Kyai Imad's Response to the Prologue of Hanif Alatas’s Book

Book title:  Indonesia Ulema Challenge Spurious Lineage: KH. Imaduddin Utsman al-Bantani's Refutation of the Book by Hanif Alatas et al
Title of Original / Indonesian version: Ulama Nusantara Menggugat Nasab Palsu: Jawaban KH. Imaduddin Utsman al-Bantani terhadap Buku Hanif Alatas dkk
Penulis: KH. Imaduddin Utsman Al-Bantani, pengasuh pesantren Nahdlatul Ulum, Banten
Cetakan pertama: November 2024
Publisher:  Lakeisha 2024
15,6 cm X 23 cm, 691 Pages
ISBN : 978-623-119-469-5 
Bidang studi: Sejarah Baalawi, sejarah Nabi, ilmu nasab, sejarah Islam, genealogi, garis keturunan, filologi/manuskrip, Tes DNA 
Publisher of English version: Al-Khoirot Research and Publication 
Fields of study: Ba'alawi history, history of the Prophet, science of lineage, Islamic history, genealogy, bloodline / lineage, philology/manuscripts, DNA testing 

Contents

1. Part One: Indonesian Religious Scholars Challenge A Fabricated Lineage of Habib Ba Alawi
2. Responding To The Prologue Of Hanif Alatas’s Book 
3. Back to Book  Indonesia Ulema Challenge Spurious Lineage: KH. Imaduddin Utsman al-Bantani's Refutation of the Book by Hanif Alatas et al

PART ONE: INDONESIAN RELIGIOUS SCHOLARS CHALLENGE A FABRICATED LINEAGE 
(K.H. Imaduddin Utsman Al-Bantani’s Response to the Book by Hanif Alatas et al.)

Responding To The Prologue Of Hanif Alatas’s Book

The book begins by quoting unproven statements from Sheikh Taqiyyuddin al-Nabhani (d. 1350 AH) in his book Riyadlul Jannah and Al-Muhibbi in his book Khulatsah al-Atsar, which assert that the lineage of the Ba‘alwi clan is the most authentic lineage and that there is an ijma‘ (scholarly consensus) among scholars regarding its validity.

In reality, the claim of ijma‘ written by Al-Nabhani and Al-Muhibbi merely quotes from the Ba‘alwi community's own book, namely Al-Burqat al-Musyiqat by Ali bin Abubakar al-Sakran (d. 895 AH). Thus, Ali bin Abubakar al-Sakran was the first person to declare that his family's lineage connects to the Prophet Muhammad SAW, and he was also the one who claimed the existence of an ijma‘ on the matter. Yet, his claim is not based on any reference from lineage books (kitab nasab).

According to the rules of lineage experts, when we are researching a suspicious lineage—such as the Ba‘alwi lineage—we are not permitted to use arguments or evidence derived from their own books, unless there is corroborating evidence from other references. This principle is stated by a lineage expert, Abdul Majid al-Qaraja, in his book Al-Kafi al-Muntakhab:

5-المصلحة فان ظهرت مصلحة عند المثبت او النافي يترك  قوله غالبا، وقد يعمل بنقيض مصلحته في حالات مخصصة، وٙلا يؤخذ بقوله اٙ اذا وجد ما يعضده عند غَته ممن ليست لهم مصلحة ولم ينقلوا عن من له مصلحة"،

 “The fifth is al-maslahat (interest/benefit). If a clear interest exists from the person affirming (itsbat) or negating (a lineage), then their opinion is generally discarded. In certain specialized cases, their opinion may be applied if it goes against their own interest. Their opinion cannot be taken unless it is reinforced by others who have no personal interest and who do not quote from anyone with a personal interest.”

