Section 5: The Validation of Lineage Through the Method of Istifadah
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
- Section 5: The Validation of Lineage Through the Method of Istifadah
- The Meaning of Shuhrah Wa al-Istifadah as "Min Adhar al-Bayyinat" (Among the most apparent of evidences)
- Istifadah or Tasamu' Must Occur in the Local Place of Origin, Not in the Land of Migration
- Back to Book Indonesia Ulema Challenge Spurious Lineage: KH. Imaduddin Utsman al-Bantani's Refutation of the Book by Hanif Alatas et al
SECTION 5: THE VALIDATION OF LINEAGE THROUGH THE METHOD OF ISTIFADAH
The genealogy expert Syaikh Husain bin Haidar al-Hasyimi states in his book Rasa'il fi 'Ilm al-Ansab:
{الطريق الأول : اسْتِفَاضَة النسب وشهرته في بلده، شهرة تثمر علماً، واستفاضة
بين عددٍ مِن النَّاسِ} {يقع العلم بخبرهم أو الظن القوي، ويؤمن توافقهم على
الكذب، مع عدم المعارض انتهى}
"The first method is the diffusiveness (istifadhah) of a lineage and its renown (shuhrah) in its home locality—a renown that yields definitive knowledge, and a diffusiveness among a sufficient number of people whose report produces certainty or a strong assumption, where collusion to lie is secure, and in the absence of a conflicting proof. End quote."The first method to validate a lineage according to Shaikh Al-Husain is Istifadlatunnasab (the spreading of a lineage) and "syuhratunnasab" (the fame/renown of a lineage) in one's village. In the Arabic language, the words istifadah and shuhrah hold the same meaning, which is "intashara wa dza'a" (to spread and become popular/well-known).
Thus, if someone—for example, Samsul—has become widely recognized as the son of Mr. Samlawi in his village or country, then when anyone is asked by another person, whether in a formal or informal setting, "Whose son is Samsul?", and that person answers, "Samsul is the son of Mr. Samlawi," they are not considered to be lying. This holds true even if they did not personally witness Samsul's birth or have never seen his birth certificate, because the information has already become common knowledge through shuhrah and istifadah.
However, according to Syaikh Husain, shuhrah istifadah can only be applied to verify a lineage when there is no conflicting evidence ('adamul mu'arid). Such conflicting evidence can take the form of a denial from the father or the presence of a tha'n (a formal challenge or rejection of the lineage) by others. For example: suppose someone testifies that Ubaid is the son of Ahmad based on shuhrah (hearsay). If someone then challenges (doing tha'n/challenge) this by stating that Ubaid is not Ahmad's son and presents evidence, then the tasamu' (permissive acceptance based on widespread hearsay) or the syuhrah istifadlah becomes void. This is what is termed a tha'n. If this tha'n is grounded in evidence, it is accepted; if it lacks evidence, it is disregarded.
Therefore, it cannot be argued that because Ubaidillah is renowned today through syuhrah wal istifadlah as the son of Ahmad bin Isa, this remains sufficient as an absolute proof of validation forever. That is not the case. If a strong proof emerges stating the contrary, then that syuhrah wal istifadlah becomes void.
Note what is stated in the book Nihayatul Muhtaj, Volume 8, page 319, by Imam Ramli:
{(وَلَهُ الشَّهَادَةُ بِالتَّسَامُع حَيْثُ لَمْ يُعَارِضَهُ أَقْوَى مِنْهُ
كَانْكَارِ الْمَنْسُوب إِلَيْهِ أَوْ طَعْن أَحَدٍ ِفي الانْتِسَابِ
إِلَيْهِ،} {نَعَمْ يُتَّجَهُ أَنَّهُ لَا بُدَّ مِنْ طَعْنٍ لَمْ تَقُمْ
قَرِينَةٌ عَلَى كَذِبِ قَائِلِهِ)}
"And it is permissible for him to testify based on tasamu' (widespread hearsay) as long as it is not contradicted by something stronger than it, such as a denial by the person to whom lineage is ascribed, or a challenge (tha'n) by someone regarding that ascription. Yes, the sound position is that tasamu' is invalidated by denial or a challenge, but it is directed that the challenge must not be accompanied by circumstantial indications of the speaker's untruthfulness."From this statement by Imam Ramli, it is clear that for tasamu'—or the general renown of Samsul being the son of Samlawi—two conditions are required:
- If Samlawi is still alive, he must not deny that Samsul is his son; if he denies it, the tasamu' is invalidated.
