicitly states that Al-Ubaidili and Al-Umari do not mention the title "Al-Naffat". Whether he practiced a "deliberately lie" (intentionally lying) or was unable to understand Arabic correctly, both are possible. The possibility that he committed a "deliberately lie" applies to the case of the book Tahdzib al-Ansab. Notice the wording of Al-Ubaidili below:

وأحمد بن عيسي النقيب بن محمد بن علي العُرَيضِي يلقب النفاط

"And Ahmad bin Isa al-Naqib bin Muhammad bin Ali al-Uraidi, was given the title al-Naffat."

It is clear that in Al-Ubaidili’s wording, Ahmad bin Isa was titled "Al-Naffat". Why did Alwi al-Haddad say that Al-Ubaidili did not write it? It is difficult for us to say that Alwi bin Tahir is fit to be used as a reference, because it has been proven that the wording of his citation differs from the original book or manuscript; it is reasonable to suspect that he "deliberately lied". For the case of the possibility that he did not understand Arabic and intentionally lied at the same time, it applies to the case of the book Al-Majdi. Notice the following sentence from the book Al-Majdi:

"And Ahmad Abul Qasim al-Abh who is known as 'al-naffat' because he traded in naphtha oil (a type of kerosene), he has descendants in Baghdad from Al-Hasan Abu Muhammad al-Dalal Aladdauri in Baghdad, I saw him (Al-Hasan) pass away at the end of his life in Baghdad, he (Al-Hasan) is the son of Muhammad bin Ali bin Muhammad bin Ahmad bin Isa bin Muhammad (al-Naqib) bin (Ali) al-Uraidi."

It is very clear indeed that Al-Umari wrote that Ahmad, whose kunyah is "Abul Qasim", was titled "Al-Abh" and also known by the title "Al-Naffat". Why did Alwi al-Haddad say that Al-Umari did not record him as being titled "Al-Naffat"? Was it because he mistakenly reversed a damir (pronoun in Arabic) and misunderstood the siyaq al-kalam (a proposition understood from the preceding proposition)? Or did he understand, yet intentionally twisted the damir and siyaq al-kalam for the sake of defending his lineage? Notice the writing of Alwi al-Haddad; in his wording, there is one letter that he changed from the original book, and he also added "parentheses" in several sentences so that the meaning becomes 180 degrees different:

Notice the "parentheses" above. Notice also one letter changed by Al-Haddad. Namely, the letter found in the phrase min al-hasan (from Al-Hasan) had its letter mim changed into the letter ba, becoming bin al-Hasan (son of Al-Hasan). Before being changed, the meaning was that Ahmad Abul Qasim Al-Abh was Ahmad bin Isa who had descendants from Al-Hasan. When the letter mim was changed into ba, the meaning became that Ahmad Al-Abah was not Ahmad bin Isa, but Ahmad bin al-Hasan, namely the fourth grandson of Ahmad bin Isa. The conclusion desired by Alwi al-Haddad is that Ahmad bin Isa was not titled "Al-Abh" or "Al-Naffat", but his title was only "Al-Muhajir", whereas there are no lineage and history scholars from the 3rd century until the 9th century who mention Ahmad bin Isa with the title "Al-Muhajir". Why was Ahmad bin Isa not titled "Al-Muhajir" like the 12th-century claim of the Ba’alwi family? The answer is because Ahmad bin Isa never visited, let alone settled and left descendants in Hadramaut.

Ahmad Bin Isa Did Not Have Children Named Abdullah or Ubaidillah

In the 9th century, Ali bin Abu Bakar al-Sakran in his book Al-Burqat al-Musyiqat claimed that his family represents descendants of Prophet Muhammad SAW through the line of Alwi bin Ubaidillah bin Ahmad bin Isa bin Muhammad al-Naqib bin Ali al-Uraidi. Such a lineage is rejected because Ahmad bin Isa (d. 345 AH (?)) in the records of lineage books closest to his time did not have a child named Ubaidillah. The books that confirm that Ahmad bin Isa did not have a child named Ubaidillah/Abdullah are:

First, the book Tahdib al-Ansab wa Nihayat al-Alqab authored by Al-Ubaidili (d. 437 AH). When he mentions the descendants of Ali al-Uraidi, Al-Ubaidili does not mention the name Ubaidillah as a child of Ahmad bin Isa. He only mentions one child of Ahmad bin Isa, which is Muhammad. The citation from the book is as follows:

"And Ahmad bin Isa al-Naqib bin Muhammad bin Ali al-Uraidi, was given the title Al-Naffat, among his descendants is Abu Ja’far (al-A’ma: the blind) Muhammad bin Ali bin Muhammad bin Ahmad, he went blind at the end of his life, he went to Basrah, settled and died there. And he has children. His brother in Al-Jabal (the mountain) also has children."

