Teachers of Nu’mani
Before we begin our discussion, it is important to mention that what we mean by the term teachers or Mashaykh in this discussion (or other discussions that pertain to Hadith and Rijal), is really extant. Essentially anyone who Nu’mani took ahadith from, albeit one hadith, is considered a teacher. Likewise, individuals for whom a narrator had a reliable chain to their hadith – even if they never met, and are only narrating due to the permission granted to them – are also considered teachers and Mashaykh.
Thus, for teachers of Nu’mani, two lists can be formed. The first list is in the Khatimah of Mustadrak al-Wasail provided by Muhaddith Nuri, and a second list is given by Ustad Ghaffari, the editor and researcher of the published edition of al-Ghaybah, in his introduction to the book.
In the latter list, the name of Muhammad bin ‘Uthman bin ‘Allan al-Dahni al-Baghdadi is added. Adding this name is necessary, however we did mention previously that two errors have taken place in this name. His correct name is ‘Uthman bin Muhammad bin Muhammad bin ‘Allan al-Dhahbi al-Baghdadi.
In the Khatimah of al-Mustadrak, we see a few other new names listed. However, this seems to be a mistake rooted in some manuscript-errors, because we do not see Nu’mani narrating any traditions from them anywhere.
Nu’manis teachers mentioned in Khatimah of al-Mustadrak
New names mentioned only in this list are:
1) ‘Ali bin ‘Ubaydallah (narrating from ‘Ali bin Ibrahim bin Hashim). This name is not seen in any chain of narrations of Nu’mani, and it seems to be rooted in this chain of narration that appears in al-Ghaybah: ‘Ali bin Ahmad from ‘Ubaydallah bin Musa from ‘Ali bin Ibrahim bin Hashim, which due to the dropping of “Ahmad from” and “bin Musa” from the chain, turned into this name.
2) Shaykh Jalil Harun bin Musa Tal’ukbari. We did not find any instance of Nu’mani narrating from him. However, what caused the addition of his name in the list of teachers of Nu’mani? We do not know, but will give two possible reasons:
- a) In al-Ghaybah of Nu’mani, in the path of the author to Kitab Sulaym bin Qays – after mentioning the path to the book – it is said:
واخبرنا من غیر هذه الطرق هارون بن محمد، قال حدثنی احمد بن عبیدالله (عبدالله خ . ل) بن جعفر بن المعلی الهمدانی
And from another path, the tradition was narrated to us by Harun bin Muhammad from Ahmad bin ‘Ubaydillah (or ‘Abdillah) bin Ja’far bin al-Mu’alla al-Hamadani
This new teacher whose name does not exist in the list recorded in the introduction of the published al-Ghaybah is Harun bin Muhammad. We will provide more details regarding him later, but perhaps a copyist error occurred in the name Harun bin Musa, and this erroneous manuscript was with Muhaddith Nuri, or perhaps his name was misread as Harun Abu Muhammad and therefore it was concluded that Tal’ukbari was also one of Nu’mani’s teachers.
- b) In the published version of Kifayah al-Athar, we see a chain as follow:
هارون بن موسی قال حدثنا محمد بن ابراهیم النحوی
Harun bin Musa said: Muhammad bin Ibrahim al-Nahwi reported to us
It is possible that al-Nahwi was altered in some other manuscripts and became al-Nu’mani, or perhaps the narrator himself was understood to be Nu’mani, and due to a swap that could have occurred between the narrator and the teacher, Harun bin Musa Tal’ukbari was deemed one of the teachers of Nu’mani.
The first scenario seems much more plausible.
3) Muhammad bin Ahmad bin Ya’qub (narrating from Abi ‘Abdillah al-Husayn bin Muhammad). Muhaddith Nuri, mentions Abu ‘Ali Ahmad bin Muhammad bin Ahmad bin Ya’qub bin ‘Ammar al-Kufi in the list of Nu’mani’s teachers. Then he says: Apparently, he is the father of the previous teacher, from the family of ‘Ammar al-Sayrafi al-Kufi, and it has been mentioned that Muhammad bin Ahmad bin Ya’qub was one of the teachers of Ja’far bin Quluwayh.
We did not find the name of Muhammad bin Ahmad bin Ya’qub in any chains of Nu’mani. Rather, we only came across the name of Ahmad bin Muhammad bin Ahmad bin Ya’qub. In al-Ghaybah of Nu’mani, two chains are seen as follow:
حدثنا ابوعلی احمد بن محمد ( بن احمد) بن یعقوب بن عمار الکوفی، قال: حدثنی ابی قال: حدثنا القاسم بن هشام اللؤلؤی
Abu ‘Ali Ahmad bin Muhammad (bin Ahmad) bin Ya’qub bin ‘Ammar al-Kufi narrated to us saying: My father narrated to me saying: al-Qasim bin Hashim al-Lu’luyi narrated to us.
اخبرنا احمد بن محمد بن یعقوب قال: حدثنا ابوعبدالله الحسین بن محمد قراءة علیه
Ahmad bin Muhammad bin Ya’qub narrated to us saying: Abu ‘Abdillah al-Husayn bin Muhammad narrated to us, as it was orally transmitted upon him
Apparently in the second chain, in some manuscripts of the book, errors have taken place and the name of the father and son of the teacher of Nu’mani have been swapped around. With this being the case, Muhammad bin Ahmad bin Ya’qub got included in the list of Nu’mani’s teachers. Based on this, the teacher’s name was Ahmad bin Muhammad bin Ahmad bin Ya’qub. It is surprising that the editors of the newly published Khatimah of al-Mustadrak did not make any mention of this point, even though they provide a reference to al-Ghaybah’s aforementioned chain of narrators.
Another point worthy of mention here is that Muhaddith Nuri (ra), while mentioning the names of the teachers of Ja’far bin Quluwayh, also mentions Muhammad bin Ahmad bin ‘Ali bin Yaqub, Abu ‘Abdillah Muhammad bin Ahmad bin Ya’qub bin Ishaq bin ‘Ammar, and Abu ‘Abdillah Muhammad bin Ahmad bin Ya’qub, and gives the possibility that these three individuals were in fact one person.
After referring to Kamil al-Ziyarat, it becomes clear that the narrations Ibn Quluway narrates from the above three names, are all being narrating from ‘Ali bin al-Hasan (bin ‘Ali) bin Faddhal.
We also see the narration of the second chain (without the title Abu ‘Abdillah) from ‘Ali bin al-Hasan bin Faddhal, in Rijal al-Najashi. This also helps us strengthen the view that all three names are actually the name of one narrator.
