Responding To The Foreword By Kyai Najih Sarang and others
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
- Responding To The Foreword By Ahmad Sa’dullah Abdul Alim Of Sidogiri Pasuruan
- Responding To The Foreword By Muhammad Najih Sarang
- Responding To The Foreword By Abdullah Mukhtar Sukabumi
- Responding To The Foreword By K.H. Syukron Makmun
- Responding To The Foreword By Kurtubi Lebak
- Responding To The Foreword By Abdul Shomad Riau
- Back to Book Indonesia Ulema Challenge Spurious Lineage: KH. Imaduddin Utsman al-Bantani's Refutation of the Book by Hanif Alatas et al
RESPONDING TO THE FOREWORD BY AHMAD SA’DULLAH ABDUL ALIM OF SIDOGIRI PASURUAN
Among the things stated by brother Ahmad Sa‘dullah Abdul Alim in his foreword
are the following:
"That is why when a syubhat (a
misleading opinion) emerged in recent years that invalidated the legitimacy of
the Ba'Alawi lineage, most people were crushed by the wave of that opinion. As
a result, some of them were left confused without knowing the correct
direction, while others were dragged into differing camps, not because they
possessed knowledge of the science, but rather because they blindly followed
their revered figures. Not only that, even some figures who are considered
scholars (alim) were swept away by the current and joined in doubting or even
invalidating the Ba'Alawi lineage, despite masking themselves behind scholarly
rhetoric—such as requesting DNA test proof or demanding records from
contemporary books—without caring that DNA cannot be used as a standard for
lineage, and the existence of contemporary books is not the sole standard for
establishing lineage. Such a matter is not strange at all, because a person
who is learned in several Islamic disciplines does not necessarily understand
the standards of lineage science. Therefore, after seeing the content of this
book, which is so complete; discussing the standards of establishing lineage
in general, and specifically refuting the syubhats of Brother Imaduddin of
Banten, I am deeply grateful and overjoyed. This is because the commentary on
lineage in this book is based on credible, scholarly data in accordance with
the standards of lineage science recognized by all Naqabah Ansab (Lineage
Syndicates) around the world, and it was written by global lineage experts,
both from the past and the present."
From the expression above,
there are several points that need to be addressed. Among them, he states that
the scientific research which convincingly invalidates the Ba‘alwi lineage is
a "misleading opinion." From this, we know that Abdul Alim has not properly
read the thesis of K.H. Imaduddin Utsman Al-Bantani, which the author has
poured into various texts, books, and articles.
An opinion, let
alone one labeled a "misleading opinion," is a thought intended to express a
preference or a specific bias in perspective that is subjective and
unsupported by facts or positive knowledge. On the contrary, the entire series
of the author's theses regarding the invalidity of the Ba‘alwi lineage is
framed by structures of strong evidence. It is based on the literature of
lineage books spanning from the 4th to the 13th centuries. Within those
centuries, the Ba‘alwi—who claim to be descendants of Prophet Muhammad
SAW—assert that they are descendants of the Prophet through the lineage of
Ubaid bin Ahmad bin Isa, who lived in the 4th Century Hijriyah. Yet, not a
single lineage book written prior to the 9th Century Hijriyah confirms that
Ahmad bin Isa had a child named Ubaid.
The claim of the Ba‘alwi
clan as descendants of the Prophet only began to surface in the 9th century
AH. This unilateral claim directly contradicts preceding lineage books. Is
brother Abdul Alim capable of producing a single piece of evidence from a
lineage book written prior to the 9th century AH that mentions Ubaid as the
son of Ahmad? If you are unable to do so, then what is your basis for
connecting the Ba‘alwi lineage? Do you not realize that inserting people who
are not descendants of the Prophet Muhammad SAW into his lineage is a sinful
act that degrades the honor of the Prophet and his true descendants?
What
if these infiltrators wrong the Ummah of the Prophet while carrying the
Prophet's name? Facts have spoken regarding the presence of many wicked
individuals among them, ranging from wine drinkers, motorcycle hijackers,
adulterers, sodomites, fraudsters, murderers, those who wrongfully seize
people's wealth, tomb falsifiers, to those who alter the history of NU
(Nahdlatul Ulama) and the history of Indonesia. Are you willing to take
responsibility for that? Is such behavior a reflection of the Prophet's
descendants? No, absolutely not.
If you say that the Prophet's
descendants, as ordinary human beings, are not infallible from committing
sins, that is true. However, such a statement should only serve as an ibrah
(lesson/isolated example), not as a frequently recurring habit. If such
behavior occurs repeatedly and has even formed a pattern, does the spiritual
strength of a lineage's connection to the Noble Prophet hold no benefit in
shaping his descendants into human beings worthy of emulation? Truly, the
genuine descendants of the Prophet will possess a "prophetic light" (nur
nabawiyah) that naturally inclines them toward purity.
"So remind, if the reminder benefits." (QS. Al-A'la: 9)
Imaduddin
Utsman Al-Bantani
RESPONDING TO THE FOREWORD BY MUHAMMAD NAJIH SARANG
A portion of what was conveyed by Muhammad Najih Sarang (MNS) in his foreword
is as follows:
"Furthermore, this book decisively
proves that the claim frequently circulated by those who invalidate the
lineage regarding the requirement of a contemporary book as a prerequisite for
the validity of lineage is complete nonsense. There is no scholarly reference
that supports such a claim, and this book meticulously proves that error. All
the authors of the books used as references by this group (such as the Mufti
of Yemen, Ibrahim bin Manshur, and ad-Dailami) actually turned around to
affirm the Bani 'Alawi and oppose them. Praise be to Allah."
MNS
does not understand the chapter of "Thara’iq Itsbat al-Nasab" (the methods of
establishing lineage). He appears to lack literacy on the subject. As the
author has stated on various occasions, because the science of
lineage—especially distant lineage such as a lineage traced back to the
Prophet Muhammad SAW—falls within the scope of historical science, validating
the authenticity of a distant genealogical claim requires reference sources,
both primary and secondary. Such a matter is already understood and its
references should not even need to be questioned.
But very well, if
the person the author is dealing with is indeed someone who does not yet
understand the issue like MNS, the author will present the opinions of
scholars regarding contemporary or near-contemporary books below:
In
the book Ushulu ‘Ilmi al-Nasab wa al-Mufadlalah Bain al-Ansab by the lineage
expert Fuad bin Abduh bin Abil Gaits al-Jaizani, on pages 76–77, it is stated:
وعندما نحقق النسب فان المصادر التى يمكن ان نستقي منها النسب يجب ان تكون من كتب
الانساب القديمة التي كتبت فيما قبل العصر الحديث حيث كان الناس اقرب الى معرفة
اصولهم
"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:
ولا يمكننا الحديث عن النسب القديم بناء على ما ورد في الكتب الحديثة المستندة
إلى كلام غير منطقى أو على الذاكرة الشعبية فقط
"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:
ويختلف المرجع عن المصدر في ان المصدر اقرب زمان ومكان وبيئة الاحداث التي يرويها
اما المرجع فهو مختلف عن المصدر في بعض او كل العناصر السابقة فيحتاج مؤلف المرجع
الى مصادر ومواد اولية اخرى لانجاز بحثه ويترتب على ذلك ان المصدر يكون اجدر
بالاعتبار في حالة التعارض مع المرجع مالم يحتو المرجع على تحليل دقيق يفند اوجه
التعارض من خلال مصادر او مواد اولية اخرى
"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 and other primary
materials 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."
MNS
also states:
"As part of the Ahlus-Sunnah
wal-Jama'ah, we ought to maintain good assumptions (husnuz zhan) and full
belief in the lineage of the Habaib of Bani 'Alawi. Rejecting their lineage
means falling into the prohibition of tha'nu finnasab (defaming someone's
lineage), which is explained in the hadith as an act of disbelief (kufr)."
The
above sentence is strange. What is the connection between the teachings of
Ahlussunnah Waljama‘ah and the lineage of the Ba‘alwi clan? Could it be that
MNS does not yet understand the meaning of Ba‘alwi? Could it be that he
understands the word Ba‘alwi as being attributed to the name of Ali bin Abi
Thalib, thereby meaning the descendants of Sayyidina Ali? Oh MNS, Ba‘alwi is
not attributed to the name of Ali bin Abi Thalib, but rather to Alwi bin Ubaid
or Alwi bin Himham. Therefore, the meaning of Ba‘alwi is the descendants of
Alwi bin Ubaid or the descendants of Alwi bin Himham, not the descendants of
Ali.