The claim that the Ba‘alwi are descendants of the Prophet Muhammad SAW and that their lineage has achieved ijma‘ first appeared formally in the Ba‘alwi text itself, Al-Burqat al-Musyiqat. Prior to that, there was no lineage book stating that the family of Abdurrahman Assegaf (Ba‘alwi) were descendants of the Prophet. In accordance with the aforementioned rule of lineage experts—that opinions regarding a lineage originating from an interested party cannot be used as a reference—the claim made by Ali al-Sakran that he and his family are descendants of the Prophet cannot be accepted.

If Hanif Alatas et al. truly understood the meaning of ijma‘ and its fundamental pillars (rukun) according to the scholars, they would not have quoted Sheikh al-Nabhani's opinion as evidence. Why? Because that statement clearly contradicts the reality that the Ba‘alwi lineage is scientifically invalid. How can a lineage that has been invalidated be referred to as a lineage whose validity has achieved consensus (ijma‘)?

First, Hanif must understand what ijma‘ is, and then understand its pillars. Only then will he realize that far from being considered a consensus, this Ba‘alwi lineage does not even deserve to be called dlaif (weak).

According to scholars, ijma‘ is the consensus of Muslim mujtahid scholars in a particular era after the passing of the Prophet Muhammad SAW regarding a sharia ruling on an event. This definition is articulated by Abdul Wahhab Khalaf in his book Ushul al-Fiqh:

الإجماع في اصطلاح الأصوليين: هو اتفاق جميع المجتهدين من المسلمين في عصر من العصور بعد وفاة الرسول-صلى الله عليه وسلم-على حكم شرعي في واقعة

“Ijma‘ in the terminology of Usul scholars is the agreement of all Muslim mujtahid scholars in any given era after the death of the Messenger—peace and blessings of Allah be upon him—upon a sharia ruling concerning an occurrence.”

From this definition of ijma‘, we know that a ruling can only be called ijma‘ if it is agreed upon by all scholars capable of independent reasoning (ijtihad). Meanwhile, this Ba‘alwi lineage, since its initial appearance in the ninth century, emerged solely from their own claims and was not mentioned by lineage scholars in lineage books. In fact, even in Tarim itself, many people did not believe in their lineage, as narrated by the Ba‘alwi books themselves, such as Al-Burqat al-Musyiqat by Ali bin Abubakar al-Sakran (d. 895 AH) and Gurar Baha al-Dlau’ by Khirid (d. 960 AH). How can a lineage whose origin stems merely from a personal claim, and which people in Tarim itself disbelieved, be said to have reached a consensus (ijma')?

One of the pillars of ijma‘ is that the agreement must exist right from the inception of the issue, as stated by Abdul Wahhab Khalaf:

الثاني: أن يتفق علَي الحكم الشرعِ في الواقعة ٚجميع المجتهدين من المسلمُين في وقت وقوعها

    “The second (pillar): That all Muslim mujtahid scholars agree on the sharia ruling of the occurrence at the exact time the event takes place.”

The timeline for the occurrence of the Ba‘alwi lineage dates back to the era of Ahmad bin Isa, because the core issue is their claim that they are descendants of the Prophet through Ubaid "bin" Ahmad bin Isa. Yet, not a single lineage book from the era of Ubaid records him as a child of Ahmad bin Isa, let alone any consensus existing. From where did Ali al-Sakran learn of an ijma‘ if their lineage was not mentioned at all by lineage experts? This is despite the fact that many lineage books recording the children of Ahmad bin Isa were written. In fact, a 6th-century lineage book, Al-Syajarah al-Mubarakah, established that the children of Ahmad bin Isa who left descendants were only three: Muhammad, Ali, and Husain. There is no child named Ubaid.

Ibnu Hazm states in the book Maratibul Ijma:

 قالوا إجماع كل عصر اجماع صحيح اذا لم يتقدم قبله في تلك المسألة خلاف وهذا هذا الصحيح

“The scholars said: Ijma‘ in any era can be considered a valid consensus if it was not preceded by a difference of opinion on that matter. This is the correct view.”