In the footnotes of one of the published editions of Kamil al-Ziyarat, it has been said that apparently in this chain, the correct name is: ‘Ali bin Muhammad bin Ya’qub (al-Kisa’ee al-Kufi), who was one of the teachers of Ibn Quluwayh.
It seems that this conclusion is based on the fact that ‘Ali bin Muhammad bin Ya’qub, just like Muhammad bin Ahmad bin Ya’qub, narrates from ‘Ali bin al-Hasan bin Faddhal. However, this proof is not enough, and there is no reason for us to assume that the name of this narrator – which appears in four different places in Kamil al-Ziyarat as Muhammad bin Ahmad – is altered from ‘Ali bin Muhammad.
Though, it appears that these two narrators were related, because the complete lineage of ‘Ali bin Muhammad bin Ya’qub – according to Shaykh Tusi in his al-Rijal – is ‘Ali bin Muhammad bin Ya’qub bin Ishaq bin ‘Ammar Sayrafi al-Kufi al-‘Ajali. So their lineage meets at Ya’qub and that would make them cousins.
Abu ‘Ali Ahmad bin Muhammad – the narrator who is the subject of our discussion and who Nu’mani narrates from in two of the chains we mentioned earlier – seems to be the father of Abu ‘Abdillah Muhammad bin Ahmad bin Yaqub.
There do exist contextual clues which show that Ahmad bin Muhammad bin ‘Ammar al-Kufi was the teacher of Nu’mani, and has also been mentioned in books of Rijal.
The resemblance of this narrator’s name with the two chain of narrations of Nu’mani, and as well as both of them narrating from their father, and the title of al-‘Ajali in the chain, alongside the name of Ahmad bin Muhammad bin ‘Ammar (while ‘Ali bin Muhammad bin Ya’qub is also given this title) are some signs that these are all one individual. The result of our lengthy discussion here is that Nu’mani did take ahadith from Abu ‘Ali Ahmad bin Muhammad bin Ahmad bin Ya’qub bin Ishaq bin ‘Ammar (d. 346 Hijri). It seems that Nu’mani’s narrations from him are from the category of a narrator narrating from a contemporary (rather than someone senior).
Teachers of Nu’mani Previously Overlooked
Other than the teachers who have been mentioned in the introduction of Nu’mani’s al-Ghaybah, we have discovered a handful of other teachers as well. Two of them are mentioned in Kitab al-Ghaybah, but they appear in an explanation the author is giving, or after mentioning a second path to a report, and therefore have been overlooked.
1) Harun bin Muhammad narrating from Ahmad bin ‘Ubaydillah (‘Abdillah) bin Ja’far bin al-Mu’alla al-Hamadani, in the path of narrators to Kitab Sulaym bin Qays.
Harun bin al-Dhabyyi Abu Ja’far seems to be intended by Harun bin Muhammad. Khatib Baghdadi – after mentioning this name – says: Father of Qadhi Abu ‘Abdillah al-Husayn bin Harun, and he was from the people of Oman, who resided in Baghdad…he left Baghdad in the year 305 and passed away in the year 335 Hijri.
There is a strong possibility, that Nu’mani acquired ahadith from him in Baghdad. The name of this teacher should be added to the list of teachers of Nu’mani, whom he took ahadith from in Baghdad, and who we have mentioned earlier.
2) ‘Abd al-Halim bin al-Husayn al-Samari. Nu’mani says that in the first book of the Old Testament, a mention of twelve honoured men from the progeny of Isma’il is seen. He adds that a Jewish scholar by the name of Husayn (or Hasan) bin Sulayman reports the names of the Imams and their numbers in Hebrew from the Old Testament, in the city of Arrajan. Nu’mani then transmits this narration from ‘Abd al-Halim bin al-Husayn. After quoting the Jewish scholar, Nu’mani adds:
This speech was read to Musa bin ‘Imran bin Zakariyya the Jew and he confirmed it. Ishaq bin Ibrahim bin Bakhtawayh the Jew and Sulayman bin Dawood al-Noubanjani, confirmed it too.
The names of these two Jews seems to have been taken from the transmission of ‘Abd al-Halim bin al-Husayn al-Samari, and it is possible this whole incident was narrated by Husayn (or Hasan) bin Sulayman the Jew in Arrajan.
Another beneficial point here is that the name of the Prophet (p) in Hebrew appears as Mamad, and the names of the 12-Imams all appear the same way in all manuscripts. Finding the correct verse with their names and those that describe their characteristics is a task for those involved in the studies of the Old Testament.
3) Yusuf bin Ahmad (or Muhammad) al-Ja’fari. In al-Ghaybah of Shaykh Tusi, in a chain linked to Nu’mani, a hadith is reported from this narrator who says: In the year 306 Hijri, I performed the Hajj and I remained in Makkah from that year till the year 309 Hijri. Then I left Makkah with the intention to travel to Syria.
Did Nu’mani hear ahadith from this narrator in Syria? Furthermore, these narrations discuss the evidence and miracles associated with the 12th Imam. Did these narrations exist in Nu’manis Kitab al-Dala’il, or did he orally transmit them from the narrator?
4) An unknown name can also be added to the list of Nu’manis teacher, when he says: Some of our brothers.
After narrating a hadith, Nu’mani says: I came across this hadith with some of our brothers. He would say that he copied it from (the written copy of) Abi al-Murji bin Muhammad al-Ghamr al-Taghlibi.
After including this name to the list of Nu’mani’s teachers, we have names of twenty teachers and one teacher without a name.
More Information Regarding Some of Nu’mani’s Teachers
In line with our previous discussion on Nu’mani’s teachers, we find it appropriate to mention a few extra points about some of them.
a) Most of Nu’mani’s teachers, are well known Imamis. However, we also find some teachers from other school of thoughts as well, such as Abu al-‘Abbas ibn ‘Uqdah al-Kufi (249 – 332 Hijri), a Zaidi Jarudi hadith
Nu’mani refers to him as Ahmad bin Muhammad bin Sa’eed ibn ‘Uqda al-Kufi and narrates plenty of times from him. After narrating from him for the first time, he adds: No one doubts his Withaqa and his awareness of hadith and Rijal.
