Alawi Becomes the Brother of Syarif Abul Jadid
Book Title: Exposing the Scholarly Scandal of Ba’alwi History and Genealogy: The Finalization of the Ba‘alwi Genealogical Severance from the Prophet Muhammad PBUH
Original title in Indonesian: Membongkar Skandal Ilmiyah Sejarah dan Genealogi Ba’alwi: Finalisasi Keterputusan Genealogi Ba’alwi Kepada Nabi Muhammad Saw.
Author: KH. Imaduddin Utsman Al-Bantani, head of Pondok Pesantren Nahdlatul Ulum (Islamic Boarding School), Banten
First Edition: 1445 AH / 2024 AD
Publisher: Maktabah Nahdlatul Ulum Banten
Translated into English and Published by: Al-Khoirot Research and Publication
Previous Book: Measuring the Authenticity of the Habib Lineage in Indonesia (Menakar Kesahihan Nasab Habib di Indonesia)
Field of Study: Ba'alwi History, Genealogy (Ilmu Nasab), Islamic History
Table of Contents
- Alawi Becomes the Brother of Syarif Abul Jadid
- Jadid Has No Connection to the Ba'alwi Family
- The Book Tabaqat al-Khawash Witnesses the Efforts to Synchronize the Ba'alwi Lineage
- The Account of Muhammad bin Sulaiman's Migration Becomes Out of Sync
- Ubaidillah and Fictitious Names from the Ba’alwi Family
- Glorification of the Ba’alwi Ancestors
- Back to: Book Exposing the Scholarly Scandal of Ba’alwi History and Genealogy: The Finalization of the Ba‘alwi Genealogical Severance from the Prophet Muhammad PBUH
Alawi Becomes the Brother of Syarif Abul Jadid
Ali bin Abubakar al-Sakran (d. 895 AH), the grandson of Abdurrahman al-Saqqaf,
traced his family's lineage from the ninth century as follows: Abdurrahman
al-Saqqaf bin Muhammad (Maula Dawilah) bin Ali (Sahibudark) bin Alwi
(Al-Ghayyur) bin Muhammad (Faqih Muqaddam) bin Ali bin Muhammad (Sahib Mirbat)
bin Ali (Khaliq Qasam) bin Alwi bin Muhammad bin Alwi bin Ubaid "bin" Ahmad
bin Isa bin Muhammad al-Naqib bin Ali al-Uraydi bin Ja'far al-Sadiq bin
Muhammad al-Baqir bin Ali Zainal Abidin bin Husain bin Fatimah bin Prophet
Muhammad SAW. This lineage is completely different from the lineage of the
Ba'alwi's cousin, namely the Bani Ahdal.
The Bani Ahdal, whose
history in Al-Suluk had previously been hitched upon, have now been left
behind; the order of the names Ubaid, Isa, and Alwi, which were obtained from
the lineage structure of the Bani Ahdal family, has now changed. After
previously hitching a ride on the history of Muhammad bin Sulaiman—who was
mentioned in the book Al-Suluk as migrating from Iraq to Yemen as a "Syarif
Husaini"—and subsequently claiming that the ancestor of the Ba'alwi migrated
alongside Muhammad bin Sulaiman and was a first cousin (sharing the same
grandfather), the Ba'alwi now had to connect their lineage and history with
the lineage and history of Syarif Abul Jadid from the Abu Alwi family, onto
whose history they were attempting to hitch a ride. For that purpose, it was
asserted that Jadid bin Abdullah bin Ahmad bin Isa was a paternal brother to
Alwi, by adding one more name as a sibling, namely Basri. Thus, this Ubaid
supposedly had three children: Jadid, Alwi, and Basri. Ali al-Sakran stated:
ولعلوي بن عبد الله بن أحمد بن عيس بن محمد بن علي بن جعفر أخ اسمه الشيخ جديد ... ولجديد بن عبد الله وعلوي بن عبد الله أخ اسمه الشيخ بصري ...
"And for Alawi bin Abdullah bin Ahmad bin Isa bin Muhammad bin Ali bin Ja'far, there is a brother named Syaikh Jadid... and for Jadid bin Abdullah and Alawi bin Abdullah, there is a brother named Syaikh Bashri."The foundations for synchronizing the history of Abdurrahman al-Saqqaf's family, who now introduced themselves as the Ba'alwi, were truly constructed in such a manner by Ali al-Sakran, at least according to the formal version written in a book that we can find. Of course, the author believes that these foundations had developed before Ali al-Sakran wrote them down. This relates to the efforts of Abdurrahman al-Saqqaf's family in searching for their family lineage, which began by hitching a ride on the history and lineage of the Bani Ahdal, and then shifted to the lineage and history of Syarif Abil Jadid from the Abu Alwi family found in Al-Suluk. This allegedly includes the existence of a book named Al-Jauhar al-Syafaf written by Abdurrahman al-Khatib. The author disregards this book because one of the manuscripts, of which the author possesses a PDF version, does not convincingly prove that this book was actually written by someone living in the ninth century Hijriah. Apparently, the book Al-Suluk, which was written in the early 8th century, was highly respected by the scholars of the 9th century Hijriah. Consequently, the ancestors of families not recorded in Al-Suluk, such as this family of Abdurrahman al-Saqqaf, had to make maximum efforts to find an empty gap that their family could fill.
This effort was initially carried out by hitching a ride on the history of the Bani Ahdal regarding the migration of their ancestor, Muhammad bin Sulaiman, by claiming that the ancestor of Abdurrahman al-Saqqaf was a first cousin sharing the same grandfather with Muhammad bin Sulaiman. Later, they hitched a ride on the history and lineage of Syarif Abil Jadid to complete, create, and restore the lineage of the Bani Ahdal family, which was not yet finalized and had two versions. It is highly regrettable that Ali al-Sakran relied on only a single manuscript of Al-Suluk, namely the Egyptian version manuscript copied in the year 877 Hijriah.
Apparently, older manuscripts, such as the Paris manuscript copied in 822 AH which does not mention the name Abdullah, did not reach Ali al-Sakran. As a result, the Ba'alwi lineage today is not only rejected by lineage books, but it is also rejected by the book Al-Suluk itself in its older manuscripts. In the older manuscript, it is mentioned that Jadid was not the son of Abdullah bin Ahmad, but he was the direct son of Ahmad. Nor can it be said that mentioning Jadid bin Ahmad is a short version of a well-known longer lineage, because the mention of Jadid as the son of Abdullah was never recorded in contemporary or preceding books. Therefore, the older manuscript must be strongly presumed to be closer to the truth than the newer one. With the absence of the name Abdullah in the older Paris manuscript, Ali al-Sakran's theory that Ubaid, who was recorded in the Bani Ahdal version, was another name for Abdullah is utterly rejected.