Al-Ubaidili, the author of this book Tahdzib al-Ansab, lived in the same era as Alwi, and also in the same era as his father, namely Ubaidillah. According to the book Lisan al-Mizan by Ibnu Hajar al-Asqalani (d. 852 AH), Al-Ubaidili passed away in the year 436 or 437 Hijriah, which means only 36 or 37 years after the death of Alwi in the year 400 Hijriah (?), plus, it is stated in the book that Al-Ubaidili's age reached 100 years. This means Al-Ubaidili was born in 336/337 Hijriah, and Ubaidillah, who was Alwi's father, passed away in the year 383 AH (?). Therefore, when this Ubaidillah passed away, Al-Ubaidili was already 47 years old, and at the time of Alwi's death, Al-Ubaidili had reached over 60 years of age; surely his knowledge and wisdom had reached the level of thiqah (trustworthy).

Additionally, it is mentioned in the same book that Al-Ubaidili during his lifetime frequently visited many countries such as Damascus, Egypt, Tiberias, Baghdad, and Mosul. If that is the case, it would be proper for Al-Ubaidili, when explaining the descendants of Ahmad bin Isa, to record the name Alwi as a grandson of Ahmad bin Isa and Ubaidillah as a child of Ahmad bin Isa, but the reality is Al-Ubaidili did not mention them. Why? Because indeed these two names were not found as a child and grandson of Ahmad bin Isa. Furthermore, as mentioned by Muhammad Diya Shihab in his book Al-Imam Ahmad al-Muhajir, that Ahmad bin Isa was an "Imam", surely if he were truly an "imam", he would be known by the general public, not just his person but also his children and his grandsons. But the reality is, the scholar who was contemporary with Alwi, namely Al-Ubaidili, does not mention Alawi as a grandson of Ahmad bin Isa.

Second, the book Al-Majdi fi Ansab al-Talibiyin by Sayyid Syarif Najmuddin Ali bin Muhammad al-Umari al-Nassabah (d. 490 AH). In that book, he mentions that among the descendants of Ahmad bin Isa, some are in Baghdad, namely from Al-Hasan Abu Muhammad al-Dallal Aladdauri bin Muhammad bin Ali bin Muhammad bin Ahmad bin Isa. Just like Al-Ubaidili, Al-Umari only mentions one child from Ahmad bin Isa. The full citation is below:

"And Ahmad Abul Qasim al-Abh who is known as 'al-Naffat' because he traded in naphtha oil (a type of kerosene), he has descendants in Baghdad from al-Hasan Abu Muhammad ad-Dalal Aladdauri in Baghdad, I saw him pass away at the end of his life in Baghdad, he is the son of Muhammad bin Ali bin Muhammad bin Ahmad bin Isa bin Muhammad (an-Naqib) bin (Ali) al-Uraidi."

From the book Al-Majdi by Al-Umari, it is concluded that one of the children of Ahmad bin Isa was named Muhammad, which aligns with the book Tahdzib al-Ansab by Al-Ubaidili. The difference between the two is that Al-Umari explains about the descendants of Ahmad bin Isa named Muhammad bin Ali in Basrah, whereas Al-Ubaidili explains about the child of Muhammad bin Ali, namely Al-Hasan who had already moved to Baghdad. Both fifth-century books agree that Ahmad bin Isa had a child named Muhammad and do not mention the name Ubaidillah as a child of Ahmad.

Third, the book Muntaqilat al-Thalibiyah by Abu Ismail Ibrahim bin Nasir ibnu Thobatoba (d. 400s AH), which is a book that explains the regional locations of the migrations of the descendants of Abi Thalib. In that book, it is mentioned that the descendant of Abi Thalib located in Rayy is Muhammad bin Ahmad al-Naffat.