As far as the author knows, part of the teachings of
Ahlussunnah Waljamaah is about loving the Ahl al-Bayt (family) of the Prophet,
not about the Ba‘alwi clan. Meanwhile, the Ba‘alwi are not the Ahl al-Bayt of
the Prophet. How can the Ba‘alwi clan be the Ahl al-Bayt of the Prophet when
they are not even his descendants? So, what is MNS's basis for requiring
Muslims to fully believe in the claim of the Ba‘alwi clan? What is the reason?
Where is the evidence?
Inserting people who are not descendants of
the Prophet, like the Ba‘alwi clan, into the lineage of the Prophet carries a
sin equal to negating someone who is genuinely a descendant of the Prophet
into being a non-descendant, and it falls under the category of disbelief. A
person who does not believe in the Ba‘alwi clan as descendants of the Prophet
is legally committing tha‘n (defamation) against the Ba‘alwi clan; however, a
person who inserts the Ba‘alwi clan as descendants of the Prophet despite the
abundance of proof that they are not his descendants has legally committed
tha‘n against the Prophet's own lineage. Compare, oh MNS, compare between the
author who has committed tha‘n against the Ba‘alwi clan and you who have
committed tha‘n against the lineage of the Noble Prophet.
Inserting
people who are not descendants of the Prophet as his descendants degrades the
honor and dignity of the Prophet and his true lineage. This is because the
prophetic genetics carry the quality of "iradat al-tathir minallah" (the
divine will for their purification) inherited from the Prophet's Ahl al-Bayt.
The likelihood of them becoming outwardly and inwardly righteous people is
extremely high. Such a quality is not possessed by other genetics. Therefore,
when you insert people who are not descendants of the Prophet, like Alwi bin
Ubaid, into his lineage, you will be held responsible if, in the future, many
descendants of Alwi bin Ubaid commit sins and low acts, and then humanity
attributes their behavior to the Noble Prophet. Oh MNS, indeed the danger
(khathar) you present by inserting the Ba‘alwi into the Prophet's lineage is
far greater than what the author presents.
MNS also states:
"In addition, rejecting the lineage of the Habaib of Bani 'Alawi is
synonymous with sû'ul adab (bad manners) or rejecting the credibility of the
kiais and our teachers who have acknowledged and accepted that lineage. We
know our teachers showed an attitude of ta'dzim (reverence) toward the Habaib,
such as: Sayid al-Zabidi, Sayid Bakri Syatha, Syaikh Nawawi Banten, Syaikh
Mahfudz Termas, Syaikhana Khalil Madura, Syaikh Shaleh Darat in his book
Minhaj al-Atqiya' fi Syarhi Ma'refat al-Adzkiya' (in that book, he urges the
general Indonesian public to practice the Thariqah Ba 'Alawi by reading Ratib
al-Haddad daily), Hadhratussyaikh Hasyim Asy'ari, the Masyayikh of the
Sidogiri, Lirboyo, Ploso, Sarang, and Langitan Islamic Boarding Schools,
Syaikh Yasin bin Isa al-Fadani, Tuan Guru Sekumpul, Kiai Hamid Pasuruan, Kiai
Hasan Genggong, Kiai Maimoen Zubair, and many more."
So many names
are mentioned who supposedly acknowledged the lineage of the Ba‘alwi clan.
There is one name that MNS forgot, and that is the author. In 2018, the author
wrote the book Al-Fikrat al-Nahdliyyat, in which the author affirmed (itsbat)
the Ba‘alwi. However, that affirmation was not the result of researching
lineage books; rather, it relied solely upon Al-Syuhrah wa al-Istifadlah
(widespread fame and notoriety). When the author thoroughly researched various
sources in 2022—including both lineage books and historical books—the author
concluded that the Ba‘alwi clan's claim to be descendants of the Prophet is
invalid. The author is certain that if the lineage books from the 4th to the
9th centuries had reached the hands of the scholars mentioned by MNS, they too
would have invalidated the Ba‘alwi lineage.
As a scholar, MNS
should teach his students how to apply "critical scientific reasoning"
whenever they encounter religious issues, rather than teaching them "blind
imitation" (taqlid buta). MNS is skilled at criticizing the leadership of
PBNU, criticizing the President, and criticizing state officials, but why is
his "critical reasoning" blunt when it comes to science?
MNS must
remember the statement of Ibnu Abbas recorded by Imam Al-Ghazali in the book
Ihya Ulum al-Din:
ما من أحد إلا يؤخذ من علمه ويترك إلا رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم
"There is no one except that their knowledge can either be accepted or
rejected, save for the Messenger of Allah SAW."
Furthermore, if MNS
had studied the book Ihya Ulum al-Din with correct understanding, he would
have found records showing that scholars of the past regularly differed with
their teachers, and it was never considered “su’ul adab.” Consider how Imam
Shafi'i studied under Imam Malik and then differed in opinion with Imam Malik,
even establishing his own school of jurisprudence (Madhhab Fiqh); how Imam
Ahmad studied under Imam Shafi'i and then differed in opinion with Imam
Shafi'i, even establishing his own school of jurisprudence as well. Imam
Al-Ghazali narrated that Ibnu Abbas studied jurisprudence under Zaid bin
Tsabit and then differed with him in matters of jurisprudence; Ibnu Abbas
studied the science of Qur'anic recitations (Qira'at) under Ubay bin Ka‘ab and
then differed with him in that science.
Imam Al-Ghazali said:
وقد كان تعلم من زيد بن ثابت الفقه وقرأ على أبي بن كعب ثم خالفهما في الفقه
Translation:
"And Ibnu Abbas used to learn
jurisprudence from Zaid bin Tsabit and recite under Ubay bin Ka‘ab, and then
he differed with both of them in jurisprudence."
Thus, differing
with a teacher in matters of science is a practice modeled by the scholars of
Ahlussunnah wal-Jama'ah. It is unlike MNS, who indoctrinates his students that
their views regarding the Ba‘alwi lineage must match his own, even threatening
that if his students do not acknowledge the Ba‘alwi as he does, then their
knowledge will lack blessings (barakah). Truly, that is not the manners of the
scholars guided by Ahlussunnah wal-Jama'ah. That resembles the teachings of
the Ba‘alwi sect—a madhhab of indoctrination and myths, not the scholarly
teachings of NU and Ahlussunnah wal-Jama'ah.
In the tradition of
the scholars of Ahlussunnah wal-Jama'ah, a student is educated to become a
free and knowledgeable human being, not to remain a slave to their teacher
forever. The practice of certain Islamic boarding schools (pondok pesantren)
issuing circulars to their alumni to blindly follow their teacher's opinions
regarding religious matters or mere electoral politics in elections is not an
example to be followed. It shows that a teacher is not sincere in educating,
such that they beg for a return of favors from the student in the form of
lifelong blind imitation. How pitiful is a student destined to have such a
teacher in their life.
Returning to the discussion of lineage. Oh
MNS, do you possess any evidence when you say that if Murtadha al-Zabidi has
affirmed the Ba‘alwi lineage, then we who live today are obligated to blindly
follow him? Where is the evidence? What book? What page?
On the
other hand, the author has evidence when stating that if a scholar, such as
Murtadha al-Zabidi, affirms a lineage that contradicts preceding lineage
books, then that affirmation cannot be accepted. The author also has evidence
that as lineage researchers, when we find a scholar's affirmation regarding a
lineage in a book, we must verify that affirmation to determine whether it is
correct or not.
Here is the proof, oh MNS; the lineage expert
Sheikh Khalil bin Ibrahim states:
وينبغي على باحث الأنساب أن لا يقدس النصوص، فكل نص عدا كلام الله وحديث رسوله
صلى الله عليه واله، فهو يخضع للتحقيق والتدقيق وهو معرض للخطأ والصواب
Translation:
"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."
MNS
also states:
"Gus Dur directly stepped in to defend
the honor of the Habaib. In a meeting at the Al-Fachriyah Islamic Boarding
School, Gus Dur firmly stated, 'Only a foolish person calls a gemstone a coral
stone, and the most foolish is one who prices a gemstone like a pebble. They
are the grandchildren of the Messenger of Allah SAW; their coming to this
country is the greatest blessing of God, and only an ungrateful person would
refuse to give thanks for it.'"