From this, we know that the claim of ijma‘—whether from Ali al-Sakran or those who quoted him later like Al-Nabhani and Al-Muhibbi—is unacceptable. Furthermore, according to Abdullah bin Ahmad bin Hanbal, such a claimant can be deemed a liar.

    “And it has been quoted from Ibnu Hazm in his book Al-Ahkam, from Abdullah bin Ahmad bin Hanbal, the statement: I heard my father say: What a person claims regarding the occurrence of ijma‘ is a lie. Whoever claims ijma‘ is lying. It may be that people differed and he does not know it because it did not reach him. Instead, he should say: We do not know of any disagreement among the people.”

In that prologue, Hanif also states:
“If we look at Imaduddin, who believes his view is absolutely correct (qath'i), a simple question arises: have dozens or even hundreds of great Islamic scholars across generations—such as al-Imam Ibnu Hajar al-Haitami, al-Hafidz al-Sakhawi, al-Shan'ani, Sayid Bakri Syatha, al-Syarqawi, al-Hafidz Murtadha al-Zabidi, al-Nabhani, Syaikh Nawawi al-Bantani, and others—compactly committed a 'Mass Error' in believing and stating the continuity of the Ba'alawi lineage as the lineage (dzurriyah) of the Messenger of Allah SAW, and only Imaduddin is correct?”

The scholars mentioned are all scholars after the 9th Century Hijri. Meanwhile, the mahallunniza (the point of contention) is the period before the 9th century AH (before the Ba‘alwi claimed to be descendants of the Prophet). Name just one lineage scholar before the ninth century who referred to, for example, Faqih Muqaddam (d. 653 AH) as a descendant of the Prophet. There is none. Furthermore, all the scholars mentioned by Hanif discussed the Ba‘alwi lineage outside of lineage books. According to lineage experts, books that can be used as references in lineage research must strictly be lineage books.

In the book Ushulu ‘Ilmi al-Nasab wa al-Mufadlalah Bain al-Ansab by Fuad bin Abduh bin Abil Gaits al-Jaizani, it is stated:

    “And when we verify (tahqiq) a lineage, the sources from which we can extract information must be early lineage books written before the modern era, namely when people were closer to knowing their ancestry.”

He also states:

    “And it is impossible for us to discuss early lineage based on what is found in modern books by relying on illogical opinions or relying merely on national memory.”

In the book Dalil Insya’i wa Tahqiqi Salasili al-Ansab by Dr. Imad Muhammad al-Atiqi, it is said:

    “A reference (marji‘) differs from a source (mashdar); a source is closer in time, location, and environment to the event it narrates. As for a reference, it differs from a source in some or all of the previous elements. Therefore, the writer of a reference requires a primary source to complete his research. Because of this, a source is more worthy of consideration if a contradiction occurs with a reference, unless that reference contains a meticulous analysis that refutes the contradiction through the source or other primary materials.”

Hanif et al. also need to understand the rules of lineage science. Not every instance of a scholar recording a lineage can be used as evidence to validate a lineage (itsbat nasab), even if they are a major scholar. And not all records of lineages can serve as an argument for the lineage's authenticity. One must examine whether the book is a lineage book or not; whether it was contemporary or not with the individual being researched, or at least if it is the closest surviving book to that period. If it is a lineage book, one must also check whether the information contradicts previous lineage books. Therefore, not all information in a book can simply be taken as evidence. The lineage expert Sheikh Khalil bin Ibrahim, in his book Muqaddimat fi ‘Ilm al-Ansab, states:

    “Not everyone who writes on lineage can be used as a proof (hujjah). And not everything written is valid to be used as a proof.”

