Responding to the Defamatory Framing of the Scholars

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/Author: KH. Imaduddin Utsman Al-Bantani, pengasuh pesantren Nahdlatul Ulum, Banten
Cetakan pertama/First Edition: 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  

Table of Contents  

1. Responding to the Defamatory Framing of the Scholars
2. Slandering Ali bin Abu Bakar al-Sakran
3. Abdurrahman al-Khatib and the Book Al-Jawhar al-Syafaf
4. Slandering the Ba'alwi in General
5. The Ba'alwi and Bani Ahdal
6. Slander Against Alwi bin Tahir al-Haddad
7. Slander Against Imam Murtada al-Zabidi (d. 1204 AH)
8. Slander Against Yusuf Jamalullail
9. Scientific Betrayal: The Difficulty of Accepting References that Validate the Ba'alwi Lineage
10. Using Theories but Ignoring the Ba'alwi
11. Demanding Contemporary Books While Not Utilizing Contemporary Sources Himself
12.  Frequently Rejecting the Validity of Books Validating the Ba'alwi while Uncritically Accepting Books Rejecting the Ba'alwi
13. Deception in Citations
14. Twisting Proofs from the Al-Qur'an and Sunnah Regarding the Title "Habib"
15. There is No Sahih Hadith Regarding the Obligation to Love the Descendants of the Prophet 
16. Haphazard Conclusion Making
17. Ba'alwi are Descendants of Qahtan 
18. The Grandfather of the Ba'alwi Was a Direct First Cousin to the Bani Ahdal
19. Ahmad bin Isa Never Migrated to Hadramaut
20. Hanif Manipulated Data from the Book Al-Ghaybah by Al-Tusi Regarding Ahmad bin Isa Never Migrating to Hadramaut
21. The Grave of Ahmad bin Isa is Fake
22. Committing Public Deception: The Ba'alwi Lineage is Severed for 550 Years 
23. Back to Book  Indonesian Scholar Proves The Falsity of The Ba 'Alawi Lineage Connecting to the Prophet Muhammad  

Responding to the Defamatory Framing of the Scholars

Slandering Ali bin Abu Bakar al-Sakran

Hanif et al. claim that the author slanders Ali al-Sakran by labeling him as the "author" of the Ba'alwi lineage. Hanif argues that prior to him, Al-Khatib (d. ?) had already written about the connectivity of the Ba'alwi lineage. The author responds: this is because only Ali al-Sakran’s book is clearly printed and accessible to everyone. Meanwhile, Al-Khatib is an obscure figure. It remains unclear whether he ever actually existed in this world, and whether the book Al-Jawhar al-Syafaf is truly his work. The death year of 855 H attributed to Al-Khatib in Ba'alwi references is anomalous. In biographical dictionaries (Tarajim), the author of Al-Jawhar al-Syafaf named Abdurrahman passed away in the year 724 H, not 855 H. If he passed away in 724 H, how could he have recorded the Ba'alwi family members who lived in the 9th century H?

In the book Mu'jam al-Muallifin, it states:

عبد الرحمن بن محمد بن عبد الرحمن مُحمد بن الحضرمي، الشافعي . فقيه، مشارك في التصوف والنحو والحديث. توفي سنة ٧٢٤ هـ وقد جاوز مئة سنة. له تصانيف في النحو والحديث، منها: الجوهر الشفاف في كرامات السادة الأشراف.

"Abdurrahman bin Muhammad bin Abdurrahman bin Muhammad al-Hadrami al-Syafi'i was a jurist (faqih) well-versed in Sufism, Arabic grammar (Nahwu), and Hadith. He passed away in the year 724 H at over 100 years of age. He authored several works in grammar and Hadith, including the book Al-Jawhar al-Syafaf fi Karamat al-Sadat al-Asyraf."

Therefore, Ali al-Sakran is the one who should rightfully be addressed as the creator of the Ba'alwi lineage. This is not slander. Rather, reality dictates that the lineage of Abdurrahman Assegaf being connected to the Prophet Muhammad SAW is only found in the book of Ali al-Sakran. It does not exist anywhere else—unless the Ba'alwi can conclusively discover who Abdurrahman Al-Khatib actually was, and can state with valid evidence when he died. Did he really die in 855 H? Where is the proof?

Hanif asserts that when Ali al-Sakran was only two years old, Al-Khatib had already written Al-Jauhar al-Syafaf. Now, the author asks: from which book was this information taken? On what page? Constructing a narrative without proof deserves to be called a lie.

Abdurrahman al-Khatib and the Book Al-Jawhar al-Syafaf

Aside from being reconstructed by the book Al-Burqah al-Mushiqah by Habib Ali bin Abu Bakar al-Sakran, the Ba'alwi lineage is pinned to a timeline older than Al-Burqah (895 H) based on a manuscript titled Al-Jauhar al-Syafaf. This book is claimed to be the work of Sheikh Abdurrahman bin Muhammad bin Abdurrahman al-Khatib, who reportedly died in 855 H. In fact, Gus Rumail claims that Al-Khatib wrote it in the year 820 H.

Who exactly is this Sheikh Abdurrahman bin Muhammad al-Khatib? Information about him is like a "tangled ball of yarn being unraveled by a blind person." There are two identical names, with the same father, the same grandfather, and the same book title—yet their lifespans differ. It is a coincidence rarely seen on the face of our earth.

In literature produced by the Ba'alwi, Abdurrahman al-Khatib is said to have died in 855 H. He was a student of Habib Abdurrahman bin Muhammad Maula Dawilah (d. 819 H), the grandfather of the founder of the Ba'alwi lineage, Ali bin Abu Bakar al-Sakran. He wrote a book titled Al-Jauhar al-Syafaf. This book covers the miracles (karamat) of the saints in Tarim, and it also contains the Ba'alwi genealogy.

However, when searching through historical biographical dictionaries of scholars, the name Abdurrahman al-Khatib with that specific history and lifespan found in Ba'alwi literature is majhul (unknown). Instead, an identical name is detected with the same father and book title: Abdurrahman bin Muhammad bin Abdurrahman, who died in the year 724 H. He is mentioned in scholarly biographical books such as Al-Suluk by al-Janadi (d. 732 H), Al-Uqud al-Lu'lu'iyyah by Ali bin Hasan al-Khazraji (d. 812 H), Qiladat al-Nahar by Ba Makhramah (d. 947 H), Mu'jam al-Muallifin by Umar Rida Kahhalah, and Hadiyyat al-Arifin by Ismail Pasha al-Babani. All five books agree that this Abdurrahman bin Muhammad bin Abdurrahman died in the year 724 H, not 855 H. He authored a book named Al-Jauhar al-Syafaf. The only difference from the Ba'alwi literature is that he did not hold the title "al-Khatib."

So, how can there be identical names and book titles? This question can be answered shortly or extensively; it can be answered skeptically or with positive assumptions (husnuzon). For many people, a short answer using husnuzon can be made by disregarding the reality of these suspicious premises and claiming the matching names and titles are mere coincidence—that both existed independently, and both represent a straightforward truth. This deliberate disregard for the suspicious premises of Ba'alwi history and lineage is exactly what Yemeni scholars and historians did in the past, and continue to do today.

The Ba'alwi's control over certain manuscript resources regarding Hadramaut's history—particularly the religious history of Tarim—allowed them to arrange the historiography to fit their desired historical framework. If a contemporary historian of Hadramaut wishes to write history by merely walking through the library aisles currently available or provided by the Ba'alwi through husnuzon, they are not actually tracing the historical facts of Hadramaut; rather, they are operating within a manufactured historical space. If they want to uncover the true history of Hadramaut, they must fly high above the land of Hadramaut, look at it from an altitude, and search for the remnants of sources that remain untainted by the hands of the Ba'alwi. Only then will they obtain true historical facts.

The author frequently uncovers manipulative premises within the historical framework and lineage of the Ba'alwi. Consequently, the author applies philosophical skepticism when dealing with the historiography of Hadramaut and Tarim whenever the source has been handled by the Ba'alwi. As a result, the author is not easily trapped by the conditioned conclusions desired by the Ba'alwi. The author once said that if Yemeni and Hadrami historians were to meet the author, they would be enlightened. This statement is neither fabricated nor exaggerated; it is because the author believes that contemporary historians there have not yet realized what the author has detailed above. Alternatively, they may well be aware of it, but the relatively powerful hegemony of the Ba'alwi suppresses it, preventing these analytical insights from reaching the wider public, making them easy to delegitimize and marginalize once more.

The author possesses a microfilm copy of the manuscript version of Al-Jawhar al-Syafaf. The handwriting is recent, utilizing a modern calligraphic style, copied by Salim bin Ali bin Husain bin Abdurrahman bin Abdullah bin Umar al-Khatib in the year 1410 H—which means it was produced only 35 years ago. Judging by his name which uses "al-Khatib," it appears the copyist is a descendant of the Abdurrahman al-Khatib credited as the author of the book. This manuscript absolutely cannot serve as a reliable reference because the copyist fails to mention the year of the source manuscript he was copying from. It is entirely possible that it was not a copy, but a newly authored text. Or, it may have been copied with various interpolations inserted throughout.

What is highly suspicious is that when this copyist wrote the year of death for Abdurrahman al-Khatib, he initially wrote the year 855 Hijriah, but then crossed this number out and replaced it with a new number: 641 Hijriah (see page 249 of the Al-Jauhar manuscript). It seems he himself was uncertain about when this Abdurrahman al-Khatib died. Could it be that the title "al-Khatib" attached to the Abdurrahman who authored Al-Jauhar al-Syafaf was attributed to the wrong person?

Thus, this case is highly reminiscent of the Ba'alwi lineage problem. When the name Abdullah appeared in the book Al-Suluk from the year 732 H, it was mistakenly assumed to be the Ba'alwi ancestor named Ubaid. Similarly, when a great scholar named Abdurrahman bin Muhammad al-Hadrami died in 724 H, his descendants assumed he was the same person as their grandfather who died in 855 H. When older books mentioned that he owned a book titled Al-Jauhar al-Syafaf and the manuscript could not be found, the book was intentionally written from scratch—even though the newly written book was not the work of the Abdurrahman bin Muhammad al-Hadrami intended by those ancient texts. Consequently, endless confusion has now arisen, and they do not dare to print the book because its author's historicity is highly problematic. The mismatched chronological timeline is impossible to reconcile, as the gap between the years spans 131 years.

Slandering the Ba'alwi in General

Hanif et al. stated:

 "Imaduddin launched slanders against the Ba'alwi clan in general. According to him, the Ba'alwi clan committed a scientific scandal by fabricating their lineage and history. Of course, his slander encompasses the entire Ba'alwi clan. Meanwhile, within this clan, there are many great names, such as al-Imam Abdullah ibn Alwi al-Haddad (author of Risalat al-Mu'awanah, Al-Nashaih al-Diniyyah, etc.), al-Habib Abdullah ibn Husain ibn Thahir (author of Sullam al-Tawfiq), al-Habib Ali ibn Muhammad al-Habsyi (author of Simth al-Durar), al-Habib Abdurrahman al-Masyhur (author of Bughyat al-Mustarsyidin), alongside many other great scholars and saints (auliya). All of them are included in the group accused by Imaduddin of forging lies against Allah."

