Chapter IV: Responses to Refutations on Habib Ba Alawi Lineage

5/14/2026

Chapter IV: Responses to Refutations on Habib Ba Alawi Lineage

Book Title: The Discontinuity of the Habib Lineage to the Prophet Muhammad PBUH (A Refinement of the Book: Assessing the Authenticity of the Habib Lineage in Indonesia)
Author: KH. Imaduddin Utsman Al-Bantani, leader of the Nahdlatul Ulum Islamic Boarding School (Pondok Pesantren), Banten, Indonesia
Publisher: Maktabah Nahdlatul Ulum (October, 2022)
Previous Work: Assessing the Authenticity of the Habib Lineage in Indonesia
Field of Study: Ba Alawi History, Genealogy (Ilmu Nasab), Islamic History
Publisher: Maktabah Nahdlatul Ulum Banten, 1st Edition/ 2023
Publisher of English version: Al-Khoirot Research & Publication

Contents

Chapter IV: Responses to Refutations

Responses to The Rabitah Alawiyah Letter
Response To The Refutation By Habib Rizieq Syihab

Back to: Discontinuity of the Habib Lineage to the Prophet Muhammad

CHAPTER IV: RESPONSES TO REFUTATIONS

RESPONSE TO THE RABITAH ALAWIYAH LETTER

A photo of a circular letter bearing the logo of Rabitah Alawiyah—the association of Habaib in Indonesia—has been circulating on social media. The circular is numbered 180/MD-RA/XI/2022 and titled "Answer to the Issue of the Absence of the Name Ubaidillah Bin Ahmad Al-Muhajir in the Book Al-Syajarah Al-Mubarokah". This circular was posted on Bahar Smith's channel and read by Mahdi bin Yahya on his YouTube channel.

Judging by the date of the letter, November 8, 2022, it is clear that this circular was issued to respond to the author’s writings, which were reviewed by Dr. Syafik Hasyim on Cokro TV on November 6, 2022. This means that only two days later, Rabitah responded to the author's claim that Ubaidillah was not recorded as a son of Ahmad bin Isa based on 5th and 6th-century genealogical books.

The full text of the circular is as follows:

Answer to the Issue of the Absence of the Name Ubaidillah Bin Ahmad Al-Muhajir in the Book Al-Syajarah Al-Mubarokah

No: 180/MD-RA/XI/2022

Assalamualaikum Wr. Wb.

With this, we from Maktab Daimi-Rabitah Alawiyah inform you that the book Al-Syajarah Al-Mubarokah, authored by Imam Al-Fakhrurrazi (who passed away in 606 Hijri/6th Century), is not the only genealogical reference relied upon by genealogists. There are other books written in earlier centuries, such as:

1. The Book Bahrul Ansab

Authored by Al-Sayyid Muhammad bin Ahmad Amiduddin Al-Husaini Al-Najafi (d. 433 Hijri/4th Century). On pages 46 and 52, he recorded the descendants of Isa Arrumi bin Muhammad Al-Azraq (Al-Naqib), specifically Ahmad and his offspring, mentioning Ubaidillah as one of his sons.

2. The Book Abnaul Imam Fi Misro Wa Syam (Al-Hasan Wal Husain)

Authored by Abil Muammar Yahya bin Muhammad bin Al-Qasim Al-Husaini Al-Alawi, known as Ibnu Thoba Thoba (d. 478 Hijri/4th Century). On pages 167–169, he wrote about the descendants of Ja'far bin Muhammad Al-Baqir bin Ali Zainal Abidin and recorded Ubaidillah bin Ahmad Al-Muhajir bin Isa bin Muhammad bin Ali bin Ja'far Shadiq.

We hope this writing clarifies the issue regarding the descendants of Ubaidillah (Abdullah) bin Ahmad Al-Muhajir bin Isa Arrumi bin Muhammad Al-Naqib bin Ali Al-Uraidi.

We thank you for your attention and understanding. Wassalamualaikum Wr. Wb.

Jakarta, November 8, 2022

Respectfully, Maktabah Daimi Rabitah Alawiyah

Ahmad Muhammad Al-Athas, Executive Chairman; M. Baqir Al-Haddad, Secretary.

Response from Kyai Imaduddin Utsman Al-Bantani

The two books mentioned by Rabitah Alawiyah cannot be used as evidence (hujjah) to prove that Ubaidillah was the son of Ahmad. Why?

1. The Book Bahrul Ansab

The claim in the circular that this book was authored in the 5th century is a falsehood. It was actually written by Al-Sayyid Muhammad bin Ahmad Amiduddin Al-Husaini Al-Najafi, who passed away in the 10th century Hijri. This information can be verified in the book Tabaqatunnassabin by Bakar Abu Zaid, which states:

396- محمد بن احمد بن عميد الدين علي الحسيني النجفي (القرن العاشر) له بحر الانساب او المشجر الكشاف لأصول السادات الأشراف طبع بالقاهرة عام 1356 هجرية

"Number 396 (among the genealogists) is Muhammad bin Ahmad bin Amididdin Ali Al-Husaini Al-Najafi (10th Century). He authored the book Bahrul Ansab or Al-Musyajjar Al-Kasyaf Li-Ushuli Al-Sadati Al-Asyraf, printed in Cairo in 1356 H." (Tabaqatunnassabin: Bakar Abu Zaed: p. 162).

Furthermore, on the cover of the book Tahdzibul Ansab (published by Daar Al-Mujtaba, Saudi Arabia, 1419 H, edited by Al-Syarif Anas Al-Kutubi Al-Hasani), it is written:

بحر الانساب المسمى المشجر الكشاف لأصول السادات الأشراف للعلامة النسابة السيد محمد بن احمد بن عميد الدين علي الحسيني النجفي من أعلام القرن التاسع و العاشر الهجري

"Bahrul Ansab, also named Al-Musyajjar Al-Kasyaf Li Ushuli Al-Sadat Al-Asyraf, (authored) by the genealogist Al-Sayyid Muhammad bin Ahmad bin Amididdin Ali Al-Husaini Al-Najafi, one of the prominent figures of the 9th and 10th centuries H."

2. The Book Abnaul Imam Fi Mishr Wa al-Syam

Regarding the second book, Abnaul Imam Fi Mishr Wa al-Syam (Al-Hasan Wal Husain), the author has previously addressed this in the article "Muhammad Lutfi Rahman Defending the Habib Lineage with Fake Books." Essentially, this book is categorized as a forgery whose contents have been altered or augmented. These additions are well-known among scholars, making the book unsuitable as scientific evidence.

To this day, the lineage of the habibs in Indonesia has not secured a valid evidentiary basis for its authenticity. Moreover, instances of certain individuals falsifying the death years of authors only serve to make the defense of this lineage morally suspicious.

RESPONSE TO THE REFUTATION BY HABIB RIZIEQ SYIHAB

As seen on the IBTV YouTube channel in a post titled "RESPONDING TO ACCUSATIONS THAT HABAIB ARE NOT DESCENDANTS OF THE MESSENGER OF ALLAH S.A.W. - BY IB HRS," posted on November 11, 2022, with a duration of 1 hour, 44 minutes, and 10 seconds. In that video, HRS mentions a provocative question circulating particularly among young people regarding whether it is true that the habaib in Indonesia are descendants of the Prophet. HRS continues, "If it is true, where is the proof? If it is true, how can it be accounted for?"

According to HRS at the 4-minute mark, proving whether the habibs are truly descendants of the Prophet is sufficient by proving if Imam Ahmad (bin Isa) is truly a descendant of the Prophet. If it is true that Imam Ahmad is a descendant of the Prophet, then it means the habibs are descendants of the Prophet; if not, then they are not. HRS also states that it must be proven whether those figures actually existed or are merely fictitious figures. Which scholars mention them? In which books? Is the scholar authoritative or not?

This statement by HRS is partially correct, specifically that a figure believed to have existed at a certain time must be proven by the appearance of that figure's name in a book from their era. However, the issue arises when he claims that if Ahmad bin Isa is proven to be a real figure and a descendant of the Prophet—supported by scholars in contemporary books—then the habibs are also proven to be descendants of the Prophet.

The statement by HRS is problematic because the issue does not actually lie with Ahmad bin Isa, but rather with the figure named Alawi, who is referred to as the son of Ubaidillah and the grandson of Ahmad bin Isa. Ahmad bin Isa bin Muhammad an-Naqib has been validly and convincingly proven to be a descendant of the Prophet based on genealogical books of his time. However, Alawi bin Ubaidillah is not proven to be the grandson of Ahmad bin Isa because Ubaidillah is not proven to be the son of Ahmad bin Isa.

At the 31-minute mark, HRS mentions the names of books such as Al-bidayah wa al-Nihayah, al-Kamil fi al-Tarikh, Tarikh Ibnu Khaldun, Tarikh al-Dzahabi, and many other books to prove the offspring of Sayyidina Hasan and Husain. HRS also mentions the names of books to prove that the ancestral figures of the habaib in Indonesia were recorded in books up until he explains Ahmad bin Isa (al-Muhajir).

But notice at the 1:13:44 mark, when HRS has finished explaining Ahmad bin Isa—who according to him is recorded in the history book of Tabari—when it comes to explaining whether Ubaidillah was written by scholars in books as the son of Ahmad bin Isa, HRS instead skips to explaining Alawi, who according to him is found in the book Khulasotul Atsar. Ideally, HRS should also be able to point out which book mentions that Ahmad had a son named Ubaidillah.

Because, once again it must be said, it is this Alawi who is the patriarch of the Ba Alawi habibs whom scholars identify as not being descendants of the Messenger of Allah, because his father, named Ubaidillah, is not proven to be the son of Ahmad bin Isa (al-Muhajir).

RESPONSE TO THE REFUTATION BY HABIB RIZIEQ SYIHAB

RESPONSE TO THE BOOK BY HANIF ALATAS

Habib Hanif Alatas authored a book titled "Scientific Treatise: An Answer to the Doubts of Imaduddin Utsman Regarding the Authenticity of the Bani Alawi Lineage."

This treatise by Hanif fails to refute the broken lineage of the Ba Alawi. This is because it only highlights discussions by scholars regarding the Ba Alawi lineage starting from the 9th century. It has not yet succeeded in connecting the chain of transmission (sanad) and narrative between the Ba Alawi lineage and Prophet Muhammad SAW.