Jadid Has No Connection to the Ba'alwi Family
There is no book contemporary with Al-Suluk or older that mentions Jadid
having a brother named Alwi bin Ubed or Abdullah. The book Al-Suluk containing
the name Abdullah bin Ahmad was published based on a recent manuscript from
Egypt dated 877 AH, whereas in the old manuscript dated 820 AH, the name
Abdullah does not exist. In that manuscript, Jadid is referred to as bin Ahmad
bin Isa, not bin Abdullah. Thus, Ali bin Abu Bakar al-Sakran's claim that
Jadid was a brother to Alwi is rejected.
Books that mention Ali bin
Jadid never associate Ali bin Jadid with the family of Abdurrahman Assegaf
except after the 9th century AH. Eighth-century AH books, such as Al-Suluk,
mention names associated with Ali bin Jadid, yet not a single one mentions the
Ba'alwi family. These individuals are: Ibrahim bin Ahmad al-Quraidzi
(teacher), Abdul Malik (younger brother), Syekh Mudafi' (teacher), Muhammad
bin Mas'ud al-Sufali (student), Ibnu Nasir al-Himyari (student), Ahmad bin
Muhammad al-Junaid, Hasan bin Rasyid (student), Muhammad bin Ibrahim
al-Fasyali (student), Umar bin Ali Sohibu Baiti Husain (student of
Al-Fasyali), Al-Mas'ud bin al-Kamil (the King who exiled Syekh Mudafi and Ali
bin Jadid), Imran bin Rafi' al-Qarabili (student), Abul Haddad (teacher of
Syekh Mudafi'), Syekh Abdul Qadir al-Jailani (teacher of Abul Haddad), Ibnu
Ridwan (brother-in-law of Syekh Mudafi'), Muhammad (grandson of Syekh
Mudafi'), Abu Bakar (grandson of Syekh Mudafi'), and Umar (grandson of Syekh
Mudafi'). There are no names from the family of Abdurrahman Assegaf.
When
explaining the biography of Ali bin Jadid, the book Al-Suluk mentions names of
cities in Hadramaut but never mentions the city of Tarim (the home of
Abdurrahman Assegaf's family). The cities mentioned in the life journey of Ali
bin Jadid are: Yemen, Hadramaut, 'Adn, Al-Wahiz, Dzu huzaim, Al-Jabal, Ta'iz,
India, Dzifar, Daynul, Tihamah, Zabid, Al-Mahjam, Marjaf, Makkah, Syar'ab,
etc. In that book, the city of Tarim is not mentioned at all in the biography
of Ali bin Jadid. This serves as an additional indication showing that Ali bin
Jadid had no relationship with the family of Abdurrahman Assegaf, who hailed
from Tarim.
The names in the book Al-Suluk claimed by Ali al-Sakran
and other Ba'alwi writers to be names of the family of Abdurrahman Assegaf are
refuted by their own lineage books. There is a name Muhammad bin Ali Ba Alwi,
but is it true that he is al-Faqih al-Muqaddam? Let us look at the following
expression by al-Janadi!
ومن بيت أبي علوي قد تقدم لهم بعض ذكر مع ذكر أبي جديد مع واردي تعز وهم بيت صلاح طريق ونسب فيهم جماعة منهم حسن بن محمد بن علي باعلو كان فقيها يحفظ الوجيز للغزالي غيبا وكان له عم اسمه عبد الرحمن بن علي بن باعلوي
"And part of the Abi Alwi family, some of whom have been mentioned previously when mentioning Abi Jadid along with those who came to Taiz, they are a house of righteousness, its path, and its lineage. Among them is Hasan bin Muhammad bin Ali Ba Alawi; he was a jurist, he memorized the book al-Wajiz by Imam Ghazali, and he had an uncle named Abdurrahman bin Ali Ba Alawi."From this expression, there is a name mentioned by al-Jundi as being from the Alu Abi Alwi family, namely Hasan bin Muhammad bin Ali Ba Alawi. It is claimed that Hasan's father, Muhammad bin Ali, was Fakih Muqaddam. The question is, if Muhammad bin Ali Ba Alwi was al-Faqih al-Muqaddam, did al-Faqih al-Muqaddam have a son named Hasan?
Let us look at the Ba Alawi lineage book Syams al-Dzahirah to see if al-Faqih al-Muqaddam had a son named Hasan. Notice the expression below!
وله (اي الفقيه المقدم) من الولد خمسة بنين: علوي وأحمد وعلي وعبد الله المتوفي بتريم سنة 663 وعبد الرحمن المتوفي بين الحرمين ...
"He (al-Faqih al-Muqaddam) had five sons: Alawi, Ahmad, Ali, Abdullah who passed away in Tarim in the year 663 AH, and Abdurrahman who passed away between Makkah and Madinah." (Syamsu al-Dzahirah: 78)It is clearly stated here that al-Faqih al-Muqaddam did not have a son named Hasan. Thus, it is also clear that the Muhammad bin Ali mentioned by al-Jundi was not al-Faqih al-Muqaddam.
The second supporting proof that the Muhammad bin Ali mentioned by al-Jundi (al-Janadi)
"He (Syekh Ali bin Muhammad Sohib Mirbath) had one child, namely Syekh Imam Muhammad who is famous by the name al-Faqih al-Muqoddam..." (Syamsu al-Dzahirah: 77)
It is stated in the book Syamsu al-Dzahirah that Ali (the father of al-Faqih
al-Muqaddam) had only one child. This means that Hasan, who was mentioned by
al-Jundi as having an uncle named Abdurrahman, was clearly not the child of
al-Faqih al-Muqaddam and not from the family of Habib Ba Alwi. If Muhammad bin
Ali was not Fakih Muqaddam, perhaps he was another Muhammad bin Ali from the
Ba'alwi family. Another name of Muhammad bin Ali from the Ba'alwi family
associated with living before Al-Janadi is Muhammad bin Ali Sohib Mirbat, but
he also did not have a son named Hasan. The children of Muhammad Sahib Mirbat
were four: Abdullah, Ahmad, Ali, and Alwi. Thus, if Muhammad bin Ali is also
claimed to be Muhammad Sahib Mirbat, that claim is rejected as well.