The question should be reversed. The proper question is: how will the Ba'alwi account for the falsehood of their lineage before Allah SWT, given that their lineage is completely unsupported by evidence prior to their claim in the 9th century Hijri  ?

It is entirely possible that there were scholars among the Ba'alwi who did not believe in their lineage tracing back to the Prophet Muhammad SAW. In the author's opinion, Abdullah bin Alwi al-Haddad is one such individual who likely harbored doubts. This is because from his books that have reached the author, to the best of the author's memory, there is no claim anywhere stating that he is a descendant of the Prophet Muhammad SAW.

The Ba'alwi and Bani Ahdal

Hanif Alatas et al. stated:

 "The lineage of Bani Alawi does not hitch a ride on the lineage of Bani Ahdal written by Husain al-Ahdal (d. 855 H), let alone being based solely on sheets discovered in the 9th century. Before the lineage of Bani al-Ahdal emerged, Bani Alawi already possessed their own lineage known as syuhrah and istifadhah, which was widely recognized across Hadrami society."

The author responds to the statement of Hanif et al. with the following chronological narrative: Upon reading the book Al-Suluk regarding the migration of the ancestors of Bani Ahdal from Iraq, the clan of Abdurrahman al-Saqqaf assumed that their own ancestors migrated alongside the ancestors of Bani Ahdal. Observe the text of Al-Suluk regarding the migration of the Bani Ahdal ancestor below:

واما الاهدل فَهُوَ بهاء سَاكِنة بعد الف وَلَام وهاء بعْدهَا دَال مُهْمَلَة مَفْتُوحَة ثمَّ لَام سَاكِنة كَانَ كَبِير القدر شهير الذكر يُقَال جده مُحَمَّد قدم من بلد العراق الى اليمن وَهُوَ شريف حسيني أَن قدم على قدم التصوف وسكن اجوال السَّوْدَاء من وَادي سِهَام

"And as for Al-Ahdal, it is read with a sukun on the 'ha' after the 'alif', 'lam', and 'ha'. After the 'ha' is an unpointed 'dal' with a fatha, followed by a silent 'lam'. He was a man of great stature and widespread renown. It is said his grandfather, Muhammad, came from the land of Iraq to Yemen, and he was a Husaini Syarif. He arrived upon the path of Sufism and settled in Ajwal al-Sauda' in the Siham valley."

In the passage by Al-Janadi above, the ancestor of Bani Ahdal named Muhammad bin Sulaiman is described as a "Husaini Syarif" who migrated from Iraq to Yemen. From this point, the clan of Abdurrahman al-Saqqaf hitched a ride on that history, claiming that their ancestor was also a "Husaini Syarif" because he was a first cousin (sharing the same grandfather) of Muhammad bin Sulaiman, and moved from Iraq to Yemen together with him. This was done without cross-checking whether Al-Janadi's information was backed by historical sources or not. It would later be proven that the Syarif status of Bani Ahdal is rejected. After information spread among the public that the ancestor of Bani Ahdal, Muhammad bin Sulaiman, and the ancestor of the Abdurrahman al-Saqqaf clan were cousins, a member of the Bani Ahdal subsequently recorded in his book: it is said by some that his ancestor, Muhammad bin Sulaiman, was the brother of the Ba'alwi ancestor. At the beginning of this narrative's formation, the name Ahmad bin Isa had not yet appeared as the ancestor of the Abdurrahman al-Saqqaf clan who migrated alongside... Muhammad bin Sulaiman. Note the wording of Husain al-Ahdal (d. 855 H) in his book Tuhfat al-Zaman below:

وحكي لنا عن بعضهم ان محمد المذكور خرج هو واخ له وابن عم فعمد اخوه وابن عمه الى الشرق فذريته ال با علوي في حضرموت

"It was narrated to us from some of them that the aforementioned Muhammad (bin Sulaiman) set out (migrated) along with a brother of his and a cousin. His brother and cousin then headed east. The descendants of his cousin are the Ba 'Alawi family in Hadramaut."

In this passage, it is explained that the ancestor of Bani Ahdal, Muhammad bin Sulaiman, moved from Iraq to Yemen with his brother (later known as the ancestor of Bani Qudaimi) and his cousin (sharing the same grandfather), namely the Ba'alwi in Hadramaut. Once it was established that Bani Ahdal and Ba'alwi shared a grandfather, the descendants of Bani Ahdal and Ba'alwi in the ninth century encountered a new problem: the complete arrangement of their lineages, which Al-Janadi had already generalized as "Husaini Syarif." This was because Al-Janadi did not present the lineage of Muhammad bin Sulaiman all the way back to the Prophet Muhammad SAW. Thus, we see the efforts of both families to trace their genealogies. From Bani Ahdal, Husain al-Ahdal (d. 855 H) attempted to complete the lineage of Muhammad bin Sulaiman as follows:

ووجدت في بعض الاوراق نسبه مرفوعا فقال سلیمان بن محمد بن بن حمحام بن عون بن الحسن محمد عبيد بن عيسى بن علوي بن الحسين مصغرا بن علي زين العابدين وفي موضع آخر ابن عون بن موسى الكاظم بن جعفر الصادق بن بن محمد الباقر ... 

"And I found the lineage of Muhammad bin Sulaiman in some papers traced upwards, stating: Muhammad bin Sulaiman bin Ubaid bin 'Isa bin Alwi bin Muhammad bin Himham bin Aon bin al-Hasan bin al-Husain —diminutive— bin 'Ali Zainal Abidin; and in another place: bin Aon bin Musa al-Kadhim bin Ja'far al-Shadiq bin Muhammad al-Baqir..."

From Husain al-Ahdal's efforts in the book Tuhfat al-Zaman, it was discovered that the lineage of Bani Ahdal exists in two versions. The first version: Muhammad bin Sulaiman bin Ubaid bin 'Isa bin Alwi bin Muhammad bin Himham bin Aon bin al-Hasan bin al-Husain bin 'Ali Zainal Abidin bin Husain bin Fatimah binti Nabi Muhammad SAW. The second version is: Muhammad bin Sulaiman bin Ubaid bin 'Isa bin Alwi bin Muhammad bin Himham bin Aon bin Musa al-Kadhim bin Ja'far al-Shadiq bin Muhammad al-Baqir bin 'Ali bin Husain bin Fatimah binti Nabi Muhammad SAW. This meant that if the Ba'alwi ancestor was his cousin, they shared a grandfather. Assuming that the Ba'alwi ancestor who migrated alongside Muhammad bin Sulaiman was 'Ali (Khaliq Qasam), the first version of the lineage would be: 'Ali bin Alwi bin Ubaid bin 'Isa bin Alwi bin Muhammad bin Himham bin Aon bin al-Hasan bin al-Husain bin 'Ali Zainal Abidin bin Husain bin Fatimah binti Nabi Muhammad SAW. Meanwhile, the second version would be: 'Ali bin Alwi bin Ubaid bin 'Isa bin Alwi bin Muhammad bin Himham bin Aon bin Musa al-Kadhim bin Ja'far al-Shadiq bin Muhammad al-Baqir bin 'Ali bin Husain bin Fatimah binti Nabi Muhammad SAW.

See the chart below:

No	VERSI PERTAMA		VERSI KEDUA
	Leluhur Abdurrahman al- Saqqaf	Leluhur Bani Ahdal	Leluhur Abdurrahman  al- Saqqaf	Leluhur Bani Ahdal
	Nabi Muhammad  Saw	Nabi Muhammad Saw	Nabi Muhammad Saw	Nabi Muhammad Saw
	Fatimah	Fatimah	Fatimah	Fatimah
	Husain	Husain	Husain	Husain
	'Ali Zainal	'Ali Zainal	'Ali Zainal	'Ali Zainal
	Al-husain  (al-Asgar)	Al-Husain  (al- Asgar)	Muhammad al- Baqir	Muhammad al- Baqir
	Al-hasan	Al-hasan	Ja'far al-Shadiq	Ja'far al- Shadiq
	Aon	Aon	Musa al-Kadim	Musa al-Kadim
	Himham	Himham	Aon	Aon
	Muhammad	Muhammad	Himham	Himham
	Alwi	Alwi	Muhammad	Muhammad
	'Isa	'Isa	Alwi	Alwi
	Ubaid	Ubaid	'Isa	'Isa
	Alwi	Sulaiman	Ubaid	Ubaid
	'Ali (Kh'Aliqosamam)	Muhammad	Alwi	Sulaiman
			'Ali (Kh'Aliqosam)	Muhammad

Notice that their shared grandfather is Ubaid. This Ubaid is the one who, within the Abdurrahman al-Saqqaf family, later changed into Abdullah and subsequently Ubaidillah. It should also be noted that previously, there was not a single source used as a reference for the lineage structures shown in the diagram above for either family; it was newly structured in the 9th century Hijriah. Even Al-Janadi's book Al-Suluk only referred to the Bani Ahdal family as "Husaini Syarif" (descendants of the Prophet via Husain) without detailing the individual names of the lineage. It was admitted by Husain al-Ahdal (d. 855 H) that he connected the lineage as shown above, for both the first and second versions, based solely on papers he found in the 9th century. Meanwhile, the lineage of the Abdurrahman al-Saqqaf family merely hitched a ride on the lineage of Bani Ahdal. Such an arrangement is completely rejected by the genealogy books written between the 5th and 9th centuries, because it is known that Al-Hasan bin Husain al-Asghar did not have a son named Aon, and Musa al-Kadhim did not have a son named Aon either. Both versions are rejected.

The family of Abdurrahman al-Saqqaf also undertook the same effort as the Bani Ahdal family to complete their lineage. Most likely, when they realized that the Bani Ahdal lineage had been found, and that it was rejected by traditional genealogy books, they began to find a glimmer of hope from the book Al-Suluk—specifically when they discovered the lineage of Abul Hasan 'Ali, also known as Syarif Abul Jadid. In that lineage, there were two names identical to those in the Bani Ahdal lineage, namely 'Isa and Alwi; and there was one similar name, Abdullah, which resembled Ubaid. Moreover, there was a sentence stating that Syarif Abul Jadid originated from the "Alu Abi Alwi" family, a name (Alwi) that already existed in the Bani Ahdal lineage. This led the family of Abdurrahman al-Saqqaf to consider this lineage far more convincing since it was included in a highly important history book in Yemen, Al-Suluk, compared to the results of Husain al-Ahdal's efforts, which were clearly rejected by established genealogy books. Formally, this effort was executed thoroughly by the grandson of Abdurrahman al-Saqqaf named 'Ali bin Abu Bakar al-Sakran bin Abdurrahman al-Saqqaf, who died in the year 895 Hijriah. He wrote a book titled Al-Burqat al-Mushiqah, which began introducing a permanent lineage for his family through the same line as the lineage of Syarif Abul Jadid. Naturally, this endeavor required extra work, as they had to harmonize their family history with the history of Syarif Abul Jadid's family, plus harmonize it with the Bani Ahdal family, whose history they had previously hitched a ride on. We will see that no matter how much this harmonization was attempted, the results still leak heavily all over the place.