For Hanif, the discussions of these great scholars—even if not primary sources—can strengthen the Ba Alawi lineage, even though the connection of the sanad is severed. For example, Hanif cites the praise of Sheikh An-Nabhani (d. 1350 AH), who claimed the Ba Alawi lineage is the most authentic. However, what is required for this lineage is a continuous narrative starting from Ahmad bin Isa (d. 345 AH) until the appearance of the name Ubaidillah (father of Alwi) in the 10th century AH, which was first included in the book Tuhfat al-Thalib by Sayyid Muhammad bin al-Husain as-Samarqandi (d. 996 AH).

When this continuity from 345 to 996 Hijri is absent, all praise from scholars after the year 996 AH is of no use in establishing the Ba Alawi lineage. Contemporary (muashir) books are required for every name in the chain to state that "X is the son of Y" or "Y is the father of X." This is because, according to Imam Ar-Ruyani, syuhroh wal istifadoh (widespread fame) for a lineage must exist throughout every age, not just in a single era. If the Ba Alawi were famous as descendants of the Prophet in the 10th century, but no one mentioned them in the 9th, 8th, 7th, 6th, 5th, or 4th centuries, it can be scientifically concluded that this lineage is false.

Imam Ar-Ruyani (d. 502 AH) stated in Bahrul Madzhab:

إن الإستفاضة بالنسب عرف بطول الزمان ( بحر المذهب:4/134 )

"Verily, istifadoh for a lineage is known through the length of time (consistency throughout the ages)."

In Mecca, there is a case involving the Athobariyah Al-Ariqah family. They are known as a family that produced many scholars and are famously regarded as a family of the Prophet. However, research shows this fame only began in the 9th century; in the 6th, 7th, and 8th centuries, their lineage was not famous in the books of those times. Books from the 9th and 11th centuries, like Al-Daw' al-Lami' and Khulasatul Atsar, list them as Al-Husaini, but there is no narrative record in earlier centuries. Consequently, genealogical scholars refer to such a lineage as al-iddi'a al-hadits la ashla lah (a recent claim with no origin).

According to their popular version, Alwi—the patriarch of the Ba Alawi clan (d. 400 AH)—was the son of Ubaidillah (d. 383 AH) bin Ahmad bin Isa (d. 345 AH). For these three names, we require testimony from contemporary 5th-century genealogical books that mention Alwi as the son of Ubaidillah and Ubaidillah as the son of Ahmad.

To this end, Hanif attempted to find a 5th-century book. Did he succeed? Let us see.

Hanif claimed that the lineage of Alwi as the son of Ahmad was mentioned in the 5th century by Al-Ubaidili (d. 435 AH), as cited in the book Al-Raud al-Jali by Az-Zabidi (d. 1205 AH). If this were proven, we would acknowledge them as descendants of the Prophet. However, this is another case of a compromised text.

The version of Al-Raud al-Jali in my possession (published by Daar Kanan, 1431 AH, edited by Arif Ahmad Abdul Gani) does not contain the phrase "Al-Ubaidili said..." as cited by Hanif. Upon checking the footnotes, it appears Hanif used a brand-new 1444 AH edition edited by Muhammad Abu Bakar Ba Dzib and annotated (ta'liq) by Habib Alwi bin Tahir Al-Haddad (d. 1382 AH).

The quote used by Hanif differs significantly from the version I have. In Hanif's version, the phrase "Ubaidili said..." appears, whereas the author, title, and book are supposedly the same, yet the content differs. Given that this version was annotated by Habib Alwi bin Tahir Al-Haddad, it is likely another case similar to the book "Abna'ul Imam"—where additions were potentially made by the annotator or editor. The book used as Hanif's reference can be considered compromised and is rejected as scientific evidence because it mixes the original text with annotations, evidenced by the change in wording from previous editions.

Furthermore, when citing from this mixed book, Hanif did not clarify whether the statement came from the original author or the annotator. This makes the subject of the quote unclear, which constitutes tadlis (intentional obfuscation). Even the conclusions of these two editions regarding Abdullah, the son of Ahmad, differ: my edition treats it as an unconfirmed matter, while Hanif's edition presents it as a consensus.

Scientific integrity is as important as the content of the writing. Publishers, editors, annotators, and researchers must possess academic honesty. Referenced books must be credible, with clear authors and dates. If a book is a commentary (syarah), it must be labeled as such, and the commentary must be clearly distinguished from the original text (matan). Without such honesty, scientific value is lost.

Thus, the 5th-century record remains broken. Hanif failed to present an honest book. As for his other arguments, most have already been addressed by other critics and answered. It seems Hanif's goal with this book was not for scientific scrutiny, but for a lay audience.

I will only respond to Hanif's arguments that could scientifically connect the Ba Alawi lineage if his logic were sound. As shown, his claim regarding Al-Ubaidili relied on a compromised book. Readers can verify this online by comparing Hanif's text to the 1444 AH edition of Al-Raud al-Jali.

Regarding the book As-Suluk mentioned by Kang Zaini, which was authored by the 8th-century scholar Al-Jundi (d. 732 AH): every mention of "Ba Alawi" or "Ibnu Abi Alwi" in the 8th and 9th centuries AH refers to a different Ba Alawi family than the one we know today. The Abdullah mentioned in the 8th and 9th centuries is not the one who fathered Al-Faqih Al-Muqoddam; they are different people, and there is no evidence they are the same. In my view, the lineage of Ubaidillah bin Ahmad was only officially recorded in the 10th century; therefore, a continuous narrative of Ubaidillah from the 10th back to the 5th century is required.

Wallahu A'lamu bi Haqiqatil hal. (Imaduddin Utsman Al-Bantani)

RESPONSE TO HANIF ALATAS (PART 2): RANGGINANG FROM BANTEN FOR HANIF ALATAS

Hanif Alatas has written a second book of refutation against the author, titled "An Eid Gift for Imaduddin Utsman: Notes on Imaduddin Utsman's Response to the Scientific Treatise of M. Hanif Alatas."

First:
Hanif states:

"In his writing, Imaduddin states: 'Hanif's treatise has not yet been able to refute the severed lineage of the Ba Alwi, because it only presents the discussions of scholars regarding the Ba Alawi lineage starting from the ninth century'; then he also says 'when the continuity from 345–996 Hijri is absent, all praise from scholars after the year 996 AH is of no use in establishing the Ba Alawi lineage' etc. Imaduddin's statements above show that he did not truly read my scientific treatise. Yet anyone who reads that treatise will see clearly and plainly that I quote the testimonies of scholars from their books prior to the year 996 AH..."

This statement by Hanif has some truth; I did not read with great seriousness the sentences that had no connection to the continuity of the Ba Alawi lineage. Why? Because what we truly want to excavate is the ittisolurriwayat (continuity of narrative) of the severed Ba Alawi lineage. What is required for this Ba Alawi lineage is a continuous narrative starting from Ahmad bin Isa (d. 345 AH) until the appearance of the name Ubaidillah, who is said to have a son named Alwi, in the 10th century AH. Specifically, this is when the book Tuhfatutholib Bima'rifati man Yantasibu Ila Abdillah wa Abi Tholib by Sayyid Muhammad bin al-Husain as-Samarqondi (d. 996) included it for the first time. Meanwhile, regarding those many other books, even though they were written before 996 AH, they do not mention the name Ubaidillah, but rather Abdullah. In the author's opinion, the two are different individuals.

For example, Hanif argues using the book al-Suluk by al-Jundi (d. 732 AH); however, the name mentioned there is not Ubaidillah, but Abdullah. I will review this separately to prove that the name Abdullah mentioned is indeed not the Ubaidillah who is the ancestor of the habibs, so it cannot be used as evidence (hujjah).

Secondly, Hanif uses evidence from the book of al-Yafi'i (d. 768 AH), which contains a poem about the Ba Alwi in Hadramaut. Once again, the Ba Alwi mentioned there are not the Ba Alwi of the habibs, but the Ba Alwi of the Bani Jadid. It does not explicitly mention the name Ubaid or the names of the Ba Alwi habib family, so it cannot serve as evidence.

Thirdly, Hanif uses the book of Imam al-Rasuli (d. 778 AH); the name mentioned there is Abdullah, not Ubaidillah. Abdullah is not Ubaidillah, so this book cannot be used as evidence.

Fourthly, Hanif uses the book of Imam al-Khozroji (d. 812 AH); again, the name mentioned is Abdullah, so this book cannot be used as evidence either.

Fifthly, Hanif uses the book of al-Imam al-Ahdal (d. 855 AH); this book is an abridgment (ikhtisar) of al-Suluk. I will discuss this alongside al-Suluk in the investigation of the differences between Abdullah and Ubaidillah. It cannot be used as evidence because the name is still Abdullah.

Sixthly, Hanif uses the book of al-Imam Abdurrahman al-Khatib (d. 855 AH), al-Jauhar al-Syafaf, which reportedly mentions the name Ubaidillah, but the book has not yet been printed and is said to still be a manuscript. This manuscript is located in Huraidah, Yemen, in the library of Ahmad bin Hasan Al-Athos (a Ba Alawi habib). It should be noted that al-Jauhar al-Syafaf is also a manuscript found in the King Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz Library in Saudi Arabia, under the author's name Abdullah Ibnul Hadi. A manuscript cannot be used as evidence unless it has been published and its authenticity can be verified by a trusted researcher (muhaqqiq).

Seventhly, Hanif uses the book of Kadzim al-Musawi (d. 880 AH); the name mentioned therein is Abdullah, which cannot serve as evidence because it does not mention the name Ubaidillah.

Eighthly, Hanif uses the books of Imam al-Sakhawi (d. 902 AH), Ba Makhramah (d. 947 AH), Ibnu Hajar (d. 947 AH), Yahya bin Syarafuddin al-Hasani (d. 965 AH), and al-Samarqandi (d. 996 AH), all of which mention the name Ubaidillah. However, these books all originate from a single reference, which is the book al-Burqah al-Mushyiqah by Habib Ali al-Sakran (d. 895 AH), and they cannot connect to older books that mention the name Abdullah, such as al-Suluk. Why?

