Section 6: The Early Historical Vestiges of the Ba'alwi Sadah in Hadramaut
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 6: The Early Historical Vestiges of the Ba'alwi Sadah in Hadramaut
- Back to Book Indonesia Ulema Challenge Spurious Lineage: KH. Imaduddin Utsman al-Bantani's Refutation of the Book by Hanif Alatas et al
CHAPTER 6: THE EARLY HISTORICAL VESTIGES OF THE BA'ALWI SADAH IN HADRAMAUT
In order to defend their lineage, Hanif Alatas et al. attempt to present
various pieces of evidence regarding Ahmad bin Isa in Hadramaut. Hanif points
to the tomb and home of Ahmad bin Isa, the tomb of Ubaidillah, the mosque
built by Alwi bin Ubaidillah in the year 360 AH, the tomb of Alwi bin
Ubaidillah, the tomb of Jadid bin Abdullah, the Dome of Muhammad Sahib Mirbat,
the tomb of Ali Khali Qasam, the tomb of Sahib Mirbat, the Masjid of Ali Khali
Qasam, the tomb of Faqih Muqaddam, the masjid of Abdurrahman Assegaf, and the
Al-Muhdlar Mosque.
Not a single book prior to the 9th century AH
mentions Ahmad bin Isa migrating to Hadramaut. How could there possibly be a
tomb for Ahmad bin Isa there? The existence of Ubaidillah is not confirmed by
any book whatsoever, whether in Hadramaut or elsewhere; how then can his tomb
exist? As for Alwi, how could he have built a magnificent mosque in the year
360 AH when his name only first appeared in the 9th century AH? The same
applies to the other Ba'alwi names: Muhammad, Alwi, Ali Khali Qasam, and
Muhammad Sahib Mirbath—their names were never once mentioned by scholars in
their books, so how can their tombs exist?
Tracing a historical
site is indeed one of the methods used to track the history of a figure, royal
palace, place of worship, and so forth. Locating a site can be done in two
ways: First, the site is mentioned in a written source, and researchers then
seek out its location through surveying and excavation. Examples include the
site of the Majapahit Palace in Trowulan, the Pajajaran Palace in Bogor and
Banten, and the Demak Palace in Central Java. Second, the site is discovered
first, and then sources related to it are searched for to determine its
historical value.
The tombs of Ubaidillah, Alawi, Sahib Mirbat, and
others from the Ba'Alwi family do indeed exist today. However, that alone is
insufficient to serve as a proof that these individuals were truly historical
figures. A tomb can potentially serve as evidence that a figure existed during
their historical era. But conversely, it could also have been newly created in
a later period. Therefore, the existence of a site like a tomb must be
supported by other accompanying evidence.
The Tomb of Ahmad bin 'Isa
The defenders of the Ba'alwi lineage base their argument (hujjah) regarding
the migration of Ahmad bin 'Isa to Hadramaut on archaeological evidence,
namely the presence of the tomb of Ahmad bin 'Isa in Husaysah, Hadramaut. The
question is: is the tomb claimed to be the tomb of Ahmad bin 'Isa authentic?
Has that tomb been recognized ever since the death of Ahmad bin 'Isa? What
contemporary source can provide testimony that Ahmad bin 'Isa was truly buried
in Husaysah?
A tomb in a certain location cannot become historical
proof of the existence of a figure claimed to be buried there without
supporting evidence in the form of written records about it. If that were not
the case, then anyone in Banten today could construct a beautiful and
magnificent tomb, inscribed with elegant calligraphy stating that it is the
tomb of Imam Syafi'i. Could it then be argued that Imam Syafi'i migrated to
Banten and left descendants there?
