2. The Manuscript of Umar bin Sa'ad al-Din al-Dzifari

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

2. The Manuscript of Umar bin Sa'ad al-Din al-Dzifari

Umar ibn Sa'd Al-Din Al-Dzafari (d. 667 AH) lived in the 500s AH and was the son of Sa'd Al-Din Al-Dzafari, who is popularly known by the title Taj Al-Arifin. According to Rumail, he produced and copied a book titled Al-Arba'un, Al-Musnad li Al-Imam Muhammad ibn Ali Al-Faqih Al-Alawi. Rumail further states that Umar ibn Sa'd Al-Din Al-Dzafari compiled 40 Hadiths that he obtained from Muhammad ibn Ali Faqih Muqaddam (d. 653 AH), with several chains of narration mentioning the name "Shohib Mirbath".

Shown below is one of Rumail's manuscripts displayed during a discussion presentation at Rabithah Alwiyah, Jakarta (7/9/2024). The text contains a chain of Hadith narration from Umar ibn Sa'd al-Din al-Dzifari which, according to Rumail, he obtained from Muhammad Faqih Muqaddam, and Faqih Muqaddam obtained it from Abul Hasan Ali bin Muhammad bin Jadid.

This chain of narration is clearly a forgery, because Abul Hasan Ali bin Jadid never had a student named Muhammad bin Ali Faqih Muqaddam. In the book Al-Suluk Fi Thabaqat al-Ulama Wa al-Muluk, Al-Janadi (d. 732 AH) records the names of Abul Hasan Ali bin Muhammad bin Jadid's students, but none of them are named Muhammad bin Ali Faqih Muqaddam. The names of Ali bin Jadid's students recorded in Al-Suluk are: Muhammad bin Muhammad bin Ibrahim al-Fasyali and Umar bin Ali Shahibu Baiti Husain (Al-Suluk, Vol. 2, p. 136). In the book Banu al-Mu'allim al-Jaba'iyyun wa Banu al-Jadid al-Alawiyyun, Abu Umar lists nine names of Ali bin Jadid's students, yet he also makes no mention of him having a student named Muhammad bin Ali Faqih Muqaddam (see p. 6). It is glaringly obvious that the manuscript containing the chains of narration for Faqih Muqaddam above is a forgery.

Rumail mentions that the year of composition for this manuscript is 667 Hijriyah. Judging by the physical form of the manuscript, it is highly unconvincing. Blue ink such as that was not commonly used in the 7th century Hijriah; furthermore, lined paper of that variety was only produced around the year 1960 CE. Aside from its textual content, judging by the physical medium used, this manuscript is clearly a forgery. The style of handwriting in this manuscript is identical to the Hadith manuscripts written by Salim bin Jindan (d. 1969 CE). Observe the manuscript fragment found on the online media outlet "Jaringan Santri" (`[https://jaringansantri.com/manuskrip-ilmu-hadis-habib-salim-bin-jindan/](https://jaringansantri.com/manuskrip-ilmu-hadis-habib-salim-bin-jindan/)`), which displays a Hadith manuscript written by Salim bin Jindan titled Riwayah bi al-Fi'li below:

Based on the style of handwriting and the type of lined paper routinely used by Salim bin Jindan, Rumail’s manuscript and Salim bin Jindan's text are identical. Rumail's document is 99% likely the handwriting of Salim bin Jindan, who passed away in Jakarta in 1969 CE.

So, what is the opinion of Yemeni scholars regarding Salim bin Jindan? Dr. Muhammad Badzib, on his Telegram channel social media account posted on May 16, 2024, stated that the books of Syaikh Salim bin Jindan are "la yuhtajju biha wala yu'tamadu alaiha" (cannot be used as evidence and cannot be relied upon). Dr. Badzib quoted the opinion of Abdullah Al-Habsyi in his book Mashadir al-Fikri al-Islami Fi al-Yaman that Salim bin Jindan's books are works drawn from a "vacuum".