The ancestor of Habib Ali al-Sakran, who was known in his time, was named Ubaid, without the annexation (idhafah) to "Allah". This was acknowledged by Habib Ali al-Sakran in his book with the following statement:

The ancestors of Habib Ali al-Sakran were known in their time as Ubaid, without the addition of "Allah". Habib Ali al-Sakran admitted this in his book, stating:

"And thus he is here (named) Ubaid, as known to the people of Hadramaut, written in their books, and circulating in the chain of their lineage...: Ubaid bin Ahmad bin Isa." (al-Burqoh al-Mutsiqoh: 150)

Note that the recorded lineage for the people of Hadramaut only went up to Isa; it had not yet been extended to Muhammad al-Naqib as Isa's father. To conclude that his ancestor Ubaid was actually Abdullah, Habib Ali al-Sakran wrote:

"And I understood from the previous information—firstly conveyed from Tarikh al-Jundi (al-Suluk) and the book Talkhis al-Awaji... that Ubaid is Abdullah bin Ahmad bin Isa."

From this, it is evident that prior records only noted Ubaid bin Ahmad bin Isa. It was only after Habib Ali al-Sakran read al-Jundi's book that he concluded (fahimtu) that Ubaid was the same person as Abdullah.

Why did Abdullah become Ubaid?
Habib Ali al-Sakran argued that Abdullah bin Ahmad was so humble (tawadlu) that he felt unworthy of the name Abdullah ("Servant of Allah") and instead called himself Ubaid ("Little Servant").

"...because of his humility... he thought it best to use the diminutive (tasghir) of his name and erase the signs (of his greatness)... sufficing with the name Ubaid." (al-Burqoh: 151)

In summary, within the Ba Alawi family itself, the famous lineage was only "Ubaid bin Ahmad bin Isa". It was only when Habib Ali al-Sakran saw the book al-Suluk—which mentioned an Abdullah bin Ahmad bin Isa bin Muhammad al-Naqib—that he concluded this must be another name for Ubaid bin Ahmad bin Isa.

وهكذا هو هنا عبيد المعروف عند اهل حضرموت والمسطرفي كتبهم والمتداول في سلسلة نسبهم ونسبتهم انه عبيد بن احمد بن عيسى (البرقة المشيقة: 150)

"And thus it is here: he is Ubaid, as known to the people of Hadramaut, recorded in their books, and continuous within their genealogical chains. Their attribution is: Ubaid bin Ahmad bin Isa." (al-Burqah al-Mushiqah: 150)

Note that what is recorded continuously for the people of Hadramaut only goes as far as Isa, and has not yet been extended to Muhammad al-Naqib as the father of Isa.

To conclude that his ancestor named Ubaid—without the mudhaf ilayh (annexation) "Allah"—is indeed Abdullah, Habib Ali al-Sakran states:

وقد فهمت مما تقدم اولا منقولا من تاريخ اْلجندي وتلخيص العواجي وسبق به الكلام في ترجمة الامام ابي الحسن عَلي بن محمَد ابْن أَحْمد جدِيد انه عبد الله بن احمد بن عيسى حيث قال: منهُم ابو الْحسن عَلي ّ بن محمد بن جدِيد (أو حدِيد) بن عبد الله بن أَحْمد بن عِيسَى بن محمَد بن عَلي ّ ابْن جَعْفَر الصَادِق بن محمد الباقر بن عَلي ّ بن زين العابدين بن الُْحسينْ بن عَلي ابْن ابي طَالب كرم الله وَجهه وَيعرف بالشريف ابي الَْحدِيد عِنْد أهل الْيمن اصله من حَضرمَوْت من اشراف هُنَالك يعْرفُون َ بَال ابي علوي بَيت صَلَاح وَعبادَة على طَرِيق التصوف.انتهى (البرقة المشيقة: 151-150)

"And I understood from the previous explanation—for the first time, based on what is found in Tarikh al-Jundi (the book al-Suluk) and the book Talkhis al-Awaji, and the discussion concerning it has already been mentioned in explaining the biography of the figure al-Imam Abu al-Hasan, Ali bin Muhammad bin Ahmad Jadid—that Ubaid is indeed Abdullah bin Ahmad bin Isa. (This is) when he (al-Jundi) said: 'Among them is Abu al-Hasan, Ali bin Muhammad bin Jadid (or Hadid, according to two manuscript versions) bin Abdullah bin Ahmad bin Isa bin Muhammad bin Ali bin Ja'far al-Sadiq bin Muhammad al-Baqir bin Ali bin Zainal Abidin bin al-Husain bin Ali bin Abi Talib, may Allah honor his face, known as Syarif Abut Jadid among the people of Yemen. His origin is from Hadramaut, from the noble descendants (syarif) there known as Al Abi Alwi, a house of righteousness and worship following the path of Sufism.'" (al-Burqah al-Mushiqah: 150-151)

Notice the phrase "waqad fahimtu mimma taqaddama" (and I understood from what has passed), followed by the phrase "annahu Abdullah bin Ahmad bin Isa" (that he is Abdullah bin Ahmad bin Isa)—meaning that Ubaid bin Ahmad bin Isa is (the same person as) Abdullah bin Ahmad bin Isa based on the citation from the historical work by al-Jundi.

From this, it is known that prior to that, only Ubaid bin Ahmad bin Isa was recorded; then, when Habib Ali al-Sakran read the book of al-Jundi, he understood (concluded) that this Ubaid was Abdullah.

Furthermore, why did Abdullah become Ubaid, and then Ubaidillah? Habib Ali al-Sakran argues that Abdullah bin Ahmad was so humble (tawadhu) that he felt unworthy of the name Abdullah ("Servant of Allah"), so he referred to himself as Ubaid ("Little Servant"), without the word "Allah."

Observe the expression (ibarah) below:

والذي يظهر عندي ان الشيخ الامام عبد الله بن أَحْمد بن عِيسَى بن محمَد بن عَلي ّ ابْن جَعْفَر كان من عظيم تواضعه ... ويستحسن تصغير اسمه و َمحو رسمه تحقيرا لها وتصغيرا لما ينسب اليها وافناء للدعوى ومقتضيات الهوى بحسب التسمية له بعبيد

"And what is apparent to me is that indeed, Sheikh Imam Abdullah bin Ahmad bin Isa bin Muhammad bin Ali bin Ja'far, due to his great humility... deemed it proper to use the diminutive form (tasghir) of his name and to erase the outward sign of his prominence, out of self-deprecation and a desire to minimize that which was attributed to him (whether lineage or otherwise), thereby dissolving self-assertion and the requirements of the ego by sufficing with the name Ubaid." (al-Burqah: 151)

From the explanation above, it is concluded that within the Ba Alawi family itself, the only well-known lineage was "Ubaid bin Ahmad bin Isa." It was only when Habib Ali al-Sakran encountered the book al-Suluk—which mentioned the name Abdullah bin Ahmad bin Isa bin Muhammad al-Naqib—that he concluded this name was simply another version of Ubaid bin Ahmad bin Isa.

UBAIDILLAH AND ABDULLAH ARE NOT THE SAME PERSON BASED ON THE BOOK AL-SULUK

The book al-Suluk is one of the primary references relied upon by the Habaib to establish the continuity of their lineage to the Messenger of Allah. Although this book was written long after the death of Ahmad bin Isa in 345 AH, it serves, in the efforts of the Habaib, as a link in the chain to prevent a gap of 651 years—the time elapsed from Ahmad's death until their names were recorded in the book Tuhfat al-Thalib in 996 AH.

Defenders of the Ba Alawi lineage in Indonesia claim that Ubaidillah was already recorded in the 8th century. They point to al-Suluk by al-Jundi (d. 730 AH), where he mentions the name Abdullah as the son of Ahmad. However, is the Abdullah mentioned by al-Jundi truly the same figure as Ubaidillah, the ancestor of the Habaib?

In the author's view, even if it were true that Ubaidillah and Abdullah were the same person, there would still be a 385-year break in the narrative, calculated from the death of Ahmad bin Isa (345 AH) to the death of al-Jundi (730 AH).

Furthermore, my findings indicate that this Abdullah is not Ubaidillah at all. He is a different individual.

Before I proceed, let us examine the expressions (ibarah) in al-Suluk that mention Abdullah bin Ahmad bin Isa. There are several expressions on different pages concerning Abdullah and the Banu Alawi:

First Expression:

منهُم ابو الْحسن عَلي ّ بن محمد بن جدِيد (أو حدِيد) بن عبد الله بن أَحْمد بن عِيسَى بن محمَد بن عَلي ّ ابْن جَعْفَر الصَادِق بن محمد الباقر بن عَلي ّ بن زين العابدين بن الُْحسينْ بن عَلي ابْن ابي طَالب كرم الله وَجهه وَيعرف بالشريف ابي الَْحدِيد عِنْد أهل الْيمن اصله من حَضرمَوْت من اشراف هُنَالك يعْرفُون َ بَال ابي علوي بَيت صَلَاح وَعبادَة على طَرِيق التصوف

"Among them is Abu al-Hasan, Ali bin Muhammad bin Jadid (or Hadid, according to two manuscript versions) bin Abdullah bin Ahmad bin Isa bin Muhammad bin Ali bin Ja'far al-Sadiq bin Muhammad al-Baqir bin Ali bin Zainal Abidin (there should not be a 'bin' here, as Zainal Abidin is the title of Ali) bin al-Husain bin Ali bin Abi Talib, may Allah honor his face, known by the name Syarif Abut Jadid among the people of Yemen; he originated from Hadramaut from the noble descendants (syarif) there known as Al Abi Alwi, which is a house of righteousness and worship following the path of Sufism." (al-Suluk, al-Maktabah al-Syamilah: 2/136-137)

Pay attention!
When al-Jundi mentions the names of scholars who came to Taiz, he mentions the name Abul Hasan Ali. Who is Abul Hasan Ali? Al-Jundi states that he is known as al-Syarif Abil Jadid to the people of Yemen, originally from Hadramaut and originating from the noble descendants (syarif) there. They are known as the Abu Alwi family, a family of righteousness and worship that follows the path of Sufism.