Syekh Ahmad bin Hasan
al-Mu'allim states:
{لم يثبت في تاريخ اليمن وجود قبر معظم عليه مشهد أو مسجد قبل العقد الثاني من
القرن الخامس} {إلا ما ذكر مما يسمى الشهيدين بصنعاء الذي قيل أنه على قبري
قثم وعبدالرحمن ابني عبيدالله بن العباس}
"It has not been proven in the history of Yemen that a venerated grave with a shrine (masyhad) or a mosque built over it existed prior to the second decade of the fifth century, except for what was mentioned regarding what is called the Mosque of the Two Martyrs (al-Syahidain) in San'a, which is said to be over the graves of Qatsam and Abdurrahman—the two sons of Ubaidullah bin al-Abbas [who were killed by Busr bin Artah, an official appointed by Muawiyah in Yemen]."From this explanation by Syekh Ahmad bin Hasan al-Mu'allim, it can be concluded that the tomb currently existing in Husaysah, which is ascribed to Ahmad bin 'Isa, was not known in Yemen until the year 450 AH, even though Ahmad bin 'Isa passed away 105 years prior to that (?).
Al-Janadi (d. 732 AH), a historian who keenly recorded the tombs of prominent figures visited by people, also did not record that there was a tomb for Ahmad bin 'Isa in Husaysah. Meanwhile, the two figures mentioned by Syekh Ahmad bin Hasan Al-Mu'allim had their existence recorded by Al-Janadi in Al-Suluk Fi Tabaqat al-Ulama wa-al-Muluk. He states:
{وقبر الطفلين مشهور بصنعاء في مسجد يعرف بمسجد الشهيدين يزار ويستنجح من الله
فيه الحاجات}
"And the grave of the two children is famous in San'a inside a mosque known as the Mosque of the Two Martyrs (Al-Syahidain); it is visited for pilgrimage, and people seek the fulfillment of their needs from Allah there."Aside from those two graves, Al-Janadi was diligent in making pilgrimages to the tombs of prominent figures. For instance, he recorded the grave of an Iraqi doctor who was regarded as a hero in Qinan, and he went on a pilgrimage there. He states:
{وقبره هنالك وهو مسجد جامع له منارة يزار ويتبرك به دخلته في المحرم أول سنة ست
وتسعين وستمائة}
"And his grave is there (in Qinan); it is a congregational mosque (masjid jami') that possesses a minaret, is visited, and is regarded as a source of blessing (tabarruk). I entered it in Muharram at the beginning of the year 696 AH."Al-Janadi (d. 732 AH) did not record the existence of a tomb for Ahmad bin 'Isa, despite being a historian who meticulously noted down the names of graves that were visited and deemed blessed. This implies that in the year 732 AH, the tomb of Ahmad bin 'Isa was not yet known (read: "did not exist") as it is today. A span of 387 years had passed since his death, yet his tomb was still unrecognized by people.
When, then, did the narrative that Ahmad bin 'Isa was buried in Husaysah begin to appear? The earliest report found is from Bamakhramah (d. 947 AH) in his book Qaladat al-Nahr Fi Wafayyat A'yan al-Dahr. In that book, it is mentioned that there are two opinions regarding the tomb of Ahmad bin 'Isa: The first opinion states that he died and was buried in Husaysah; the second opinion states that he died in Qarah Jasyib.
On what basis, then, was the tomb of Ahmad bin 'Isa definitively determined to be in Husaysah, as it is popularly renowned today? Bamakhramah mentions that the grave is believed to be the tomb of Ahmad bin 'Isa because Syekh Abdurrahman visited it and a light could be seen emanating from the place believed to be his tomb. Therefore, it was not based on prior historical data or sources.
Bamakhramah states:
{يرى على الموضع الذي يشار اليه ان قبره الشريف فيه النور العظيم وكان شيخنا
العارف بالله} {عبد الرحمن بن الشيخ محمد بن علي علوي يزوره في ذالك
المكان}
"A magnificent light can be seen over the spot which is pointed out as his noble grave (Ahmad bin 'Isa). And our teacher, Al-Arif Billah Abdurrahman bin Syekh Muhammad bin 'Ali Alwi, used to visit that location."That is how the tomb of Ahmad bin 'Isa was discovered—not based on a manuscript stating that he was indeed buried in Husaysah, and not because the tomb had been there since the day of his death in the year 345 AH, but rather it was verified based on ijtihad (independent reasoning/judgment). This means the tomb of Ahmad bin 'Isa was only newly discovered, or even built, in the ninth or tenth century Hijri—roughly 602 years after his death. From this, given the conclusion that his migration to Hadramaut never occurred, the existence of Ahmad bin 'Isa's tomb in Husaysah can be most convincingly described as a fake tomb.