In the spelling of his name, we see an alif on Ibn before ‘Uqda. The reason for this is because ‘Uqda was not the name of his father, rather it was the title of Muhammad. Thus, ‘Uqda is not a trait (wasf) for Sa’eed such that we omit the alif from Ibn. Rather it is a trait or badal, or ‘atf bayan for Ahmad, and thus the alif must always be written.
b) Nu’mani also transmits from non-Shi’i narrators, such as Muhammad bin ‘Uthman (or ‘Uthman bin Muhammad) al-Dhahabi, whose narrations appear in the chapter: That which has been narrated regarding the 12 Imams from the ‘Aamah
Nu’mani has also begun another chapter with a narration from this narrator. Other chains from this chapter – which are all Sunni chain of narrations – seem to all originate from a narrator, whose name seems to have been omitted and would therefore be defined as Mu’allaq. This narrator is apparently a Sunni.
Nu’mani also narrates from Muhammad bin ‘Abdillah bin al-Ma’mar al-Tabarani and describes him: from the freed-slaves (muwali) of Yazid bin Mu’awiyah and was from the opponents. In the Radhawiyyah manuscript the first ‘min’ (from) does not appear in this statement. Therefore, the word muwali, would mean someone who was an admirer. In the Mar’ashiyyah manuscript, instead of min muwali¸ the verb yuwali is written, and it would give the same meaning as the other manuscript. In the printed version of al-Ghaybah it may mean the same thing, though Mawla (pl. muwali) generally means a freed-slave and it is possible what is intended here is that one of the ancestors of Muhammad bin ‘Abdillah al-Tabarani was a freed-slave of Yazid bin Mu’awiyah.
The school of thought of some of Nu’mani’s teachers, like Abu al-Qasim al-Husayn bin Muhammad Barizi is not clear.
c) One of Nu’mani’s teachers is Abu Sulayman Ahmad bin Hawzah al-Bahili, who narrates from Ibrahim bin Ishaq al-Nahawandi. Nu’mani narrates from him in numerous different ways, such as:
- Abu Sulayman Ahmad bin Hawzah bin Abi Hirasah al-Bahili
- [Abu Sulayman] Ahmad bin Nasr bin Hawzah Bahili
A similar name appears in the introduction to al-Ghaybah, in the list of Nu’mani’s teachers, which is not correct. Shaykh Tusi mentions him in his al-Rijal and says: Ahmad bin Nasr bin Sa’eed al-Bahili, famously known as Ibn Abi Hirasah…his father held the title Hawzah…he passed away in 333 Hijri.
In this name, the “bin” is extra, and it does not appear in the Radhawiyyah manuscript either. It is possible that Ahmad bin Hawzh ibn Abi Hirasah al-Bahili is correct.
In Tarikh Baghdad, it says regarding him: Ahmad bin Nasr bin Sa’eed bin Abu Sulayman al-Nahrawani, he is famously known as Ibn Abi Hirasah.
He narrates from Ibrahim bin Ishaq al-Ahmadi, and Abu Bakr Ahmad bin ‘Abdillah al-Duwri al-Warraq narrates from him. He says: He entered upon us from Nahrawan.
Under the name of Ahmad bin Nasr bin Hawzah, either Bin Nasr is an extra addition, or “Bin” after the name “Nasr” needs to be omitted, or the name of the narrator should be written as Ahmad bin Nasr Ibn Hawzah (with an alif on Ibn).
In the list of teachers of Nu’mani recorded in Khatimah of al-Mustadrak, he has been remembered as Ahmad bin Muhammad bin Hawzah bin Hirasah, where Hirasah is a mistake as it should have been Abi Hirasah. Muhammad is also an error for Ahmad and is added to his genealogy due to a combination of both the correct manuscript and the one with the copyist error. Thus, Bin Muhammad is an extra addition in his name.
Over here we will mention once again that we have already established the existence of Ahmad bin Hawzah in Baghdad, from the narrations of Tal’ukbari (a senior hadith scholar in Baghdad) from him. However, the remark recorded in Tarikh Baghdad – which is a book regarding those who lived in Baghdad, or those who entered into Baghdad – especially when looking at the statement of Abu Bakr al-Duwri who was in Baghdad and makes a comment on Ahmad bin Nasr entering the city – is a much clearer proof for the presence of Ahmad in Baghdad.
d) One of the teachers of Nu’mani is ‘Ali bin Ahmad al-Bandaniji, who always narrates from ‘Ubaydallah bin Musa (al-‘Alawi al-‘Abbasi). We previously mentioned that perhaps he is the same person as ‘Ali bin Ahmad bin Nasr al-Bandaniji, who Ibn Ghadairi deems to have been a resident of Ramlah (a city in Palestine).
A chain exists in al-Amali of Shaykh Tusi, narrating from Abu al-Mufhaddhal (Muhammad bin ‘Abdillah Shaybani), which strengthens this possibility:
عَلِيُّ بْنُ أَحْمَدَ بْنِ نَصْرٍ الْبَنْدَنِيجِيُّ بِالرَّقَّةِ، قَالَ: حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو تُرَابٍ عُبَيْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ مُوسَى الرُّويَانِيُّ، قَالَ: حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ الْعَظِيمِ بْنُ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ الْحَسَنِيُّ، قَالَ: حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو جَعْفَرٍ مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ عَلِيٍّ، عَنْ أَبِيهِ، عَنْ جَدِّهِ، عَنْ جَعْفَرِ بْنِ مُحَمَّد
‘Ali bin Ahmad bin Nasr al-Bandaniji narrated to us in Raqqah saying: Abu Turab ‘Ubaydullah bin Musa al-Ruyani narrated to us saying: ‘Abd al-‘Azim bin ‘Abdillah al-Hasani narrated to us saying: Abu Ja’far Muhammad bin ‘Ali narrated to us from his father, from his grandfather, from Ja’far bin Muhammad…”
Abu al-Mufaddhal Shayabni, a hardworking hadith scholar, was able to acquire a lot of ahadith from various teachers in a few years, and was living around the same time as Abu ‘Abdillah Nu’mani.
In any case, the word al-Raqqa looks really similar to al-Ramlah as it appears in Ibn Ghadairi’s work. Therefore, it is possible that one of these is a copyist error. Although it is completely possible for one to have lived in one city, and have narrated ahadith in another.
Another similar chain is present in al-Iqbal, reporting from Abu al-Mufaddhal bin ‘Abdillah Shaybani: ‘Ali bin Nasr al-Sabandaniji narrated to me (or: to us) saying: ‘Abdullah (or ‘Ubaydullah) bin Musa narrated to me from ‘Abd al-Adhim al-Hasani from Abi Ja’far al-Thani (s) – in a narration – saying: Whoever visits al-Husayn…
‘Ali bin Nasr is possibly the same person as ‘Ali bin Ahmad bin Nasr, whose father’s name seems to have been dropped, or the writer was intending to save space. In any case, the title (al-Sabandaniji) in the chain is a copyist error for al-Bandaniji.
e) Another teacher of Nu’mani who appears in numerous chains of narrations in Kitab al-Ghaybah, is ‘Ali bin Husayn al-Mas’udi, whose name appears mostly without a title, and in some places the title al-Mas’udi is added.