In his aforementioned book, al-Jundi records the lineage of Abul Hasan Ali as follows:

Ali bin Abi Talib k.w.
Husain
Ali Zainal Abidin
Muhammad al-Baqir
Ja'far al-Shadiq
Ali al-Uraidi
Muhammad al-Naqib
Isa al-Rumi
Ahmad
Abdullah
Jadid
Muhammad
Ali
Hadid
Ahmad
Muhammad
Abul Hasan Ali (617 H)

This Abu Hasan Ali is known by the name Syarif Jadid, originating from Hadramaut. Now, observe the lineage of the Ba Alawi habibs up to the 17th and 18th generations below:

Ali bin Abi Talib k.w.
Husain
Ali Zainal Abidin
Muhammad al-Baqir
Ja'far al-Shadiq
Ali al-Uraidi
Muhammad al-Naqib
Isa al-Rumi
Ahmad
Ubaidillah
Alwi
Muhammad
Ali
Alwi
Ali Khali Qosam
Muhammad Sohib Mirbat (d. 550 AH)
Ali Waldul Faqih (d. 590 AH)
Muhammad Faqih al-Muqoddam (d. 653 AH)

Pay attention! Abul Hasan Ali lived in the same generation as Muhammad Sohib Mirbat, Ali Waldul Faqih, and Faqih al-Muqoddam. Why is it that when mentioning that Abul Hasan originated from the syarifs in Hadramaut, al-Jundi did not mention the names of Muhammad Sohib Mirbat or Faqih al-Muqoddam? In fact, al-Jundi died in 730 AH; he should have known Muhammad Sohib Mirbat or Faqih al-Muqoddam, because they are described in the literature of the habibs—for example, in Syamsu Dzahirah (p. 72)—as Muhammad Sohib Mirbat being a great scholar and the "teacher of the great and learned teachers," a prominent figure also called the "Imam of imams" in the same book. Faqih al-Muqoddam, according to Solih bin Ali al-Hamid Ba Alawi in his book Tarikh Hadramaut (p. 709), was a great scholar who reached the level of a mujtahid mutlak.

Given such prominent mentions, al-Jundi should have known both of them, as al-Jundi lived in Aden, Yemen. For example, al-Jundi could have mentioned: "Syarif Abul Hasan comes from Hadramaut from the syarifs there known as Al Abi Alwi, of the same family as Sohib Mirbat and Muhammad al-Faqih al-Muqoddam." However, al-Jundi did not state this; he only mentioned Abul Hasan Ali.

Hanif claims that al-Jundi mentioned Faqih al-Muqoddam, Ali Khali Qosam, the righteous son Muhammad bin Ali bin Alwi, and Sayyid Abdullah bin Alwi. Is that claim true? Let us test it!

First, let us read the following expression from al-Jundi's book:

ومنهُم أَبُو مَرْوَان لقبا واسْمه عَلي ّ بن أَحْمد بن سَالم بن محمَد بن عَلي ّ كَان فَقِيها خيرا كبيرا عَنه انتَشَر الْعلم بحضرموت انتشارا موسعا لصلاح كَان َوبركة في تدريسه وكَان َ صَاحب مصنفات عديدة وَهُو َ أول من تصوف من بَيت أَبا َ علوي اذ هم أَنما يعْرفُون َ بالفقه وَلما بلغ الْفَقِيه ذَلِك وَإِن هَذَا تصوف هجره. ومِمن تفقه بِأبي مَرْوَان أَبُو زكريا خرج مقدشوا فنشر الْعلم بها و بنواحيها نشرا موسعا وَلم أتحقق لأحد مِنهُم تَارِيخا

"Among them (the figures of Hadramaut) is Abu Marwan as a title (laqob), while his name is Ali bin Ahmad bin Salim bin Muhammad bin Ali. He was a great and excellent jurist (faqih), through whom knowledge spread extensively in Hadramaut due to his righteousness and the blessing of his teaching. He possessed many writings. He was the first from the Aba Alwi family to follow Sufism, as they were previously known for fiqh (jurisprudence). When news reached him (another scholar) that he had taken up Sufism, that person distanced himself from him. Among those who studied fiqh under Abu Marwan was Abu Zakaria, who went to Mogadishu and spread knowledge there and in its surrounding areas extensively, and I do not know the history of any of them."

From this expression, we find on the surface that Abu Marwan is listed as a member of the Ba Alawi family and was the first to follow the Sufi path. However, the name Abu Marwan is not typically used by the family of the Ba Alawi habibs. But according to Hanif, there is a missing sentence here: after the phrase "many writings" (musonnafat adidat), there should be the sentence "And under him studied Muhammad bin Ali Ba Alwi," followed by "and he was the first..." Thus, according to Hanif, the correct version is that Muhammad bin Ali Ba Alwi (Faqih Muqoddam) studied under Abu Marwan. According to Hanif, this is supported by the book of Husen bin Abdurrahman al-Ahdal titled Tuhfatuzzaman fi Tarikhi Sadat al-Yaman. After I searched for this book, there is indeed an addition of the name Muhammad bin Ali as Hanif mentioned. The drawback is that this book was edited (tahqiq) by Abdullah Muhammad al-Habsyi from the Ba Alawi family itself. It is not that I doubt the editor without reason, but several editing experiences within Ba Alawi internal circles—starting from the books Abna' al-Imam and al-Raud al-jaliy—have always presented problems. Even if we assume it is correct that there is a name Muhammad bin Ali Ba Alwi, is it truly al-Faqih al-Muqoddam? Let us continue with al-Jundi's next expression!

ومن بَيت أبي علوي قد تقدم لَهم بعض ذكر مَع َ ذكر أبي جَدِيد مَع َ واردي تعز وهم بَيت صَلَاح طَرِيق وَنسب فيهم جَماعَة منهُم حسن بن محمد بن عَلي باعلوي كَان َ فَقِيها يحفظ الْوَجِيز للغزالي غيبا وكان لَه ُ عَم اسْمه عبد الرَحَْمن بن عَلي ّ بن باعلوي

"And among the family of Abi Alwi, some of them have been previously mentioned when referencing Abi Jadid and those who came to Taiz; they are a family of righteousness, in their path and their lineage. Among them is Hasan bin Muhammad bin Ali Ba Alawi, a jurist who memorized the book al-Wajiz by Imam Ghazali; he has an uncle named Abdurrahman bin Ali Ba Alawi."

From this expression, there is a name mentioned by al-Jundi as part of the Ba Alawi family, namely Hasan bin Muhammad bin Ali Ba Alawi. The name Muhammad bin Ali Ba Alwi is mentioned again as having a son named Hasan. The question arises: if Muhammad bin Ali Ba Alwi were indeed al-Faqih al-Muqoddam, as Hanif interprets, did al-Faqih al-Muqoddam have a son named Hasan?

Let us consult the Ba Alawi genealogical book, Syamsu al-Dzahirah, to see if al-Faqih al-Muqoddam had a son named Hasan.

Observe the following text:

وله (اي الفقيه المقدم) من الولد خسة بنين: علوي وأحمد وعلي وعبد الله بتريم سنة 663 وعبد الرحمن المتوفي بين الحرمين

"He (al-Faqih al-Muqoddam) had five sons: Alawi, Ahmad, Ali, Abdullah (who died in Tarim in 663 AH), and Abdurrahman (who died between the two Holy Sanctuaries of Makkah and Madinah)." (Syamsu al-Dzahirah: 78)

It is clear here that al-Faqih al-Muqoddam did not have a son named Hasan. Thus, it is also clear that the Muhammad bin Ali mentioned by al-Jundi is not al-Faqih al-Muqoddam.

The second piece of evidence that the Muhammad bin Ali mentioned by al-Jundi is not al-Faqih al-Muqoddam is the sentence: "He (Hasan bin Muhammad) has an uncle named Abdurrahman bin Ali...". The question follows: did Ali, the father of al-Faqih al-Muqoddam, have a son named Abdurrahman? Let us look at Syamsu al-Dzahirah in the passage below:

وله ابن واحد هو الشيخ الامام محمد الشهير ن بالفقيه المقدم

"He (Sheikh Ali bin Muhammad Sahib Mirbath) had only one son, namely Sheikh Imam Muhammad, famously known as al-Faqih al-Muqoddam." (Syamsu al-Dzahirah: 77)
It is stated in the book Syamsu al-Dzahirah that Ali (the father of al-Faqih al-Muqoddam) had only one son. This means that the Hasan mentioned by al-Jundi—who has an uncle named Abdurrahman—is clearly not the child of al-Faqih al-Muqoddam and is not part of the Ba Alwi family.

ومنهُم عَلي ّ بن باعلوي كَان َ كثيرالْعِبَادَة عَظِيم الْقدر لا َ يكَاد يفتر عَن الصَلَاة ثم َ مَتى تشهد ْ قَال َ السَلَام عَلَيْك ايها النَبي ِ ويكرر ذَلِك فَقيل لَه ُ قَال َ لا ازال أفعَل حَتى َ يرد النَبي ِ صلي الله عَلَيْه وَسلم فَكَان َ كثيرامَا يكَرر ذَلِك ولعلي ولد اسْمه محمد ابْن صَلَاح وَله ابْن عَم اسْمه عَلي بن باعلوي بعض تفاصيل ابا علوي احَْمد بن محمد كَان َ فَقِيها فَاضلا توفي سنة 724 تقْرِيبًا وَعبد الله بن علوي بَاق ٍ الي اْلْان حسن التعَبُّد وسلوك التصوف

"And some of them are Ali bin Ba Alwi; he was prolific in his worship and of great stature. He was constant in his prayers, and when reciting the tasyahhud, upon reaching the phrase 'assalamualaika ayyuhannabiyyu' (peace be upon you, O Prophet), he would repeat it. When asked why he repeated it, he answered: 'I do so until the Prophet SAW answers me,' and thus he repeated it many times. Ali has a son named Muhammad Ibnu Solah, and he has an uncle named Ali bin Ba Alwi. Some details of the Aba Alwi family include Ahmad bin Muhammad, a prominent jurist who died around the year 724 AH, and Abdullah bin Ba Alwi, who is still alive now, performs excellent worship, and follows Sufism".

Is it true that these names, as Hanif mentions, are members of the Ba Alawi habib family? Let us examine them one by one.

First, Alwi bin Ba Alwi:
There are very many members of the Ba Alawi habib family named Alwi. Meanwhile, the term "bin Ba Alwi" does not indicate a father, but rather a tribe. Therefore, it is difficult to trace exactly who he is. However, Hanif states that this refers to Ali Khali Qosam, and the mention of "bin Ba Alwi" actually means "bin Alwi" without the "Ba". Once again, Hanif relies on the book Tarikh al-Ahdal, which was edited by the Ba Alawi themselves.