Muhammad Shahib Mirbat
The name of the figure Muhammad Sahib Mirbat Ba Alawi is not found in any
Yemeni history books starting from his lifetime in the sixth century Hijri up
until the ninth century.
Logically, a figure described in Ba Alawi
books as a great scholar should have been detected by historians and written
about in their works. In previous writings, the author suspected that Muhammad
Sahib Mirbat was actually Muhammad bin Ali al-Qala'i. He was a great scholar
in Mirbat who was contemporary with Muhammad bin Ali Ba Alawi "Sahib Mirbat".
In the author’s initial estimation, the one more deserving of the title Sahib
Mirbat was Imam al-Qala'i, because he was famously renowned as a great jurist
of the Shafi'i school; his opinions were widely cited by authoritative legal
scholars such as Imam Nawawi and Imam Ibnu Hajar; his authored books were
numerous; and his name was recorded in history books like Al-Suluk.
Now,
the author’s doubt has been resolved. The author has discovered a book that
explicitly states who actually held the title Sahib Mirbat. It was neither
Muhammad bin Ali Ba Alawi nor Muhammad bin Ali al-Qala'i. Sahib Mirbat was a
title given to the ruler of the city of Mirbat named Muhammad bin Ahmad
al-Ak-hal al-Manjawi. He was the last ruler of the city of Mirbat from the
al-Manjawi Dynasty. Muhammad al-Akhal Sahib Mirbat was called al-Akhal because
he wore kohl (celak) in his eyes, or because his eyes had a black mark since
birth.
Ibnul Atsir, a 7th-century historian, mentions in his book
Al-Kamil fi al-Tarikh that in the year 601 Hijri, Muhammad al-Akhal Sahib
Mirbat was succeeded by his former minister named Mahmud bin Muhammad
al-Himyari (Al-Kamil fi al-Tarikh: 10/203).
Although Ibnul Atsir
only mentions the title Sahib Mirbat in his book without naming him directly,
the name can be confirmed in other history books, such as the book Dzifar
Ibrat Tarikh, showing that the title Sahib Mirbat was not for Muhammad bin Ali
Ba Alawi, but for the ruler of Mirbat named Muhammad bin Ahmad al-Akhal
al-Manjawi. Meanwhile, the name of Muhammad bin Ali Ba Alawi was not recorded
as anything at all—with or without a title, as a scholar or otherwise.
Unrecorded. Total darkness. If he were a historical figure, where was he
hiding in the city of Mirbat that historians failed to record him, while other
scholars were recorded in the history of Mirbat?
The Tomb of Muhammad Sahib Mirbat
The tomb of Habib Muhammad bin Ali Sahib Mirbat in the city of Mirbat has a
gravestone with fine carvings. The inscription on the gravestone dates to the
year 556 Hijri. Is it true that the gravestone was made in the year 556 AH?
In
Yemen, the art of stone carving was not yet known in the sixth century. This
is understood from the fact that the kings who ruled Yemen in the sixth
century and prior—from the al-Manjawih and al-Habudi dynasties—had no graves
with tombstones featuring carved calligraphy. How could an ordinary person
have a beautifully carved gravestone at an expensive price if even their kings
did not?