In the list provided by Muhaddith Nuri, after his name, the author writes: Author of Ithbat al-Wasiyyah and Muruj al-Dhahb, narrates from Muhammad bin Yahya al-‘Attar in Qom.
In the list provided in the introduction of the published al-Ghaybah of Nu’mani, it says: ‘Ali bin al-Husayn (al-Mas’udi) – he narrated ahadith to Nu’mani in Qom apparently. In the notes, it has been expressed that this might be ‘Ali bin Babuwayh al-Qummi. Further explanation for this comes later on in a footnote for a chain of narration. The researcher (Ghaffari) places a remark on the following chain: ‘Ali bin al-Husayn reported to us saying, Muhammad bin Yahya al-‘Attar narrated to us in Qom, and says: ‘Ali bin al-Husayn is the famous ‘Ali bin Babuwayh – due to contextual evidence of the phrase “in Qom”. However, in a handful of instances, the title al-Mas’udi is added to his name. I believe, this title was added by the scribes who thought this person was Mas’udi. Ali bin Husayn al-Mas’udi never visited Qom, and no one has ever mentioned such a thing. Other than that, Muhammad bin Yahya was one of the teachers of ‘Ali bin Babuwayh, not a teacher of al-Mas’udi.
We want to mention a few points here:
First, some researchers believe there were two individuals by the name of ‘Ali bin al-Husayn al-Mas’udi in 4th century Hijri. One was the famous historian, the author of Muruj al-Dhahab and al-Tanbih wa al-Ashraf, who was without out a doubt Sunni (though with some Shi’i inclinations), and the other was the author of Ithbat al-Wasiyyah who was an Imami and the teacher of Nu’mani was this person.
If we accept this premise, there is no reason why we should assume the title al-Mas’udi to be an error. Likewise, the opinion of Muhaddith Nuri who assumes this person to be the author of Muruj al-Dhahab will also be invalidated.
There is no doubt that the author of Ithbat al-Wasiyyah was not the famous historian Mas’udi, but there is a view that the name of the author of this book was not ‘Ali bin al-Husayn al-Mas’udi at all. On the other hand, it is not proven that the author of Ithbat al-Wasiyyah was indeed a teacher of Nu’mani. For more information in this topic, refer to the article: Ithbat al-Wasiyyah wa Sahib Muruj al-Dhahab.
Secondly, whether we consider there to be two Masu’dis or one, does this really prove that Nu’mani does not narrate from the famous historian Mas’udi? Three arguments have been mentioned to prove that he does not narrate from Mas’udi the historian:
- No one has ever mentioned the presence of Mas’udi in Qom, though Nu’mani has heard ahadith from Muhammad bin Yahya al-‘Attar in Qom. This argument is not valid, because Mas’udi explicitly states in one part of his Muruj al-Dhahab that he entered Qom.
- This teacher of Nu’mani always narrates from Muhammad bin Yahya al-‘Attar, however we do not see the author of Muruj al-Dhahab ever narrating from such a person. This argument is also not completely valid, because the biographical information on Mas’udi in works of Tarajim and Rijal is extremely brief, and who his teachers were, is not very clear to us. Therefore, the possibility of him having narrated from Muhammad bin Yahya al-‘Attar remains.
- The teacher of Nu’mani, is without a doubt Imami and his narrations are also Shi’i narrations. For example, he has narrations on the presence of the twelve Imams from the beginning of creation near the Throne of God, or narrations on the Imams and their Shi’as in al-Alam al-Dharr (a realm of existence before this world). Mas’udi – a Sunni historian – narrating such narrations is extremely far-fetched.
The last argument – which is also the strongest argument – makes the possibility of Nu’mani narrating from Mas’udi the historian far-fetched, but does not completely eliminate the possibility. This is because narrating a certain type of narration is not evidence that the narrator deems the content of that narration to be correct. Furthermore, Mas’udi the historian does report certain narrations and has written works where the aforementioned narrations would not seem far-fetched at all. We have discussed this topic at length in the article: Ithbat al-Wasiyyah wa Sahib-e Muruj al-Dhahab.
In one of the following articles, we will discuss that the narrations of ‘Ali bin al-Husayn al-Mas’udi in Nu’mani’s al-Ghaybah all seem to be from a book authored by Muhammad bin ‘Ali al-Kufi, and ‘Ali bin al-Husayn al-Mas’udi is simply someone in our path to the book of Muhammad bin ‘Ali al-Kufi. However, this does not prove that ‘Ali bin al-Husayn al-Mas’udi (teacher of Nu’mani) would have known precisely the nature of the narrations recorded in the book for which he gave Nu’mani permission to narrate from. Thus, by this reasoning we cannot say that Nu’mani did not take any narrations from ‘Ali bin al-Husayn al-Mas’udi – the author of Muruj al-Dhahab.
Of course, it has already been highlighted that the possibility of there being two ‘Ali bin al-Husayn al-Mas’udi is there, and it seems more probable that the teacher of Nu’mani is someone other than the author of Muruj al-Dhahab.
Thirdly, we mentioned that the editor of al-Ghaybah, uses the phrase “in Qom” in the chain of ‘Ali bin al-Husayn from Muhammad bin Yahya al-‘Attar, to argue that the famous ‘Ali bin Babuwayh is intended by ‘Ali bin al-Husayn.
Muhaddith Nuri uses the very same phrase from the chain and argues the exact opposite, and says it cannot be Ibn Babuywah, because it does not make sense for ‘Ali bin al-Husayn bin Babuwayh – who was a resident of Qom – to say something like this.
The opinion of the editor of al-Ghaybah is really surprising. We have not come across any explanation as to how the words “in Qom” indicates that the narrator is ‘Ali bin Babuywah al-Qummi. As a matter of fact, the opinion of Muhaddith Nuri is worth considering. We will expand on his opinion a little and then further investigate it.