There
are still other names found in the book Al-Suluk that are claimed to be part
of the Ba'alwi family of Abdurrahman Assegaf. Notice the following passage
from Al-Suluk:
"And part of them is Ali bin Ba Alwi; he was frequent in his worship, grand in his status, he always prayed, and when reciting the tasyahhud, when he read 'assalamualaika ayyuhannabiyyu', he would repeat it. So it was asked of him (why do you repeat that phrase?), (he answered): 'I do it until the Prophet S.A.W. answers it,' so he repeated it very many times. And Ali had a child named Muhammad Ibnu Solah, and he had an uncle named Ali bin Ba Alwi. Some details of the Aba Alwi family include Ahmad bin Muhammad, he was an excellent jurist, he passed away approximately in the year 724 AH; and Abdullah bin Ba Alwi, he is still alive until now, he is good in his worship and practices tasawuf."
Is it true that the names mentioned by Al-Janadi constitute the family of Habib Ba Alwi? Let us examine them one by one. First, Ali bin Ba Alwi: there are very many members of the Habib Ba Alwi family named Ali, while "bin Ba Alwi" does not indicate a father, but rather indicates a tribe. Thus, it is difficult to trace who he is. However, Ali Al-Sakran (d. 895 AH) asserted that this Ali bin Ba'alwi was Ali Khaliq Qasam. There it is said that this Ali bin Ba Alwi had a first cousin (paternal uncle's son) also named Ali. This means that if he was Ali Khaliq Qasam, we should trace whether the father of Ali Khaliq Qasam had a younger brother who had a son named Ali, so that this Ali could be called the cousin of Ali Khaliq Qasam. Let us look at the book Syamsu al-Dzahirah!
له من الولد ابن اسمه محمد ولمحمد هذا ابن اسمه علوي ولعلوي هذا ابنان: سالم لا عقب له وعلي المعروف بخالع قسم
"For him (Alwi bin Ubaidillah) there was a son named Muhammad, and for this Muhammad there was a son named Alawi. This Alawi had two sons: Salim, who left no descendants, and Ali, who is known as Khali' Qosam." (Syamsu al-Dzahirah: 70)Clearly, the name Ali bin Ba Alwi was not Ali Khali' Qasam, because Ali Khali' Qasam did not have a paternal uncle. How could he have a paternal uncle's son (cousin) if he did not have an uncle? In Banten, Hanif Alatas stated that according to his lineage teacher, what is meant by Ali bin Ba Alwi in Al-Suluk is Ali bin Alwi bin Fakih Muqaddam, not Ali Khaliq Qasam. Well, let us test this using the available data from the habaib family themselves. Because indeed, it is only from their circles that we can widely obtain the biographies of their family members who are said to be scholars before the 9th century AH. There it is said that this Ali bin Ba Alwi had a cousin also named Ali. This means that if he was Ali bin Alwi bin Fakih Muqaddam, we should trace whether the father of this Ali had a younger brother who had a son named Ali, so that this Ali could be called the cousin of Ali. It turns out that when we look into the book Syams al-Dzahirah and the book Al-Ustadz Al-A'dzam Al-Imam Al-Faqih al-Muqoddam by Abu Bakar al-Adni, this Alwi bin Faqih Muqaddam had four other children besides Alwi. Among these four children of Fakih Muqaddam, none had a son named Ali. This means that Ali bin Alwi bin Fakih Muqaddam did not have a cousin named Ali. Therefore, the claim that this Ali bin Ba'alwi is Ali bin Alwi bin Fakih Muqaddam is rejected.
The book Al-Athaya al-Saniyah by the King of Yemen, Abbas bin Ali bin Daud (d. 778 AH), mentions Ali bin Jadid. He also refers to Ali bin Jadid as Al-Abi Alwi, but he does not connect this Ali bin Jadid as part of the family of Abdurrahman Assegaf (739–819) at all. Yet, he lived during the same period as Abdurrahman Assegaf. When this King passed away, Abdurrahman Assegaf was already 39 years old, an age quite appropriate for a scholar to be known by a government official. Moreover, it is said that he was the grandson of a great saint like Fakih Muqaddam; certainly, if King Abbas knew that there was a family connection between Abdurrahman Assegaf and Ali bin Jadid, it would have been stated, for example, "This Ali bin Jadid is from the Al Abu Alwi family, still one family with Abdurrahman Assegaf, the grandson of the great saint of Yemen, Fakih Muqaddam." But in reality, such a sentence does not exist. This indicates that: first, the King of Yemen who was contemporary with Abdurrahman Assegaf did not recognize him as part of the family of Ali bin Jadid and Al Abi 'Alwi or Ba'alwi; second, the King of Yemen in the year 778 AH did not know the history of Fakih Muqaddam, who was supposedly a great saint from the Al Abi Alwi family who passed away in 653 AH. In fact, this King of Yemen was born around the year 731 AH, only 78 years apart from the passing of Fakih Muqaddam. If the King of Yemen had known him, he would have written the history of Fakih Muqaddam in his book just as he wrote the history of Ali bin Jadid, or at least would have mentioned him briefly in the biography of Ali bin Jadid as part of the Al Abi Alwi family. In reality, none of that exists.
All of this reinforces that the family of Abdurrahman Assegaf introduced themselves as Ba'alwi and wrote about the greatness of Fakih Muqaddam only after the ninth century Hijriyah. One more thing to add is that King Abbas was born in Ta'iz. The distance between Ta'iz and Tarim is only about the distance between Banten and Surabaya.
Imam Abdullah bin As'ad Al-Yafi'i (d. 768 AH) in the book Mir'atul Jinan mentions the name Banu Aba Alwi, the same as Al-Janadi's designation, not Ba'alwi:
وحضرموت بها قوم بفضلهم بنو أبا علوي والكرام بنوا
In his book, Imam al-Yafi'i does not mention the Ba'alwi family of Abdurrahman
Assegaf at all. Yet, he was born in Yafi', Yemen, in the year 696 AH and
passed away in Makkah in the year 768 AH. This proves that none of the family
of Abdurrahman Assegaf in the eighth century was known to the public. In his
book as well, Al-Yafi'i recorded the scholars of Yemen, such as when he
recorded that in the year 651 AH a Yemeni scholar named Abul Ghaits Ibnul
Jamil al-Yamani passed away. He also recorded that Abul Ghaits studied under
Ali al-Ahdal.
The Al-Ahdal family, who are referred to in Ba'alwi
literature as cousins, were reported on by Imam al-Yafi'i, but the Ba'alwi
family was not. Is the inclusion of Al-Ahdal in Al-Yafi'i's book a positive
point for the Ba'alwi? Not really. Because the claim of being cousins is
detected to have appeared or been brought forward only in the ninth century.