Abdullah Muhammad Al-Habsyi stated that Syaikh Salim bin Jindan's books are of no benefit, containing "Mujazafah" (reckless statements without references) as well as "al-khaltu" (corrupted statements and the delusions of someone who is delirious) (p. 558).

In addition to Abdullah Al-Habsyi, according to Badzib, Saggaf Ali al-Kaf holds the same view—that Syaikh Salim bin Jindan's books concerning the science of genealogy are full of "akadzibu la yu'tamadu alaiha" (fabrications that cannot be relied upon).

Beyond those two scholars, many other scholars evaluate Syaikh Salim bin Jindan's genealogical writings as completely lacking in quality. Badzib also cites a scholar named Masyhur bin Hafidz, who asserted that Syaikh Salim bin Jindan was a "hatibu lailin" (someone who speaks whatever crosses his mind). Furthermore, a researcher named Ziyad al-Taklah and Dr. Sa'id Tulah have both written about Salim bin Jindan and his fantasies in fabricating completely baseless chains of Hadith narration.

According to Badzib, a professor and lawyer named Fu'ad Tarabulsi recounted to him that many of the names mentioned by Ibnu Jindan in his books are entirely fictitious—"la wujuda laha" (they do not exist). Badzib shared an example: Syaikh Salim bin Jindan claimed that one of his teachers was the son of Al-Allamah Jamaluddin al-Qasimi al-Dimasqi. Yet, absolutely no one has ever heard of this person as being part of the Al-Qasimi family, and the Al-Qasimi family themselves do not recognize him.

According to Badzib, Syaikh Salim bin Jindan also showed the existence of musnad books of the Ba'alwi family and claimed that the manuscripts for these musnad texts were housed in the "Arif Hikmat" library. These musnad books, according to Badzib, are forged and entirely groundless. They do not exist in the "Arif Hikmat" library he specified. In fact, Badzib notes that they do not exist in any library on the face of the earth, except inside Salim bin Jindan's house. It seems that what Badzib meant is the Musnad Faqih Muqaddam supposedly written by Umar bin Sa'd al-Dzifari, the manuscript of which was showcased by Rumail Abbas at Rabithah Alwiyah.

What Syaikh Salim bin Jindan did, according to Badzib, is explained in a rare text found in a personal letter from Alwi bin Tahir al-Haddad to his student, Professor Ali Ba'bud. The letter states that Ibnu Jindan suffered from Melancholia: he imagined things that did not exist, assumed their reality, and then wrote down those imaginations. The public, unaware of his health condition, simply accepted it as trustworthy information.

Unfortunately, according to Badzib, those who cite him make no effort to verify Syaikh Salim bin Jindan's sources when he wrote his books. If they looked closer, they would discover that he was quoting from newly fabricated documents written by fictitious people.

On his Telegram account, Badzib also highlighted a piece written by Aiman Al-Habsyi regarding Salim Bin Jindan titled Al-Tahdzir Min Ansab Ibni Jindan (A Warning Regarding the Genealogies of Ibnu Jindan). In his writing, Aiman states, among other things, that he asked his uncle, Abu Bakar bin Ali al-Masyhur, about Ibnu Jindan's books. His uncle recounted that he had asked Abdul Qadir Ahmad al-Saqqaf, who replied: "Salim bin Jindan is a good person, but his opinions on genealogy and history cannot be relied upon".

Aiman al-Habsyi initially intended to edit (tahqiq) Syaikh Salim bin Jindan's work titled Al-Durr al-Yaqut. However, upon seeing that it was filled with "major disasters," he abandoned his intention. In fact, according to Aiman, the Ba'alwi genealogies within that book contain many "major disasters".

The following is a screenshot of Badzib's statement:

Below is another example of a spurious manuscript presented by Rumail Abbas, which also appears to originate from Salim bin Jindan.

Below is an example of a forged chain of narration that Rumail once brought up without citing its source. It likely originates from the book Al-Arba'un written by Salim bin Jindan, which was subsequently attributed as the work of Umar bin Sa'ad.