The text written by Al-Janadi in the book Al-Suluk regarding the lineage of Syarif Abul Jadid or Abu Hasan 'Ali is as follows:

واحببت ان الحق بهم الذين وردوها ودرسوا فيها وهم جَمَاعَة من الطَّبَقَة الاولى مِنْهُم ابو الحسن علي بن محمد بن احمد مُحَمَّد ابن حَدِيد بن عبد الله بن أحمد بن عيسى بن مُحَمَّد بن عَلَى ابْن جَعْفَر الصَّادِقِ بن مُحَمَّد الباقربن علي بن زين العابدين بن الحُسَيْن بن علي ابن ابي طالب كرم الله وجهه ويعرف بالشريف ابي الحَدِيد عِنْد أَهل اليمن اصله من حضرموت من اشراف هنالك يعْرِفُونَ بَال ابي علوي بَيت صَلَاح وَعبادة على طريق التصوف وَفِيهِمْ فُقَهَاءِ يَأْتي ذكرمن اتحقق ان شَاءَ الله تَعَالَى مَعَ أهل بلده

"And I wished to append the names of those who arrived in Ta'iz and studied there. They are a group from the first tier. Among them is Abu al-Hasan, 'Ali, bin Muhammad bin Ahmad bin Hadid (Jadid, according to two manuscript variants) bin 'Ali bin Muhammad bin Jadid 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 karramallahu wajhah, and he is known as Syarif Abul Hadid among the people of Yemen. His origin is from Hadramaut, from the nobles (asyraf) there who are known as Al Abi Alwi, a household of righteousness and worship upon the Sufi path. Among them are jurists whose mention will follow as I verify them, God willing, alongside the people of his town."

From this text, 'Ali bin Abu Bakar al-Sakran then arranged the lineage of the Abdurrahman al-Saqqaf family differently from the Bani Ahdal family, despite the claim that they shared a grandfather. Observe the words of 'Ali al-Sakran below:

وقد فهمت مما تقدم اولا منقولا من تاريخ الجندي وتلخيص العواجي وسبق به الكلام في ترجمة الامام ابي الحسن علي بن احمد بن عيسى حيث قال: بن مُحَمَّد ابن أَحمد جديد انه عبد الله حَدِيد بن علي بن أحمد بن مُحَمَّد ابن مِنْهُم ابو الحسن علي بن محمد بن أحمد الله حَدِيد بن عبد بن بن عيسى بن عَليّ محمد بن عَليّ بن زين العابدين بن محمد الباقر بن علي بن زين ابْن جَعْفَر الصَّادِق بن ابن ابي طالب كرم الله وجهه ويعرف بالشريف الْحُسَيْن بن علي ابن ابي ابي الحَدِيد عِنْدَ أهل اليمن اصله من حضرموت من اشراف هنالك يعْرِفُونَ بَال ابي علوي بَيت صَلَاح وَعبادة على طَرِيق التصوف انتهى.

 "And I understood from what preceded, transcribed first from the History of al-Janadi (Al-Suluk) and the book Talkhis al-Awaji, and the discussion concerning it has already passed in detailing the biography of al-Imam Abu al-Hasan, 'Ali bin Muhammad bin Ahmad Jadid, that Ubaid is Abdullah bin Ahmad bin 'Isa. (That is) when he (al-Janadi) said: 'Among them is Abu al-Hasan, 'Ali, bin Muhammad bin Jadid (Hadid, according to two manuscript variants) bin Abdullah bin Ahmad bin 'Isa bin Muhammad bin 'Ali bin Ja'far al-Shadiq bin Muhammad al-Baqir bin 'Ali bin Zainal Abidin bin al-Husain bin 'Ali bin Abi Talib karramallahu wajhah, known as Syarif Abul Hadid among the people of Yemen, whose origin is from Hadramaut from the nobles there known as Alu Abi Alwi, a household of righteousness and worship upon the path of Sufism.' End quote."

Subsequently, 'Ali al-Sakran arranged the lineage of the Abdurrahman family to become as follows: 'Ali (Khaliq Qasam) bin Alwi bin Muhammad bin Alwi bin Ahmad bin Ubaid (Ubaidillah/Abdullah) "bin" Ahmad bin 'Isa bin Muhammad al-Naqib bin 'Ali al-Uraidi bin Ja'far al-Shadiq bin Muhammad al-Baqir bin 'Ali Zainal Abidin bin Husain bin Fatimah binti Muhammad SAW. From here we can see that a massive shift occurred in the lineage of the Abdurrahman al-Saqqaf family away from the Bani Ahdal lineage, despite the claim that they shared a grandfather. In Husain al-Ahdal’s version, three consecutive names—Ubaid bin 'Isa bin Alwi—were changed into Alwi bin Ubaid bin Ahmad bin 'Isa, with the addition of Ahmad between Ubaid and 'Isa. This alteration was based on the lineage of the Syarif Abul Jadid family. Unfortunately, this extraordinary piece of creative reasoning (ijtihad) was not accepted by the Bani Ahdal family. In later periods, the Bani Ahdal family did not adopt this version of the Abdurrahman al-Saqqaf family; they continued to use one of the lineage versions mentioned by Husain al-Ahdal in his book Tuhfat al-Zaman. Ultimately, these two branches that allegedly shared a grandfather ended up with completely different lineages. As Abu Bakar bin Abil Qasim bin Ahmad al-Ahdal (d. 1035 H) stated in his book Al-Ahsab al-'Aliyyah fi al-Ansab al-Ahdaliyyah:

وأما نسبه فهو علي الأهدل بن عمر بن مُحمد بن سليمان بن عبيد بن عيسى بن علوي بن محمد بن حمحام بن عون بن موسى الكاظم بن جعفر الصادق بن محمد الباقر بن علي زين العابدين بن الحسين بن علي بن أبي طالب رضوان الله عليهم أجمعين هذا نسبه

"And as for his lineage, may Allah be pleased with him, it is: 'Ali al-Ahdal bin Umar bin Muhammad bin Sulaiman bin Ubaid bin 'Isa bin Alwi bin Muhammad bin Himham bin 'Aon bin Musa al-Kadhim bin Ja'far al-Shadiq bin Muhammad al-Baqir bin 'Ali Zainal 'Abidin bin al-Husain bin 'Ali bin Abi Talib, may the blessings of Allah be upon them all. This is his lineage."

It is from this point onward that any synchronization and harmonization between the history of Bani Ahdal and Syarif Abul Jadid—as blended by the Abdurrahman al-Saqqaf family—becomes incredibly difficult to pull off. Before addressing the contradictions, the author wishes to highlight that ever since their efforts to seek a lineage yielded hope from the book Al-Suluk, the family of Abdurrahman al-Saqqaf identified themselves permanently using the term "Aha Alwi," which later evolved into "Ba'alwi." This name was adopted from Al-Janadi’s designation for the family of Syarif Abul Jadid. Future efforts at synchronization leaned heavily toward the history of Syarif Abul Jadid rather than the history of Bani Ahdal. Consequently, chronological inaccuracies naturally began to show between Ba'alwi history and Bani Ahdal history.

Husain al-Ahdal (d. 855 H), in his book Tuhfat al-Zaman, mentions that his grandfather named 'Ali al-Ahdal was the son of Umar bin Muhammad bin Sulaiman. This 'Ali bin Umar al-Ahdal is stated by Al-Janadi in Al-Suluk to have passed away in the year 690 Hijriah. Meanwhile, Muhammad bin Sulaiman passed away in the year 540 Hijriah, as mentioned by Muhammad bin Muhammad bin Ahmad Zabarah al-San'ani (d. 1381 H) in his book Nayl al-Hasanayn. Given this scenario—where Muhammad bin Sulaiman died in 540 Hijriah—it defies basic logic to claim that he migrated from Iraq to Yemen in the year 317 Hijriah alongside Ahmad bin 'Isa, as asserted by the Ba'alwi narrative. This would mean that when Muhammad bin Sulaiman died in 540 Hijriah, his age would have been well over 223 years old. Out of these two migration timelines, one must absolutely be false. The question is, which of the two is most likely false? Naturally, if we re-read the fact that the Ba'alwi family merely hitched a ride on Bani Ahdal history, the timeline that should be strongly suspected as an error or a fabrication is the migration year dated 317 Hijriah.

In spite of all this, Abdullah Muhammad al-Habsyi, in the footnotes of the edition of Tuhfat al-Zaman that he edited, attempts to defend the narrative of Ahmad bin 'Isa's migration in 317 Hijriah. He provides a footnote to Husain al-Ahdal's text which states that his ancestor named Muhammad bin Sulaiman migrated from Iraq to Yemen. Abdullah Muhammad al-Habsyi asserts: the one who migrated was not Muhammad bin Sulaiman, but rather Muhammad bin Himham. Such a bizarre narrative tweak is required purely to synchronize with the Ba'alwi narrative that the one who migrated was Ansab min al-Yaman min Buyut 'Itrat al-Hasanain, printed alongside Al-Anba' min Daulat Bilqis wa Saba (Maktabah al-Yaman al-Kubra, San'a, 1404 H) p. 121.

"...Ahmad bin 'Isa, because the one who was contemporary with Ahmad bin 'Isa was Muhammad bin Himham, not Muhammad bin Sulaiman. We witness here that the party whose history hitched a ride ended up dictating and even dominating the historical sequence of the party it was riding on. We will frequently read in the writings of Abdullah Muhammad al-Habsyi specifically, and Ba'alwi historians in general, that whenever historical data is found to clash with the historical conclusions of the Ba'alwi, it is the historical data that must be adjusted, never the reverse. In fact, we will readily find both subtle and blatant efforts at interpolation carried out by Ba'alwi editors (muhahqiq) against the classical books of scholars they edit. Consequently, high vigilance and critical analysis are required when reading books authored by the Ba'alwi or books edited by them regarding their history and genealogy.

Hanif et al. claim that what Abdullah Muhammad Al-Habsyi wrote was a quote from a book by a scholar of the Bani Al-Ahdal named Muhammad bin Muhammad Al-Ahdal, who passed away in the year 2023 CE/1445 AH, in his book Qarar Ulama Bani al-Ahdal. It is possible that this is true, although after the author examined one version of that book, no such text was found. Most importantly, however, how can past history written in the book Tuhfat al-Zaman in the year 855 AH—or 561 years ago—have its content revised by someone who died in 1445 AH, purely to synchronize it with the manufactured history of the Ba'alwi? It makes no sense.