First, the author finds it strange
when someone like MNS quotes the opinion of Waliyullah Gus Dur. Did MNS not
say while Gus Dur was alive that Gus Dur ate forbidden money? That Gus Dur was
liberal? That Gus Dur was a destroyer of NU? Why is he now quoting Gus Dur's
opinion to use as a proof? Perhaps this is one of the “karamah” (miracles) of
a saint like Gus Dur: even a hater like MNS while Gus Dur was alive transforms
into an admirer after his passing. This is the miracle of NU kiais.
Second,
regarding the quoted statement of Gus Dur, not a single word mentioning
"habib" or "Ba‘alwi" was spoken by Gus Dur. What Gus Dur meant was that we
must not equate the descendants of the Messenger of Allah with those who are
not his descendants. That statement is absolutely correct. However, Gus Dur
did not say that the Ba‘alwi clan are the grandchildren of the Messenger of
Allah. Gus Dur's statement was a response to an expression by a figure who
claimed that the Messenger of Allah left no descendants—which is clearly
erroneous. Therefore, the context is that Gus Dur was defending the Messenger
of Allah against the claim that he had no descendants, not defending the
Ba‘alawi.
MNS also states:
"My scholarly
evidence in this matter is the reality that not a single lineage expert in the
past negated the connection of the Bani 'Alawi family lineage to the Messenger
of Allah SAW. Therefore, the basic concept used in the jurisprudence of the
four madhhabs (al-madzahib al-arba'ah) is to maintain something based on what
already exists,
استصحاب الأصل وهو بقاء ما كان على ما كان
which is the real state of certainty (yaqin). This certainty cannot be erased
by doubt or by efforts to question it, including by the research of Imaduddin
and others (اليقين لايزال بالشك)."
To continue believing in the
Ba‘alwi lineage as descendants of the Prophet, MNS uses the evidence of an
Usul Fiqh maxim:
بقاء ما كان على ما كان و الْيَقِينُ لَا يُزَالُ بِالشَّكِّ
Translation:
"The continuation of something as it
was, and certainty is not removed by doubt."
MNS forgets that these
two maxims originate from a hadith of the Prophet which reads:
إذَا وَجَدَ أَحَدُكُمْ فِي بَطْنِهِ شَيْئًا فَأَشْكَلَ عَلَيْهِ، أَخَرَجَ
مِنْهُ شَيْءٌ أَمْ لَا؟ فَلَا يَخْرُجَنَّ مِنْ الْمَسْجِد حَتَّى يَسْمَعَ
صَوْتًا أَوْ يَجِدَ رِيحًا رَوَاهُ مُسْلِمٌ
Translation:
"If one of you feels something in his
stomach and is troubled by whether something (gas) has passed from him or not,
let him not leave the mosque (prayer) until he hears a sound or perceives an
odor." (Narrated by Muslim)
The meaning of the hadith is that our
certainty of not having passed gas is invalidated if we hear the sound of
ourselves passing gas. If a person hears and feels themselves passing gas and
yet still firmly believes they have not passed gas, that is not certainty; it
is ignorance. Similarly, a person's belief that the Ba‘alwi lineage is
authentic means nothing once the evidence invalidating it has arrived. The
evidence has arrived in the form of lineage books from the 4th to the 9th
centuries stating that Ahmad bin Isa did not have a child named Ubaid. So,
where is your evidence?
MNS also states:
"As for the absence of any mention of their lineage chain in books prior to
al-Burqah al-Musyiqah, it is not proof of a break in their lineage, because
they already possessed their lineage documents which mentioned Ubaidullah.
Furthermore, when al-Janadi in his book al-Sulûk fi Thabaqat al-Mulûk mentions
the lineage of the descendants of Ali bin Jadid and mentions the name Abdullah
after the name Jadid among the names of his ancestors, the author of al-Burqah
(Habib Ali al-Sakran) understood that the Abdullah in this book is the
Ubaidullah mentioned in the lineage documents they held in their hands. Allah
knows best the truth."
How can MNS understand the truth in such an
inverted manner? MNS should instead be suspicious: why is it that only after
550 years did a claim emerge from Ali al-Sakran asserting that they are
descendants of Ahmad bin Isa? Why did no lineage scholar prior to that record
Ubaid/Ubaidullah/Abdullah as a child of Ahmad bin Isa? Why did Imam
Al-Fakhrurazi in the 6th Century AH only mention three children of Ahmad bin
Isa: Muhammad, Ali, and Husain? Why did it suddenly appear in the 9th Century
AH that Ubaid is the son of Ahmad bin Isa?
That is how a person
searching for the truth ought to think. It should not be: "Because it was
recorded in the ninth century that a name Ubaid existed as a child of Ahmad
bin Isa, it means it must have been recorded previously." What if Ali
al-Sakran lied? Is it possible that he lied? If he were an angel, it would be
impossible for him to lie; if he were a Prophet, it would be impossible for
him to lie because Prophets are infallible (ma'sum). But Ali al-Sakran is
neither an angel nor a Prophet; therefore, the possibility that he lied or, at
the very least, received incorrect information is entirely possible. That is
how one investigates authenticity. Then, without explicitly accusing him of
lying, we can investigate lineage books prior to the 9th Century AH to see
whether what was mentioned by Ali al-Sakran is confirmed or not. After
investigating, there is no lineage book that mentions the name
Ubaid/Ubaidullah/Abdullah as the child of Ahmad. Thus, the claim in the ninth
century is, to put it mildly, "unconfirmed," and to put it bluntly, a "lie."
That is how it is.
MNS also states:
"It
cannot be denied that, with certainty, any argument defending the lineage of
the Bani 'Alawi will face condemnation from those who invalidate the
lineage—where the rejection seems highly massive and organized—whether through
a pseudo-scientific style or narrative insults. This attitude demonstrates
arrogance and an unwillingness to accept the truth. This is like Iblis, who is
arrogant and always looks for loopholes to reject the truth."
Oh,
wait, is this not upside down? Who is the one refusing to accept the truth?
You are the one refusing to accept the truth. The author presents the
evidence: here is the book Al-Syajarah al-Mubarakah from the 6th century;
Ahmad's children were only three—Muhammad, Ali, and Husain—there is no Ubaid.
You refuse to accept that evidence and disregard it. You even accuse it of
being a Shia book simply because the book serves as evidence of the invalidity
of the Ba‘alwi lineage. Such an arrogant attitude of refusing to accept
evidence is what resembles Iblis. Not the author. The evidence you present has
all been refuted. It is not that the author refuses to accept your evidence,
but rather that your evidence is wrong. How can you argue for the authenticity
of the Ba‘alwi lineage based solely on Ba‘alwi records? A judge would never
accept the testimony of a person accused of theft stating that he did not
steal. The accused's claim is disregarded; the judge seeks evidence from the
testimony of others. Is that not so? If you are looking for evidence of the
invalidity of the Ba‘alwi lineage, do not look for it from the Ba‘alwi—of
course they want their lineage to connect—but look for it from the testimony
of scholars in lineage books. The books must be dated prior to their claim.
That is how it works. The book already exists, Al-Syajarah al-Mubarakah, so
why do you refuse to accept it?
MNS also states:
"The arrogance is painted so clearly when Imaduddin hurls the
statement, 'Even if the scholars of the whole world validate the Ba 'Alawi, I,
Imaduddin Utsman, will still reject it. I am ready to be held responsible in
this world and the hereafter.' What he does instead is merely defend those who
support him, to the point of quoting that a layman/wicked person (fasik) like
a musician can become a saint (wali). A figure who wrote a book that is merely
the result of copying from Wahhabi websites."
That sentence is
incomplete, brother. The complete sentence is: "Even if the scholars of the
whole world validate the Ba 'Alwi due to a certain matter."
"Due to
a certain matter." What is "a certain matter"? A matter other than the truth.
For example, because someone is a supporter of the FPI, and the leader of the
FPI is from the Ba‘alwi clan, they defend it for that reason without any true
evidence; in that case, the author is obligated to reject it so that the
lineage of the Messenger of Allah is protected from infiltrators (dukhala) and
grafts (lusaqa).
Then, regarding the author quoting that a musician
is a saint, that is perfectly acceptable. No one knows who is beloved by
Allah; everyone is merely guessing. A musician who stands ready to defend the
truth, like Rhoma Irama, is far more deserving of husnudzon (positive
assumption) as a saint than a person who resembles a scholar but stands to
defend a falsifier of the Prophet's lineage. Furthermore, if it is said that a
musician is a wicked person (fasik), are there not also many musicians among
the Ba‘alwi, such as Ahmad Albar, Fahmi Sahab, Muksin Alatas, Husain Mutahar,
Lutfi bin Yahya, etc.? In fact, the majority of them enjoy dancing, which in
jurisprudence is included among the characteristics of wickedness (kifasikan)?