(بالري) محمد بن أحمد النفاط ابن عيسي بن محمد الأكبر ابن علي العريضي عقبه محمد وعلي والحسين

"In the city of Rayy, (there is a descendant of Abu Thalib named) Muhammad bin Ahmad an-Naffat bin Isa bin Muhammad al-Akbar bin Ali al-Uraidi. His descendants (Muhammad bin Ahmad) are three: Muhammad, Ali, and Husain."

From that citation, Ahmad bin Isa is mentioned to have a child named Muhammad, the same as the book Tahdib al-Ansab and the book Al-Majdiy. The fifth century is consistent, based on the three books above, that there was no child of Ahmad bin Isa named Ubaidillah, and there was no grandson of Ahmad bin Isa named Alwi, even though the authors were contemporary with Ubaidillah and Alwi.

The book Al-Syajarah al-Mubarakah by Imam Al-Fakhrurazi (d. 606 AH), which finished being written in the year 597 Hijriah. In that book, Imam Al-Fakhrurazi states explicitly that Ahmad bin Isa did not have a child named Ubaidillah. The citation from the book is as follows:

أما أحمد الأبح فعقبه من ثلاثة بنين: محمد أبو جعفر بالري، وعلي بالرملة، وحسين عقبه بنيسابور

"As for Ahmad al-Abh, his children who left descendants are three: Muhammad Abu Ja’far who is in the city of Rayy, Ali who is in Ramlah, and Husain whose descendants are in Nishapur."

From the citation above, Imam Al-Fakhrurazi explicitly mentions that Ahmad al-Abh bin Isa had descendants from only three children, namely: Muhammad, Ali, and Husain. There is no child named Ubaidillah or Abdullah, whether leaving descendants or not. He mentions the number of Ahmad bin Isa’s children by using a jumlah ismiyah (a nominal sentence in Arabic structured using a noun) which indicates hasr (limitation exclusively to what is mentioned). Lineage experts have specific rules in lineage science; among them, if writing with a jumlah fi’liyah (a verbal sentence in Arabic structured using a verb), for instance with the phrasing وَعَقِبُهُ مِنْ ثَلَاثَةِ بَنِينَ (he left descendants from three children), then it means the number of children possessed is not limited to the number mentioned, as there may still be children not mentioned due to certain factors. However, if using a jumlah ismiyah like the sentence in the book Al-Syajarah al-Mubarakah, then the meaning is that the number of children who left descendants is limited only to the number mentioned. Sheikh Mahdi al-Raja’iy in his book Al-Mu’qibun stated:

ومن ذلك اذا قالوا عقبه من فلان او العقب من فلان فانه يدل علي أن عقبه منحصر فيه وقولهم أعقب من فلان فإنه يدل علي أن عقبه ليس بمنحصر فيه

"And part of the terminology of lineage experts is that when they say ‘aqibuhu min fulan’ (his descendants are from so-and-so) or ‘al-aqbu min fulan’ (the descendant(s) from so-and-so), it indicates that his children who left descendants are limited to that child; and the statement of a lineage expert ‘a’qoba min fulan’ indicates that indeed his children who left descendants are not limited to that (mentioned) child."

We see that the book Al-Syajarah al-Mubarakah uses a jumlah ismiyah wording: fa ‘aqibuhu min salasati banin (so the descendants of Ahmad Al-Abh are from three children). This means Imam Al-Fakhrurazi was completely certain, based on his knowledge from a number of witnesses, that the number of children leaving descendants from Ahmad was limited to only three children: Muhammad, Ali, and Husain. Ahmad al-Abh did not have a child named Ubaidillah and did not have a grandson named Alwi. From those three children, according to Imam al-Fakhrurazi, none resided in Yemen. From this point, the opportunity for the entry of any other name is scientifically closed.

Imam al-Fakhrurazi, the author of the book Al-Syajarah al-Mubarokah, lived in the city of Rayy, Iran, where many descendants of Ahmad bin Isa from the line of Muhammad Abu Ja’far resided. Surely, the information regarding how many children Ahmad bin Isa had was obtained validly from the descendants of Ahmad living in the city of Rayy. Until the author of this book passed away in the year 606 Hijriah, spanning 261 years calculated from the passing of Ahmad bin Isa, there was no narration, no story, and no news that Ahmad bin Isa ever had a child named Ubaidillah and a grandson named Alwi.