Below, the author also cites the explanation from a scholar of the Bani Ahdal named Abu Bakar bin Abil Qasim bin Ahmad al-Ahdal (d. 1035 AH). In his book Al-Ahsab al-'Aliyyah fi al-Ansab al-Ahdaliyyah, he states that the one who migrated was Muhammad bin Sulaiman, not Muhammad bin Himham:

محمد بن سليمان هو الذي خرج من العراق هو وأخوه وبن عمه، وهو جد السادة آل باعلوي

"Muhammad bin Sulaiman is the one who set out from Iraq alongside his brother and his cousin, and he is the grandfather of the Sadat of the Ba'alwi family."

If the one who migrated alongside the Ba'alwi ancestor was Muhammad bin Sulaiman—who passed away in the year 540 AH—then who exactly was that Ba'alwi ancestor? It was clearly not Ahmad bin 'Isa, because he had already passed away in the year 345 AH."

Slander Against Alwi bin Tahir al-Haddad

Hanif et al. stated:

 "Another scholarly figure targeted by Imaduddin's slander is Sayyid Alwi ibn Thahir. He accuses Sayyid Alwi of lying and not understanding the Arabic language properly. Imaduddin asserts, 'Al-Haddad strove with all his might to maintain that Ahmad ibn Isa held the title "al-Muhajir", rather than "al-Abah" and "al-Naffath". The first person from the Ba'alawi clan to refer to Ahmad ibn Isa by the title al-Muhajir was Ahmad ibn Zain al-Habsyi (d. 1144 H), a scholar from the twelfth century Hijriah.'"

The author denies having slandered Alwi bin Tahir. What the author has presented to the public is a scientific study proving that Alwi bin Tahir lied in his textual citations.

Let us look at the evidence:
In the book Uqud al-Almas, Alawi bin Tahir al-Haddad struggles with all his might to maintain that Ahmad bin Isa held the title al-Muhajir. He strains to destroy the reality that the title recorded for Ahmad bin Isa by genealogy scholars from the 5th to the 9th century was al-Abah and al-Naffat. The title al-Muhajir did not exist for Ahmad bin Isa. That title only appeared in the 9th century Hijriah within the book Al-Burqah al-Mushiqah by Habib Ali bin Abu Bakar al-Sakran. The title al-Muhajir (The Emigrant) was fabricated by al-Sakran as an alibi to support his claim and independent reasoning (ijtihad) that Ahmad bin Isa truly migrated to Yemen.

Alawi al-Haddad states:

وحاصل هذ البحث الضافي ان الامام المهاجر (احمد بن عيسى) بن محمد بن علي العريضي لم يلقب بالابح ولا بالنفاط كما جرى عليه الاقدمون

"The conclusion of this lengthy discussion is that Imam al-Muhajir (Ahmad bin Isa) bin Muhammad bin Ali al-Uraidi was not given the titles al-Abah or al-Naffat, as was done by the earlier scholars."

This statement by Alawi does not match reality, as early genealogists gave Ahmad bin Isa the title al-Abah, others called him al-Naffat, and some used both. Look at the book Tahdhib al-Ansab by al-Ubaidili (d. 437 H), page 176. That book states that Ahmad bin Isa's title was al-Naffat. Look also at the book Al-Majdi by al-Umari (w. 490 H), page 337. In that book, it is mentioned that Ahmad bin Isa was titled al-Abah and was also known as al-Naffat. The book even explains why he was titled al-Naffat: because he traded in naphtha (petroleum/kerosene).

These two books are sufficient to refute Alawi al-Haddad's thesis that Ahmad bin Isa was not titled al-Naffat and al-Abah, given that these two are among the oldest extant volumes to mention Ahmad bin Isa and his descendants. The existence of alternative accounts stating that the title al-Naffat belonged to Ahmad bin Isa's grandson—as found in books more recent than these two—is a separate matter whose validity and relative weight can be tested. However, Alawi al-Haddad should not have negated the reality of a glaringly clear account explicitly written in what can be considered the oldest source texts: Tahdhib al-Ansab and Al-Majdi. Why did Alawi al-Haddad, as a historian, adamantly insist that Ahmad bin Isa was titled al-Muhajir when this title was never mentioned by scholars in contemporary or near-contemporary books? Was this done for the grand mission of salvaging the thesis that Ahmad bin Isa migrated to Yemen?

Furthermore, on page eleven, Alawi al-Haddad explicitly asserts that al-Ubaidili and al-Umari do not mention the title al-Naffat. Either he lied intentionally, or he lacked the ability to understand Arabic properly. Both are possible. The likelihood of an intentional lie applies to the case of the book Tahdhib al-Ansab. Observe the text below!

واحمد بن عيسى النقيب بن مُحَمَّد بن علي العريضي يلقب النفاط

"And Ahmad bin Isa al-Naqib bin Muhammad bin Ali al-Uraidi is titled al-Naffat."

Al-Ubaidili's text clearly states that Ahmad bin Isa was titled al-Naffat. Why did Alawi al-Haddad claim that al-Ubaidili did not write it down? What else is appropriate for us to say in such a scenario other than that he lied?

The likelihood of simultaneously failing to understand Arabic grammar and intentionally lying applies to the case of the book Al-Majdi. Observe the following passage from Al-Majdi:

وأحمد ابو القاسم الابح المعروف بالنفاط لانه كان يتجر النفط له بقية ببغداد من الحسن ابي محمد الدلال على الدور ببغداد رأيته مات بأخره ببغداد بن محمد بن علي بن محمد بن أحمد بن عيسى بن محمد بن العريضي.

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

It is blatantly obvious that al-Umari wrote that the Ahmad who held the kunya Abul Qasim was titled al-Abah and was also known by the title al-Naffat. Why did Alawi al-Haddad claim that al-Umari did not record him being titled al-Naffat? It is because he incorrectly reassigned the pronoun (dhamir) and misunderstood the context of the speech (siyaq al-kalam). Or, he understood it perfectly well but deliberately twisted the pronoun and context to defend his lineage. Examine Alawi al-Haddad's writing: he altered a single letter from the original text and inserted parenthetical phrases into several sentences so that the meaning became 180 degrees different.

Notice the parentheses mentioned above. Notice also the single letter changed by al-Haddad: the letter within the phrase "minal Hasan" (from Hasan) had its letter meem changed to a ba, turning it into "bin al-Hasan" (son of Hasan).

Before this alteration, the meaning was that Ahmad Abul Qasim al-Abah was Ahmad bin Isa, who had descendants through al-Hasan. When the letter meem was changed to a ba, the meaning shifted to state that Ahmad al-Abah was not Ahmad bin Isa, but rather Ahmad bin al-Hasan—the fourth-generation grandson of Ahmad bin Isa. The conclusion desired by Alawi al-Haddad was that Ahmad bin Isa did not hold the title al-Abah or al-Naffat, and that his only title was al-Muhajir. The writings of genealogy scholars from the 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, and 9th centuries were discarded and reinterpreted to fit the Ba'alwi recording tradition, which only began in the 9th century Hijriah.

Alawi al-Haddad's massive efforts to force past history and genealogical records to align with the 9th-century Ba'alwi tradition are certainly "commendable" in terms of sheer effort. The same endeavor has been undertaken by many Ba'alwi writers. Consider how Abdullah bin Muhammad al-Habsyi painstakingly sought out historical Yemeni manuscripts. He obtained vast numbers of ancient books, then edited (tahqiq) and printed them, inserting Ba'alwi names so they would appear in history. Manuscripts were printed out of alignment with their originals, supplemented with Ba'alwi names. Similarly, Jamalullail interpolated the manuscript of the book Abna'ul Imam. Not to mention the manuscript of Al-Jawhar al-Syafaf, which was newly handwritten in 1988. What is the purpose of a manuscript supposedly from the year 855 Hijriah being completely rewritten by hand in 1410 Hijriah instead of being printed? What was the objective?

In the old days, there were no typewriters, computers, or other writing machines, so we look for manuscripts written in the past to preserve them. Today, why would we busily rewrite by hand a manuscript that is hundreds of years old, unless there is an intent to inject new information not found in the original text? This untrustworthy copyist will then write that the manuscript was copied exactly as the original, which was dated to such-and-such year, even though its content has been supplemented here and there. Then, to prevent the lie from being detected, the sole original manuscript is destroyed, leaving their version as the unique manuscript reference.

Hanif et al. asked:

 "Has Imaduddin traveled to various countries as Sayyid Alwi bin Tahir al-Haddad did?"

Hanif's statement creates the impression that Alwi bin Tahir actually examined the manuscripts of Tahdhib al-Ansab, Al-Majdi, etc., firsthand. Yet, if we closely read Alwi bin Tahir's own book, Uqud al-Almas, we discover that he did not travel to the locations where those manuscripts were housed; he merely received reports about the manuscripts from someone who sent him letters.

Alwi bin Tahir himself admits in his book, Uqud al-Almas, that what he presented from al-Ubaidili's text was merely quoted from a genealogist in Iraq. See page fourteen of Uqud al-Almas, where he states:

ونذكر هنا نص شيخي الشرف العبيدلي والعمري كما ذكره نسابة العراق

"And we will mention here the text of the two noble masters, al-Ubaidili and al-Umari, as stated by the genealogist of Iraq."

Notice the phrase, "as stated by the genealogist of Iraq." This means Alwi bin Tahir did not examine the manuscript firsthand; he merely relied on "hearsay" from an Iraqi genealogist. I call it "hearsay" because Alwi bin Tahir's phrasing is highly suspicious: "a genealogist of Iraq." Why did he not clearly state the name of this genealogist so that the truth could be verified?

Hanif et al. ought to carefully scrutinize every phrase used by the informant. A statement like Alwi bin Tahir's is a report, and a report can be honest or it can be a lie. How do we verify it? We open the book, and we check whether what Alwi bin Tahir conveyed is honest or deceptive. I have examined both books—the book of al-Ubaidili and the book of al-Umari—and the result is that what Alwi bin Tahir conveyed is a lie. Alwi bin Tahir changed the letter meem to a ba, which completely alters the meaning: "min" means "from," while "bin" means "son of."

Perhaps Hanif will argue that I am merely using a printed version that has been altered by the hands of an editor (muhaqqiq), and is no longer pure. Listen: an editor can be honest, but they can also be a liar. Therefore, when reading a printed version of a book, we must first look at who the editor is. Do they have a subjective interest in the core substance of the book or not? If they do, we must read it with high vigilance. For myself, when reading history or genealogy books edited by the Ba'alwi—such as Abdullah Muhammad al-Habsyi, Alwi bin Tahir, Yusuf Jamalullail, etc.—I read them with extreme caution. Why? Because they are Ba'alwi who are actively searching for the names of their ancestors in books from the fifth to the ninth centuries. When they edit old manuscripts for publication, there is a very high probability that they will carry out interpolations (adding content) in the printed version that did not exist in the manuscript. I encounter this frequently.