The case is identical to the claim of the Ba'alwi being cousins with the Jadid
family. There is no literature in the 8th century AH that mentions the Ba'alwi
being cousins with the Al-Ahdal and Jadid families. Even 9th-century books
that mention that cousinly connection are only detected within internal
Ba'alwi literature and books printed with editors from the Ba'alwi, which in
several cases have been proven to be interpolated.
The book Al-'Iqd
al-Fahir al-Hasan by Ali bin al-Hasan al-Khazraji (d. 812 AH) mentions the
name Ali bin Jadid but does not mention that he had any connection with the
family of Abdurrahman Assegaf. Yet, he was a historian hailing from Zabid,
Yemen. In this book, as well as in his other book, Al-'Uqud al-Lu'luiyyah,
this Yemeni historian does not mention names of the family of Abdurrahman
Assegaf such as Fakih Muqaddam, Abdurrahman Assegaf, Maula Dawilah, Sohib
Mirbat, or Ali Khaliq Qasam. This shows that even at the beginning of the
ninth century Hijriah, the family of Abdurrahman Assegaf was not yet known
among Yemeni scholars as prominent figures.
The book Al-'Iqd
al-Tsamin by Imam Taqiyyuddin Muhammad bin Ahmad al-Hasani al-Fasi al-Makki
(d. 832 AH) mentions the name Ali bin Jadid by quoting from Al-Suluk. In his
aforementioned book, Taqiyyuddin al-Fasi does not connect Ali bin Jadid to the
Ba'alwi family at all. Yet, Al-Fasi is recorded by Muhammad al-Habib al-Hailah
in the book Al-Tarikh wa al-Mu'arrikhun bi Makkah as a historian of Makkah who
had traveled to Yemen. Furthermore, in Ba'alwi literature in the year 832 AH
and prior, many members of the Ba'alwi family had traveled to Makkah.
In
the year 839 Hijriah, the name of the Abu Alwi tribe was written by Al-Maqrizi
in his book Al-Turfat al-Garibat as "Arabs of Hadramaut". From this, there is
a linear consistency in reports from Al-Hamadani in the 4th century down to
Al-Maqrizi in the 9th century that the Abu Alwi tribe consisted of Arab people
from Hadramaut, not descendants of Prophet Muhammad SAW.
Up until
the beginning of this ninth century, external literature does not confirm the
existence of any genealogical connection between the Ba'alwi and the Jadid
family. Thereby, the claim that Jadid was a brother to Alwi remains unproven.
The Book Tabaqat al-Khawash Witnesses the Efforts to Synchronize the Ba'alwi Lineage
After the shift occurred in the upward lineage line of the Ba'alwi from Aon
bin Musa al-Kadhim bin Ja'far al-Sadiq to Ahmad bin Isa bin Muhammad bin Ali
al-Uraydi bin Ja'far al-Sadiq, the theory of Ubaid as the shared grandfather
of the two families, Ba'alwi and Al-Ahdal, became muddled. The initial theory
that the two were truly close first cousins (sharing a grandfather) in the
figure of Ubaid now shifted to Ja'far al-Sadiq, who is the seventh grandfather
up from Ubaid. Such a situation required a way out. Thus, in the book Tabaqat
al-Khawas Ahl al-Shidqi wa al-Ikhlash by Ahmad bin Ahmad al-Syarji al-Zabidi
(d. 893 H.), we can analyze the presence of that synchronization effort
through the additions made to the contents of the book between its printed
version and its manuscript version.
The printed version of the book
Tabaqat al-Khawash currently in circulation was published by Al-Dar
al-Yamaniyah in 1986. That printed version does not mention the year of the
manuscript it was based upon. It seems it was printed based on the printed
version of 1321 AH from the publisher Al-Mathba'ah al-Maimanah al-Mishriyyah.
When we trace that 1321 AH printed version, it turns out it also does not
mention the year of the manuscript it was based upon. In that printed version,
it is stated that the cousinship between the Ba'alwi and the Al-Ahdal was not
close (sharing a grandfather), but distant, meeting at Ja'far al-Sadiq. Notice
the text of the printed version of the book Tabaqat al-Khawash (on the page
shown below):
The underlined sentence does not exist in the manuscript version from the year 1070 AH as follows:
Below is the last page of the Tabaqat al-Khawash manuscript showing the year 1070 AH
Below is the first page of the book Tabaqat al-Khawash
This manuscript was copied by Abdul Hadi bin Abdullah bin Dawud al-Zabidi in the year 1070 AH, located at King Saud University which can be accessed through think link: https://makhtota.ksu.edu.sa/makhtota/2992/4 ..
From the difference between the printed version and the manuscript version, we
can explain that in the manuscript version, the Ba'alwi and Al-Ahdal are only
mentioned as being equally descendants of Husain. Meanwhile, in the printed
version published by Al-Dar al-Yamaniyah in 1986 AD, an explanatory detail was
added stating that the two meet at a common grandfather, namely Ja'far
al-Sadiq. This addition or interpolation that the two meet at the common
grandfather Ja'far is an effort to synchronize the Ba'alwi lineage line, which
changed from Musa al-Kadhim bin Ja'far al-Sadiq to Ali al-Uraydi bin Ja'far
al-Sadiq. Because if that addition were absent, then that change in the
lineage line would look comical—where two first cousins (sharing a
grandfather) end up with different lineages. With that addition, the
impression is created that the word "ibnu al-'am" (cousin) means a distant
cousin, not a close one. Then who added to that manuscript? Naturally, the one
who stands to benefit.
The claim that the intended "ibnu 'am"
(cousin) means a distant cousin is refuted by the expression of Husen al-Ahdal
(d. 855 AH) as follows:
وحكي لنا عن بعضهم أن محمدا المذكور خرج هو وأخ له وابن عم فعمد أخوه وابن عمه الي الشرق فذريته أل با علوي في حضرموت
"It was narrated to us by some people that the aforementioned Muhammad (bin Sulaiman) went out (migrated) together with his brother and his first cousin. Subsequently, his brother and his first cousin headed east. Thus, the descendants of his first cousin are the Ba'alwi family in Hadramaut."In the phrase "Akhun lahu wabnu 'ammin" (a brother of his and a paternal uncle's son), there is a phrase that prevents "ibnu 'am" from being interpreted as a distant cousin, namely the phrase "akhun lahu" (a brother of his). The pronoun "lahu" (his), though not repeated in the phrase "ibnu 'am", is considered repeated due to the presence of the conjunction (athaf) before the phrase "ibnu 'am". Moreover, if we look at the presence of identical names between the Ba'alwi and Al-Ahdal families—namely the names: Ubaid, Isa, Muhammad, and Alwi—these names, even though their sequential order changed later, indicate that the current arrangements originated from the same source. No matter how complex the efforts described above have been carried out, these two families still cannot connect their lineage to Prophet Muhammad SAW, due to the absence of lineage book sources that confirm the validity of their lineage. The lineage books lined up from the fourth to the ninth century do not confirm their lineage. The lineage structure of these two families can only begin to be confirmed in the 9th century, accompanied by various inconsistencies that are difficult to accept.
