1. Manuscript of Hasan al-Allal (460 AH)
Manuscript of Hasan al-Allal (460 AH) This is the physical appearance of the manuscript that Rumail supposedly discovered or purchased. This chain of
6/08/2026
Book Title: Spurious Manuscripts of the Ba'alwi according to Rumail Abbas's
Version
Originial version in Indonesian: Manuskrip-Manuskrip Palsu
Ba'alwi Versi Rumail Abbas
Author: K.H. Imaduddin Utsman Al-Bantanie
Edition:
1st Printing
Page Count: 24 pages
Paper Size: B5
Publisher:
Maktabah Nahdlatul Ulum Banten
Year of Publication: 2024 CE
Address:
Tangerang, Banten, Indonesia
Field of Study: History, Science of
Genealogy (Ilm al-Nasab), Genealogy
Table of Contents
- CHAPTER II: RUMAIL ABBAS'S MANUSCRIPTS
- The Manuscript of Hasan al-Allal (460 AH)
- Back to Book: Spurious Manuscripts of the Ba'alwi according to Rumail Abbas's Version
CHAPTER II: RUMAIL ABBAS'S MANUSCRIPTS
1. The Manuscript of Hasan al-Allal (460 AH)
This is the physical appearance of the manuscript that Rumail supposedly
discovered or purchased. This chain of narration (sanad) mentions the name
Abdullah "bin" Ahmad bin Isa (the father of Alwi), who allegedly received a
Hadith from Al-Husain bin Muhammad bin Ubaid bin al-Askari. This manuscript is
clearly a "comedic manuscript"; it is a "fake" manuscript completely devoid of
identity. There is no mention of which book it was extracted from, whose work
it is, what year it was transcribed, or where this manuscript has been kept
all this time. However, it appears to be a fragment of chains of narration
found within the spurious book Al-Arba'un, which is falsely attributed to Umar
bin Sa'ad al-Din al-Dzifari (d. 667 AH). As we will see further ahead, Rumail
explicitly mentions several chains of narration that he claims were taken from
that specific book. That book is strongly suspected to be a forgery written in
the 1960s CE by Salim bin Jindan.
Upon closer examination, this sequence of narration is a grafted chain derived from an authentic sanad found within the book Tarikh Baghdad. Observe the authentic chain of narration below:
Upon closer examination, this sequence of narration is a grafted chain derived from an authentic sanad found within the book Tarikh Baghdad. Observe the authentic chain of narration below:
This authentic chain of narration is found within a book that serves as a
primary reference for Hadith scholars, namely Tarikh Baghdad (Vol. III, p.
18). Now, observe Gus Rumail's grafted chain of narration below
In the authentic chain of narration found in the book Tarikh
Baghdad, Ibnu al-Askari's student is Ali bin Muhammad bin Hasan al-Maliki;
in Rumail's manuscript, Ibnu al-Askari's student is Abdullah (Ubaidillah)
bin Ahmad "bin" Isa. Let us test this using the metric of Ittisal
al-Riwayat (the continuity of narration)—specifically by examining the
books of Tarikh al-Ruwat (biographical histories of narrators) that record
a narrator along with their respective teachers and students. Is it proven
that both Ali bin Muhammad bin Hasan al-Maliki and Abdullah (Ubaidillah)
"bin" Ahmad bin Isa were students of Ibnu al-Askari?
Let us look at the book Tarikh Baghdad concerning the figure of Al-Husain bin Muhammad bin al-Askari:
Let us look at the book Tarikh Baghdad concerning the figure of Al-Husain bin Muhammad bin al-Askari:
In that book, Tarikh Baghdad by al-Khatib al-Baghdadi, it is recorded that
the students of Ibnul Askari were: Abul Qasim al-Azhari, Abu Muhammad
al-Jauhari, Al-Hasan bin Muhammad al-Khollal, Ahmad bin Muhammad al-Atiqi,
Abul Faraj bin Burhan, Al-Qadhi Abul Ala al-Wasiti, Abdul Aziz bin Ali
al-Azji, Ali bin Muhammad bin al-Hasan al-Maliki, Al-Qadhi Abu Abdillah
al-Baidhawi, Ahmad bin Umar al-Nahrawani, and Abul Qasim al-Tanukhi (see
Tarikh Baghdad, Vol. 8, p. 569).
Following our verification, Ali bin Muhammad bin al-Hasan al-Maliki is proven to be a student of Ibnu al-Askari, whereas Abdullah is completely unproven. Therefore, Rumail's sequence of narration is proven to be a grafted or forged chain.
It is glaringly obvious that this sequence of narration was deliberately fabricated, not for the genuine purpose of transmitting a Hadith, but rather for the sole purpose of mentioning the name Abdullah, to serve as fake evidence that his persona actually existed and even narrated Hadith. Unfortunately, the creator of this sanad forgot that the Science of Hadith is far more rigorous than the science of genealogy; the names of narrators have already been neatly and systematically codified within the books of Tarikh Ruwat (History of the Narrators). To verify a narrator—to see whether they are a historical figure or merely a name intentionally inserted without a real-world persona—one can consult the books of Tarikh Ruwat, which have been compiled since the 3rd century Hijriah.
Consider the death of Abdullah, who is said to have passed away in the year 383 Hijriah. If he were truly a Hadith narrator, his name would have been well-known among the scholars of his time, and his residence would have been heavily frequented by Hadith seekers from all corners of the world. Consequently, his name should have been recorded in books documenting the narrators who were contemporary with him or close to his era—such as those by Ibnu Syahin, who passed away in 385 Hijriah (two years after Abdullah's death), or the reference works of Al-Dzahabi (d. 748 AH). Naturally, his name would also have been recorded by the contemporary genealogy books of his era, such as Al-Ubaidili (d. 437 AH). However, this name, Abdullah, is recorded nowhere: not in the genealogy books, nor in the biographical registers of Hadith narrators.
Following our verification, Ali bin Muhammad bin al-Hasan al-Maliki is proven to be a student of Ibnu al-Askari, whereas Abdullah is completely unproven. Therefore, Rumail's sequence of narration is proven to be a grafted or forged chain.
It is glaringly obvious that this sequence of narration was deliberately fabricated, not for the genuine purpose of transmitting a Hadith, but rather for the sole purpose of mentioning the name Abdullah, to serve as fake evidence that his persona actually existed and even narrated Hadith. Unfortunately, the creator of this sanad forgot that the Science of Hadith is far more rigorous than the science of genealogy; the names of narrators have already been neatly and systematically codified within the books of Tarikh Ruwat (History of the Narrators). To verify a narrator—to see whether they are a historical figure or merely a name intentionally inserted without a real-world persona—one can consult the books of Tarikh Ruwat, which have been compiled since the 3rd century Hijriah.
Consider the death of Abdullah, who is said to have passed away in the year 383 Hijriah. If he were truly a Hadith narrator, his name would have been well-known among the scholars of his time, and his residence would have been heavily frequented by Hadith seekers from all corners of the world. Consequently, his name should have been recorded in books documenting the narrators who were contemporary with him or close to his era—such as those by Ibnu Syahin, who passed away in 385 Hijriah (two years after Abdullah's death), or the reference works of Al-Dzahabi (d. 748 AH). Naturally, his name would also have been recorded by the contemporary genealogy books of his era, such as Al-Ubaidili (d. 437 AH). However, this name, Abdullah, is recorded nowhere: not in the genealogy books, nor in the biographical registers of Hadith narrators.