‘Ali bin al-Husayn bin Babuwayh – as per Najashi – was a senior scholar in Qom, a jurist and a reliable authority in his own time. We do not have any evidence to show that he lived any where other then in Qom. We do know that near the end of his life (year known as Tanathur al-Nujum, 323 Hijri), he came to Baghdad, and this may have been on his way to Hajj. As someone who was from Qom and lived there, it seems far-fetched that while narrating from Muhammad bin Yahya al-‘Attar – who himself was a teacher for many scholars of Qom – he would have pointed out that this transmission is taking place in Qom. Such explanations are generally seen when the place where a narration is being transmitted has certain qualities, and in a scenario when both the teacher and student are from Qom, the transmission of narration would also have taken place in Qom and there is no need to mention such a fact.
By investigating this argument, we say that we cannot use this argument to say for certain that the person intended by ‘Ali bin al-Husayn in the chain of narration is not ‘Ali bin al-Husayn bin Babuwayh. This is because if ‘Ali bin al-Husayn had transmitted narrations to Nu’mani in a city other than Qom (such as Baghdad), then mentioning that he had gotten the narration from Muhammad bin Yahya in Qom, is not something strange.
However, this understanding still helps us in weakening the possibility that this narrator was Ibn Babuwayh.
Subsequently, if with the above explanation we are not able to sufficiently refute that the person in the chain of narrators is Ibn Babuwayh, we can still argue that we do not have evidence to prove that this person was indeed Ibn Babuwayh. Ibn Babuwayh occasionally narrating from Muhammad bin Yahya al-‘Attar does not prove that it is indeed Ibn Babuwayh in the chain present in al-Ghaybah, because we have no evidence to suggest that a narrator by the name of ‘Ali bin al-Husayn, who narrates from Muhammad bin Yahya, was only Ibn Babuwayh.
Fourthly, the editor of al-Ghaybah says certain things in his introduction, which are more surprising and strange than anything which has been discussed so far. He says: It seems that ‘Ali bin Husayn narrated ahadith for Nu’mani in Qom. The chain of narration in al-Ghaybah is proof against this matter, because if Nu’mani had heard the hadith from ‘Ali bin Husayn in Qom, then it doesn’t make sense for ‘Ali bin al-Husayn to mention that he took his narration from Muhammad bin Yahya al-‘Attar in Qom. On the other hand, we have not come across any evidence to suggest Nu’mani was ever in Qom.
The result of this discussion is such that ‘Ali bin al-Husayn al-Mas’udi is a teacher of Nu’mani (and not ‘Ali bin Babuwayh), who acquired narrations from Muhammad bin Yahya al-‘Attar in Qom. We do not know the place where Nu’mani acquired his narration from Mas’udi, and what is probable is that this individual is someone other than the author of Muruj al-Dhahab, and it is likely that it may have been the author of Ithbat al-Wasiyyah.
Students of Nu’mani
1) Abu al-Husayn Muhammad bin ‘Ali al-Shuja’ee is the scribe and transmitter of Nu’mani’s al-Ghaybah, and he read the book for Nu’mani. Thereafter, others read the book for Abu al-Husayn and Najashi was a witness to this. This and all of his other books, according to his will to his son Abu ‘Abdillah al-Husayn bin Muhammad al-Shuja’ee, were handed over to Najashi. The manuscript which was read for Nu’mani, was also in the possession of Najashi.
From this we can see that Najashi and the son of the aforementioned student of Nu’mani had a special relationship. In any case, Najashi who was born in 372 Hijri, would have seen Muhammad bin ‘Ali al-Shuja’ee at an age where he would have been really young and would not have had the capacity to participate in classes of hadith. Based on this, we can deem this student of Nu’mani to have been alive around the year 380 Hijri, and he would have passed away around this year or a bit later than that.
Although, in the beginning of Nu’mani’s al-Ghaybah, it says that the transmitter of this book is Abu al-Husayn Muhammad bin ‘Ali al-Bajali, and that Nu’mani transmitted the ahadith to him in Halab. It seems that this narrator is the same person whom we are discussing, and al-Bajali is a copyist error for al-Shuja’ee.
We also find in the introduction to Nu’mani’s al-Ghaybah that no one other than Abu al-Husayn bin ‘Ali al-Shuja’ee seems to have transmitted ahadith from Nu’mani. However, after extensive researching, a few other names were found in books of Rijal and Hadith.
2) Abu Ghalib Ahmad bin Muhammad al-Zarari. In his famous treatise, he refers to a part of a book in which Du’a al-Sirr was located. Abu Ghalib adds to it and says: Nu’mani narrated it to me from one of the narrators who has been mentioned in the book. From this statement of Abu Ghalib, we can conclude that this part of a book (which seems to have been on the topic of supplications), was authored and transmitted by Nu’mani.
3) ‘Ali bin Muhammad bin Yusuf al-Harrani. He narrates Du’a al-I’tiqad from Nu’mani who has a chain connected to Imam Kadhim (s).
Sayyid Ibn Ta’us narrates a few reports from him (without the title al-Harrani), and it seems this person is the famous Ibn Khaluwayh who has been mentioned in al-Rijal of Najashi as well.
4) ‘Ali bin al-Hasan bin Saleh bin al-Waddah al-Nu’mani. ‘Allamah Majlisi reports from a collection of supplications of Muhammad bin Harun al-Tal’ukbari, which quotes the supplications for the seven days of the week from (Abu al-Fath) Ghazi bin Muhammad al-Tara’iqi (apparently in Damascus, near the end of the month of Sha’ban in the year 399 Hijri), from this narrator (student of Nu’mani), who reports if from the handwriting of Nu’mani.
Perhaps this and the previous narrator, narrated from the same book of supplications of Nu’mani, of which Abu Ghalib al-Zarari possessed a copy of in his own handwriting.
5) Abu al-Marja Muhammad bin ‘Ali bin Talib al-Baladi. Karajaki heard ahadith from him in Cairo, and he remembers Nu’mani as “My teacher, Abu ‘Abdillah Muhammad bin Ibrahim bin Ja’far al-Nu’mani – May Allah have mercy upon him”.
6) Sharif Abu ‘Abdillah Muhammad bin ‘Ubaydillah bin al-Husayn bin Tahir bin Yahya al-Husayni. We were not able to find his name in books of genealogy and Tarajim, but looking at his father and grandfather’s name in books of genealogy, his lineage is as follow: Abu ‘Abdillah Muhammad bin Abi al-Qasim ‘Ubaydillah bin Abi ‘Abdillah al-Husayn bin Abi al-Husayn Tahir bin Yahya – his lineage is famously known as ‘Ubaydali bin al-Hasan bin Ja’far al-Hujjah bin ‘Ubaydillah al-A’raj bin al-Husayn al-Asghar bin Imam Zayn al-‘Abideen.