The Account of Muhammad bin Sulaiman's Migration Becomes Out of Sync
Husain al-Ahdal (d. 855 AH), in his book Tuhfat al-Zaman, mentions that his
grandfather, named ‘Ali al-Ahdal, was the son of Umar bin Muhammad bin
Sulaiman. This Ali bin Umar al-Ahdal is mentioned by Al-Janadi in the book
Al-Suluk as having passed away in the year 690 Hijriah. Meanwhile, Muhammad
bin Sulaiman passed away in the year 540 Hijriah, as stated by Muhammad bin
Muhammad bin Ahmad Zabarat al-Son’ani (d. 1381 AH) in his book Nail
al-Hasanain. If this is the case—namely, that Muhammad bin Sulaiman died in
540 Hijriah—it becomes logically difficult to accept that he migrated from
Iraq to Yemen in the year 317 Hijriah along with Ahmad bin Isa, according to
the account of the Ba’alwi family. This would mean that when Muhammad bin
Sulaiman died in 540 Hijriah, he would have been over 223 years old.
Between
these two accounts regarding the year of migration, one of them must be
incorrect. The question is, which of the two accounts is most likely wrong?
Naturally, if we re-examine the fact that the Ba’alwi family actually just
hitched a ride on the history of the Bani Ahdal, then the migration year dated
317 Hijriah is the one that should be strongly suspected as false or a
fabrication. Judging from the genealogical sequence, it is very clear that
this Muhammad bin Sulaiman belongs to the same generation as Ali Khaliq Qasam
(d. 529 AH), not Ahmad bin Isa (d. 345 AH?). This is further reinforced, as
the author has previously mentioned, by the fact that Ahmad bin Isa never
migrated from Basra to Yemen; there is not a single contemporary or
near-contemporary source that the Ba’alwi family can rely on regarding that
report.
In fact, even his presence in Basra cannot be proven by any
source. As for the name Ahmad bin Isa cited by Muhammad Dhiya’ Shihab in his
book Imam Ahmad al-Muhajir, it is an error in identifying the figure; he was
not Ahmad bin Isa bin Muhammad al-Naqib, but rather Ahmad bin Isa bin Zaid, an
Imam of the Zaidiyyah Shia. If Ali Khaliq Qasam was the person who migrated to
Tarim in the 6th century AH, where did he migrate from? In the author's
estimation, he migrated from India via Mirbat. Firstly, because in the 5th and
6th centuries Hijriah, interaction between the people of Mirbat and India was
very bustling due to the presence of a port there. Secondly, there is the
report about Muhammad bin Ali, who was in Mirbat and was subsequently given
the title "Sahib Mirbat." After arriving in Mirbat with his father and his
son, Muhammad bin Ali passed away in Mirbat, and then his father, Ali Khaliq
Qasam, migrated with his grandson, Ali (the father of Faqih Muqaddam), to
Tarim. The DNA test results of Najwa Shihab (a prominent Indonesian female
figure of Ba’alwi descent) confirm that 48% of her DNA fragments originate
from India.
Concurrently with all of the above, Abdullah Muhammad
al-Habsyi, in the footnotes of the book Tuhfat al-Zaman which he edited
(tahqiq), attempts to defend the narrative of Ahmad bin Isa's migration in the
year 317 Hijriah. He provided a footnote to Husain al-Ahdal's text, which
mentioned that his ancestor named Muhammad bin Sulaiman migrated from Iraq to
Yemen. Abdullah Muhammad al-Habsyi stated: the one who migrated was not
Muhammad bin Sulaiman, but rather Muhammad bin Himham. Such an unusual
narrative is required so that the Ba’alwi narrative—claiming that the one who
migrated was Ahmad bin Isa—can sync up, because the one contemporary with
Ahmad bin Isa was Muhammad bin Himham, not Muhammad bin Sulaiman.
We
witness that the one whose history hitched a ride ended up arranging and even
dominating the sequence of the history it rode upon. We will frequently read
in the writings of Abdullah Muhammad al-Habsyi in particular, and Ba’alwi
history writers in general, that when a historical datum is found not to align
with the historical conclusions of the Ba’alwi, it is the historical datum
that must be adjusted, not the other way around. In fact, we will find subtle
as well as blatant efforts at interpolation carried out by Ba’alwi editors
(pentahqiq) upon the books of scholars they edit. Because of this, high
vigilance and critical analysis are required when reading works written by the
Ba’alwi or books edited by them regarding their history and genealogy.
Ubaidillah and Fictitious Names from the Ba’alwi Family
As noted above, the Ba’alwi lineage initially referenced the lineage of the
Bani Ahdal. Their history, likewise, originally hitched a ride on the history
of the Bani Ahdal. And as is known, the sequencing of the Bani Ahdal lineage
only emerged in the 9th century, when Husain al-Ahdal discovered loose papers
containing two versions of their genealogy. Al-Janadi, the Yemeni historian,
merely refers to the ancestors of the Bani Ahdal in *Al-Suluk* as "Syarif
Husaini," but he does not mention their genealogical sequence tracing back to
Prophet Muhammad SAW. Meanwhile, not a single lineage book from the 4th to the
9th century Hijriah records the Bani Ahdal family as descendants of Prophet
Muhammad SAW. Therefore, the lineage of the Ba’alwi family, being a lineage
produced from cloning the Bani Ahdal lineage, holds the exact same status: a
lineage generated from creation, assumption, and interpretation that cannot be
scientifically verified.
The fate of the Bani Ahdal is better than
that of the Ba’alwi because the history of the Bani Ahdal was confirmed to
have already existed in the 7th century Hijriah when *Al-Suluk* reported on an
"ummi" (illiterate) Sufi named Ali bin Umar al-Ahdal and referred to his
ancestor as a "Syarif Husaini" who migrated from Iraq to Yemen. Meanwhile, the
Ba’alwi (the family of Abdurrahman al-Saqqaf) were still in total obscurity
during that 7th century; not a single historian or genealogist recorded them,
let alone recorded the migration of the figure recognized as their ancestor,
namely Ahmad bin Isa, from Iraq to Yemen.