But let us try to trace this through the subsequent sentences. It is stated there that this Ali bin Ba Alwi has a cousin (son of an uncle) also named Ali. This means that if he were indeed Ali Khali Qosam, we must investigate whether Ali Khali Qosam’s father had a younger brother with a son named Ali, who would then be the cousin mentioned. Let us consult the book Syamsu al-Dzahirah!

ولعلوي هذا ابنان: سالم لا عقب له وعلي المعروف بخالع قسم

"Alawi had two sons: Salim, who had no descendants, and Ali, who is known as Khali' Qosam." (Syamsu al-Dzahirah: 70)

It is clear that the name Ali bin Ba Alwi is not Ali Khali Qosam. This is because Ali Khali Qosam's uncle had no children; therefore, how could he have a cousin (the son of an uncle) if his uncle was childless? Thus, Hanif's claim that the Ba Alawi Habib family is mentioned in al-Jundi's Tarikh is refuted.

Similarly, the claim made by Habib Ali al-Sakran in his book al-Burqah al-Mushyiqah—which asserts that his ancestor, Ubaid bin Ahmad, is the same person as Abdullah bin Ahmad based on al-Jundi’s accounts—is also refuted. From this point, it becomes very difficult to connect the Ba Alawi Habib lineage to the lineage of Prophet Muhammad SAW, as their evidence is merely an assumption based on the similarity between the names Ubaid bin Ahmad and Abdullah bin Ahmad.

Who, then, is the Abu Alwi being referred to? The Abu Alwi in question refers only to the descendants of Jadid bin Abdullah.

Secondly, Hanif states:

"Actually, one of my primary focuses in this treatise is to reveal the existence of a fundamental error in Imaduddin’s research method, specifically the requirement that 'there must be a book written during the time of Ahmad bin Isa or close to it...'"

In truth, that requirement is a standard criterion in the research methodology of historical figures. There must be a contemporary (primary) book or one close to it (secondary). This means finding the nearest available book that is not refuted by another older, closer book. When a book from the year 606 AH states that Ahmad only had three children, and then an 8th-century book claims there is one more, the 8th-century book is rejected. The only exception is if there are no refuting books within the span of time between Ahmad bin Isa and that 8th-century book. This is the essence of a sanad (chain of transmission). If narration were without a sanad, the core teachings of Islam would become chaotic. The lineage of Prophet Muhammad SAW carries religious consequences, such as in the chapters regarding zakat, khumus (the one-fifth tax), etc.

Hanif criticizes why the author, when searching for evidence from Ali al-Uraidi to Ali Zainal Abidin, only used a sanad of a hadith narrated by Tirmidhi.

As experts in the field know, muhaddiths (hadith scholars) like Tirmidhi and others have their own strictness in narrating hadith, which exceeds the strictness of genealogists. Furthermore, during that era, the lineage from Ali Zainal Abidin to Ali al-Uraidi was still very famous and had achieved "fame and widespread knowledge" (syuhrah wal istifadhah) among both scholars and commoners. It is highly unlikely that a narrative chain mentioning famous names like theirs would be incorrect.

Thirdly, Hanif asserts that the lineage of Abdullah as the son of Ahmad was mentioned by al-Ubaidili (d. 435 AH), as found in the book al-Raudl al-Jaliy by Az-Zabidi (d. 1205 AH). The author has written about this, and clearly, there are two printed versions of the book with differing contents. The author will not discuss this book at length again, as it has been compromised by conflicting accounts. In the chapter regarding water, if there are two containers—one containing water and one containing urine—and the two become iltibas (confused/interchanged), then we may not use either for ablution (wudu). Both must be discarded, and we must perform tayammum (dry ablution) instead. Additionally, what al-Zabidi narrated was the name Abdullah, not Ubaidillah. This clearly changes nothing, as the author has explained that Abdullah is not the same as Ubaidillah.

Fourthly, Hanif mentions the book al-Suluk. The author has already explained the refutation of this above.

Fifth, Hanif cites the author's opinion regarding those who are prohibited from receiving zakat in the author’s book al-Fikrah al-Nahdliyyah. In that book, the author indeed stated that part of the Bani Hasyim are the Ba Alawi, using the same lineage as the habib genealogy, because that was the extent of the author's knowledge at the time the book was written (2017). It seems as though Hanif wishes to suggest that the author is inconsistent in his opinions.

It should be noted that a difference of opinion by a scholar across his various books is a common occurrence. One simply needs to look at the timeline. The most recent book is the one to be held as the definitive position if there are conflicting opinions. The author's previous opinion regarding the Ba Alawi lineage has been annulled by the author in his other works, namely the book al-Bayan al-Dzahabi and the book al-Muktafi, a commentary (syarah) on Nihayatuzzain volume 1.

(Imaduddin Utsman al-Bantani)

RESPONDING TO HABIB ALI ZAINAL ABIDIN, CHAIRMAN OF NAQOBATUL ASYROF RABITAH ALAWIYAH, AND SHEIKH MAHDI ARROJA'I

Habib Ali Zainal Abidin Assegaf, the chairman of Naqobatul Asyrof al-Kubro (hereafter referred to as the Chairman of NA)—an institution for lineage preservation under Rabitah Alawiyah—produced a video regarding the continuity of the Ba Alawi lineage to Ahmad bin Isa. The video was uploaded by Sikam TV on May 10, 2023, titled "Chairman of Naqobatul Asyrof Al Qubro Speaks Out!! Al-Habib Zainal Abidin Assegaf."

Additionally, a document has reached the author containing the opinion of a lineage expert named Sheikh Mahdi al-Roj'ai, who states that the Ba Alawi lineage is well-known (mashur) as descendants of Ahmad al-Muhajir.

First, the author will respond to the video by the Chairman of NA.

The points delivered by the Chairman of NA are relatively similar to those mentioned by Habib Hanif Alatas. However, there are several points the author can address, including:

The Chairman of NA states that the recording of the Ba Alawi lineage has been ongoing since the time of Sheikh Salim bin Basri (d. 604 AH). According to the Chairman of NA, Sheikh Salim bin Basri—whose lineage is given as Salim bin Basri bin Abdullah bin Basri bin Ubaidillah bin Ahmad bin Isa from within the Ba Alawi family—wrote a genealogical book titled Asyajarah al-Kubro. If it were true that during that period a scholar from the Alawi family was also a genealogist (nassabah) who authored a book on lineage, it should have been increasingly easy for other lineage scholars to detect and record the Alawi family in their own genealogical works.

Yet in reality, during the 6th and 7th centuries AH, the Alawi family lineage was not recorded in the genealogical books that documented the descendants of Prophet Muhammad SAW. Furthermore, the name Sheikh Salim bin Bashri is majhul (unknown) among lineage scholars of that era. Even the book Tabaqat al-Nassabin by Bakar Abu Zaid, which lists genealogists throughout history, does not mention Sheikh Salim bin Bashri as a genealogist who authored a book.

Furthermore, how can we confirm that Sheikh Salim bin Bashri truly wrote a book titled Asyajarah al-Kubro? Based on scientific data, the author believes that the attribution of the Alawi family to Prophet Muhammad SAW began when Habib Ali al-Sakran (d. 895 AH) wrote the book al-Burqot al-Musyiqoh. If it were true that Sheikh Salim bin Bashri wrote a book in 590 AH, as the Chairman of NA claims, why did Habib Ali al-Sakran not mention it? Why instead did Habib Ali al-Sakran rely on the book by al-Jundi (d. 730 AH) as his reference—specifically when he concluded that Ubaid, his ancestor, was the same person as Abdullah bin Ahmad bin Isa?

In the book al-Burqoh (page 135), Habib Ali al-Sakran mentions the name Salim bin Bashri, but he does not state that Salim bin Bashri possessed a book of lineage. Yet, the Chairman of NA claims that the founder of Naqobatul Asyrof al-Kubro was Habib Umar Muhdor (d. 833 AH), followed by Habib Ali al-Sakran. It is strange that Habib Ali al-Sakran, serving as the Naqobatul Asyraf of his time, was unaware of the book Asyajarah al-Kubro, while the current Chairman of NA is aware of it. This is despite a 854-year gap since it was purportedly written in 590 AH. Where has that book been all this time?

Determining the age of a manuscript in philological research can be done in two ways: internal evidence and external evidence. Internal evidence determines the age of a manuscript based on information found within the text itself, typically in the manggala (preface) or the colophon (closing remarks), to establish the earliest possible date the work was written.

External evidence determines the age based on data found outside the manuscript. This involves three methods: the mention of the work in other writings, inscriptions, and comparing the language used to works from the same estimated period. Philologists also use the watermarks method to determine the age of a manuscript by examining the type of paper used. While a manuscript can be forged, scientists have ways to investigate its authenticity through scientific methodology.

ANSWERING SHEIKH MAHDI ARROJA'I

Proponents of the Ba Alawi lineage, it seems, have sought the assistance of Sheikh Mahdi Arroja'i to strengthen the evidence for their genealogical continuity. In a single-page signed letter dated 15 Ramadan 1444 AH—just a few days ago—Sheikh Mahdi Arroja'i stated that the Ba Alawi lineage is well-known (masyhur) as descendants of Ahmad al-Muhajir.

A determination without evidence is no determination at all; it is merely an opinion that deserves to be ignored. What we require is evidence, not personal opinions. If strong evidence exists, everyone will reach the same conclusion. Without evidence, an opinion is subject to external influences, and every individual's view may differ depending on what influences them.

In truth, requesting a specific letter from Sheikh Mahdi Arroja'i to recognize the Ba Alawi lineage was unnecessary, as he had already recognized it in his own books, albeit without a clear basis. Therefore, defenders of the Ba Alawi lineage should have simply pointed to his book, where the scholar from Iran mentions Ubaidillah as the son of Ahmad, rather than requesting a special statement.

In his work, al-Mu'qibun min Ali Abi Talib Alaihissalam (Vol. 2, p. 419), he lists four sons of Ahmad bin Isa: Muhammad, Ali, Husain, and Ubaidillah. The question remains: from where did he cite that Ahmad bin Isa had a son named Ubaidillah? If it came from a book, which book was it? If from another source, what was the reason? He does not explain this in detail; he simply lists the four sons without providing a reference.

There is an expression that states:

نحن أصحاب الدليل حيثما يميل نميل

"We are ashabuddalil (people who follow the evidence); wherever the evidence leads, there we shall go."