In al-Fakhri, it has been said regarding his father Abu al-Qasim ‘Ubaydullah: He was in Hijaz, and he passed away in Egypt. Genealogists suggest that that his grandfather Abu ‘Abdillah al-Husayn was in Ramlah and Egypt. Egypt is not too far from Syria and Halab (where Nu’mani was residing near the end of his life), and Ramlah was deemed a part of Syria in those days.
Lubab al-Ansab places the death of his father’s uncle – ‘Ubaydallah bin Tahir bin Yahya – in the year 329 Hijri. It makes complete sense that the grandson of his brother – Muhammad bin ‘Ubaydillah bin al-Husayn bin Tahir – was a narrator from Nu’mani. I also located a narration from him from Nu’mani in one of the volumes of Tarikh Dimashq of Ibn ‘Asakir, in one of the chapters dedicated to Imam Ali (s). I will present the narration as well as its translation to end this article off:
اخبرنا ابوبکر محمد بن عبدالباقی، نا ابواسحاق ابراهیم بن سعید الحبال، نا الشریف ابوعبدالله محمد بن عبیدالله بن الحسین بن طاهر بن یحیی الحسینی، نا ابوعبدالله الکاتب النعمانی، نا احمد بن محمد بن سعید، نا علی بن الحسن التیمی، نا جعفر بن محمد بن حکیم، و جعفر بن ابی الصباح، قالا: نا ابراهیم بن عبدالحمید عن رقبة بن مصقلة العبدی عن ابیه عن جده قال:
اتی رجلان عمر بن الخطاب فی ولایته یسالانه عن طلاق الامة فقام معتمدا بشی ء بینهما حتی اتی حلقة فی المسجد، و فیها رجل اصلع، فوقف علیه، فقال: یا اصلع ما قولک فی طلاق الامه؟ فرفع راسه الیه ثم اوما الیه باصبعیه فقال عمر للرجلین: تطلیقتان، فقال احدهما: سبحان الله، جئنا لنسالک و انت امیرالمؤمنین فمشیت معنا حتی وقفت علی هذا الرجل [فسالته ] فرضیت منه بان اوما الیک، فقال: او تدریان من هذا؟ قالا: لا، قال: هذا علی بن ابی طالب اشهد علی رسول الله (ص) سمعته و هو یقول: لو ان السماوات السبع وضعن فی کفة میزان، و وضع ایمان علی فی کفة میزان لرجح بها ایمان علی
Two men during the reign of ‘Umar bin al-Khattab came to ask him a question about divorce of a slave. ‘Umar stood up while leaning against an object, and approached a gathering in the mosque. There was a bald man there, and ‘Umar asks him: O bald man, what do you have to say regarding the divorce of a slave? The man raises his hand up and shows him 2 fingers.
‘Umar says to the two men: Two divorces. One of them replies back: Glory be to Allah, we came to you to ask you a question because you are the Amir ul-Mu’mineen, and you walked away from us till you approached this man and you were satisfied simply by him signaling to you (with his fingers).
So ‘Umar said: Do you do know who this man is? They both said: No. He said: This is ‘Ali bin Abi Talib, I testify that I heard the Messenger of Allah (p) saying: If you placed the seven skies on one side of the scale, and the Iman of ‘Ali on the other side, the Iman of ‘Ali will be heavier.
Annex: Year of Tanathur al-Nujum
In al-Rijal of Najashi, the death of Kulayni and ‘Ali bin al-Husayn bin Babuwayh has been given as the year 329 Hijri. This year is also known as Tanathur al-Nujum. Some have assumed that this description was given to this year due to the numerous great scholars who passed away (such as Kulayni, Ibn Babuwayh and ‘Ali bin Muhammad al-Samiri). However, this title – as Muhaqqiq Tustari has mentioned – was due to a natural phenomenon that took place in the year 323 Hijri, on the night the Qarmatians launched an attack on the pilgrims at Hajj. On this night, there was a meteor shower that took place and it was thus named the year of Tanathur al-Nujum.
Furthermore, this event took place in the year 323 Hijri, not 329 as Najashi has mentioned. Why did Najashi get the year wrong? In order to answer this question, we need to examine the year ‘Ali bin Babuywah entered Baghdad.
In al-Rijal of Shaykh Tusi, under the entry of ‘Ali bin Babuwayh, it says: Tal’ukbari learned narrations from him and said: In the year the meteor shower took place, I heard ahadith from him, and he had visited Baghdad that year.
In al-Ghaybah of Shaykh Tusi, it has been reported from the son of ‘Ali bin Babuwayh (Abu ‘Abdillah al-Husayn bin ‘Ali bin al-Husayn bin Musa bin Babuwayh) that:
قَالَ حَدَّثَنِي جَمَاعَةٌ مِنْ أَهْلِ بَلَدِنَا الْمُقِيمِينَ كَانُوا بِبَغْدَادَ فِي السَّنَةِ الَّتِي خَرَجَتِ الْقَرَامِطَةُ عَلَى الْحَاجِّ وَ هِيَ سَنَةُ [تَنَاثُرِ] الْكَوَاكِبِ أَنَّ وَالِدِي رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ كَتَبَ إِلَى الشَّيْخِ أَبِي الْقَاسِمِ الْحُسَيْنِ بْنِ رَوْحٍ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ يَسْتَأْذِنُ فِي الْخُرُوجِ إِلَى الْحَجِّ
فَخَرَجَ فِي الْجَوَابِ لَا تَخْرُجْ فِي هَذِهِ السَّنَةِ فَأَعَادَ فَقَالَ هُوَ نَذْرٌ وَاجِبٌ أَ فَيَجُوزُ لِيَ الْقُعُودُ عَنْهُ فَخَرَجَ الْجَوَابُ إِنْ كَانَ لَا بُدَّ فَكُنْ فِي الْقَافِلَةِ الْأَخِيرَةِ فَكَانَ فِي الْقَافِلَةِ الْأَخِيرَةِ فَسَلِمَ بِنَفْسِهِ وَ قُتِلَ مَنْ تَقَدَّمَهُ فِي الْقَوَافِلِ الْأُخَر
He said: This event has been narrated to me by a few people of our city (Qom) who were at the time residing in Baghdad in the year the Qarmatians attacked the pilgrims – which was the year the meteor shower took place. My father (ra) had written a letter to Shaykh Abi al-Qasim al-Husayn bin Ruh (ra) seeking permission to go to Hajj. The response to the letter was given as follow: Do not depart this year (for Hajj). So he asked again: It is a Wajib Nadhar, is it allowed for me to abstain from it? So a response came: If it is inevitable, then be with the last caravan. So he was in the last caravan, and he remained safe. Those who had gone with the earlier caravans were killed.