Conversely, the printed version of al-Ubaidili's book that we are referencing was edited by Sheikh Muhammad al-Kazim, and al-Umari's book was edited by Sheikh Ahmad al-Mahdawi. Neither belongs to the Ba'alwi circle, and neither can be accused of intentionally undermining the Ba'alwi lineage. There is no basis to suspect them of trying to damage the Ba'alwi lineage, as there is no record of them being hostile toward the Ba'alwi. Both printed their editions from reliable manuscripts whose sources they explicitly cited and whose physical existence can be verified. For more details, please read their introductions.

To determine who is lying, one must produce evidence showing that Sheikh Muhammad al-Kazim and Sheikh Ahmad al-Mahdawi lied by printing editions that did not match their manuscripts. The al-Ubaidili manuscript is held at the Arab League Educational, Cultural and Scientific Organization (ALECSO) in Egypt; that can be checked. For al-Umari, the manuscript is in the Mar'ashi Library, and two manuscripts were also held by al-Afandi, the author of Riyad al-Ulama. On the other hand, Alwi bin Tahir does not specify where the manuscript serving as his source is located. So, who is the one beyond comparison here? Who is more fittingly deemed to have lied? Clearly, Alwi bin Tahir is the one who should be suspected of lying. He failed to name his informant clearly, and he failed to specify where the manuscript was located, simply blaming an "Iraqi genealogist." Iraq is vast—where in Iraq? Genealogists are numerous—what was his name?

Hanif claims that Alwi bin Tahir hunted down manuscripts across various countries: Tehran, Qum, etc. Is this true? Did he actually travel to those nations? No. How do we know? From Alwi bin Tahir's own phrasing. He merely creates the impression of having gone there, but he did not. Observe Alwi bin Tahir's actual original wording below!

كما سنذكره من كتب الانساب الصحيحة المخطوطة الموجودة بطهران وقم وخزانة الشيخ الزنجاني بقم وبالعراق عند نسابهم و التي في مكتبة النجف الشريف وما كان منها بيد اعيان بغداد وعيرهم وما في المكتبة المصرية الكبرى وغير ذالك مما لا يقدر على الحصول عليه احد الا برحلة واسعة

"As we shall mention from the authentic books of genealogy still in manuscript form existing in Tehran, Qum, the collection of Sheikh al-Zanjani in Qum, in Iraq with their genealogist, those in the noble library of al-Najaf, those in the hands of the notables of Baghdad and others, and those in the Great Egyptian Library and elsewhere—the likes of which no one can obtain except through extensive travel." (Uqud al-Almas, pp. 10-11)

Pay close attention! The passage above merely states that Alwi bin Tahir will mention the reasons why Ahmad bin Isa did not hold the title al-Abah based on books that are still in manuscript form located in Tehran, Qum, and so forth. He does not say that he traveled there himself. Nor does he state that he viewed those manuscripts. It is highly possible that he simply sat at home, sent a letter, and requested his colleagues to write down the vital notes he required. It is also possible that he merely read a book presenting information about those manuscripts, quoted from it, and misquoted it.

My suspicion is confirmed: Alwi bin Tahir merely sent a letter (and/or an emissary) to the Iraqi genealogist; he did not travel to Iraq. Please read page 13 of Uqud al-Almas. On page 13, Alwi bin Tahir explicitly states that he sent a letter to the Iraqi genealogist inquiring about a book (not al-Ubaidili's book, but a different one). Why is it that when discussing the books of al-Ubaidili and al-Umari, he does not explicitly state that he only sent a letter, yet when discussing other books, he honestly admits that he only sent a letter and did not view the manuscript? Gus Rumail ought to understand. The books of al-Ubaidili and al-Umari are the oldest books; their position as witnesses is that of a "star witness." It was absolutely vital to manufacture a convincing impression, yet it cannot escape being considered a lie. Meanwhile, the other books were merely supplementary; thus, even if known only through an excerpt in a letter, they determined nothing. This is the sharpness a researcher must possess when reading books by an author or editor suspected of frequent deceptions.

When we can access the books of al-Ubaidili and al-Umari today if we wish—and if deemed important, by traveling to the libraries specified in the printed editions—and their contents differ from Alwi bin Tahir's "reporting," which one must be considered a lie? Is it the ancient manuscript, or the book Uqud al-Almas, a book composed and printed in 1968 based solely on excerpts from a letter? Truly, these two are completely unequal comparisons. The Ba'alwi lineage and its history today are sandwiched between past lies that can be traced and present lies that have been confirmed. The aroma of past lies lingers over the title of Shohib Mirbat; over the tomb of Ahmad bin Isa; over his migration; over Abdullah bin Shohib Mirbat receiving an ijazah; over Salim bin Basri; over Basri allegedly being another name for Ismail; over Jadid allegedly being the brother of Alwi; and over many other matters. 

Slander Against Imam Murtada al-Zabidi (d. 1204 AH)

Hanif states that the author slandered Murtada al-Zabidi. The story behind this is that at the time, the author did not yet know that the book Al-Rawd al-Jali was a forged book written by Hasan Muhammad Qasim, which was subsequently faked as a work of Murtada al-Zabidi. The author was merely quoting Arif Abdul Ghani, who stated that Murtada al-Zabidi wrote the book at the age of 20 at the request of his teacher, Abdurrahman al-Aydarus. Thus, that was not the author's own opinion. Setting that aside, the author has now come to know that the book Al-Rawd al-Jali is actually not a work of Murtada al-Zabidi, but a forged book by Hasan Muhammad Qasim.

This book is called a forgery because Badzib—the muhaqqiq (editor) of the book Al-Rawd al-Jali from Hadramaut—states that the emergence of Al-Rawd al-Jali is highly suspicious. The manuscript of the book appeared based on a chronological line of transmission that ends with a figure proven to have forged a book. The figure in question is an individual named Hasan Muhammad Qasim (d. 1394 AH) from Egypt, who passed away just 50 years ago. According to Badzib, Hasan Muhammad Qasim was the first person to bring the book Al-Rawd al-Jali to light. Prior to him, there was no report whatsoever that Sheikh Murtada al-Zabidi possessed a book titled Al-Rawd al-Jali (see the introduction to the book Al-Rawd al-Jali, Darul Fatah edition, p. 47).

According to Badzib in the introduction to that printed edition of the book, the chronology of the emergence of the Al-Rawd al-Jali manuscript is based on the admission of Alwi bin Tahir al-Haddad (d. 1962 CE), who held the text: Hasan Muhammad Qasim was friends with the Ba'alwi residing in Egypt. One of these Ba'alwi was named Ali bin Muhammad bin Yahya. This Ali bin Yahya was a student of Alwi bin Tahir. According to Alwi bin Tahir, Ali bin Yahya subsequently sent him a copy of the book Al-Rawd al-Jali handwritten by Hasan Muhammad Qasim, dated 25 Sha'ban 1352 AH. According to him further, that text was transcribed from a 1196 AH copy written by Abdul Mu'ti al-Wafa'i. He added that this Abdul Mu'ti had transcribed it from the original handwriting of Sheikh Murtada al-Zabidi. Furthermore, he claimed that the manuscript penned by Abdul Mu'ti was preserved in the "Maktabah Sadat Al Wafaiyyah" in Egypt.

The question is: Is it true that the original copy in the handwriting of Abdul Mu'ti exists in "Maktabah Sadat Al Wafaiyyah"? No, it does not. Please check the "Al-Wafaiyyah" library. There is no manuscript of the book Al-Rawd al-Jali copied by Abdul Mu'ti. That book is clearly a fake. The manuscript is a forgery. The book Al-Rawd al-Jali was not written by Sheikh Murtada al-Zabidi. The manuscripts circulating today originate from two copyists: first, the copy by Hasan Muhammad Qasim dated 1352 AH; second, the copy by Tahir bin Alwi bin Tahir, who transcribed it from the aforementioned Hasan Muhammad Qasim.

Then who exactly was Hasan Muhammad Qasim? He is a figure who has been proven to have written the book Akhbar al-Zainabat and then attributed it as a work of Al-Ubaidili al-Aqiqi (d. 277 AH) (see Al-Rawd al-Jali, p. 48). This means he wrote a forged text in the modern era and then associated that text as a composition of a 3rd-century AH scholar. Badzib suspects that the emergence of the book Al-Rawd al-Jali shared the exact same circumstance as the forged book Akhbar al-Zainabat.

Hasan lived in Egypt and befriended the Ba'alwi residing there, such as Abdullah bin Ahmad bin Yahya (d. 1414 AH) and Ali bin Muhammad bin Yahya (d. 1409 AH) (see the book Al-Rawd al-Jali, p. 8). Thus, it is clear that this Hasan shared a common thread when writing the book Al-Rawd al-Jali, namely the interaction between himself and the Ba'alwi in Egypt. In the author's opinion, it is highly reasonable to suspect that the book was written by Hasan Muhammad Qasim on a commission basis.

Then why did Badzib proceed to print and publish the book, even though he knew that the book was in all likelihood a forgery? Badzib reasoned that the manuscript of the book Al-Rawd al-Jali in microfilm form had already circulated widely in society, and some had even printed it without any explanation regarding its errors and matters unsuitable to be attributed to Sheikh Murtada al-Zabidi. By reprinting the book Al-Rawd al-Jali accompanied by an explanation of the chronology of the manuscript's emergence, Badzib hoped the public would realize that the attribution of the book Al-Rawd al-Jali to Sheikh Murtada al-Zabidi is "ghairu maqtu'" (not a final, definitive conclusion) and remains merely "muhtamilah" (a possibility).

The author understands why Badzib engages in such pleasantries—asserting that there remains a possibility for the book to be attributed to Sheikh Murtada al-Zabidi despite the abundance of "qarinah" (strong indications) concluding that the book was not written by Sheikh Murtada al-Zabidi—given Badzib's closeness to the leading figures of the Ba'alwi. To the author, the book is clearly a fake and is not the work of Murtada al-Zabidi; it is the writing of Hasan bin Muhammad Qasim himself. Just as he previously composed the book Akhbar al-Zainabat and claimed it to be the work of Al-Ubaidili al-Aqiqi, this book Al-Rawd al-Jali is exactly the same: he composed it and claimed it to be the work of Sheikh Murtada al-Zabidi.

To prove whether the author's conclusion is correct or incorrect is very simple: produce the manuscript supposedly written by Abdul Mu'ti in the year 1196 AH, which was stated by Hasan Muhammad Qasim to exist in the "Al Wafaiyyah" Library and from which he claimed to have copied. The author is absolutely certain that such a copy has never existed.

Slander Against Yusuf Jamalullail

The author states that Yusuf Jamalullail has interpolated the book Abna al-Imam fi Misra wa al-Syam al-Hasan wa al-Husain based on various types of arguments and evidence. Yet Hanif et al. claim that the author is merely slandering.

The book Abna al-Imam is a forged book attributed to Abu al-Mu'ammar Yahya bin Tabataba (d. 478 AH). The printed version of this book was edited (tahqiq) by Yusuf Jamalullail Ba'alwi; published by "Maktabah Jull al-Ma'rifah" and "Maktabah Al-Taubah" in the year 2004 CE.