The first king whose grave featured a beautifully carved
tombstone was King al-Watsiq Ibrahim of the Rasuli dynasty, who passed away in
the year 711 AH. Even that tombstone was not produced in Yemen but was
imported from India. Below is the image of the gravestone of King Al-Watsiq
Ibrahim:
Imagine that even in the 8th century, the tombstone of a Yemeni king
had to be imported from India; how could the tomb of Sahib Mirbat already
possess an equally beautiful gravestone two hundred years prior? At the end of
the 8th century, the Rasuli Dynasty subsequently brought in carvers from India
to manufacture tombstones. This marked the beginning of many kings, scholars,
and wealthy individuals having carved and sculpted tombstones. This can be
proven by the differing types of stone material between the carved stone of
King al-Watsiq and subsequent gravestones. The structure and stone type of
King al-Watsiq originated from India, whereas the stone type of the other
gravestones consists of local Yemeni stone.
The gravestone of Sahib
Mirbat can confidently be believed to have been newly made in the ninth
century or later, coinciding with the construction of the Ba Alawi lineage
which had been finalized through the ijtihad of Habib Ali al-Sakran and
al-Khatib.
For the author, the figure of Habib Sahib Mirbat himself
remains doubtful—whether he was a historical figure or not. Investigations
lead to the conviction that this figure is ahistorical. There are no
contemporary reports mentioning his existence. History books that mention the
scholars of Mirbat and Dhofar do not mention his name, except for books
written after the 9th century Hijri. Yes, all of them after the ninth century
hijri.
Sahib Mirbat's son named Abdullah—who is said to have
received a transmission authorization (ijazah) from Imam al-Qala'i (the
scholar of Mirbat who died in 630 AH)—was also mentioned for the first time by
the book Al-Ghurar in the 10th century AH. Strangely, the lineage of this
Abdullah bin Sahib Mirbat Ba Alawi was later declared "inqirod" (extinct /
having no descendants).
His fate is identical to two scholar
figures mentioned in external books who were claimed by the Ba Alawi as part
of the Ba Alawi family, namely Jadid and Salim bin Basri. Both were described
as brothers of Alwi bin Ubaidillah, yet both were subsequently declared
inqirod (their lineages cut off).
The author suspects that the
individual named Abdullah, who was referred to as al-Syarif, did indeed
possess a narration that he received an ijazah from Imam al-Qala'i, but his
ascending lineage was not mentioned. Then, in the ninth century, the Ba Alawi
family claimed him as the son of Sahib Mirbat. Because no genealogical
algorithm for his descendants was found within the Ba Alawi family in the
ninth century, he was subsequently labeled "inqirad". This same algorithm
happened to Jadid and Salim bin Bashri.
The author is convinced
that Jadid mentioned in Al-Suluk, as well as Bashri, were not brothers of
Alwi. Another book mentions that Alwi had only one brother named Ismail. He
did not have brothers named Jadid and Bashri.
The tomb of
Ubaidillah who died in 383 AH, as well as the tomb of Alawi who died in the
year 400 AH—the author is certain that these were also newly determined via
ijtihad in that ninth century. This is because a Yemeni researcher named Syekh
Ahmad Hasan Mu'allim stated that in Yemen, there were no graves possessing a
shrine (masyhad) and a mosque in the fifth century Hijri, except for the grave
of "Al-Syahidain" in San'a.[]
ENDNOTES
- See Hanif et al. . . p. 122-127
- Ahmad bin Hasan al-Mu'allim, Al-Quburiyyah fi al-Yaman (Dar Ibn al-Jawzi, Al-Mukalla, 1425 AH) p. 253
- Al-Janadi . . . Volume 1, p. 173
- Al-Janadi . . . Volume 1, p. 212
- Abu Muhammad al-Tayyib Abdullah bin Ahmad Ba Makhramah, Qaladat al-Nahr Fi Wafayyat A'yan al-Dahr (Dar al-Minhaj, Jeddah, 1428 AH) Volume 2, p. 618.
- Abu Muhammad . . Ba Makhramah . . . Volume 2, p. 618.
- Ahmad bin Awadh Alawi Alu Ibrahim, Tarikhi Wafati Al-Imam al-Qala'i Baina Syawahid al-Tarikh wa Baina Syawahid al-Qabr, p. 21
- Ahmad bin Awadh . . . p. 21