This statement clarifies that this meteor shower was used to describe that specific year. Therefore, the possibility that the same type of meteor shower took place in two years so close to one another (323 and 329) is far-fetched. Other than what historical books written around the time of this event have to say, the report from al-Ghaybah of Shaykh Tusi – taking into consideration the death of Husayn bin Ruh in 326 Hijri – is another evidence that the meteor shower did not take place in 329 Hijri.
It appears as if the year for when ‘Ali bin Babuwayh entered Baghdad (323 Hijri) and his year of death (329 Hijri) have gotten mixed, and then this confusion got attributed to Kulayni as well.
Although it is also possible that there is another reason why this confusion took place as will be explained. Before this is explained, another premise that may be relevant here are the two dates that have been mentioned for the death of ‘Ali bin Babuywah – 328 and 329 Hijri. It is possible, that confusion between these two years, alongside the explanation we will give in a moment, resulted in referring to the year 329 Hijri as Tanathur al-Nujum.
In al-Rijal of Najashi, quoting Kaluzani, it says: I acquired permission to narrate from ‘Ali bin al-Husayn bin Babuywah in the year 328 Hijri (thaman wa ‘ishrin wa thalatha-mi’a) when he visited Baghdad. From the wordings, it seems clear that Ibn Babuwayh only came to Baghdad once. Thus in this statement, thalath has turned into thaman due to a copyist error.
The meteor shower took place in the year 323 (not 329 Hijri), and ‘Ali bin Babuywah came to Baghdad in this year (not in the year 328 Hijri). Perhaps when he entered Baghdad, Nu’mani had not yet come to Baghdad and that is why he does not narrate any hadith from him.
 In the first article, we attempted to determine the time-period al-Ghaybah of Nu’mani was compiled, and we concluded it was between the years 336 and 342 Hijri. Better contextual clues exist that can help us determine an even more precise time-period for when the book was written, and this will be discussed in the following article.
 Mustadrak al-Wasail of Muhaddith Nuri, Volume 21, Page 267-270. However, the author himself has left room for discussion over some teachers, like Tal’ukbari.
 Kitab al-Ghaybah of Nu’mani, Introduction by Ustad Ghaffari, Page 14-15
 In a chain of narrators present in Kitab al-Ghaybah of Shaykh Tusi, Page 127, where a report is being transmitted from Nu’mani and the title of this narrator appears as al-Dhahabi. It should also be mentioned that Ustad Ali Akbar Mahdipour compared his own manuscript copy of al-Ghaybah of Nu’mani with a manuscript located at the Central Library of Astan Quds Razavi (#1754, 577 Hijri) and as well as a manuscript located at the Mar’ashi Najafi library. In this article we will refer to these two manuscripts as the Radhawiyyah and Mar’ashiyyah script. In these two manuscripts, the name of the narrator has come correctly as al-Dhahabi.
 Kifayah al-Athar, Page 177. Though in the lithograph edition of Kifayah al-Athar and as well as in Bihar al-Anwar, Volume 36, the name appears as Muhammad bin Isma’il al-Nahwi, therefore we stated that the first possibility is more plausible.
 This addition is from the Radhawiyyah and Mar’ashiyyah manuscript, and it seems Muhaddith Nuri also had a similar manuscript with him
 Rijal al-Najashi, Page 146, Entry #378
 Kamil al-Ziyarat, Saduq Publishers, researched by Behrad Ja’fari, under the guidance of Ustad Ghaffari
 Kamil al-Ziyarat, Chapter 81, Hadith #3
 al-Rijal of Shaykh Tusi, Page 431, Entry #6182
 On one occasion in Kamil al-Ziyarat, we see the name ‘Ali before Yaqub in the lineage of Abu ‘Abdillah Muhammad. Since this is the only odd instance this name appears, it does not seem to be correct
 Rijal al-Najashi, Page 95, Entry #236; al-Fihrist of Shaykh Tusi, Page 70, Entry #88; al-Rijal of Shaykh Tusi, Page 416, Entry #6017
 Rijal al-Najashi, Page 316. Ahmad bin Muhammad bin ‘Ammar narrates from his father Qasim bin Hashim Lu’luyi which is similar to the path present in al-Ghaybah of Nu’mani, Page 90. Therefore, the editor of the published version of al-Ghaybah considers these two names to be of one individual.
 A narration of Abu ‘Ali Ahmad bin Muhammad bin ‘Ammar al-Kufi from his father, from ‘Ali bin al-Hasan bin Faddhal in Tahdheeb ul-Ahkam, Volume 6, Page 24, Hadith #52; and likewise in Iqbal ul-A’mal, Page 468 can be seen. Furthermore, a narration from Ahmad bin Muhammad bin ‘Ammar from his father can be seen in Qisas ul-Am’biya of Rawandi (Page 80)
 Khasais al-A’immah of Sayyid Radhi, Page 72
 In al-Istinsar fi al-Nass ‘ala al-A’immah al-Athar of Shaykh Karajaki, Page 10, narrating from Nu’mani who is reporting from this narrator (Ahmad) from Kitab Sulaym bin Qays, in which the name Harun bin Muhammad is dropped.
 His entry appears in Tarikh Baghdad, Volume 8, Page 729, Entry #4196 as al-Husayn bin Harun bin Muhammad, Abu ‘Abdillah al-Dhabbiyy (320 – 398). His genealogy is given till Dhabbah bin Udd. Therefore, in al-Yaqin, Page 168 when his name appears as al-Qadhi Abu ‘Abdillah al-Husayn bin Harun bin Muhammad al-Seeni, al-Seeni is a copyist error for al-Dhabbiyy.
 Tarikh Baghdad, Volume 16, Page 49, Entry #7327
 See Part 1 of this article series
 Nu’mani uses the verb aqra’ani, which implies ‘Abd al-Halim bin al-Husayn al-Samari gave the text to Nu’mani, and Nu’mani recited the text back to al-Samari and subsequently got possession to it
 In Bihar al-Anwar, Volume 48, Page 22, the name of this narrator appears as Ibn al-Murji bin Muhammad bin al-Ma’mar al-Tha’labi. The Radhawiyyah and Mar’ashiyyah though have the addition of “bin” before al-Ghamr.
 In some manuscripts, instead of al-nussab, al-thiqat has appeared which is a copyist error, especially when we take the meaning of muwali to be an admirer.