Subsequently, the Ba’alwi
family combined their Bani Ahdal-style lineage with the lineage of Syarif Abil
Jadid found in the book *Al-Suluk*. The author will guide the reader to
analyze the Ba’alwi lineage that they acknowledge today—which is derived from
the lineage of Syarif Abil Jadid according to the Egyptian manuscript
version—and then compare it with the lineage found in the Paris manuscript
version. From there, we will be able to discover that there are actually
several fictitious names, both within the family of Syarif Abil Jadid and the
Ba’alwi family.
Notice the image below:
|
No |
Silsilah Jadid Versi manuskrip Mesir tahun 877 H. |
Silsilah Jadid Versi manuskrip Paris tahun 822 H. |
Silsilah Ba’alwi versi cloning silsilah Jadid versi manuskrip Mesir |
Silsilah Ba’alwi versi cloning silsilah jadid versi manuskrip Paris |
|
1 |
Nabi Muhammad Saw |
Nabi Muhammad Saw |
Nabi Muhammad Saw |
Nabi Muhamad Saw. |
|
2. |
Fatimah |
Fatimah |
Fatimah |
Fatimah |
|
3. |
Husain |
Husain |
Husain |
Husain |
|
4. |
Ali Zainal |
Ali Zainal |
Ali Zainal |
Ali Zainal |
|
5. |
Muhammad al-baqir |
Muhammad al- baqir |
Muhammad al- baqir |
Muhammad al- baqir |
|
6. |
Ja’far al-Shadiq |
Ja’far al-Shadiq |
Ja’far al-Shadiq |
Ja’far al-Shadiq |
|
7. |
Ali al-Uraidi |
Ali al-Uraidi |
Ali al-Uraidi |
Ali al-Uraidi |
|
8. |
Muhammad al-Naqib |
Muhammad al- naqib |
Muhammad al- naqib |
Muhammad al- naqib |
|
9. |
Isa |
Isa |
Isa |
Isa |
|
10. |
Ahmad |
Ahmad |
Ahmad |
Ahmad |
|
11. |
Abdullah |
|
Abdullah |
|
|
12. |
Jadid |
|
Alwi |
|
|
13. |
Muhammad |
|
Muhammad |
|
|
14. |
Jadid |
Jadid |
Alwi |
Alwi |
|
15. |
Ahmad |
Ahmad |
Ali (Khaliqosam) |
Ali (Khaliqosam) |
|
16. |
Muhammad |
Muhammad |
Muhammad (sohib Mirbat) |
Muhammad (Sohib Mirbat) |
|
17. |
Abul hasan Ali (Syarif Abul Jadid) |
Abul Hasan Ali (syarif Abul jadid) |
Ali (ayah Faqih Muqoddam |
Ali (ayah faqih Muqoddam) |
From that image, by looking at the comparison between the Ba’alwi lineage and
the lineage of Syarif Abil Jadid, we can see that in the Egyptian manuscript
version of Syarif Abil Jadid's lineage, there are three names strongly
suspected to be fictitious, namely numbers 11, 12, and 13 (Abdullah, Jadid,
and Muhammad). This is because the older manuscript states that the lineage of
Syarif Abul Jadid is: Abul Hasan Ali/Syarif Abul Jadid bin Muhammad bin Ahmad
bin Jadid bin Ahmad bin Isa. Thus, Jadid's direct father was Ahmad bin Isa.
From this, we also know that the Ba’alwi lineage should likewise be configured
that way, namely: Ali (the father of Faqih Muqaddam) bin Muhammad (Sohib
Mirbat) bin Ali (Khaliq Qasam) bin Alwi bin Ahmad bin Isa. Therefore, the
second Alwi should have directly been the son of Ahmad bin Isa, because in
reality, the Ba’alwi lineage is merely a creation resulting from cloning the
lineage of Syarif Abul Jadid.
Why were those three names added?
Those three names were added to cover the illogical chronological interval
between Syarif Abul Jadid—who was recorded by Al-Janadi as having passed away
in the year 620 Hijriah—and the death year of Ahmad bin Isa, who passed away
in the year 345 Hijriah (?). The gap between the two reaches 275 years, which
requires at least six generations of names. If those three names were not
added, the number of names between them would only be three, which would
certainly be considered bizarre by genealogy experts.
The
conclusion from the comparison between the Ba’alwi lineage and the lineage of
Syarif Abul Jadid is that there are three names in the Ba’alwi lineage that
are fictitious and ahistorical, namely: Abdullah/Ubaidillah/Ubaid, the first
Alwi, and Muhammad. It does not stop there; when we trace the names starting
from Alwi down to Muhammad Maula Dawilah, the father of Abdurrahman al-Saqqaf,
all of them are completely absent from the reports of historians and
chroniclers of the Prophet's descendants. Their names, along with their
"extraordinary" historical narratives, exist only in the books of the Ba’alwi
family starting from the ninth century Hijriah.
Glorification of the Ba’alwi Ancestors
The Ba’alwi clan is perhaps one of the clans that has produced a vast number
of books filled with content reaffirming their claim as descendants of Prophet
Muhammad SAW. There are at least 27 books written specifically to reinforce
their genealogy. However, all of them ultimately trace back to a single
ninth-century book, namely Al-Burqat al-Musyiqat. Their references hit a dead
end at that ninth century. Apart from the book Al-Burqat al-Musyiqat, there
were actually other books written in the ninth century containing their
lineage, such as the book Al-Jauhar al-Syafaf, which is said to be the work of
Abdurrahman bin Muhammad al-Khatib, who is also said to have passed away in
the year 855 Hijriah. However, this figure of Al-Khatib is "majhul" (unknown)
to authors of scholarly biographies. In fact, according to information from
the book Hadiyyat al-Arifin by Isma’il Basya al-Babani, the Abdurrahman bin
Muhammad who wrote Al-Jauhar al-Syafaf actually passed away in the year 724
AH; the same is mentioned by Umar Rida Kahhalah in the book Mu’jam
al-Mu’allifin. Furthermore, the manuscript that has reached us today is a
recent one, written in the year 1408 AH.