Because what Sheikh Mahdi Arroja'i mentions lacks evidence, that opinion is rejected, as it fails to bridge the 550-year gap in the Ba Alawi lineage. However, his mention of Ubaidillah as the son of Ahmad carries a certain wisdom: it removes any doubt regarding the authenticity of the book al-Syajarah al-Mubarokah. Why? Because that book was edited (tahqiq) by Sheikh Mahdi Arroja'i himself.

Previously, the editing of that book was called into question. It was suggested that attributing the authorship to Imam al-Fakhrurazi was merely the work of an editor with a Shia ideology who hated the Sunni Ba Alawi family. This has been proven false because, even though the book he edited—al-Syajarah al-Mubarokah—does not mention Abdullah or Ubaidillah as a son of Ahmad, Sheikh Mahdi Arroja'i mentions Ubaidillah as Ahmad's son in his own independent work.

This demonstrates the scientific integrity of the editor of al-Syajarah al-Mubarokah and the strength of that book as a reference for those studying the descendants of Prophet Muhammad SAW. As for Sheikh Mahdi Arroja'i's mention of Ubaidillah as Ahmad's son, in the author's view, it is likely that he cited it from genealogical books such as Tuhfat al-Thalib or al-Burqah—both of which lack continuity with earlier historical texts.

ANSWERING THE CLAIM THAT THE HABIB LINEAGE HAS BEEN MENTIONED BY GREAT SCHOLARS

The Habaib often use the narrative that the lineage of the Ba Alawi habibs is as clear and bright as the sun at midday. They suggest that if the sun is shining brightly at noon and someone cannot see it, there are only two possibilities: either they are blind or they have an eye ailment.

From the author's perspective, the lineage of the Ba Alawi habibs is like a desert on a pitch-black night, with neither moon nor stars. If anyone claims it is "brightly lit," there are only two possibilities: either they are dreaming of the sun, or they are like a frog under a coconut shell that has a 150-watt lamp placed inside it.

The Ba Alawi lineage has a break in its recorded narrative for 550 years. That is a fact. This means that from the time Ahmad bin Isa died, it was only after 550 years that a mention appeared stating Ahmad bin Isa had a son named Ubaidillah. No previous lineage scholars mentioned the name Ubaidillah as a son of Ahmad.

Furthermore, the mention of Ubaidillah as Ahmad's son after those 550 years is problematic upon investigation. It can be said that the name Ubaidillah was only recorded as Ahmad bin Isa's son by the family themselves or by individuals with ties to the Ba Alawi—whether they were colleagues or students.

Below, the author provides several examples of scholars who mentioned Ubaidillah as the son of Ahmad bin Isa and who shared an emotional connection with the Ba Alawi clan.

HABIB ALI AL-SAKRAN

The name Ubaidillah as the son of Ahmad was first recorded by Habib Ali al-Sakran (d. 895 AH). He was a direct descendant of Ubaidillah. His complete lineage is:

Ali bin Abubakar bin Abdurrahman bin Muhammad Mauladawilah bin Ali bin Alwi bin Muhammad Faqih Muqoddam bin Ali bin Muhammad Sohib Mirbat bin Ali Khali Qosam bin Alwi bin Muhammad bin Alwi bin Ubaidillah.

Habib Ali al-Sakran assumed that the name Abdullah bin Ahmad, mentioned in the book by al-Jundi (d. 730 AH), was the same person as his ancestor named Ubaid bin Ahmad.

SHEIKH YUSUF AN-NABHANI

One of those who mentioned the Ba Alawi lineage is Sheikh Yusuf al-Nabhani (d. 1350 AH). He was not a member of the Ba Alawi family. The mention by An-Nabhani is frequently cited by defenders of the Ba Alawi lineage as an argument for its continuity. He was a Sufi who also served as a judge (qadi).

In his book, Riyadul Jannah fi Adzkaril Qur'an wa al-Sunnah, he praises the Ba Alawi lineage. What must be investigated is: Why did he praise it? Did he praise it after conducting a detailed study and research into the Ba Alawi genealogy, or for another reason—such as having a teacher, friend, or colleague from the Ba Alawi?

Upon the author's analysis, it turns out he praised the Ba Alawi lineage not because he had researched the genealogy, but because he associated with some of them who possessed noble character. Furthermore, he found that books written by the Ba Alawi were, in his view, filled with "huda" (guidance). Additionally, he corresponded with them via letters and received replies written with great gentleness and humility. Thus, he praised the Ba Alawi lineage based on factors other than genealogical research.

It can also be added that he obtained many references for the book he wrote from a colleague who was a Ba Alawi scholar named Habib Zainal Abidin Jamalullail. That Habib lent him two books written by his grandfather titled Rahatul Arwah bi Dzikril Fattah and its marginal notes (hasyiyah).

If Sheikh Yusuf an-Nabhani concluded that the Ba Alawi lineage is authentic based on their good character, then conversely, one cannot be blamed for stating the Ba Alawi lineage is invalid because they encountered members of the Ba Alawi with poor character, even without research.

Therefore, the author concludes that what Sheikh Yusuf an-Nabhani stated regarding the authenticity of the Ba Alawi lineage falls under the category of husnuzhon (positive assumption). For those who have the time to investigate, please examine Sheikh Yusuf an-Nabhani's book, Riyadul Jannah fi Adzkaril Qur'an wa al-Sunnah, pages 23 to 24. Moreover, in his biography, he is noted to have had two teachers from the Ba Alawi clan: Habib Ahmad bin Hasan Alatas and Habib Hasan bin Muhammad Alhabsyi.

IBNU HAJAR AL-HAITAMI

It is said that Ibnu Hajar al-Haitami mentioned the Ba Alawi lineage as reaching the Messenger of Allah; is this true? In his book, Tsabat Ibnu Hajar al-Haitami, Ibnu Hajar mentions the sanad (chain) of lubsul khirqoh, which is a sign of authorization in a Sufi order involving the placing of a cloth upon a student.

Ibnu Hajar al-Haitami explains that one of the chains he possesses for the lubsul khirqoh is from Imam Abu Bakar al-Idrus. In this chain, the lineage connects to Sheikh Abdul Qadir al-Jaili (al-Jailani), al-Rifai, al-Suhrawardi, and others. In that same book, Ibnu Hajar quotes the words of Abu Bakar al-Idrus stating that he possesses a lubsul khirqah chain that connects to the Messenger through his father, continuing to his grandfather, and ultimately reaching the Prophet. (See the book al-Tsabat Ibnu Hajar al-Haitami, pages 212 to 213).

Therefore, it is not that Ibnu Hajar confirmed the Ba Alawi lineage as being connected to Prophet Muhammad SAW; rather, he merely quoted the statement of Sheikh Abu Bakar al-Idrus.

MURTADHA AZ-ZABIDI

One of the mainstays for the defenders of the Ba Alawi lineage is the book al-Raud al-Jaliy, authored by Sheikh Murtadlo az-Zabidi. It is argued that a great scholar—the author of the commentary on Ihya Ulumuddin—has confirmed that the Ba Alawi lineage is connected to Prophet Muhammad SAW. Is this true?

Sheikh Murtadlo az-Zabidi authored the book al-Raud al-Jaliy upon the order of his teacher, Habib Mustafa bin Abdurrahman al-Aidarus (see al-Raud al-Jaliy, page 13). At the time he was given this order, he was only twenty years old (see page 12).

The editor (muhaqqiq), Sheikh Arif Abdul Ghani, states that at that time, Habib al-Aidarus came to meet az-Zabidi in Taif in the year 1166 AH and stayed there for six months (see page 16). From this, we can conclude that the writing of the genealogy was essentially a request from his teacher, and the materials regarding the Ba Alawi, in all likelihood, originated from the narrations of said teacher. Therefore, the argument that a great scholar named az-Zabidi validated the Ba Alawi lineage becomes ambiguous: is it true that az-Zabidi wrote according to his own scholarly findings at that time, or according to the data prepared by his teacher?

SHEIKH MAHDI ARROJA'I

Sheikh Mahdi Arroja'i, a contemporary scholar, is among those who record the name Ubaidillah as a son of Ahmad bin Isa. In his book al-Mu'qibun, he writes that Ahmad bin Isa had four children: Muhammad, Ali, Husain, and Ubaidillah. Furthermore, just a few days ago, he sent a letter stating that the Ba Alawi lineage is connected to Ahmad bin Isa. Who exactly is he?

He is a lineage scholar affiliated with the Lineage Foundation established by Sheikh Al-Mar'asyi al-Najafi (d. 1411 AH). The author investigated the source for his inclusion of Ubaidillah as Ahmad bin Isa's son, as he does not provide an explanation in al-Mu'qibun.

Through research, the author found clarity: Sheikh Mahdi Arroja'i obtained the name Ubaidillah from the personal notes of Sheikh Al-Mar'asyi himself—the founder of the foundation where he works. These notes appear in a footnote of the book Tahdzibu Hada'iqil Albab by al-Amili (d. 1138 AH), which was edited by Sheikh Mahdi Arroja'i. In that book, Ahmad is mentioned as having no child named Ubaidillah; however, the editor, Sheikh Mahdi Arroja'i, added a footnote stating that Sheikh Al-Mar'asyi recorded that Ahmad indeed had a son named Ubaidillah. So, who was Sheikh Al-Mar'asyi?

Sheikh Al-Mar'asyi, whose full name was Sheikh Shihabuddin al-Mar'asyi al-Najafi, was a student of a habib of the Ba Alawi lineage named Habib Muhammad Aqil al-Alawi al-Hadrami (d. 1350 AH), the author of the book al-Atbul Jamil (see the book Tahdzib, page 278).

These are several examples showing that scholars who list Ubaidillah as the son of Ahmad consistently share an emotional connection with the Ba Alawi clan.