If that is the case, when you defend the Ba‘alwi, it means you are defending
people who are fasik. (sinner)
MNS also states:
"I feel concerned and astonished to see these groups so quick to reject
arguments regarding the Bani 'Alawi lineage, yet indifferent to the more
obvious evils around us. Cases such as online gambling, usury (riba),
government crimes, the recent ban on the hijab for the 2024 Paskibraka
(National Flag Hoisting Troupe), and legal manipulation regarding the age of
election candidacy should be the primary focus, not mere debates about
lineage. Where are they, when those are clearly evil? Where were they when the
health government regulation (PP kesehatan) was issued facilitating condoms
for teenagers, legalizing abortion, banning female circumcision, and banning
the retail sale of cigarettes which is the livelihood of poor people and
instead benefits only large stores? Where were they when a Mama Ghufron
claimed to be able to speak with the Angel Jibril, felt he could protest
angels, and other absurdities that he brought to light? Where were they when
this regime actually brought in hundreds of thousands of workers from China,
and Communist China drains our economy and natural wealth? We need to suspect
a hidden agenda behind the rejection of this lineage."
Online
gambling is indeed forbidden, but turn its handling over to the authorities;
it can be handled by the police and other law enforcement officials. But
regarding this Ba‘alwi lineage, the police do not understand it, Sir. Other
cases, such as usury, the age of the vice-presidential candidate, the ban for
the Paskibraka, the health regulation, abortion, the ban on female
circumcision, and the ban on selling retail cigarettes are matters that many
people are already paying attention to. However, regarding this invalid
Ba‘alwi lineage, even many of its kiais are instead defending an invalid
lineage, Sir, including you. Meanwhile, its danger in several social cases is
more dangerous than a mere hijab ban for a Paskibraka member for reasons of
uniformity.
Where were you when there were Ba‘alwi who altered the
history of NU? Where were you when kiais who are descendants of the Walisongo
were slapped by a Ba‘alwi individual simply because they used the title
"habib"? Where were you when a Ba‘alwi individual stated that Indonesia is
"Bintu Tarim" (the daughter of Tarim)? Where were you when Ba‘alwi individuals
extorted money by force from kiais? Where were you when fake graves were
erected in the name of Ba‘alwi figures? Where were you when Faisal Assegaf
insulted Mbah Hasyim Asy‘ari and equated his history to the fictional works of
Ko Ping Hoo? Where were you when Rizieq Shihab stated that Waliyullah Gus Dur
radiyallahu anhu was blind of eyes and blind of heart? Where were you when a
Ba‘alwi individual forbade young people from joining Ansor? Where were you
when a Ba‘alwi individual stated that an ignorant habib is nobler than 70
learned kiais? Where were you when a Ba‘alwi individual became a motorcycle
hijacker in Kalimantan? Where were you when a Ba‘alwi individual stole a
motorcycle belonging to a village chief in Bekasi? Where were you when a son
of Taufiq Assegaf stated that a drunk Ba‘alwi should not be hated but should
be given rice? Where were you when two drunk Ba‘alwi, when reprimanded by the
public, one of them said, "I am a habib"? Where were you when someone stated
that the sole of the foot of a habib who uses drugs, who sins, who is naughty
and dirty, compared to the head of a kian wearing a turban, the sinful sole of
the foot is nobler?
You ask where the author was when Mama Ghufron
spoke to ants. The author answers: Mama Ghufron wants to speak with ants, with
wasps, with beetles—what is his business with the Ummah? There is none, Sir.
You say Mama Ghufron protested an Angel; indeed, what is the connection to the
Ummah if Mama Ghufron protests an angel? That is Mama Ghufron's business; it
is not the business of the Ummah. If you want to advise him, go ahead. After
all, there are many humans who also protest God: "Oh Allah, why did my child
die; why wasn't it just me who died, oh Allah." That is protesting God. Mama
Ghufron does not harm the Ummah, Sir: he does not perform dawir
(donations/circuit fundraising); he does not extort the Ummah, etc. What Mama
Ghufron says is no more "wow" than what the Ba‘alwi have written in their own
books. Where were you when a Ba‘alwi Sufi wrote that the feces of a Ba‘alwi
can become gold? Where were you when a Ba‘alwi Sufi wrote that Prophet
Muhammad SAW learned Arabic grammar (nahwu) from a Ba‘alwi? Where were you
when a Ba‘alwi Sufi wrote that Faqih Muqaddam performed mi'raj (ascension) 70
times to the heavens, surpassing the Prophet? Where were you when a Ba‘alwi
Sufi stated that a man "from Sarang" if he marries a Ba‘alwi woman is
equivalent to adultery, is obligated to divorce, and must restore her
virginity? Where were you when a sholawat singer named Syeh bin Abdul Qadir
Solo stated that in Tarim there is a Raudhah? All of that is far worse than
Mama Ghufron, Sir.
You ask: where were we when the regime brought
in hundreds of thousands of Chinese workers? This is the typical narrative of
the banned organization FPI. Where is the data from, Sir? That is a hoax. In
fact, our Indonesian migrant workers (TKI) in China outnumber the Chinese
workforce in Indonesia. According to data from BRIN, the number of Chinese
workers in Indonesia is only 59,000 people. Compare that with our TKI in
China, which reaches 200,000 people; compare it with TKI in Malaysia, which
reaches 1.7 million; compare it with our TKI in Saudi Arabia, which reaches
833,000 people. So, do not easily accept and spread hoax news.
You
say Communist China is scraping away Indonesia's wealth. And you say that
lineage studies must be suspected of having a hidden agenda. Data, where is
the data? Don't just talk. This is what happens from listening to Rizieq
Shihab's orations too much. Your brain is filled with conspiracy theories that
are poor in data; you have too much su'udzon (negative suspicion) toward your
own government; su'udzon toward NU scholars, while you ignore the danger of
the Ba‘alwi doctrine toward the Ummah.
MNS also states:
"For two years now (up to the writing of this piece), this polemic has
been kept alive continuously. We have a right to ask, could there perhaps be
funding behind this fertile and long-lasting polemic? Or is there indeed a
party enjoying this polemic as a diversion of issues over many other important
things, such as the national debt which has breached 8,000 trillion, whose
allocation very much leaves the impression of benefiting foreigners and aseng
(Chinese-Indonesians)?"
It is astonishing, isn't it, that this
lineage issue has persisted for two years. Want to know the answer? You ask if
perhaps there is funding behind it. Do you want to know, or do you really want
to know? The author will explain it. It is like this: the Muslims of Indonesia
deeply love the Prophet Muhammad SAW. They are Muslims raised under the
education of the Walisongo, who spread the teachings of Islam filled with love
and affection as a rahmatan lil alamin (mercy to the worlds). One of its
teachings is to love the Prophet, the Ahl al-Bayt of the Prophet, and his
descendants. All this time, to translate their love for the Prophet, they
honored his descendants. By chance, around them, there was a clan that always
claimed they were the descendants of the Prophet, namely the Ba‘alwi clan.
All
this time, they held husnudzon that the Ba‘alwi clan were truly the lineage of
the Prophet. As time went on, they began to suspect that perhaps this Ba‘alwi
clan was not his descendants. That suspicion arose from observing their
character, which was as far from the mark as fire is from water. They were
frequently linked to cases of adultery, sodomy, persecution, murder, wine
drinking, etc. Ba‘alwi individuals also frequently acted as they pleased
toward the kiais and Muslims; they often came begging to the houses of kiais
and wealthy people. Unlike other beggars, they dragged the Prophet's name into
their begging. Naturally, over time, this made the kiais restless. When the
truth came radiating out that they were actually not the lineage of the
Prophet, people began to realize; they began to assemble the puzzle pieces of
that suspicion with the scientific conclusion that the Ba‘alwi are not the
Prophet's lineage. Finally, they felt happy that their suspicion and su'udzon
all this time were justified; it turned out to be exactly true according to
their suspicion that the Ba‘alwi are indeed not the lineage of the Prophet. In
the end, they did not just accept that scientific conclusion and validate it,
but they were determined to awaken their other brothers and sisters who remain
devoted followers (muhibbin).