This book is spurious and cannot be used as a reliable reference because it is stated to be composed by an author from the Tabataba family who passed away in the year 199 AH, yet it mentions the name Abdullah or Ubaidillah as the son of Ahmad bin Isa, who passed away in the year 383 AH. How could someone who passed away in the year 199 AH record Ubaidillah, who passed away in 383 AH? To answer that very question, the book was subsequently attributed to another member of the Tabataba family, namely Abul Mu'ammar Yahya, who passed away in 478 AH, as written on the volume's cover.

However, notice the wording of the book Abna al-Imam within its introduction; it still lists the year 199 AH as the death year of the book's author. The member of the Tabataba family who passed away in the year 199 AH was Muhammad bin Ibrahim Tabataba [Al-Kamil fi al-Tarikh, 5/464], not Abul Mu'ammar Yahya bin Tabataba, as the latter passed away in 478 AH. Yusuf Jamalullail Ba'alwi also admits that this book is not purely the writing of Abul Mu'ammar, but that its content has been supplemented by three scholars in the 12th and 13th centuries Hijriah. They are: Abi Shadaqah al-Halabi (d. 1180 AH), Abul Aun Muhammad al-Safarini (d. 1188 AH), and Muhammad bin Nashar Ibrahim Al-Maqdisi (d. 1350 AH). Therefore, this book is highly problematic and inconsistent. It cannot be called the writing of a 2nd-century or 5th-century scholar because its contents have been supplemented by scholars of the 12th and 14th centuries Hijriah; in fact, it is reasonable to suspect that the one who inserted the name Abdullah or Ubaidillah was Yusuf Jamalullail himself.

Scientific Betrayal: The Difficulty of Accepting References that Validate the Ba'alwi Lineage

Hanif et al. accuse the author of committing a scientific betrayal because the author refuses to accept the Ba'alwi reference books that record the Ba'alwi lineage. The author does not accept the Ba'alwi reference books because the author is bound by the rules of genealogical science (ilm al-nasab). For instance, the Ba'alwi present books from the ninth century and onward, while they are unable to bring forward a single genealogy book from the 8th century AH that records their lineage. In the rules of genealogical science, books that can be used as proof (hujjah) regarding lineage are strictly genealogy books, whereas from the 4th century AH until the 9th century AH, there is not a single genealogy book that records them as descendants of the Prophet.

Secondly, there is a genealogy book they present which they claim is from the 5th century AH, namely the book Abna al-Imam, but that book has been proven to be a forgery—the work of someone who lived in the year 199 AH, which was then claimed to have been written in the year 478 AH.

Thirdly, they present forged manuscripts such as the manuscript of Hasan al-Allal, Abul Qasim al-Naffat, Al-Arba'un by Syarif Abul Jadid, Musnad Faqih Muqaddam, and so forth. All of these are forged books that lack any foundational source. They are created today and then attributed as having been written by scholars of the past.

Regarding the books edited by the Ba'alwi, such as Tuhfat al-Zaman, Tarikh Ibn Hisan, Tarikh Shanbal, Tabaqat al-Khawass—all of these have undergone interpolation, printed out of alignment with their original texts. Even if these books, for example, went undetected for interpolation, they are not genealogy books that can be used as definitive proof. This is even more true in the current situation where they have been proven to be interpolated.

Hanif et al. stated:

 "...Imaduddin accuses that all books edited by the Ba'alwi must be suspected as to their truthfulness. Conversely, Imaduddin readily quotes the opinion of Abdullah al-Habsyi, who doubted the integrity of Habib Salim ibn Jindan in narrating lineage and history. Ideally, if he were consistent, he would accept the overall opinion of Abdullah al-Habsyi, not just the opinion that doubts the integrity of Habib Salim ibn Jindan."

From the sentence above, it is clear that Hanif does not understand how genealogists operate when researching lineages. When researching the validity of a specific clan's lineage, genealogy researchers will not utilize books written by that clan itself, except as proof (hujjah) of the weakness of that clan's own lineage.

Abdul Majid al-Qaraja states in his book Al-Kafi al-Mukhtab:

المصلحة فان ظهرت مصلحة عند المثبت او النافي يترك قوله غالبا، وقد يعمل بنقيض مصلحته في حالات مخصصة، ولا يؤخذ بقوله الا اذا وجد ما يعضده عند غيره ممن ليست لهم مصلحة ولم ينقلوا عن من له مصلحة

"The fifth is the existence of al-maslahat (personal interest/benefit). Thus, if it becomes clear that there is a personal interest on the part of the one affirming or denying (a lineage), their opinion is generally discarded. Sometimes, in specific instances, their opinion may be utilized if it goes completely against their personal interest. And their opinion cannot be taken unless it is supported by other scholars who hold no personal interest and have not transmitted from someone who holds a personal interest."

Notice the phrase: "Walam yanqulu 'an man lahu mashlahatun" (And they do not quote from those who have a personal interest). Notice also the phrase: "Wa qad yu'malu binaqidi mashlahatihi" (Sometimes his opinion is taken if it runs contrary to his personal interest). Therefore, it is entirely correct for the author to adopt the opinion of Abdullah Muhammad al-Habsyi when he weakens Salim bin Jindan on one hand, while ignoring his various scientific scandals to connect the Ba'alwi lineage on the other hand, because that is exactly how genealogists operate. 

Using Theories but Ignoring the Ba'alwi

Hanif et al. stated: "Imaduddin frequently utilizes theories from a particular scholar to attack the Ba'alwi, while that scholar themselves accepts and acknowledges the Ba'alwi lineage. Imaduddin employs their theory but completely ignores the validation (itshbat) performed by that scholar. This attitude, besides demonstrating Imad's double standards, also shows his error in understanding the theories he employs."

Hanif then provides an example of when the author quotes Ibn Hajar's opinion regarding the obligation to protect the lineage of the Prophet from interpolators, yet ignores Ibn Hajar's citation concerning the Ba'alwi lineage within his book.

This further demonstrates that Hanif et al. are unscientific when confronting an issue. Hanif views truth not based on the strength of proof (dalil) but based on the individual speaking, as if scholars possess infallibility (ma'sum). If Hanif et al. were scientific, then upon seeing a scholar's opinion that is logical and scientific, we would follow it, and if it is not, we would ignore it. That is how a scientific mind operates. When Ibn Hajar states that it is mandatory for us to protect the Prophet's lineage from interpolators, that sentence is logical and scientific; thus, the author quotes it. When he cites the Ba'alwi lineage without verifying it, that is illogical and unscientific; therefore, the author ignores it. We must not sanctify the words of scholars as though they are the Al-Qur'an, which must be accepted absolutely. That is the scientific method. The genealogy expert Sheikh Khalil bin Ibrahim stated:

وينبغي على باحث الأنساب أن لا يقدس النصوص، فكل نص عدا كلام الله وحدیث رسوله صلى الله عليه واله، فهو يخضع للتحقيق والتدقيق وهو معرض للخطأ والصواب

"And it is necessary for a genealogy researcher not to deem texts [regarding lineage citations] as sacred. Every text other than the Speech of Allah and the Hadith of the Messenger of Allah SAW is subject to verification and scrutiny; it can be wrong or it can be right."

Demanding Contemporary Books While Not Utilizing Contemporary Sources Himself

Hanif questions the author as to why the author demands contemporary sources yet the author's own references are not contemporary books. The author responds: contemporary books are vital to present if they exist; if they do not exist, then the closest available books that can be found are used. For the lineage of Ahmad bin Isa, the closest is the book Tahdhib al-Ansab from the year 435 AH. There is no older genealogy book that mentions Ahmad bin Isa. The author has presented that book alongside other 5th-century books, namely Al-Majdi and Muntaqilat al-Talibiyyah. Then, from the 6th-century book Al-Shajarah al-Mubarakah, which mentions all the names of Ahmad bin Isa's children who left descendants: Muhammad, Ali, and Husain. There is no older genealogy book that lists all the names of Ahmad bin Isa's children who left descendants other than Al-Shajarah al-Mubarakah.

Furthermore, in their book, Hanif et al. are unable to present any genealogy book that mentions the family of Abdurrahman Assegaf prior to the book Tuhfat al-Talib from the year 996 AH, which contradicts the 6th-century book Al-Shajarah al-Mubarakah. Naturally, the book Tuhfat al-Talib is rejected as proof for the Ba'alwi lineage because its content contradicts an older book. The genealogy expert Sheikh Khalil bin Ibrahim in the book Muqaddimat fi 'Ilm al-Ansab states:

٤٢- وأعلم أن الخبر إذا كان يباين المعقول ويخالف المنقول ويناقض الأصول فهو منحول أي موضوع، والمنحول والموضوع لا يحتج بها

 "The 42nd rule of genealogy is: And know that if information contradicts logic, clashes with written records, and contradicts the foundational principles (ushul), then it is spurious—meaning fabricated. Spurious and fabricated information cannot be used as proof."

Notice the phrase "Yubayinul manqul wa yukhaliful ushul" (Differs from written records and contradicts the original/foundational books).

Frequently Rejecting the Validity of Books Validating the Ba'alwi while Uncritically Accepting Books Rejecting the Ba'alwi

Hanif again accuses the author of rejecting the validity of books that validate (itsbat) the Ba'alwi. The question is: Where is the genealogy book presented by the Ba'alwi? Not a single genealogy book has been put forward by the Ba'alwi to defend their lineage. What they present are non-genealogical texts. Are the Ba'alwi capable of presenting a genealogy book from before the 9th century AH? Bring the book if it exists.

Deception in Citations

Hanif et al. accuse the author of lying in citations, whereas the one who lied is the creator of the book Al-Rawd al-Jali. That book asserts that al-Ubaidili states Ahmad bin Isa migrated to Hadramaut and had a child named Abdullah, when in reality, no such information exists in al-Ubaidili's book, Tahdhib al-Ansab. Let the readers cross-check the book Tahdhib al-Ansab themselves, and witness who is actually lying.

Hanif reasons that the citation does not exist in al-Ubaidili's book titled Tahdhib al-Ansab, but rather in another book of his. Now, sir, bring forth this other book by al-Ubaidili that mentions Ahmad bin Isa migrating to Hadramaut and having a child named Abdullah. Bring the book if it exists!

One of the patterns of lineage fabricators has already been outlined by genealogy experts, which is to argue using the grand name of a genealogist, claiming they wrote a certain book when that book never actually existed. Sheikh Husain bin Haidar said:

مثل أن ينسب لأحد رجال السلسلة كتاباً يزعم أنه ألفه ، ثم يزعم أن الكتاب فقد ، أو احترق ، أو تلف ، أو لا يمكن إظهاره . وما ذلك إلا لأن الكتاب لا واقع له أصلاً

"Such as attributing a book to one of the figures in the chain, claiming he authored it, then claiming the book is lost, burned, destroyed, or cannot be shown. This is said for no reason other than that the book never had any reality to begin with."