Apparently, the tenth and
eleventh centuries Hijriah are considered two highly important centuries for
the Ba’alwi clan to popularize themselves as descendants of the Prophet. Nine
books were written for this purpose, namely: Al-Juz’ al-Latif by Abubakar bin
Abdullah al-Aydarus (d. 914 AH)—this book was later found by Ibnu Hajar
al-Haytami after its author's death, and Ibnu Hajar quoted extensively from it
regarding the transmission lineages of the Sufi order and the 'lubsul khirqah'
(the donning of the Sufi cloak); the next book is Tarikh Sanbal by Syaikh
Sanbal (d. 960 AH), though experts doubt this is a 10th-century Hijriah book,
and the existence of Syaikh Sanbal himself in that century is questioned; the
next book is Al-Gurar by Muhammad Ali Khirid Ba’alwi (d. 960 AH), a book
heavily influenced by Al-Burqat al-Musyiqat; followed by the book Tiryaq
al-Qulub by Umar bin Muhammad Basaiban (d. 944 AH), Al-Masra’ al-Rawi by
Muhammad bin Abu Bakar al-Silli (d. 1093 AH), Mukhtasar al-Gurar by Muhammad
bin Abdullah al-Aydarus (d. 1031 AH), Al-‘Iqd al-Nabawi by Syaikh bin Abdullah
al-Aydarus (d. 1041 AH), Khidmat al-Sadat Bani Alawi by Abdulqadir bin Syaikh
al-Aydarus (d. 1038 AH), and Al-Nur al-Safir by Abdulqadir bin Syaikh
al-Aydarus (d. 1038 AH). All of these books share a similar pattern in
glorifying the roles of their ancestors; unfortunately, none of the historical
attributes written about their ancestors in these books are confirmed by
primary or secondary sources.
The accounts concerning Ahmad bin
Isa—claiming that he was an "imam" and a scholar—are not confirmed by
contemporary or near-contemporary sources, and the same goes for the prominent
status of Ubaidillah. In the literature of Ba'alwi scholars, Ubaidillah is
recorded to have passed away in the year 383 Hijriah. He is described as a
generous Imam, a scholar "rasikh" (deep in knowledge), the teacher of various
"Syaikhul Islam," the opener of the keys to secret knowledge, and one who had
no equal in his time. Such is a portion of what Ba'alwi scholars write about
Ubaidillah today. Curiously, for a "Great Imam" living in the fourth century
Hijriah, his history is completely shrouded in darkness during his own
lifetime. Not a single book discusses him. If he was an Imam, not a single
follower recorded his existence. If he was a teacher to the "Syaikhul Islam,"
not a single "Syaikhul Islam" mentioned his name, quoted his opinions, or even
wrote his name in their scholarly chains of transmission (sanad). He is truly
a "great man" who remains hidden and mysterious.
This "great imam,"
living in the fourth century Hijriah, reportedly was born and raised in Basra,
and then at the age of twenty migrated with his father to Yemen. In that
century, dozens of books were written in Basra and Yemen, and hundreds of
scholars lived and interacted with one another, yet not one of them recorded
any interaction with Ubaidillah. Where was Ubaidillah, this "Great Imam,"
hiding? The name of Ubaidillah and his life biography only appeared 512 years
after his death. His figure was first brought to light by Ali Al-Sakran (d.
895 AH). Far from just mentioning a name in a lineage chain, Al-Sakran
actually succeeded in uncovering Ubaidillah's prominent status—something
entirely unknown to scholars who lived contemporaneously or nearly
contemporary with Ubaidillah. He was made known by Al-Sakran without any
supporting sources whatsoever. Al-Sakran was the pioneer in mapping out the
"history" of Ubaidillah, successfully turning him into a "historical" figure.
Similarly, other figures in the Ba’alwi lineage, such as the first Alwi,
Muhammad, and the second Alwi—whose figures play such important roles in the
texts of Ba’alwi books—are unconfirmed by contemporary or near-contemporary
sources; everything traces back to the book Al-Burqat al-Musyiqat in the 9th
century Hijriah.
Muhammad bin Ali (d. 556 AH) was given the title
"Sohib Mirbat" by Ba’alwi writers. His figure was described by Muhammad bin
Ali Khirid Ba’alwi as an "imaman mutqinan" (an imam who thoroughly mastered
knowledge) and "wahidu asrihi fi al-ilmi wa al-‘amal" (the most knowledgeable
and practicing of his era).
Yet, his figure was not reported at all
by scholars of lineage, history, or "tabaqat" (scholarly biographies). Alwi
bin Tahir, in the book Uqud al-Almas, states that Muhammad "Sahib Mirbat" was
the spreader of the Shafi'i school of thought in Hadramaut, Dhofar, and Yemen,
and that the scholars in Mirbat were the disciples of Muhammad "Sahib Mirbat."
Such reports also cannot be confirmed by contemporary or near-contemporary
sources. This stands in stark contrast to other scholars in Mirbat who are
verified by contemporary or near-contemporary books, such as Muhammad bin Ali
al-Qal’iy (d. 577 AH); from his year of death, we can see that he lived in the
same era as Muhammad "Sahib Mirbat."
Al-Janadi in Al-Suluk mentions
that the scholars in Mirbat were the disciples of Imam al-Qal’iy. Al-Janadi
mentions many names of scholars in Mirbat, but he does not mention that there
was a scholar in Mirbat named Muhammad "Sahib Mirbat." Likewise, Ibnu Samrah
al-Ja’diy (d. 587 AH), in his book Tabaqat Fuqaha al-Yaman, mentions the name
of Imam al-Qal’iy as a scholar in Mirbat but does not mention the name of
Muhammad "Sahib Mirbat."
Furthermore, the title Sahib Mirbat is
confirmed not to be a title for Muhammad bin Ali, but rather a title given to
the Ruler of the City of Mirbat, named Muhammad bin Ahmad al-Ak-hal
al-Manjawi. He is a historical figure who lived in the same era and the same
city as the Ba’alwi's Muhammad bin Ali "Sahib Mirbat." Al-Akhal was the last
ruler of the City of Mirbat from the Al-Manjawi Dynasty. Muhammad al-Akhal
Sohib Mirbat was called al-Akhal because he wore kohl in his eyes or because
his eyes had a black mark from birth. Ibnul Atsir, a 7th-century history
expert, mentions in his book Al-Kamil fi al-Tarikh that in the year 601
Hijriah, Muhammad al-Akhal Sohib Mirbat was succeeded by his former minister
named Mahmud bin Muhammad al-Himyari. Meanwhile, the name of Muhammad bin Ali
Ba’alwi was not recorded as anything, with or without a title, whether called
a scholar or not. If he was truly a historical figure, where was he hiding in
the City of Mirbat, to the extent that the scholars compiling history books
failed to record him, while other scholars were recorded in the history of
Mirbat?
The existence of the grave of Muhammad bin Ali "Sohib
Mirbat" today is also something whose authenticity we ought to investigate. Is
it true that the grave has been in Mirbat since the 6th century Hijriah? The
grave of Muhammad "Sohib Mirbat" today features a tombstone with fine
carvings. The tombstone inscription is dated 556 Hijriyah. Is it true that the
tombstone was made in 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
ruling Yemen in the sixth century and prior, from the Al-Manjawih Dynasty and
the Al-Habudi Dynasty, do not have any graves with tombstones featuring carved
calligraphy.