It is not just their physical energy
that they are willing to sacrifice, sincerely and with conviction for the sake
of defending the lineage of the Messenger of Allah, and for the sake of saving
their fellow Muslim brothers and sisters; they are willing to set aside a
portion of their wealth for this struggle. You need to know, for a single
inauguration event of the Walisongo Struggle of Indonesia at the regency
level, it requires a cost of hundreds of millions of rupiahs. Where do those
fighters get the funds? From the contributions of the Muslims. Those who have
ten thousand contribute ten thousand; those who have one hundred thousand
contribute one hundred thousand, and so on. Those who currently have no money
contribute themselves to show, "I am with you." Many others can only weep at
night, praying for the fighters to remain steadfast amidst the insults and
curses of the Ba‘alwi and their devoted followers. Their hearts are sorrowful,
wishing to serve more, but circumstances do not permit.
Do you
think those hundreds of YouTubers have someone financing and directing them?
No one finances them, but someone does direct them: they are directed by the
deep calling of their soul and conscience; sincerity and truthfulness; the
fighting spirits inherited from their ancestors who were also fighters.
History always repeats itself; only the time and the figures playing the roles
are different. The life-source (nuthfah) remains the same: the nuthfah of a
fighter. During the Dutch colonial era, the only ones who were restless were
the fighters. Others lived normally; in fact, many instead enjoyed the
colonization because through it they obtained important positions as Dutch
henchmen who could live prosperously. But not so for the fighter. Honor as a
nation is far more important than merely living safely and securely. Humans
were created equally honorable; no nation is permitted to colonize another
nation; to seize and control land already occupied by another nation; to
control its resources and destroy its honor as a nation. Today, those are the
spirits flowing inside the souls of the PWI LS fighters, Sir. This is what the
Muslims of Indonesia are feeling today. So, where are you?
MNS also
states:
"Therefore, it is entirely correct that this
book does not need to be intended to silence parties who will never accept the
truth, no matter how clear the facts presented are."
The one who
does not accept the truth is you, Sir. Here is the truth, look into the book
Al-Syajarah al-Mubarakah: Ubed is not the son of Ahmad bin Isa. Where is your
evidence? Where is your book? On what page? Do not create framing. Here is the
truth: their haplogroup is G; they are not of Arab descent. How can someone
who is not of Arab descent be the grandchild of the Prophet?
MNS
also states:
"Whatever we convey will certainly be
refuted by them in every possible way."
What you convey is not
refuted, but it is already proven false (terbantah), Sir. Why? Because what
you bring is not evidence, it is not a lineage book. Come on, bring it, which
book is it that Ubaid is the son of Ahmad ibn Isa?
**
MNS also states:
"Conversely, this book serves as a
medium to save the Ummah from a great developing fitnah, namely tha'nu
finnasab (accusations against lineage) and bughdhu wa sabbu ahlil bait (hating
and reviling the Ahlul Bait)..."
Save the Ummah from what, Sir? On
the contrary, that book will plunge the Ummah into acknowledging a falsifier
of the Prophet's lineage. Someone who is not the Prophet's grandchild wanting
to be acknowledged as the Prophet's grandchild is forbidden (haram), Sir.
Those who make false claims are committing a haram act, and those who defend
them like you do are also committing a haram act, Sir. Regarding your
narrative that this lineage polemic results in "Bughdu wa sabbi ahlil bait"
(hating and reviling the Ahlul Bait), there is no such thing, Sir. What exists
is protecting the purity of the Prophet's Ahlul Bait from lineage falsifiers
who falsely claim to be descendants of the Prophet's Ahlul Bait.
MNS
also states:
"Just like the valid lineage of the Bani
'Alawi, through this issue we finally discover that the lineage of the Wali
Songo is also valid. If we look at the manuscript records of the kingdoms,
lineage and jurisprudence experts such as Habib Dhiya'uddin Syahab, history
experts such as Habib Ahmad Assegaaf, Sayid Naquib al-Attas, and Buya Hamka,
as well as experts of kasyf (spiritual unveiling) and jurisprudence such as
Habib Alwi bin Thohir the Mufti of Johor, this lineage connects through
Adzamatkhan, which means they are also part of the Bani 'Alawi through 'Ammul
Faqih. Even if it is not through that line, it is possible that the Wali
Songo's lineage connects through the Bani Qudaim or Bani Ahdal, who also
migrated to Yemen alongside Ahmad al-Muhajir. As explained by al-walid K.H.
Maimoen Zubair, 'the majority of the Wali Songo were habaib who were not made
into habaib (concealed)'. Wallahu a'lam."
Your sentence is
ambiguous, Sir. You say that if the Ba‘alwi lineage is valid, then the
Walisongo lineage is also valid, but then you say that even if it is not from
the Ba‘alwi, it could be that the Walisongo lineage is from the Bani Qudaim
and Bani Ahdal. You need to know that the three clans you mentioned—Ba‘alwi,
Bani Ahdal, and Bani Qudaimi—are all lineage falsifiers. Not one of the three
is proven to be a descendant of the Prophet based on the primary books of
lineage; all of them are rejected. Regarding the Walisongo, the distortion of
the Walisongo's history and lineage was clearly carried out by the Ba‘alwi on
one hand, and by the Dutch on the other. Comprehensive research is currently
being conducted based on contemporary or near-contemporary sources; what is
clear is that the Walisongo are not Ba‘alwi.
MNS also states:
"...all schools of thought (madhhab) agree that popularity can be used
as a fundamental basis of proof in establishing lineage¹. And the lineage of
the Habaib, as explained in this book, meets the elements of syuhrah and
istifadhah, which are valid criteria from the perspective of jurisprudence.
This is inherently more than enough to refute various accusations that doubt
the validity of their lineage."
True, Sir. All schools of thought
agree that syuhrah and istifadlah can be used as a basis for establishing
lineage, but there is a condition: there must be no contradicting evidence.
Meanwhile, the claim of the Ba‘alwi lineage and its syuhrah are contradicted
by the lineage books which state that they are not descendants of Ahmad bin
Isa. If you want to know the textual proof, here are several samples of
expressions from books of jurisprudence stating that syuhrah and istifadlah
have conditions:
Sheikh Al-Husain bin Haidar Al-Hasyimi in the book
Rasa‘il fi 'ilm al-Ansab states:
Translation:
"Lineage scholars count five methods in establishing lineage: first, is by
'istifadlatunnasab' (the widespread dispersion of a lineage) and
'syuhratunnasab' (the popularity of a lineage) in one's village with a
popularity that bears certainty, and by spreading among people such that
certainty can occur through their news, or a strong assumption, and safety
from the possibility of their consensus to lie, along with the absence of
contradicting proof. And istifadlah—which is al-tasamu‘ (mutual hearing)—is
among the most apparent forms of proof, and there is a reason to report it.
Scholars chose istifadlatunnasab through tasamu‘ because lineage is something
to which there is no avenue for direct sight."
Pay close attention
to the phrase: ma‘a ‘adamil mu‘arid (along with the absence of contradicting
proof). If there is contradicting proof, then that syuhrah or tasamu‘ is void,
Sir. Here is another piece of evidence:
In the book Nihayatul
Muhtaj volume 8 p. 319 by Imam Ramli:
"And it is permissible for him to testify by tasamu‘ when there is no
contradicting factor stronger than the tasamu‘, such as the denial of the
person to whom the lineage is attributed, or the existence of tha‘n
(criticism/defamation) by someone against that lineage. It is correct law
indeed that tasamu‘ falls with the presence of denial and tha‘n, but according
to the strong opinion, it is stipulated that the tha‘n is not accompanied by
signs of lying from the person conveying it."
Pay attention to the
phrase: Haetsu lam yu‘aridhu aqwa minhu (when it is not contradicted by a
proof stronger than that popularity). If there is contradicting evidence, then
that syuhrah is void, Sir.
Do you want more proof? Here is one
more; Ibnu Hajar Al-Asqalani said:
ان النسب مما يثبت بالاستفاضة الا ان ّثبت ما يخالفه
"Indeed, lineage is among what can be established by the method of istifadloh,
unless that which contradicts it has been proven authentic."
Pay
attention to the phrase: Illa an yasbuta ma yukhalifuhu (unless there is
something that contradicts it). Want even more proof? Here is another:
Look
at what is stated in the book Al-Najm al-Wahhaj by Al-Damiri:
"It is permissible for him to testify by tasamu‘ regarding lineage by
consensus (ijma‘), because lineage cannot be seen with the eyes. What can
possibly be seen is birth on the bed, so hearing about it is sufficient in
lineage. That is permissible even if the person does not know the mansub ilaih
(such as the father). This explanation is narrated in the book Al-Kifayah. All
of these provisions apply as long as there is no doubt. If doubt exists—for
example, if the person who is the mansub ilaih is still alive and denies
it—then it is not permitted to testify. Furthermore, if the mansub ilaih is
insane, he may testify according to the correct view (qaul sahih). When some
people criticize (tha'n) that lineage, it is not permitted to testify about
that lineage according to the more correct view (qaul asoh)."