Twisting Proofs from the Al-Qur'an and Sunnah Regarding the Title "Habib"

Hanif et al. accuse the author of twisting proofs from the Al-Qur'an and Sunnah. This refers to when the author stated that there is no concept of a "Habib" for the descendants of the Prophet in Islam; what exists is that the Jews and Christians claimed themselves to be the "Ibnu" (children) and "Habib" (beloved) of Allah, in accordance with the Al-Qur'an, Surah Al-Ma'idah: 18. Anyone wishing to refute this, please find a single proof from the Al-Qur'an or Al-Hadith stating that the descendants of Prophet Muhammad SAW must hold the title "Habib". There is none.

Hanif Alatas et al. brought forward the following Hadith as a proof for the title "Habib" for the Prophet's descendants:

وقال رزين بن عبيد: كنت عند ابن عباس رضي الله عنهما فأتى زين العابدين علي بن الحسين، فقال له ابن عباس: مرحبا بالحبيب ابن الحبيب.

"Razin ibn Ubaid said: 'I was with Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them both), and Zainal Abidin Ali ibn al-Husain arrived. Ibn Abbas said to him, "Welcome, O beloved (al-Habib) son of the Beloved (al-Habib)."'"

The Hadith above lacks any "Wijhat al-Dilalah" (direction of proof) to be used as a text showing that the descendants of the Prophet must hold the title "Habib". This indicates that Hanif et al. do not understand the method of "istikhraj al-hukmi 'an al-nushus" (extracting rulings from texts). If Ibn Abbas's statement to Zainal Abidin (the son of Sayyidina Husain), "Welcome, O beloved son of the beloved," is turned into a proof that the Prophet's descendants must be titled "Habib", then the descendants of Prophet Ibrahim AS must be titled "Karim" based on the following Sahih Hadith:

عن ابن عمر رضي الله عنهما أن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم قال : الكريم ابن الكريم ابن الكريم ابن الكريم يوسف بن يعقوب بن إسحاق بن إبراهيم عليهم السلام

"Narrated from Ibn Umar RA that the Messenger of Allah SAW said: 'Al-Karim son of Al-Karim son of Al-Karim son of Al-Karim: Yusuf bin Ya'qub bin Ishaq bin Ibrahim, peace be upon them all.'" (HR Bukhari)

When the Prophet designated Prophet Yusuf as Al-Karim and his father, Prophet Ya'qub, as Al-Karim, and both are descendants of Prophet Ibrahim, this would mean all descendants of Prophet Ibrahim hold the title "Karim". Yet, no descendant of Prophet Ibrahim today uses the title "Karim". This is the conclusion we must arrive at if we accept the logical fallacy of Hanif et al

There is No Sahih Hadith Regarding the Obligation to Love the Descendants of the Prophet

Hanif et al. stated:

"In addition to twisting verses of the Al-Qur'an, Imaduddin also states that there is no Sahih Hadith commanding the Ummah to love the Habaib lineages (dzurriyah) of the Prophet SAW. Naturally, Imaduddin's statement is a massive error. We can find many Sahih Hadiths affirming the importance of loving and honoring the descendants of Prophet Muhammad SAW, and also loving the Habaib lineages of the Prophet SAW."

Hanif's statement is a manifest lie. There is not a single Sahih Hadith that obligates Muslims to love the Habaib. Who exactly are the Habaib that there would be a Hadith obligating people to love them? The Habaib are not descendants of Prophet Muhammad SAW; their haplogroup is G, not J1; their lineage was never recorded in genealogy books from the 4th to the 9th century AH; their history is entirely vacant, with no history book recording the name of Faqih Muqaddam up until the 9th century AH.

Regarding the descendants of the Prophet, there is indeed not a single Sahih Hadith that obligates Muslims to love the descendants of the Prophet. If one exists, please present it. Hanif creates a narrative that such a Hadith exists but fails to show it. Why? Because the Hadith in question is not for the general descendants, but specifically for the Ahlu Baitinnabiy: Ali, Fatimah, Hasan, and Husain. 

Haphazard Conclusion Making

Ba'alwi are Descendants of Qahtan

After Syarif Abul Jadid was rejected as a descendant of Ahmad bin Isa through a child named Abdullah—due to the presence of the book Al-Shajarah al-Mubarakah, which explicitly states that Ahmad bin Isa did not have a child named Abdullah—the author concluded that the name Aba Alwi belongs to the descendants of Qahtan, as written by Al-Hamadani in his book Al-Iklil. Al-Hamadani stated:

فهؤلاء بنو علوي بن عيان وقد قلوا في ديار همدان، ولم يبق منهم إلا بيت آل عاصم وآل روشا وآل حكيم أبيات صغار. ومن أشراف بني علوي شريح بن مالك، ولا أدري إلى أي هذه البطون هو. وقد يقول بعض علام أرحب إن علوي صغر وكبّر . يقولون: أولد علوي بن عليان بن علوي فأولد عليان بن علوي علوي الأصغر ومنه انتشرت بنو علوي انقضت بنو علوي.

"So they are the Banu Alwi bin 'Ayan; they have become few in the villages of the land of Hamdan [erroneously typed as Ramadan in the source text], and there remains of them only the households of Alu 'Asim, Alu Rausha, and Alu Hakim—small households. Among the nobles of Bani Alwi is Shuraih bin Malik, though I do not know to which of these sub-tribes he belongs. Some scholars of Arhab say that Alwi is sometimes diminished in form (tasghir, becoming 'Ulawi) and sometimes not (Alwi). They say Alwi bin Alyan bin Alwi had children, and Alyan bin Alwi had a child named Alwi the Younger. From him spread the Banu Alwi. Thus ends the discussion on the Banu Alwi."

Hanif et al. cannot cite a single genealogy book written before the 9th century AH that mentions the name Syarif Abul Jadid as a descendant of Ahmad bin Isa. Consequently, what is written in Al-Suluk—which connects the lineage of Syarif Abul Jadid to Ahmad bin Isa—is rejected by the genealogical book Al-Shajarah al-Mubarakah, which establishes that Ahmad bin Isa had no child named Abdullah. Furthermore, Hanif et al. cannot present any book written before the 9th century AH stating that the family of Abdurrahman al-Saqqaf is part of Syarif Abul Jadid's family. Thus, the Ba'alwi family of Abdurrahman Assegaf is not only rejected as being descendants of Ahmad bin Isa, but is also rejected from being part of Syarif Abul Jadid's family.

The Grandfather of the Ba'alwi Was a Direct First Cousin to the Bani Ahdal

Hanif Alatas et al. refute the claim that the Ba'alwi and the Bani Ahdal are direct first cousins. Yet, historical books record them as "Ibnul 'am" (cousins). The primary meaning of the word cousin is a direct first cousin unless there is evidence (dalil) indicating otherwise. Sheikh Musa'id al-Thayyar stated:

إذا كان لللفظ ،مدلولان أحدهما قريب متبادر للذهن، والآخرُ بعيد، وسمعت متكلّماً يتكلم بهذا اللفظ، فإِنَّ الغالب أن يتبادر إلى ذهنك المعنى الظَّاهِرُ القريب، دون المعنى البعيد الذي لا يُوصَلُ إليه إلا بتقليب النظر في المعاني المحتملة.

"When a word has two connotations—one that is immediate and directly springs to mind, and another that is distant—and you hear a speaker utter this word, what usually comes to your mind is the apparent, immediate meaning, not the distant meaning which cannot be reached except by turning over the alternative possible meanings in one's thoughts."

Ahmad bin Isa Never Migrated to Hadramaut

Hanif et al. stated:

 "References in the form of books written during the lifetime of Imam Ahmad al-Muhajir are not required to prove that he and his family migrated from Basra to Hadramaut."

Hanif has conceded defeat. Indeed, there is not a single book from the era of Ahmad bin Isa stating that Ahmad bin Isa migrated from Basra to Hadramaut. Let alone a contemporary book, there is not even a book from the 8th century AH stating that Ahmad bin Isa migrated to Hadramaut. The fairy tale of Ahmad bin Isa's migration only first appeared in the 9th century AH from Ba'alwi books such as Al-Burqah and Al-Jauhar al-Syafaf. From this, the muhibbin (supporters of the Ba'alwi) ought to ponder: how can someone who never migrated to Hadramaut have their grave there?

Hanif Manipulated Data from the Book Al-Ghaybah by Al-Tusi Regarding Ahmad bin Isa Never Migrating to Hadramaut

In the book Al-Ghaybah, it is stated:

Ahmad bin 'Isa was documented by a scholar named Abu Ja'far Muhammad bin al-Hasan al-Tusi (d. 460 AH) in his book Al-Ghaybah [written as Al-Surya or Al-Ghaybah alternatively in the text] as being in the city of Medina [specifically at Surriya, a village near Medina]. On that occasion, Abul Hasan [Imam Ali al-Hadi] declared that his son, Al-Hasan (d. 260 AH), would later become his successor as the 11th Shia Imam. 

Below is the quote from the book Al-Ghaybah by Al-Tusi:

١٦٥- عنه عن احمد بن عيسى العلوي من ولد علي بن جعفر قال: دخلت على ابي الحسن عليه السلام بصريا فسلمنا عليه فإذا نحن بأبي جعفر وابي محمد قد دخلا فقمنا الى ابي جعفر لنسلم عليه فقال ابو الحسن عليه السلام ليس هذا صاحبكم عليكم بصاحبكم واشار الى ابي محمد عليه السلام

"165—Narrated from him (Sa'ad bin Abdullah), from Ahmad bin 'Isa al-Alwi, from the descendants of 'Ali bin Ja'far, who said: 'I visited 'Ali Abul Hasan, peace be upon him, at Surriya, and we greeted him with peace. Suddenly, Abu Ja'far and Abu Muhammad entered, so we stood up toward Abu Ja'far to greet him. Then Abul Hasan, peace be upon him, said: "He is not your companion (leader); look to your companion," and he gestured toward Abu Muhammad, peace be upon him.'"

 From the narrative above, we can conclude several things: first, that Ahmad bin 'Isa was an Imami Shia (syi'iy imamiy), since non-Shia individuals are rarely included in the chains of narrators of Imami Shia history. Second, the text above explains the closeness between Ahmad bin 'Isa and Abul Hasan, who was the 10th Shia Imam. The lineages of Ahmad bin 'Isa and Abul Hasan both meet at Ja'far al-Sadiq; both are the fourth generation from him. The lineage of Abul Hasan is Abul Hasan bin Muhammad bin 'Ali bin Musa al-Kadhim bin Ja'far al-Sadiq. Meanwhile, the lineage of Ahmad bin 'Isa is Ahmad bin 'Isa bin Muhammad al-Naqib bin 'Ali al-Uraidhi bin Ja'far al-Sadiq.