The book Al-Fakhri fi Ansabitalibin by Azizuddin Abu Tolib Ismail bin Husain al-Marwazi (d. 614 AH) mentions the same thing as the fifth-century books, namely only mentioning one line of descent for Ahmad bin Isa, which is from the line of Muhammad bin Ahmad bin Isa. The full citation is:

منهم أبو جعفر الأعمي محمد بن علي بن محمد بن أحمد الأبح له أولاد بالبصرة وأخوه في الجبل بقم له أولاد

"Part of them (the descendants of Isa al-Naqib) is Abu Ja’far al-a’ma (the blind) Muhammad bin Ali bin Muhammad bin Ali bin Muhammad bin Ahmad al-Abh, he has children in Basrah, and his brother in ‘Al-Jabal’ in the city of Qum has children."

Up until this seventh century, there was no name of a child of Ahmad named Ubaidillah, and it was also not mentioned that Ahmad bin Isa migrated to Hadramaut and had descendants there.

The book Al-Asili fi Ansabittholibiyin by Shofiyuddin Muhammad ibnu al-Toqtoqi al-Hasani (d. 709 AH) mentions one sample line of descent for Ahmad bin Isa, namely through his child named Muhammad bin Ahmad bin Isa. The full citation is as follows:

ومن عقب أحمد بن عيسي النقيب الحسن بن أبي سهل أحمد بن علي بن أبي جعفر محمد بن أحمد

"And from the descendants of Ahmad bin Isa an-Naqib is al-Hasan bin Abi Sahal Ahmad bin Ali bin Abi Ja’far Muhammad bin Ahmad."

The book Al-Sabat al-Musan by Ibn al-A’raj al-Husaini (d. 787 AH) states that part of Ahmad bin Isa’s children was Muhammad. He does not mention any child of Ahmad bin Isa named Ubaidillah or Abdullah. See the citation below:

"And as for Ahmad, he left descendants, and from his descendants is Abu Muhammad al-Hasan al-Dallal in Baghdad, my teacher al-Umari saw him in Baghdad, and he died in Baghdad, he is the son of Muhammad bin Ali bin Muhammad bin Ahmad bin Isa al-Rumi, and he has several children, among them Abul Qasim Ahmad al-Asyaj who is known as al-Naffath."

Likewise, 442 years had passed since the death of Ahmad bin Isa, yet there was no name of a child of Ahmad named Ubaidillah, and it was also not mentioned that Ahmad bin Isa migrated to Hadramaut and had descendants in Hadramaut. In the mu’tabar lineage book (recognized by experts) of the ninth century, namely the book Umdat al-Talib by Ibnu Inabah (d. 828 AH), Ahmad bin Isa is not mentioned to have a child named Ubaidillah or Abdullah. Ibnu Inabah said:

و منهم أحمد الأتج بن أبي محمد الحسن الدلال بن محمد بن علي بن محمد بن أحمد بن عيسي الأكبر

"Part of the descendants of Muhammad al-Naqib is Ahmad al-Ataj bin Abi Muhammad al-Hasan al-Dallal bin Muhammad bin Ali bin Muhammad bin Ahmad bin Isa al-Akbar."

Up until the beginning of this ninth century, all reliable (mu’tabar) lineage books did not mention that Ahmad bin Isa had a child named Ubaidillah. Concurrently, the sixth-century book Al-Syajarah al-Mubarokah by Imam Fakhrurazi, written in the year 597 Hijriah, asserts that the children of Ahmad bin Isa were only three, namely Muhammad, Ali, and Husain. There was no child of Ahmad bin Isa, whether leaving descendants or not, named Ubaidillah or Abdullah. From that point, the existence of accounts after the year 597 Hijriah stating the existence of another name among the children of Ahmad bin Isa besides Muhammad, Ali, and Husain is rejected and void.

In truth, the discussion to validate who the children of Ahmad bin Isa were concludes here. It has been proven that among the children of Ahmad bin Isa, none were named Ubaidillah or Abdullah; the Ba’alwi lineage up to this point is already proven to be a fabricated lineage.