How could an "ordinary person" have a beautifully
carved, expensive tombstone if the king did not? The first king whose grave
featured a beautifully carved tombstone was King Al-Watsiq Ibrahim from the
Rasuli Dynasty, who passed away in the year 711 AH. Even that tombstone was
not produced in Yemen but was imported from India. Imagine that even in the
8th century, the tombstone of a Yemeni king had to be imported from India; how
could the grave of Sahib Mirbat already possess an equally beautiful tombstone
two hundred years earlier? At the end of the 8th century, the Rasuli Dynasty
subsequently brought carving artisans from India to make tombstones. That was
the beginning of many kings, scholars, and wealthy individuals having
tombstones with carvings and engravings. This can be proven by the different
type of stone material used between the carved stone of King al-Watsiq and
subsequent tombstone carvings; the structure and stone type of King Al-Watsiq
originated from the region of India, whereas the stone type of the other
tombstones is local Yemeni stone. The tombstone of Muhammad "Sohib Mirbat" can
be confidently believed to have been made only in the ninth century or later,
coinciding with the construction of the Ba'alwi lineage formally written by
Ali al-Sakran.
The history of Muhammad bin Ali, who was later given
the title "Al-Faqih al-Muqaddam" by Ba’alwi writers, is similarly unrecorded
by contemporary scholars. Muhammad Diya’ Shihab, in the footnotes of Syams
al-Dahirat, mentions concerning Faqih Muqaddam: He is one of the most popular
figures; he was a great scholar who successfully combined knowledge and
practice; he was a scholar qualified for independent reasoning (ijtihad)
because he had reached the highest levels of traditional and rational
sciences. For this reason, he was titled "Al-Faqih al-Muqaddam" (the foremost
jurist) and "Al-Ustadz al-A’zhom" (the great teacher). No scholar prior to him
held a title like his; he was an "Al-Muhaddiths" (hadith expert),
"Al-Mudarris" (teacher/lecturer), a spiritual guide of the Sufi path, and also
a "mufti" (jurisconsult). He was a sanctuary for others. Yet, did the scholars
of his era report on his figure as an extraordinary historical figure as we
know him today, full of exceptional marvels? His figure remains completely
silent amidst the massive volume of scholarly books written at that time. Let
alone in the Islamic world at large, even around Yemen, his name was
unconfirmed during that period. Neither the book Al-Suluk nor Tabaqat Fuqaha
al-Yaman wrote his name. His name appeared alongside the emergence of the
Ba’alwi lineage in the book Al-Burqat al-Musyiqat.[]
ENDNOTES
See the manuscript of the book Al-Turfat al-Garibat min Ahbar Wadi Hadrmaut
al-‘Ajibat, by Ahmad ‘Ali bin ‘Abdul Qadir bin Muhammad al-Muqrizi al-Syafi’I,
p. 7. The author has a pdf version. From the manuscript.
65 See
Muhammad bin Abu Bakar al-Shili, Al-Mashra’ al-Rawi, (T.pn. T.tp. 1402 H.) h.
323 & 331
66 Al-Janadi… juz 2 h. 360
67 Al-Husain
bin Abdurrahman bin Muhammad al-Ahdal, Tuhfat al-Zaman fi Tarikh Sadat
al-Yaman (Maktabah al-Irsyad, San’a, 1433 H.) juz 2 h. 238
68
Al-Husain al-Ahdal…juz 2 h. 238
69 See Al-Ubaidili…h. 248
70
See Al-Ubaidili… h. 147
71 Al-janadi…juz 2 h. 135-136
72
Ali bin Abubakar al-Sakran,… h. 150
73 Abu Bakar bin Abil Qasim bin
Ahmad al-Ahdal, ‚Al-Ahsab al-‘Aliyyah fi al-Ansab al-Ahdaliyyah‛ (T.pn.
T.tp. T.t.) h.4
74 Ali bin Abubakar al-Sakran… h. 151-152
75
Al-Husain al-Ahdal…juz 2 h. 238
76 Al-janadi… juz 2 h. 361
77
Muhammad bin Muhammad bin yahya bin Abdullah bin Ahmad bin Ismail bin Husain
bin Ahmad Zabarat al-Son’ani, Nail al-Hasanain bi Ansab min al-Yaman min Buyut
Itrat al-Hasanain, dicetak bersama Al-Anba’ min Daulat Bilqis wa Saba
(Maktabah al-Yaman al-Kubra, Son’a, 14014 H.) h. 121
78 DNA Test:
Najwa Shihab Surprised to Find Only 3.4 Percent Arab Genes in Her, Kompas.com
https://amp.kompas.com/entertainment/read/2019/10/18/051800310/tes-dna-
najwa-shihab-terkejut-gen-arab-di-dirinya-hanya-34-persen
79
Abdullah Muhammad al-habsyi, dalam Al-Husain bin Abdurrahman bin
Muhammad al-Ahdal, Tuhfat al-Zaman fi Tarikh Sadat al-Yaman (Maktabah
al-Irsyad, San’a, 1433 H.) footnote juz 2 h. 238
80 Ismai’il Basa
al-babani, Hadiyat al-‘Arifin Asma’ al-Mu’allifin wa Asara al-Mushanifin,
(Maktabah al-Islamiyah al-Ja’fari, Teheran, 1959 M)juz 1 h. 526.
81
Umar Rida Kahalah, Kitab Mu’jam al-Mu’allifin, (Mu’asasat Al-risalat, T.tp.
1376 H.) juz 5 h. 178
82 See Ali al-Sakran…h.136 dan
Al-Masyra’ al-Rawi juz 1 h.75
83 Muhammad bin Ali Khirid… h. 131
84
Alwi bin tahir, Uqud al-Almas (Matba’ah al-Madani, Syari’ al-‘Abasiyah, 1388
H.) juz 2 h.104
85 Al-janadi…juz 2 h. 170
86 Umar bin
Ali bin Samrah al-Ja’diy, Tabaqat Fuqaha al-Yaman (Dar al-Qalam, Beirut, T.t.)
h. 220
87 Ibnul Asir, Al-Kamil fi al-Tarikh (]Dar al-Kutub
al-Ilmiyah, Beirut, 1407 H.) juz 10 h. 203
88 See
Muhammad Diya’ Sahab dalam Abdurrahman Al-Mashur, Shmsu al-Dahirat, (‘Alam
al-Ma’rifat, Jeddah, 1404 H.) h. 77.