Evidently, 'Ali al-Uraidhi and his descendants remained consistently loyal to Musa al-Kadhim and his descendants in their political and religious stances. Ibn Inabah (d. 828 AH) clearly mentions in the book Umdat al-Talib that 'Ali al-Uraidhi was a follower of Shia Islam. It is similarly mentioned in the book Masa'il Abi Ja'far that 'Ali al-Uraidhi was a Shia follower, and he was always with Musa al-Kadhim at home and during travels. If people wished to meet Musa al-Kadhim for any need, 'Ali al-Uraidhi was the path that had to be traversed. Likewise, he showed this loyalty to the son of Musa al-Kadhim, 'Ali al-Rida, and his grandson, Muhammad Abu Ja'far al-Jawad. It was mentioned by Al-Umari in the book Al-Majdi that 'Ali al-Uraidhi highly respected the father of Abul Hasan, namely Muhammad Abu Ja'far, even though 'Ali was the uncle of Muhammad Abu Ja'far's father. Al-Umari also narrated that one day Muhammad Abu Ja'far visited 'Ali al-Uraidhi; 'Ali al-Uraidhi then invited Muhammad to sit in his chair while 'Ali al-Uraidhi stood without speaking a single word until Muhammad left.

From Al-Tusi's quote, we can also ascertain that Ahmad bin 'Isa was in the city of Medina when he was around 20 years old. This estimation of Ahmad bin 'Isa's age is based on the age of Abul Hasan when they met in Medina, given that Abul Hasan and Ahmad bin 'Isa belong to the exact same fourth generation from Ja'far al-Sadiq. Nonetheless, there is no source yet that can serve as a clue regarding whether he was born in Medina, or if he was born in another city and was merely in Medina to meet Abul Hasan. If he was born in Medina and was still there at 20 years old, is there any source mentioning that he left the city of Medina after that? When a conclusion has been reached—namely, that Ahmad bin 'Isa was in Medina at around 20 years old, and there is no source mentioning that he departed from Medina—then we should let the conclusion remain as such: that Ahmad bin 'Isa never left Medina, until there is evidence stating otherwise. Even if, for example, an account is found detailing Ahmad bin 'Isa's relocation from Medina after his meeting with Abul Hasan, it is highly probable that he moved to the city of Samarra to accompany Abul Hasan. Al-Khatib al-Baghdadi (d. 463 AH [erroneously typed as 392 AH in the text]) in his book Tarikh Baghdad mentions that Caliph Al-Mutawakkil invited Abul Hasan to live near him; Abul Hasan then moved to Samarra and lived there for twenty years before passing away in the year 254 AH and being buried there as well. Al-Baghdadi notes too that Abul Hasan was born in the year 214 AH, meaning that when he passed away he was 40 years old, and that migration event occurred in the year 234 Hijriah. Looking at the closeness between Ahmad bin 'Isa and Abul Hasan, it is highly likely that if a report of his relocation is found to be valid (sahih), he would have moved to Samarra, not to Hadramaut. Samarra was one of the destination cities that became a residence for the descendants of Prophet Muhammad SAW through the lineage of Ja'far al-Sadiq, alongside Baghdad, Basra, Qum, Ray, Najaf, Shiraz, Isfahan, Kufa, Bilad al-Sham, and several other cities in Iraq and Iran. No historical account has been found mentioning any among them migrating to Hadramaut.

It is very difficult to understand and accept by a researcher's logic how an Imami Shia like Ahmad bin 'Isa would migrate to Hadramaut, which at that time was controlled by the Ibadi sect who were fiercely anti-Shia. Even if he had to move, he should logically have chosen Sana'a, which was controlled by the Zaidi Hadawi Shia. Although they differed in some religious views, it would certainly be more acceptable compared to the Ibadis. This circumstance subsequently forced Ba'alwi historians to labor intensely to invent an ahistorical tale wherein it is claimed—for instance, by Al-Shatiri in his book Adwar al-Tarikh al-Hadrami—that upon arriving in Hadramaut, Ahmad bin 'Isa debated Ibadi scholars, and as can be guessed, Ahmad bin 'Isa won the debate, rendering the Ibadi scholars silent. The author does not recommend readers use Al-Shatiri's book as a reference for the history of Hadramaut, because what Al-Shatiri wrote—particularly regarding the story of the Ba'alwi family—is almost entirely devoid of references. Rather than a history book, it is more accurate to describe it as a novel with a scholarly background. Likewise, other books authored or edited (tahqiq—published with various omissions corrected, such as typos or illegible letters due to age) by other members of the Ba'alwi family should not be used as references to view the history of Hadramaut from the third century until today. This is because the dominant spirit behind that editing and history-writing is solely driven by an effort to patch up the historical records of the Ba'alwi family tree, which are severed, contradictory, and ahistorical. By viewing the historiography of Hadramaut through unreliable books, we will not see the actual historical facts of Hadramaut, but only a history manufactured for a specific interest.

From Al-Tusi's quote as well, we can observe how the historical narrative created by the Ba'alwi faces contradictions when examined against the chronological order they fabricated. For example, the Ba'alwi record that the year of Ahmad bin 'Isa's migration to Hadramaut was 317 Hijriah, and the year of his death was 345 Hijriah. If Ahmad bin 'Isa was 20 years old in the year 234 AH, it means that at the time of the migration he was already 103 years old, and when he died he was 131 years old. It is highly anomalous for an frail, elderly person of 103 years old to move from Basra to Hadramaut over a distance of more than 2,000 km, just as it is highly improbable for anyone to reach the age of 131. The age estimation of 20 years for Ahmad bin 'Isa based on Abul Hasan's age is an estimate made to maintain scientific fairness; it is entirely possible that when he met Abul Hasan, Ahmad bin 'Isa was older than that. If we estimate Ahmad bin 'Isa's age to have been just 40 years old, it means that when he died he had reached the age of 151. If it is argued that the reverse could be true—namely, that Ahmad bin 'Isa's age when he met Abul Hasan was less than 20 years old—that possibility could indeed exist, but it would not be less than the age of puberty (baligh), which is 15 years. This is because the conversation regarding the leadership (imamah) from Abul Hasan to Ahmad bin 'Isa was an important testament or witness—namely, that the one to succeed Abul Hasan would be his son named Al-Hasan, and not any other son. Certainly, a testament and witness of this nature is invalid if given to a young child who has not yet reached puberty.

Then Hanif et al. counter that the Ahmad bin Isa mentioned in the book Al-Ghaybah is not Ahmad bin Isa bin Muhammad al-Naqib, but rather Ahmad bin Isa bin Ali al-Uraidhi, providing several reasons:

First: Ahmad bin Isa was only born in the year 260 AH, whereas Abul Hasan passed away in 254 AH; how could someone who had already passed away be met by Ahmad bin Isa? The author’s answer is: what is incorrect is the birth year of Ahmad bin Isa written by authors from the Ba'alwi circle claiming he was born in 260 AH. When Ba'alwi authors determined that birth year for Ahmad bin Isa, they did so purely by guesswork without relying on any reference data. The death year of Ahmad bin Isa in 345 AH is likewise merely the result of guesswork, devoid of any data or source.

Second: The Ahmad bin Isa written in the book Al-Ghaybah is allegedly not Ahmad bin Isa bin Muhammad al-Naqib but Ahmad bin Isa bin Ali al-Uraidhi, based on what is found in the book Al-Majdi that there is a name Ahmad bin Isa bin Ali al-Uraidhi.

In Al-Majdi, it is said:

وأما عيسى بن العريضي تفرد بروايته والدي فأولد حسنا وأحمد

"As for Isa ibn (Ali) al-Uraidhi, only my father narrated concerning him; he had children named Hasan and Ahmad."

Up to this point, the author agrees that the name Ahmad bin Isa bin Ali al-Uraidhi exists. However, the one referred to in the book Al-Ghaybah is clearly Ahmad bin Isa bin Muhammad al-Naqib bin Ali al-Uraidhi. Let us comb through it sentence by sentence:

Pay attention to the sentence:

عن احمد بن عيسى العلوي من ولد علي بن جعفر

The author translates it as: From Ahmad bin Isa Al-Alawi, from the descendants of Ali bin Ja'far. This is clear.

Who is the Ahmad bin Isa who is a descendant of Ali bin Ja'far? Well, clearly it is Ahmad bin Isa bin Muhammad bin Ali bin Ja'far. If what was meant was Ahmad bin Isa bin Ali, then it should have been written:

عن احمد بن عيسى العلوي بن ولد علي بن جعفر

Then why did the book Al-Ghaybah write it as:

عن احمد بن عيسى العلوي من ولد علي بن جعفر

Why is the phrase "min wuldi" (from the descendants/children of) present?

The phrase "min wuldi" acts as the predicate (khabar) of an implied pronoun "wahuwa", estimated as "Wahuwa min wuldi Ali" (And he is from the descendants of Ali). The pronoun "huwa" returns to Ahmad. The pronoun "huwa" cannot return to Isa, because Isa is merely the genitive noun (mudhaf ilaih) of "ibnu". The word "ibnu" functions as an adjective (sifat) modifying Ahmad.

Therefore, the person in the book Al-Ghaybah is unequivocally: Ahmad bin Isa bin Muhammad Al-Naqib bin Ali al-Uraidhi bin Ja'far al-Sadiq. So, who is the one lying? This can be tested before the world's language experts.

The Grave of Ahmad bin Isa is Fake

Hanif does not accept it when the author reveals that there is not a single book written before the ninth century stating that Ahmad bin Isa was buried in Hadramaut. Books stating that Ahmad bin Isa was buried in Hadramaut only emerged in the 9th century AH, coinciding with the Ba'alwi's claim of being descendants of the Prophet.

Yet even though he does not accept it, he cannot present a single book to refute it. Instead of providing an answer, he asks instead for textual proof showing the location of the grave of Bunda Aminah (the mother of Prophet Muhammad SAW). Na'udzubillah (we seek refuge with Allah), to defend a lineage, he uses any of the great figures of Islam as a shield to form an excuse. That is the hallmark of a person who lacks manners (akhlak) toward the Great Prophet Muhammad SAW.

Committing Public Deception

The Ba'alwi Lineage is Severed for 550 Years

Hanif Alatas et al. in their book declare the narrative that the Ba'alwi lineage is severed for 550 years to be a public deception, without him being able to present any book that can address this gap in the Ba'alwi lineage. The severing of the Ba'alwi lineage is actually not 550 years, but 651 years, calculated from the death of Ahmad bin Isa in the year 345 AH until the names of the Ba'alwi family of Abdurrahman Assegaf were recorded in the book Tuhfat al-Talib in the year 996 AH, which was written without references. From that perspective, the Ba'alwi lineage is a fabricated lineage that suddenly manifested out of a vacuum.

As for the narrative of it being severed for 550 years, that is calculated up to the unilateral claim made by the Ba'alwi family in the year 895 AH in the book Al-Burqat al-Musyiqah. What truly deserves to be called a public deception is the Ba'alwi clan claiming to be descendants of Prophet Muhammad SAW without any supporting data or sources..