- If Samlawi has passed away, it is required that there be no witness stating that Samsul is actually not Samlawi's son, but merely an adopted child. If a witness comes forward with evidence showing that Samsul was only an adopted child, the tasamu' is nullified.
Regarding the lineage of Ubaid, who is accepted today via tasamu' as the son
of Ahmad, a witness has emerged in the form of the book Al-Syajarah
al-Mubarakah, which explicitly states that Ahmad's children were only three:
Muhammad, Ali, and Husain. There is no mention of a child named Ubaid,
Abdullah, or Ubaidillah. Coupled with DNA testing for Ubaid's descendants that
differs from the DNA of Ahmad’s verified descendants, the tasamu' is
effectively nullified.
This proposition is further reinforced by
Ibn Hajar Al-Asqalani, who stated:
{ان النسب مما يثبت بالاستفاضة الا ان يثبت ما يخالفه}
"Verily, lineage is among the matters that can be established through the method of istifadhah, unless something contradicting it has been proven authentic." (Al-Jawab al-Jalil 'an Hukm Balad al-Khalil: 47)Similar texts abound in books of jurisprudence, demonstrating that syuhrah and istifadlah are not utilized absolutely without conditions. They carry a strict proviso, namely the absence of a contradicting proof. Meanwhile, the currently popular lineage (syuhrah) of the Ba'alwi faces a contradicting proof, which is the 6th-century AH book Al-Syajarah al-Mubarakah that restricts the names of Ahmad bin Isa's children to only three: Muhammad, Ali, and Husain. Consequently, the emergence of the name Abdullah/Ubaidillah in the 9th century AH is roundly rejected.
The Meaning of Syuhrah Wa al-Istifadlah as "Min Adzhar al-Bayyinat" (Among the most apparent of evidences)
The statement by Sheikh Al-Husain that shuhrah wal istifadah is "min adzhar
al-bayyinat" does not mean that syuhrah is the strongest evidence. It does
not. If the intended meaning were "the strongest," the phrasing used would be
"min aqwa al-bayyinat". Rather, the meaning of "min adzhar al-bayyinat" is
"among the most manifest of proofs" or "the most easily accessible
evidence."
This means it is the easiest proof for a person to
obtain in order to know someone's lineage. We do not need to go through the
trouble of demanding a birth certificate; the mere result of common hearsay is
sufficient to state that Samsul is the son of Samlawi. This implies that if we
say so, we are not deemed liars, nor can we be prosecuted in a court of
law.
By default, the reality of legal testimony (kesaksian) should
be based on what can be directly witnessed. However, scholars permit testimony
to be valid based solely on syuhrah or hearsay for a few specific matters,
including lineage, marriage, sexual intercourse, death, and the appointment of
a judge. This exception is made because these matters are typically known only
to those closest to an individual. If testifying via syuhrah were disallowed,
it would cause negative consequences, leading to numerous legal vacuums due to
the impossibility of finding eyewitnesses.
Syuhrah wa al-Istifadlah
is permitted as a tool for testimony solely out of necessity (darurat),
because certain realities—such as lineage and death—are difficult to witness
directly with one's own eyes. Regarding the permissibility of testifying via
syuhrah, a scholarly consensus (ijma') has been narrated. The ijma' in
question is a consensus regarding the permissibility of using the method of
syuhrah, not a consensus stating that a lineage must be universally agreed
upon through syuhrah. Anyone who asserts otherwise, such as Idrus Ramli,
demonstrates a clear ignorance in the science of jurisprudence.