However, the author will lead the reader to know the chronology of their claim as descendants of the Prophet, so further ahead it will be discussed that in Yemen, three new names appeared that were said to be children of Ahmad bin Isa bin Muhammad al-Naqib; they are Jadid, Abdullah, and Ubaidillah. All three are infiltrated names into the family of Ahmad bin Isa that are rejected based on science. The author will discuss this under several titles below.

Endnotes

13 In the literacy of Ba’alwi works, Abdurrahman al-Khatib is said to have died in the year 855 AH. He was a student of Abdurrahman bin Muhammad Maula Dawilah (d. 819 AH), the grandfather of the founder of the Ba’alwi lineage, Ali bin Abu Bakar al-Sakran. Al-Khatib, supposedly, wrote a book named Al-Jauhar al-Shafaf. The book contains accounts of the miracles (karamat) of the saints in Tarim. Within it, the Ba’alwi lineage is also mentioned. However, when traced through biographical dictionaries of scholars, the name Abdurrahman al-Khatib with the history and lifespan matching the Ba’alwi literacy is majhul (unknown). However, there is an identical name detected, with the same father and the same book: he is Abdurrahman bin Muhammad bin Abdurrahman who died in the year 724 AH. He is mentioned in biographical works of scholars such as Mu’jam al-Muallifin by Umar Rida Kahhalah and Hadiyyat al-Arifin by Ismail Basha al-Babani. Both books agree that this Abdurrahman bin Muhammad bin Abdurrahman passed away in the year 724 AH, not 855 AH. He authored a book named Al-Jauhar al-Shafaf. The difference from the Ba’alwi literacy is that he did not hold the title al-Khatib.

14 See Ali bin Abu Bakar al-Sakran, Al-Burqat al-Musiqat, (Matba’ah Ali bin Abdurrahman bin Sahl Jamalullail Ba’alwi, Egypt, 1347 AH) p. 131.

15 Muhammad bin Ali bin Alwi Khirid, Gurar al-Baha’ al-Dawiy wa Durar al-Jamal al-Badi’i al-Bahiy, (n.p., n.d., 1405 AH) p. 6.

16 Abu Ja’far Muhammad bin al-Hasan al-Tusi, Al-Gaybah, (Muassasah Al-Ma’arif al-Islamiyah, Qum, 1425 AH) p. 199.

17 Ibnu Inabah, Umdat al-Talib, (Maktabah Ulum al-Nasab, Edited by Muhammad Sadiq al-Bahr al-Ulum, Iran, n.d.) p. 222.

18 Masa’ilu Abi Ja’far wa Mustadrakatuha, (Muassasah Al al-Bait Alihim al-Solat wa al-Salam, Beirut, 1431 AH) p. 18.

19 See Masa’ilu Abi Ja’far wa Mustadrakatuha, (Muassasah Al al-Bait Alihim al-Solat wa al-Salam, Beirut, 1431 AH) p. 21.

20 Ali bin Muhammad bin Ali bin Muhammad al-Alawi al-Umari, Al-Majdi fi Ansab al-Talibin, (Maktabah Ayatullah al-Udma al-Mar’asyi, Qum, 1422 AH) p. 332.

21 Al-Khatib al-Baghdadi, Tarikh Baghdad, (Dar al-Garbi al-Islami, Beirut, 1422 AH) vol. 13 p. 518.

22 Al-Khatib al-Baghdadi, ... vol. 13 p. 520.

23 See Al-Syatiri, Adwar al-Tarikh al-Hadramiyyah (Maktabah Tarim al-Haditsah, Tarim, 1403 AH) p. 153.

24 Muhammad Diya Shihab, Al-Imam Ahmad al-Muhajir (Dar al-Syuruq, n.p., 1400 AH) p. 42.

25 See Muhammad Diya... p. 42.

26 Al-Khatib al-Baghdadi... vol. 1 p. 463.

27 Ibnu al-Nadim, Al-Fihrasat, (Dar al-Ma’rifat, Beirut, 1417 AH) p. 240.

28 Abu al-Faraj al-Isfahani, Maqatil al-Talibiyyin (Dar al-Ma’rifah, Beirut, n.d.) p. 498.

29 Murtada al-Zabidi, Al-Raud al-Jaly (Dar al-Fath, Oman, 2021 AD) pp. 121-122.

30 Murtada al-Zabidi... pp. 121-122.