Consequently, due to the complete absence of any lineage book verifying the Ba‘alwi lineage prior to the 9th century AH, the claim of the Ba‘alwi lineage made in the ninth century is void. Why? Because when they claimed to be descendants of the Prophet through Ubaid "bin" Ahmad bin Isa, it turns out that not a single lineage book before the 9th century recorded Ubaid as a child of Ahmad bin Isa. Lineage books prior to the 9th century recorded that the children of Ahmad bin Isa who left descendants were only three: Muhammad, Ali, and Husain.

The lineage expert Sheikh Khalil bin Ibrahim, in his book Muqaddimat fi Ilm al-Ansab, states:

    “The 42nd rule of lineage is: Know that if information contradicts logic, references, and fundamental principles (ushul), then it is fabricated information, meaning maudlu‘. Fabricated and maudlu‘ information cannot be used as a proof.”

Based on this, the 9th-century Ba‘alwi claim that Ubaid is the son of Ahmad directly contradicts the lineage books written prior to the 9th century. According to lineage experts, a lineage book can be accepted if it does not contradict preceding lineage books—especially if the text in question is merely a Sufism book, such as the book by Ali al-Sakran and those who quote from him. Even if a scholar is widely recognized across the Islamic world as a great authority in jurisprudence (fiqh) or hadith, when he quotes a genealogical chain that contradicts previous lineage books, his quotation is rejected and cannot be used as a valid argument.

Lineage expert Sheikh Khalil bin Ibrahim states:

“And it is proper for a lineage researcher not to sanctify texts (regarding lineage quotes). Every text other than the Word of Allah and the hadith of the Messenger of Allah SAW is subject to scrutiny and deep investigation; it can be wrong and it can be right.”

From this perspective, a discourse on lineage cannot merely argue: "Ibnu Hajar said this; Sheikh Nawawi said that, etc." Rather, one must examine whether their statements contradict previous lineage books. If they contradict the truth, those statements can be rejected—unless we assume that these scholars are infallible and incapable of making mistakes, which is fundamentally not an Islamic teaching.

The conclusion of this discussion is that the prologue by Hanif et al. is a prologue completely devoid of knowledge regarding the rules of lineage science. It merely quotes the statements of scholars without the ability to analyze them properly in accordance with the standards set by lineage experts. The invalidity of the Ba‘alwi lineage is an obvious fact, as clear as the sun during midday for those who wish to think.

This book, God willing, will dismantle the various efforts, framing, and even scientific scandals carried out by the authors of the book The Validity of the Ba‘alwi Lineage to defend their lineage. Readers will discover from this book how their efforts are utterly useless in saving the invalidated Ba‘alwi lineage. The Ba‘alwi are not descendants of the Prophet Muhammad SAW.

Wallahu muwaffiqun ila aqwami thariqin (And Allah is the Guide to the straightest path).

Imaduddin Utsman Al-Bantani

NOTES

1. See Ali bin Abubakar al-Sakran, Al-Burqat al-Musyiqat, p. 112.
2. Abdul Majid al-Qaraja, Al-Kafi al-Muntahkhab, p. 49.
3. Abdul Wahhab Khalaf, Ushul al-Fiqh, p. 45.
4. Abdul Wahhab Khalaf, ibid, p. 46.
5. Ibnu Hazm, Maratib al-Ijma, p. 11.
6. Abdul Wahhab Khalaf, ibid, p. 49.
7. Hanif Alatas et al., Keabsahan Nasab Ba’alwi, p. 4.
8. Fuad bin Abduh bin Abil Gaits al-Jaizani, Ushulu ‘Ilmi al-Nasab wa al-Mufadlalah Bain al-Ansab, pp. 76-77.
9. Ibid, p. 77.
10. Imad Muhammad al-Atiqi, Dalil Insya’i wa Tahqiqi Salasili al-Ansab, p. 58.
11. Khalil bin Ibrahim, Muqaddimat fi ‘Ilm al-Ansab, p. 83.
12. Khalil bin Ibrahim, Muqaddimat fi ‘Ilm al-Ansab, p. 88.
13. Khalil bin Ibrahim, ibid, p. 85.