Pay
attention to the phrase: kullu hadza in lam takun ribatun (this rule of
popularity applies when there is no doubt). Do you still want more proof? Look
for it yourself; every book of jurisprudence, when speaking about syuhrah,
istifadlah, or tasamu‘, all stipulate one point: the absence of contradicting
proof. The proof already exists: the lineage books of the 4th to 9th centuries
AH do not record the name Ubaid as a child of Ahmad, and the book Al-Syajarah
al-Mubarakah in the 6th century explicitly states that Ahmad bin Isa only had
three children: Muhammad, Ali, and Husain. So, where is your proof, Sir?
RESPONDING TO THE FOREWORD BY ABDULLAH MUKHTAR SUKABUMI
Among what was said by Abdullah Mukhtar (AMS) is:
"And it is very ironic indeed that there is someone who has been intoxicated
by praise and fame, possessing a warped brain, who says that in Indonesia
there is not the slightest service rendered by the Ahlul Bait; in fact, he
says that the Ahlul Bait (Ba 'Alawi) are lackeys of the Dutch colonialists.
That person is increasingly brave in displaying hatred that goes beyond
limits. Furthermore, he erases the services of the Ahlul Bait who spread the
religion of their ancestor, the Messenger of Allah SAW, whether by composing
books or teaching aurad, dhikr, and hizb, which are certainly very necessary
for the Ummah of the Prophet to practice for the sake of achieving happiness
in this world and the hereafter."
We can see that AMS's sentences
are highly tendentious. The author is at a loss to respond to him
scientifically because his terminology is ambiguous and he appears to not yet
understand the issue. The terminology of "Ahlul Bait" that he mentions is
incorrectly associated. He appears unable to distinguish between who is Ahlul
Bait and who is Dzurriyyah (descendants). He also does not understand the
definition of 'Alwi in relation to the Ba‘alwi, such that he states Alwi is
attributed to Sayyidina Ali, whereas the Ba‘alwi family themselves acknowledge
that the word Ba‘alwi is attributed to Alwi bin Ubaid.
He also
considers a person who exposes a false lineage as "possessing a warped
brain"—language unbecoming of a scholar. Instead of presenting proof, he
condemns those who differ with him as being warped-brained.
From
there, we know that there must be a renewal of the mindset of future Islamic
generations, namely a scientific mindset. The Sufi approach of Al-Ghazali and
Al-Baghdadi that we have been developing all this time has proven capable of
fostering noble character among our students, but the scientific frequency,
which has shifted to being more Sufi than Faqih (versed in jurisprudence),
must also receive attention.
RESPONDING TO THE FOREWORD BY K.H. SYUKRON MAKMUN
Among what was said by K.H. Syukron Makmun (SM) is:
"The problem of the validity of the Bani 'Alawiyah as the Ahlul Bait of the
Messenger of Allah SAW is settled. Because the scholars of Ahlus-Sunnah
wal-Jama'ah by consensus (ijma‘) through the method of Syuhrah wal-Istifâdhah
have acknowledged the validity of the Bani 'Alawiyah as the Ahlul Bait of the
Messenger of Allah SAW, and there is no one who refutes it. Just like the heat
of the sun does not need confirmation (itsbat), because the heat of the sun is
already syuhrah wal-istifadhah."
SM's statement asserting that the
Ba‘alwi lineage is already agreed upon by the consensus (ijma‘) of the
scholars of Ahlussunnah wal-Jama'ah is a hoax. That claim of ijma‘ was first
launched by Ali al-Sakran Ba‘alwi (d. 895 AH) in the book Al-Burqat
al-Musyiqah without any proof. It was then recounted by several Ba‘alwi
circles, such as Sheikh Yusuf al-Nabhani (d. 1250 AH).
According to
scholars, ijma‘ is the agreement of all mujtahid scholars from among the
Muslims in a certain era after the passing of the Messenger of Allah SAW
regarding a legal ruling of the Sharia concerning an event. As this definition
is expressed by Abdul Wahhab Khalaf in his book Ushul al-Fiqh:
Translation:
"Ijma‘ in the terminology of the scholars of ushul is the
agreement of all mujtahid scholars from among the Muslims in an era after the
passing of the Messenger of Allah SAW upon a Sharia ruling regarding an
issue."
From that definition of ijma‘, we know that a ruling can
only be called ijma‘ if it is agreed upon by all scholars who are experts in
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, 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 that, since its
initial appearance, came only from personal claims—and which even the people
in Tarim did not believe—be said to have reached consensus?
One of
the pillars of ijma‘ is that the agreement must occur from the very beginning
of the issue's appearance, as stated by Abdul Wahhab Khalaf:
Translation:
"The second (pillar) is the occurrence
of the agreement of the mujtahid scholars from among the Muslims upon a Sharia
ruling regarding an issue at the time that issue occurs."
Meanwhile,
the time of the event of the Ba‘alwi lineage is the era of Ahmad bin Isa,
because the problem lies in their claim that they are descendants of the
Prophet through Ubaid "bin" Ahmad bin Isa. Yet, in the lineage books since the
time of Ubaid, there is not a single one that records him as a child of Ahmad
bin Isa, let alone any ijma‘ occurring. From where did Ali al-Sakran know of
an ijma‘ when their lineage was not mentioned at all by the experts of
lineage, even though many lineage books recording the children of Ahmad bin
Isa were written? In fact, the 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 in the book Maratibul Ijma states:
Translation:
"The scholars said: The ijma‘ of every
era can be said to be a valid ijma‘ if it was not preceded by a difference of
opinion on that issue. This is the correct opinion."
From that, we
know that the claim of ijma‘—whether from Ali al-Sakran or from those who
quoted him later on, such as Al-Nabhani and Al-Muhibi—cannot be accepted. In
fact, according to Abdullah bin Ahmad bin Hambal, such a claimant can be
called a liar.
Translation:
"And it has been quoted from Ibnu Hazm
in his book Al-Ahkam from Abdullah bin Ahmad bin Hambal the statement: 'I
heard my father say: What a person claims regarding the occurrence of ijma‘ is
a lie. Whosoever claims ijma‘ is a liar. It may be that people have differed
and he does not know, or it did not reach him. Instead, let him say: We do not
know of a difference of opinion among the people.'"
SM also
states:
"The matter of history or lineage that has
run for hundreds or even thousands of years falls under (أخبار الغيب) news of
the unseen that we did not witness with our own eyes. We only receive news
from tales, from hearsay. A history of manuscripts through which it is
impossible for us to reach haqqul yaqin (the truth of certainty) or 'ainul
yaqin (the eye of certainty), unless that narration is mutawatir, syuhrah, and
istifadhah. A writer of history only writes what he knows; what he does not
know does not mean it does not exist. It could be that the information simply
had not reached him. Therefore, a more perfect history is the history that
comes later because its information is more complete."
Past events
are indeed not all recorded; what SM says is absolutely correct. That a writer
of history only writes what he knows is also correct. However, if a writer of
history already wrote in the 6th Century AH what he knew—for example, that
Ahmad bin Isa had three children: Muhammad, Ali, and Husain—then any claim in
the 9th Century AH regarding the existence of a 4th child for Ahmad bin Isa,
such as Ubaid/Ubaidullah/Abdullah, is clearly rejected. If SM says that
history is not definitive (qath'iy), yes, that is true, but if a text written
close to the event is not definitive, then the book of Ali al-Sakran in the
9th Century AH is certainly even less definitive. So, what is SM's reason for
believing that which is further in time from the event while ignoring the
information from someone who was closer in time to the event?
If SM
wrote a book stating that his grandfather named Kiai Nawawi had 5 children,
and then SM's grandchild wrote a book recording that Kiai Nawawi had 6
children, according to SM, who is more worthy of being believed? SM or his
grandchild? Neither, of course, is completely absolute (qath'i), but
certainly, that which is closer to the truth is SM's writing because his time
gap is closer to his grandfather. That is how historical science is
understood. Ali al-Sakran recorded Ubaid as the child of Ahmad 550 years after
the passing of Ahmad, whereas previous books only recorded Ahmad's children as
three, and none named Ubaid/Ubaidullah/Abdullah. So, according to SM, which
one is worthy of being believed?