Before concluding this article, the author wishes to address the claim made by some circles that the significance of confirmation from contemporary genealogical books is unnecessary. It is argued that the requirement for contemporary confirmation, which the author proposed in the book Menakar, contradicts the experts of lineage. The author will quote a living lineage expert from the Hijaz, Sayyid Ibrahim bin Mansur, who states in his book al-Ifadloh:

اما الادلة على ان دعوي المتأخرين من الطبريبن للنسب الحسيني العلوي حادثة لا اصل لها إن كتب التواريخ المتقدمة لم ترفع نسب الطبريبن الي النسب الحسيني العلوي (الافاضة:56)

"As for the evidence that the claims of later generations of the Tabariyyah people regarding al-Husaini al-Alawi lineage are a recent (claim) with no basis, it is because ancient historical books do not connect the lineage of the Tabariyyah to the al-Husaini al-Alawi lineage." (al-Ifadloh: 56)

Observe that Sayyid Ibrahim bin Mansur, who states the lineage of the Tabariyah people in Makkah does not connect to the al-Husaini lineage, bases his conclusion on ancient books which indicate that the Tabariyah lineage is broken. This is despite the fact that the Tabariyah were known in the 14th century as descendants of the Prophet with a degree of fame that had reached istifadlah (widespread renown); some scholars, such as Qadi Ja'far li bani Makkiy, even stated it was qot'i (definitive) that they were descendants of Prophet Muhammad SAW (see the book al-Hadits syujun, page 94). However, research shows that current fame does not guarantee the continuity of lineage based on the testimony of ancient books. It was concluded that the Tabariyyin only began claiming descent from the Prophet in the ninth century, while in the 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th centuries, this lineage was majhul (unknown). This mirrors the case of the Ba Alawi lineage.

RESPONDING TO MUHAMMAD LUDFI ROCHMAN (1): REGARDING THE DISCONTINUITY OF THE HABIB LINEAGE

The author's thesis concerning the discontinuity of the lineage of the Ba Alawi habibs of Yemen to the Messenger of Allah received an antithesis from Muhammad Ludfi Rochman (MLR), a cleric from Purworejo, Central Java. His antithesis was featured in two articles published on the online media platform Faktakini.info on April 7 and 8, 2023.

The following are the points of the author's response to the arguments presented in those articles:

First: MLR states that the author denies the habib lineage that has been validated by Rabithah Alawiyah. The author responds: I do not deny their lineage up to Alawi bin Ubaidillah; however, scientifically, I believe they are not descendants of the Messenger of Allah because Ubaidillah—whom they claim is the son of Ahmad bin Isa—is not confirmed in genealogical books contemporary to them.

Second: MLR accuses the author of relying solely on one genealogical book, Asy-Syajarah Al-Mubarokah by Imam Fakhruddin Ar-Razi. The author responds: My references for concluding the discontinuity of the Ba Alawi habib lineage are not based on a single book, but rather on nine genealogical books which will be detailed below.

Third: Regarding the title "Al-Muhajir" for Ahmad bin Isa due to his migration to Hadramaut. The author responds: There are no mu'tabar (authoritative) genealogical books stating that Sayid Ahmad bin Isa moved to Hadramaut; therefore, there is no title of "Al-Muhajir" for him. News of his migration and this title only appeared alongside the emergence of the name Ubaidillah as his son starting in the 9th century Hijriah—535 years after his death—appearing first in An-Nafhah al-Anbariyah by Muhammad Kadzim al-Musawi (d. 880 AH).

Fourth: MLR assumes that as a newcomer, Ahmad bin Isa could have married again and had other children. The author responds: Since there is no report of him moving to Hadramaut, there is consequently no report of him remarrying or having a son named Ubaidillah there.

Fifth: MLR argues that Ar-Razi did not explicitly deny that Sayid Ahmad bin Isa had a son named Ubaidillah. The author responds: Ar-Razi’s sentence explaining that Ahmad bin Isa had three children uses a jumlah ismiyah structure which indicates ta'kid (strong emphasis). The sentence "The children of Ahmad bin Isa are three: Muhammad, Ali, and Husain" is clear and definitive—it means three, not two or four.

Sixth: MLR points to the book Syarhul Ainiyyah by Habib Ahmad bin Zen al-Habsyi. The author responds: Syarhul Ainiyyah was authored in the 12th century AH, while Ubaidillah died in the year 383 AH. In the science of hadith and genealogy, ittisholurriwayah (continuity of narration) is required; a 12th-century book cannot serve as a witness for someone from the 4th century without an established source.

Seventh: MLR claims that scholars from 5–6 centuries ago recognized the lineage of Ubaidillah bin Ahmad. The author responds: This statement is not accompanied by any evidence, as the books mentioned thereafter are from the 10th century AH onwards.

Eighth: MLR notes that Imam Sakhawi in Ad-Dlau’ul Lami’ mentions Ubaidillah as the son of Ahmad bin Isa. The author responds: Imam Sakhawi lived in the 10th century AH (d. 902 AH). Scientifically, reports of history and genealogy from that era must have references in preceding books; however, books from the 5th to the 9th centuries AH state that Ahmad bin Isa did not have a son named Ubaidillah.

Ninth: MLR lists several scholars, including Ibnu Hajar al-Haitami, Imam Abu Salim Al-Maghribi, Ibnu ‘Imad, and Imam Al-Khatib, as mentioning Ubaidillah. The author responds: Ibnu Hajar died in 974 AH; Abu Salim Al-Maghribi (whose book is Ar-Rihlah al-Iyasyiah) died in 1090 AH; Ibnu ‘Imad al-Hambali died in 1089 AH; and Imam Al-Khatib died in 855 AH. These are scholars from the 9th to 11th centuries AH whose reports are scientifically rejected if they contradict books from the 5th to 9th centuries AH without a supporting sanad (chain).

Conclusion: MLR’s writings have not yet been able to answer the thesis that the lineage of the Ba Alawi habibs is discontinued. In the author's view, their claim to be descendants of Prophet Muhammad SAW is scientifically invalid.

MUHAMMAD LUDFI RAHMAN (2): DEFENDS THE HABIB LINEAGE WITH A FORGED BOOK

After his arguments were scientifically invalidated, Muhammad Ludfi Rahman (MLR) has not lost hope in defending the habib lineage. He is still attempting to present the remaining traces of arguments for genealogical continuity that he has gathered but not yet delivered.

This time, he presents a genealogical book titled Abna'ul Imam fi Misra was Syam (hereafter referred to as Abna'ul Imam). This book was printed in 2004 AD by Maktabah At-Taubah. According to MLR, Ubaidillah is validly the son of Ahmad bin Isa because he is mentioned in that book.

Unfortunately, however, that book is a forgery and is unfit to be cited as a reference in a scientific field. Consequently, although the author has long been familiar with this book, the author has never mentioned it, as it does not deserve a place on the scientific table within scholarly discourse.

Why is this so?

Because its title is false, its author is false, its dates are false, and its content is false.

How is this known?

The title is false because while it is written as Abna'ul Imam, the content is not solely that book, as it has been augmented with the words of copyists and editors. The editor, Yusuf Jamalullail, titled this work Al-Aqdul Masi Fi Ansabi Ali Baitinnabawi (2).

The author is false because it is made to appear as though the entire work is by Ibnu Toba-toba. In reality, it was augmented by four individuals: Ibnu Shodaqoh al-Halabi (d. 1180), Abul Aon As-sifarini (d. 1188 AH), Muhammad bin Nashar al-Maqdisi (d. 1350 AH), and Yusuf Jamalullail, who then printed it and gave it the new title. These four added names appropriate to their respective eras.

The dates are false because the book states on page 17 that the author died in 199 AH, yet the title page claims he died in 478 AH. There seems to be an intentional obfuscation of the author's dates by taking advantage of the fact that more than one person shared the name Ibnu Toba-toba.

The content is false because it does not match the title. While titled Abnaul Imam, it is filled with additions from copyists and editors.

This includes what MLR cited—that the book records Ahmad bin Isa as having a son named Abdullah. This is a forgery; it was not written by Ibnu Toba-toba, the original author of Abnaul Imam, but rather by the copyist or editor, Yusuf Jamalullail, a habib (of the Ba Alawi lineage) who lived in 1938 AD.

Therefore, the book cited by MLR as a witness for the Ba Alawi lineage is scientifically rejected. As of now, MLR must be even more persistent in searching for a primary genealogical book that mentions Ahmad bin Isa having a son named Ubaidillah. Good luck.

REVIEW OF THE SCHOLARLY DIALOGUE WITH HABIB HAMID ALKADRI CONCERNING THE HABIB LINEAGE

Muwasholah TV recently posted a scholarly dialogue between Gus Mabda Dzikara, Lc. M.Ag. and Habib Hamid Alkadri regarding the author’s book. There are several points the author wishes to review on this occasion:

The Validity of Contemporary Prints of Ancient Books

Habib Hamid Alkadri stated that the author’s reference books, while written in the 5th century, were printed in the modern era and edited (tahqiq) by contemporary scholars.

The author responds: Naturally, these books are printed today because printing presses did not exist a thousand years ago. However, the content is based on manuscripts found by expert editors (muhaqiq) who utilized their expertise to bring them to print.

A printed manuscript may be the original work of the author or a copy made from the original.

In the past, students would hand-copy books they intended to study or teach, a process that continued until the invention of the printing press.

Before printing, a muhaqiq researches and finalizes the text to ensure its valid attribution to the author.

Experts can identify missing letters or words due to age or damage; if a text is too damaged to be certain, an honest editor will use ellipses and provide a footnote explaining the loss rather than inventing content.

The Case of As-Syajarah Al-Mubarokah

As an example, the book As-Syajarah Al-Mubarokah was authored by Imam Fakhruddin Ar-Razi (d. 606 AH). It was printed in 1419 AH based on a thousand-page manuscript held in the Sultan Ahmad III University Library in Istanbul (Archive No. 2677) and edited by Sayyid Mahdi Ar-Roja’i.

To verify the editor’s work, one can simply visit the library in Istanbul and compare the print to the original manuscript.
Habib Hamid Alkadri claimed no scholars mentioned Ar-Razi writing this specific book. The editor himself notes on page 11 his amazement upon discovering this work, as it was previously unknown.
The manuscript was discovered by Sheikh Al-Mar’asyi, who had his son, Mahmud Al-Mar’asyi, photograph it for editing. The attribution to Ar-Razi is explicitly stated at the end of the manuscript.
Furthermore, this manuscript has also been found in Saudi Arabia in the private library of the lineage expert Sheikh Ibrahim Al-Manshur Al-Hasyimi Al-Amir.
Therefore, this "crown witness" book cannot be called a forgery because its chronological printing process is complete and verifiable.

Critique of Later References

Habib Hamid Alkadri utilized Al-Raudul Jaliy by Murtado Az-Zabidi (d. 1145 AH) as evidence for the Ba Alawi lineage.