Observe
what is stated in the book Al-Najm al-Wahhaj by Al-Damiri:
{قال: (وله الشهادة بالتسامع على نسب) بالإجماع, لأن نسبه لا يدرك بالبصر, وغاية
الممكن رؤية الولادة على الفراش،} {فاكتفي فيه بالاستفاضة للحاجة، ويجوز ذلك
وإن لم يعرف عين المنسوب إليه، حكاه في (الكفاية) عن (الإشراف).} {كل هذا إن
لم تكن ريبة، فإن كانت بأن كان المنسوب إليه حيًا فأنكر لم تجزالشهادة، فإن كان
مجنوناً جازت} {على الصحيح، فإن طعن بعض الناس في ذلك النسب .. امتنعت
الشهادة على الأصح.}
"He said: '(And it is permissible for him to testify based on tasamu' regarding a lineage) by consensus (ijma'), because lineage cannot be perceived by sight. The utmost possibility is witnessing the birth upon the bed, so istifadhah is deemed sufficient out of necessity. This is permissible even if one does not know the exact person to whom lineage is claimed; this was recounted in Al-Kifayah from Al-Isyraf. All of this applies if there is no doubt. If doubt exists—for instance, if the person to whom lineage is ascribed is alive and denies it—then testimony is impermissible. If that person is insane, testimony is permissible according to the correct position. If some people challenge (طعن) that lineage... testimony becomes barred according to the more correct position.'"From Al-Damiri's statement above, it is clear that the consensus (ijma') referred to is the consensus on the permissibility of testifying to a lineage via tasamu', not a consensus making it a absolute requirement to testify via tasamu'. Al-Damiri also explains that testifying via tasamu' is allowed because lineage cannot be seen. The closest possibility is witnessing a birth in bed, and even then, only the midwife and a few individuals would know. For anyone else, how can they testify that Samsul is the son of Samlawi? It is sufficient by hearing from others that Samsul is Samlawi's son. What if the midwife later testifies that the original child was actually taken away and replaced with another baby? The midwife's testimony would be exceptionally strong if she is believed not to be lying based on other robust evidence. In such a scenario, the tasamu' falls away.
Al-Damiri also asserts that tasamu' can be used as a tool for testimony only when there is no doubt: kullu hadza in lam takun ribatun (all these rulings on testifying via tasamu' apply if there is no doubt). If doubt is present—such as Samlawi denying that Samsul is his son—then the tasamu' becomes void. What if Samlawi is insane, rendering him unable to confirm or deny the tasamu' circulating in society that Samsul is his son? According to the correct view (qaul sahih), one may testify via tasamu' that Samsul is the son of that insane Samlawi. However, if a witness states the contrary, then according to Al-Damiri, it is not permitted to testify via tasamu' that Samsul is the son of that insane Samlawi; this is according to the more correct view (qaul asah).
Istifadah or Tasamu' Must Occur in the Local Place of Origin, Not in the Land of Migration
Sheikh Al-Husain bin Haidar al-Hasyimi states:
{ويجب التنبه إلى أن الاستفاضة يجب أن تكون في بلدته أو قبيلته، لا تلك المزعومة
والتي تكون في مهجره}
"And it is mandatory to take notice that istifadhah must occur within his town or his tribe, not that alleged istifadhah which occurs in his place of migration."This means that the syuhrah istifadlah must take place in the country of origin, not in the region to which an individual migrated. If it is said that Ubaid migrated from Basra to Yemen, then his syuhrah as the son of Ahmad must be established in Basra, not in Yemen. Yet, there is absolutely no evidence from the era of Ubaid that we can access from Basra to prove that Ubaid was indeed the son of Ahmad. Moreover, even within Yemen, Ubaid was not renowned (syuhrah) as the son of Ahmad during his lifetime, nor for the subsequent 550 years. There is no contemporary book stating that he was the son of Ahmad.
ENDNOTES
- Husain bin haidar. . .h.101
- Lihat Wahbah al-Zuhali, Fiqhul Islam wa adillatuhu, 8/282
- Al-Damiri , Al-Najm al-Wahhaj, Juz 10 halaman 356
- Husain Al-Hasyimi , Rasail fi 'Ilm al-Ansab, h.101