SM also states:
"To accept (أخبار الغيب) news of the unseen that we did not witness and
has run for hundreds or even thousands of years, we must be careful about who
the bearer of that story is. We only accept news from the scholars, the
auliyâullah (saints of Allah), and the habaib whose knowledge, noble
character, asceticism (zuhud), piety (wara'), retentiveness (dhabit), and
justice are beyond doubt. They are people like: Syaikh Murtadha az-Zabidi the
commentator of the book Ihya' 'Ulumuddin, Syaikh Ibnu Hajar al-Haitami a
scholar of jurisprudence of the Shafi'i school, Syaikh Ali Jum'ah a mufti in
Egypt, Syaikh Ramadhan al-Buthi a great scholar in Syria, Sayid Muhammad bin
Alwy al-Maliki in Makkah al-Mukarramah, Syaikh Maulana al-Sya'rani of Egypt,
Syaikh Nawawi Banten, Syaikh K.H. Cholil Bangkalan, K.H. Hasyim Asy'ari
Jombang, H. Sholeh Darat Semarang, Syaikh Yasin Padani Makkah, Syaikh Moh.
Chotib al-Minangkabawi, Syaikh Moh. Mahfudz al-Turmusi. And many more whom we
have not mentioned. Whosoever invalidates the Ba'alwi lineage effectively no
longer believes in the scholars and auliyaullah whom I mentioned above."
The
one who said that the children of Ahmad bin Isa were only three and that there
was none named Ubaid is a great scholar of Ahlussunnah wal Jama'ah, an expert
in exegesis (tafsir), jurisprudence principles (ushul fiqih), philosophy,
history, and lineage, namely Al Imam Fakhruddin al-Razi (d. 606 AH). His
compositions reached 200 books across various branches of knowledge. A single
work alone, like the book of exegesis Mafatih al-Ghaib, reaches 17 volumes. If
SM believes that there is an additional child of Ahmad bin Isa besides
Muhammad, Ali, and Husain, then it means SM no longer believes in a great
scholar of the caliber of Imam Fakhruddin al-Razi.
RESPONDING TO THE FOREWORD BY KURTUBI LEBAK
Among what was said by Kurtubi Lebak (KL) is:
"The
validity of the Sådah Ba 'Alawi lineage has been recognized for centuries by
great scholars of Sharia, lineage experts, and historians. If traced, there
are no fewer than 100 books authored by non-Ba 'Alawi scholars that contain an
acknowledgment of the validity of the Ba 'Alawi lineage or the status of the
Ba 'Alawi as al-Husaini (descendants of Sayyidina Husain), Asyraf, or Sadah.
These scholars hail from various countries and different schools of thought
within Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jama'ah (Aswaja), and even outside of Aswaja. Thus, it
is not surprising that some scholars—such as al-Imam al-Muhibbi, al-Imam
an-Nabhani, and al-'Allamah Syaikh Ali Jum'ah—went so far as to boldly state
that the validity of the Ba 'Alawi lineage is recognized by ijmak
(consensus)."
KL says that the validity of the Ba‘alwi lineage has
been recognized for centuries by great scholars. Who is the great scholar in
the science of lineage who recognized the Ba‘alwi lineage? A lineage expert
who lived contemporary to the Ba‘alwi, namely Ibnu Inabah (d. 828 AH), did not
recognize the Ba‘alwi lineage as descendants of Ahmad bin Isa. What is the
proof that he did not recognize the Ba‘alwi lineage, even though he lived
during the time of Abdurrahman Assegaf, who is said to be a great scholar;
Umar al-Muhdlar, who is also said to be a great scholar; and Abu Bakar
al-Sakran, who is also said to be a great scholar? If they were great
scholars, they would certainly be known; if they were known and believed to be
descendants of Ahmad bin Isa, they would have been recorded by Ibnu Inabah as
descendants of Ahmad bin Isa. In reality, they were not. Why were they not
recorded? Because Ibnu Inabah indeed believed that they were not descendants
of Ahmad bin Isa.
Even a lineage book writer from Yemen in the 9th
Century AH, Muhammad Kadzim al-Yamani (d. 880 AH), did not record the family
of Abdurrahman Assegaf as descendants of Ahmad bin Isa. The ninth century, oh
KL, was when the Ba‘alwi lineage was newly fabricated—newly subjected to
ijtihad. It was only recorded formally for the first time by Ali al-Sakran (d.
895 AH) in his book Al-Burqat al-Musyiqah. Then, subsequent scholars who had
connections to the Ba‘alwi recorded it in accordance with that Ba‘alwi claim,
without verifying it in authoritative (muktabar) lineage books. The lineage of
Abdurrahman Assegaf’s family only entered a lineage book in the year 996
AH—the tenth century Hijriyah, 651 years after the passing of Ahmad bin Isa.
Before entering a lineage book, it was preceded by their own claim in the year
895 AH. So they claimed to be descendants of Ahmad bin Isa after 550 years,
and then 101 years after that claim, their lineage finally entered a lineage
book, namely Tuhfat al-Thalib. Even then, it was with the admission of its
author that this Alwi lineage was included not based on a lineage book, but
solely based on a ta‘liq (writing on a scrap of paper) that he happened to
find.
As teachers, we must not teach blind imitation (taqlid buta)
to our students so that our students can become accomplished scholars.
Scholars who possess critical reasoning like Imam Shafi‘i, Imam Hanafi, Imam
Maliki, Imam Ahmad, etc. Rather than making our students ignorant by merely
accepting what was thought out and established by scholars of the past.
For
scholars, taqlid is like a devil. It distances humans from being able to reach
the ultimate truth. The Qur‘an, with all its wonderful meanings and
secrets—its core teachings—cannot be grasped by someone who is blocked by the
fanaticism of a prior understanding, even though that understanding is without
any proof whatsoever. A conclusion that a scholar blindly imitates shows that
his heart has been sealed by fanaticism for what he has heard and read, even
though he does not know whether what he heard and read originates from proof
(dalil) or not. His neck has been tied by a strong rope of taqlid fastened to
the pillar of a prior understanding, so that he cannot walk far to reach
“bashirah” (insight) and “musyahadah” (witnessing) of the reality of a
truth.
If the glow of the ultimate truth shines from afar, and his
heart almost accepts that truth, the rope of the devil of taqlid will
immediately pull him back and say, "How could it cross your mind to reach a
conclusion different from your teacher or your ancestors?" That is how the
devil works in playing tricks on scholars, plunging them into remaining in the
puddle of taqlid, and preventing them from ascending the ladders of
reality.
Scholars are of three types: First, the scholar who is
granted interdisciplinary knowledge from various facets of learning, with
which he can perform absolute ijtihad directly from the Qur‘an and Hadith. For
such a scholar, it is forbidden (haram) to follow the taqlid of another
scholar.
The second is the scholar who knows the opinions of the
mujtahid scholars along with their proofs, so he performs “tarjih”
(evaluation) as to which of the mujtahids has an opinion supported by strong
proof, and then he follows the opinion supported by that strong proof—even if
that opinion differs from his own school of thought (madhhab).
The
third is the scholar who knows the opinions of the mujtahids; he knows that
the opinions of these scholars each have proof, but he does not possess the
ability to evaluate (tarjih) them, or he is capable but lacks the time, so he
is permitted to follow the taqlid of those mujtahids. On this issue as well,
differences of opinion actually exist among scholars: some permit taqlid for
him, while others forbid it. However, if a scholar knows that an opinion has
no proof whatsoever—whether from the Qur‘an, consensus (ijma‘), or analogy
(Qiyas)—then it is haram for him to follow that opinion.