The author questions the source of Az-Zabidi's sanad (chain of transmission), as this is a 12th-century book.
It is nearly contemporary with Khulatsatul Atsar by Al-Muhibbi (d. 1111 AH), both of which mention Ubaidillah as the son of Ahmad bin Isa.
Both are much younger than Tuhfatutholib by Sayid Muhammad bin al-Husain as-Samarqondi (d. 996 AH). If 10th-century books are rejected for lacking earlier evidence, 12th-century books are even less valid.
Az-Zabidi wrote Al-Raudul Jaliy at the request of his teacher, Habib Abdurrahman Mustafa Al-Aidrus, when he was only 20 years old.

Regarding the mention of Ubaidillah by great scholars like As-Sakhawi (d. 902 AH) and Ibnu Hajar Al-Haitami (d. 974 AH), both were 10th-century scholars and not lineage experts. The critical question remains: where did they obtain the information that Ubaidillah was the son of Ahmad bin Isa if no such mention existed for over 500 years prior?

Thus concludes the author's review of the scholarly dialogue between Habib Harnid Alkadri and Gus Mabda Dzikara Le. MAg. on the Muwasholah TV YouTube channel. There is also something the author would like to review about Al-Syuhroh wal Istifadoh in determining lineage, but perhaps on another occasion.

RESPONDING TO THE STATEMENT: "NOT BEING MENTIONED DOES NOT MEAN NON-EXISTENCE"

To defend the lineage of the habibs, they employ the following maxim:

‘عدم الوجدانال يلزم عدم الوجود

"Not finding [something] does not mean it does not exist."

Using this rule, they argue that just because a book has not been found showing Ubaidillah as the son of Ahmad bin Isa, it does not mean such a book does not exist; it could simply be that it has not yet been discovered.

The author responds:

Genealogical books from the 5th century Hijriah mention the children of Ahmad bin Isa, but they do not list Ubaidillah as one of them.
Books from the 6th century explicitly state that Ahmad bin Isa had three children: Muhammad, Ali, and Husain.
Similarly, books from the 7th and 8th centuries do not mention Ubaidillah as a child of Ahmad.
The fact that the name Ubaidillah is not mentioned as Ahmad's son in any book for 550 years indicates that Ubaidillah was indeed not the son of Ahmad.

Ubaidillah lived in the 4th century Hijriah and died in the year 383 AH. If all the books of that century and the following centuries up to the 8th century do not mention Ubaidillah, then from where did the scholars of the 9th century learn of his existence and that he was the son of Ahmad?

There is an expression al-ilmu bi 'adamiddalil (knowing the absence of evidence) and another, 'adamul ilmi biddalil (not knowing of the existence of evidence). Regarding the Ba Alawi lineage, the author's position is the former: knowing the absence of evidence that points to Ubaidillah as the son of Ahmad bin Isa. It is truly an anomaly that Ubaidillah’s name was not mentioned as Ahmad’s son for 550 years, only to appear in the writings of Habib Ali al-Sakran in 895 AH claiming he was the son of Ahmad bin Isa.

RESPONSE TO THE STATEMENT: DENYING UBAIDILLAH AS AHMAD'S SON CONSTITUTES AN ACCUSATION OF ADULTERY (QADZAF)

There is a statement made by the habibs claiming that when the author asserts Ubaidillah is not the son of Ahmad bin Isa, it falls under the category of qadzaf—namely, accusing Ubaidillah’s mother of adultery. The author responds: the category of qadzaf applies when a married woman has a child and someone claims that the child is not her husband's; that is qadzaf. The case of Ubaidillah is different because Ubaidillah’s mother was not the wife of Ahmad bin Isa. When it is stated that Ubaidillah is not Ahmad's son, it is quite clear, as Ubaidillah’s mother was not Ahmad's wife. How could she be said to have betrayed Ahmad when Ahmad was not her husband? This is not a matter of qadzaf, but rather a matter of the father’s name being misaddressed.

There is another humorous point. It is argued that if the author claims Ubaidillah is not Ahmad’s son, then the author must show who Ubaidillah’s actual father was. The author responds: I dare to state that Ubaidillah is not Ahmad’s son because I have evidence for it—specifically, that Ahmad did not have a son named Ubaidillah. Regarding who Ubaidillah’s father was, that is not the author's responsibility. After all, many people have lineages that reach a dead end—for instance, at the 6th generation with a name whose father's identity is unknown because it was not recorded or for other reasons.

RESPONSE TO THE CLAIM: RESEARCHING THE HABIB LINEAGE IS EQUIVALENT TO HATING THE DESCENDANTS OF PROPHET MUHAMMAD SAW.

Some defenders of the Ba Alawi lineage have created a narrative on social media suggesting that the author is a hater of the descendants of Prophet Muhammad SAW. This framing will certainly not influence the educated, and even those creating the narrative are aware of that. Their target is the laypeople who have been their followers, intended to prevent them from trusting this research.

The author responds that researching the lineage of someone claiming to be a descendant of Prophet Muhammad SAW is not an act of hating the Prophet's descendants. On the contrary, it is an effort to purify the genealogy of the Prophet's descendants from those who make such claims without evidence.

RESPONSE TO THE CLAIM: SHEIKH NAWAWI AL-BANTANI, SHEIKH HASYIM ASY'ARI, ETC., HAVE VALIDATED (ITSBAT) THE BA ALAWI LINEAGE

Defenders of the Ba Alawi lineage have created a narrative suggesting that the author, in examining this lineage, is failing to follow the path of past Nusantara (Indonesian archipelago) scholars who supposedly validated the Ba Alawi lineage.

The author responds as follows:

To the best of the author’s knowledge, none of the Nusantara scholars ever formally validated the Ba Alawi lineage as being authentically descended from Prophet Muhammad SAW; rather, they engaged in mutual learning.
Knowledge is one matter, and lineage is another.
The respect shown by KH. Hasyim Asy'ari to habibs who visited his home, and vice versa, was not solely based on lineage.
If such respect were based only on lineage, it would imply that KH. Hasyim Asy'ari never sought knowledge or maintained ties with anyone except the habibs, which was clearly not the case.
Being a student of a Ba Alawi scholar does not equate to validating the Ba Alawi lineage.
Furthermore, those who do not believe in the Ba Alawi lineage are not barred from receiving blessings (barokah) when reading the ratib or books authored by Ba Alawi scholars.
Once again, knowledge is one matter, and lineage is entirely another.

RESPONSE TO THE BOOK BY DR. JA'FAR ASSEGAF, MA. TITLED CONNECTIVITY OF RIJAL AL-HADITH WITH HISTORY IN TRACING LINEAGE

DR. Ja'far Assegaf, MA. (hereinafter referred to as Ja'far) authored a rebuttal to the author's book, Measuring the Validity of the Habib Lineage in Indonesia. The book is titled Connectivity of Rijal al-Hadith with History in Tracing Lineage (hereinafter referred to as Ja'far's book), dated March 17, 2023.

The author wishes to respond to several points as follows:

First: In his introduction, Ja'far states that the author's writing is "nuanced to corner all Ba Alawi without exception by accusing their lineage" (p. 4). The author responds that the intent is not to corner anyone, but to verify the public claims made by some Ba Alawi regarding their descent from Prophet Muhammad SAW. Based on scholarly traditions from both Islamic boarding schools (Pesantren) and universities, research reveals a 550-year gap in narration (riwayat). Thus, the author believes the Ba Alawi lineage is munqati' (disconnected).

Second: Ja'far suggests that the author's conclusions could potentially lead to Qadzaf (accusation of adultery) against their ancestor, Ubaidillah (p. 10). The author finds this reasoning confused; the conclusion is simply that Ubaidillah was not the son of Ahmad. Qadzaf involves claiming a child is not the biological offspring of a woman's husband. In this case, Ubaidillah’s mother was not Ahmad bin Isa's wife; therefore, stating he is not Ahmad's son is not an accusation of betrayal, but a matter of an incorrect paternal attribution.

Third: To bridge the gap, Ja'far uses books like al-Dlau’ al-Lami’, arguing that Imam al-Sakhawi's mention of the lineage validates it, similar to the chain of transmission (isnad) in Hadith. The author responds that this is an extraordinary anomaly. Hadith isnad is only considered authentic if confirmed by primary sources (kitab ruwat) and the science of biographical evaluation (al-Jarh wa al-ta’dil) to ensure narrators lived at the same time and actually met. Simply mentioning a lineage tree upward is not equivalent to a functional isnad unless each generation is verified by contemporary records. The author's research shows that Ubaidillah is not mentioned as Ahmad bin Isa's son in any contemporary records.

Fourth: Ja'far also utilizes the book Abna’ul Imam. The author has previously analyzed this work and concluded it is a forgery, as it mixes original text with later additions by editors without distinction.

Fifth: Ja'far cites al-Jundi's al-Suluk (d. 730 AH), which mentions a son named Abdullah. The author has already addressed in responses to Hanif Alatas that Abdullah is not the same person as Ubaidillah.

Sixth: Ja'far relies on oral traditions and Ba Alawi family records. The author contends that such records must align with other prophetic family records or those of lineage scholars (ulama nasab). The Ba Alawi claim regarding Ubaidillah contradicts all contemporary or near-contemporary genealogical books.

Seventh: Ja'far uses the method of syuhrah wal istifadloh (widespread fame). However, this fame only emerged in the 9th century AH; prior to that, the lineage is entirely absent from historical and genealogical texts.

Eighth: Ja'far cites books by Ba Makhramah (d. 976 AH) and al-Khotib (d. 850 AH) regarding the migration of "Abdullah" to Hadramaut. Again, the author maintains that Abdullah is not Ubaidillah. The insertion of Alwi as the son of Ubaid by equating Ubaid with Abdullah is a later construction.

Ninth: Ja'far uses marriages between Ba Alawi men and Al-Hasani women as proof of validity. The author responds that such exclusionary marital traditions may be a specific cultural practice of the Ba Alawi and do not serve as proof of lineage, nor do they align with the teachings of the Quran or the Prophet.

Tenth: Ja'far points to the tomb of Ahmad bin Isa in Hadramaut as archaeological evidence. The author questions the authenticity of the tomb, as there is no historical record in authoritative books stating that Ahmad bin Isa bin Muhammad al-Naqib was buried in Hadramaut.