وَلَا تَقْفُ مَا لَيْسَ لَكَ بِهٖ عِلْمٌۗ اِنَّ السَّمْعَ وَالْبَصَرَ
وَالْفُؤَادَ كُلُّ اُولٰۤىِٕكَ كَانَ عَنْهُ مَسْـُٔوْلًا
Very often the Qur‘an insinuates against those who always say "we just follow our elders," even though our elders are not infallible (maksum). Even if our elders were scholars, it does not mean they were always right. They were humans who could be wrong and could be right. Our obligation is to verify everything spoken by our elders. If it is right, we reinforce it; if it is wrong, we straighten it out. Below are examples of verses from the Qur‘an that criticize those who follow without proof and always say "we follow our fathers," without wanting to think:
أَجِئْتَنَا لِتَلْفِتَنَا عَمَّا وَجَدْنَا عَلَيْهِ آبَاءنَا وَتَكُونَ لَكُمَا
الْكِبْرِيَاء فِي الأَرْضِ وَمَا نَحْنُ لَكُمَا بِمُؤْمِنِينَ (يونس: 78)
فَلَمَّا
جَاۤءَهُمْ مُّوْسٰى بِاٰيٰتِنَا بَيِّنٰتٍ قَالُوْا مَا هٰذَآ اِلَّا سِحْرٌ
مُّفْتَرًىۙ وَّمَا سَمِعْنَا بِهٰذَا فِيْٓ اٰبَاۤىِٕنَا الْاَوَّلِيْنَ (القصص
36)
وَاِذَا قِيْلَ لَهُمُ اتَّبِعُوْا مَآ اَنْزَلَ اللّٰهُ قَالُوْا
بَلْ نَتَّبِعُ مَآ اَلْفَيْنَا عَلَيْهِ اٰبَاۤءَنَاۗ (البقرة 170)
وَإِذَا
قِيلَ لَهُمْ تَعَالَوْا۟ إِلَىٰ مَآ أَنزَلَ ٱللَّهُ وَإِلَى ٱلرَّسُولِ
قَالُوا۟ حَسْبُنَا مَا وَجَدْنَا عَلَيْهِ ءَابَآءَنَآ ۚ أَوَلَوْ كَانَ
ءَابَآؤُهُمْ لَا يَعْلَمُونَ شَيْـًٔا وَلَا يَعْلَمُونَ (المائدة 104)
Scholars are not infallible. That is what must be deeply understood.
"Strangely, only after more than 1,000 years did Imaduddin bin Sarman
emerge to say that Ubaidillah, the ancestor of the Ba 'Alawi, was not the son
of Ahmad bin Isa, thereby invalidating the Ba 'Alawi lineage as dzurriyah of
the Prophet Muhammad SAW!? Even more staggering, that person feels that he
alone is Indonesia: that he is right and all the great scholars who recognized
the Ba 'Alawi lineage are wrong! Not to mention the narratives of hatred and
racist discrimination blown by Imaduddin and his cronies! Lâ haula wala
quwwata illa billah."
KL needs to know—and this is why we need to
keep learning—that the author is not the first person to say Ubaid is not the
son of Ahmad bin Isa, but rather it is the statement of a great scholar of
Ahlussunnah wal Jamaah, namely Imam al-Fakhrurazi in his book Al-Syajarah
al-Mubarakah. He states:
أما أٛحمد الأبح فعقبه من tiga بنين: محمد ابو جعفر بالري، وعلي بالرملة، وحسين
عقبه بنيسابور
"As for Ahmad al-Abh, his children who left descendants are
three: Muhammad Abu Ja‘far who was in the city of Rayy, Ali who was in
Ramallah, and Husain whose descendants are in Nishapur."
From the
quote above, Imam Al-Fakhrurazi explicitly mentions that Ahmad al-Abh bin Isa
only had three children, namely Muhammad, Ali, and Husain. Ahmad al-Abh did
not have a child named Ubaidillah. Out of his three children, according to
Imam al-Fakhrurazi, none lived in Yemen. From there, subsequent news from the
9th century stating that his children increased by one—namely
Ubaid/Ubaidullah/Abdullah—is rejected.
Wassalam.
RESPONDING TO THE FOREWORD BY ABDUL SHOMAD RIAU
Part of what was conveyed by Abdul Shomad Riau (ASR) is:
"This lineage issue that has been rolling for more than two years is
merely Allah SWT's way of showing the strength of the Sadah al-Ba'alawi
lineage in facing the blows of waves and the crashing of torrents, while
simultaneously silencing and exposing the ignorance of the haters of the Sadah
al-Ba'alawi."
ASR says that this lineage issue shows the strength
of the Ba‘alwi lineage. For that sentence, ASR fails to see the reality that
the Ba‘alwi clan up to this moment is unable to bring proof regarding the
validity of its lineage, except hitting a dead end at the personal claim of
Ali bin Abu Bakar al-Sakran (d. 895 AH) in his book Al-Burqat al-Musyiqah.
Does ASR possess any proof other than taqlid to defend this false Ba‘alwi
lineage? When we already know of the falsification of a lineage and we have
also known who the figure behind the falsification is, the use of subsequent
proofs becomes meaningless.
A lineage expert, Sheikh Khalil bin
Ibrahim, states:
اذا عرف الواضع وعرفت علة الوضع اٞلجارحة انتفَي الاستدلال
"When the falsifier is known and the insulting illat (reason) for the
falsification is known, then istidlal (seeking proof) ceases."
ASR
also states:
"In this book, the testimonies of more
than 100 world scholars and more than 100 classical and contemporary
references from non-Ba 'Alawi circles are uncovered, all recognizing the
validity and authenticity of the Sadah al-Ba'alawi lineage."
Hundreds
of books after the ninth century mean nothing in defending the Ba‘alwi lineage
because all of them will hit a brick wall, drawing from the aforementioned Ali
bin Abu Bakar al-Sakran. Lineage experts state that the large number of books
mentioning a lineage today cannot be used as a hujjah (argumentative proof) if
all of them trace back to a single reference.
A lineage expert,
Khalil bin Ibrahim, states:
لا يحتج بكثرة المصادر اذاكانت تنقل من اصل واحد
Translation:
"An abundance of reference books cannot
be used as a hujjah if they are drawn from a single source."
ASR
also states:
"This book is like a double-edged sword;
it not only proves the validity of the Sådah al-Ba'alawi lineage, but also
exposes the lies, fitnah, plagiarism, scholarly betrayal, and ruses engineered
by Haddam al-Din."
ASR is right, that book is a double-edged sword:
the first edge attempts to answer the author's thesis but is incapable. The
second edge will stab the Ba‘alwi lineage itself because the proofs presented,
especially in the chapter on Al-Syuhrah wa-al-istifadlah, all strike back at
the Ba‘alwi lineage itself. Wherein all the quotes of the proofs of Al-Syuhrah
brought forward by Hanif et al. state that the significance of Al-Syuhrah is
useless if there is a Mu‘aridl (contradicting proof). And the proof already
exists, namely the book Al-Syajarah al-Mubarakah, which states the children of
Ahmad bin Isa were only three and there is no Ubaid/Ubaidullah/Abdullah.
ASR
as a Professor, perhaps for the sake of defending the Ba‘alwi lineage, is
willing to set aside time to write the proofs that will defend the Ba‘alwi
lineage. The author is waiting to see what proofs ASR will present. This book,
which totals 500 pages, has already been reviewed by the author, and there is
no proof that can connect this Ba‘alwi lineage, except hitting a dead end in
the 9th century.
Wassalam.
FOOTNOTE
- Hanif et al., Keabsahan Nasab Ba‘alwi, p. xviii
- Fuad bin Abduh bin Abil Gaits al-Jaizani, Ushulu ‘Ilmi al-Nasab wa al-Mufadlalah Bain al-Ansab, 76–77
- Ibid p. 77
- Imad Muhammad al-‘Atiqi, Dalil Insya’i wa Tahqiqi Salasili al-Ansab, p. 58
- Hanif et al., Keabsahan Nasab Ba‘alwi, p. xviii
- Hanif et al., Keabsahan Nasab Ba‘alwi, p. xviii
- Al-Ghazali, Ihya Ulum al-Din, Al-Maktabah al-Syamilah, 1/78
- Ibid
- Khalil bin Ibrahim, p. 85
- Hanif et al., Keabsahan Nasab Ba‘alwi, p. xviii
- https://www.hops.id/trending/pr-2942773554/gus-najih-sebut-kader-nu-banyak-makan-uang-haram-mulai-dari-zaman-gus-dur#google_vignette
- https://www.faktakini.info/2019/03/tanggapan-gus-najih-maimoen-zubair-soal.html
- Hanif et al., Keabsahan Nasab Ba‘alwi, p. xx
- Hanif et al., p. xviii
- Ibnu Hajar al-Asqalani, Al-Jawab al-Jalil, p. 47
- Al-Damiri, Al-Najm al-Wahhaj, Volume 10 page 356.
- Hanif Alatas et al., p. xxvi
- Hanif et al., p. xxxiii
- Abdul Wahhab Khalaf, Ushul al-Fiqh, p. 45
- Abdul Wahhab Khalaf, p. 46
- Ibnu Hazm, Maratib al-Ijma, p. 11
- Abdul Wahhab Khalaf, p. 49
- Hanif et al., ibid
- Hanif et al., p. xxxvi
- Hanif et al., p. xiiii
- Khalil bin Ibrahim, p. 85
- Khalil Ibrahim, p. 85