 Mawla has many different meanings, but in books of Rijal and in chains of narrators it usually means a slave who was freed. The reason why this term is used in books of Rijal is because a freed slave or the children of a freed slave would continue to have some relationship after their freedom, with the person who freed them and his tribe.
 In the printed al-Ghaybah, instead of Barizi – as it appears in the Radhawiyyah and Mar’ashiyyah script – Bawari has been written.
 Aqa Mahdipour in his manuscript puts (bin Nasr) in brackets. I don’t know if this was due to him relying on a different manuscript or if it is a change he made based on his Ijtihad?
 al-Rijal of Shaykh Tusi, Page 409, Entry # 5950
 The same name can be seen without the “bin” in al-Ghayah of Nu’mani, Page 57, Hadith #1
 This opinion is based on the presumption that we take “Ibn Abi Hirasah” as Tabi’ for Ahmad and not a Wasf for Hawzah – grammatically speaking, just like we did in Ahmad bin Muhammad bin Sa’eed Ibn ‘Uqdah. Another example for this discussion is in the name of Muhammad bin ‘Ali ibn al-Hanafiyyah, where generally the alif from the “Ibn” before “al-Hanafiyyah” is removed. However, since al-Hanafiyyah is a trait given to him due to his mother – and it is not the name of his father ‘Ali (s) – thus writing alif on “Ibn” is necessary.
 al-Ahmadi is a copyist error for al-Ahmari. In Tarikh Baghdad, under the entry of his name it says: He was a scholar from amongst the Shi’i scholars. The researcher of the book considers this statement to be regarding Ibrahim bin Ishaq, however it is apparent that this statement is referring to whom the entry is for, i.e. Ahmad bin Nasr.
 He was one of the teachers in Baghdad, and according to Tarikh Baghdad, Volume 5, Page 386, Entry #2221 he was born in the year 299 Hijri, and died in 379 Hijri.
 Tarikh Baghdad, Volume 6, Page 410, Entry #2900
 His name appears both with the title al-‘Alawi and al-‘Abbasi together, and once just as al-‘Abbasi. See page 52, 155, and 176, 284 and 289 of Nu’mani’s al-Ghaybah.
 It is possible that this is ‘Ubaydullah bin Musa al-‘Alawi al-‘Abbasi. However, since their teachers don’t seem to be same, and we do not find any proof that ‘Ubaydullah bin Musa al-Ruyani was an ‘Allawi, we cannot claim this to be the case.
 See al-Amali of Shaykh Tusi, Page 589, Hadith #1222
 According to Khatib Baghdadi in his Tarikh Baghdad, the first time Abu al-Mufaddhal Shaybani (297 – 387) heard narrations, was in 306 Hijri. Also refer to al-Amali of Shaykh Tusi, Page 510, Hadith #1116. Although, in al-Amali, Page 609, Hadith #1257, there is a narration from Abu al-Mufaddhal taking place in the year 304 Hijri. In any case, the acquisition of hadith by Abu al-Mufaddhal Shaybani in the years 307, 308, 310, 314, 316, 318, 321, 324 and 328 (although this last year has room for thought, see al-Amali of Shaykh Tusi, Page 641, Hadith # 1335 and compare it with Page 577, Hadith # 1191; Page 590, Hadith # 1225 where instead of the year 328, 318 has been mentioned) in different gatherings of Shaykh Tusi have been mentioned. Based on this, he was living around the same time as Nu’mani.
 Refer to al-Ihtijaj, Volume 2, Page 607:
حدث الشيخ أبو علي الحسن بن معمر- محمد خ . ل – الرقي بالرملة
 Iqbal al-A’mal, Page 212. However, in Bihar al-Anwar, Volume 95, Page 166, his title is mistakenly written as al-Barsaji.
 Muruj al-Dhahab (Revised by Charles Pellat), Volume 2, Page 124 – thanks to Ustad Jalali on pointing this out in his introduction to al-Imamah wa al-Tabsirah min al-Hayrah of Ibn Babuwayh, Page 52 (where he references Volume 1, page 435 of Muruj al-Dhahab, Published by Dar al-Andalus).
 Ithbat al-Wasiyyah wa Sahib-e Muruj al-Dhahab
 Refer to the annex at the end of this article
 After looking at this explanation, we can say that one cannot give a response to this explanation of Muhaddith Nuri by referencing the quote of Shaykh Saduq where he says: Hamzah bin Muhammad ‘al-Allawi narrated a hadith to me in Qom (See Ma’ani al-Akhbar, Page 301, and ‘Uyun al-Akhbar al-Ridha, Volume 1, Page 227), because Saduq is deemed a resident of Rey, and likewise Shaykh Tusi was in Khorasan (see Rijal al-Najashi, Page 389, Entry #1049) and travelled to different cities and was not a resident of Qom. We also don’t know whether his teacher was a resident of Qom or not. Therefore, comparing the narration of Shaykh Saduq from Hamzah bin Muhammad with the narration of ‘Ali bin al-Husayn from Muhammad bin Yahya al-‘Attar is not a good comparison.
 In al-Ghaybah of Nu’mani, Page 97, it seems that the name of the scribe of the book, Abu al-Hasan al-Shuja’ee is a copyist error for Abu al-Husayn al-Shuja’ee
 Like Ahmad bin ‘Abdun, known as Ibn Hashir and Abu al-Faraj Muhammad bin ‘Ali Qina’ee
 al-Rijal of Najashi, Page 383, Entry #1043
 Refer to magazine of Nur-e ‘Ilm, Year 1, Issue #11 and 12, article on Abu al-‘Abbas Najashi wa ‘asr-e vey
 A similar occurrence can be seen under the entry of Harun bin Musa Tal’ukbari (d. 385 Hijri) in al-Rijal of Najashi, Page 439, Entry #1184. Also see page 377, Entry #1028
 al-Ghaybah of Nu’mani, Page 18. Although this text does not appear in the Radhawiyyah manuscript.
 Regarding Du’a al-Sirr, refer to Misbah al-Mutahajjid, Page 95, 235 and 244. As well as Balad al-Amin, Page 28 and 64
 Reslah of Abu Ghalib al-Zarari, Page 17
 Mahj al-Da’awat, Page 233 – quoting from it in Bihar al-Anwar, Volume 94, Page 182, Hadith #11, alongside giving a reference from Kitab al-‘Atiq al-Gharawi. For Majmu’ Da’awat of Abu al-Husayn Muhammad bin Harun Tal’ukbari, see al-Dhari’ah, Volume 20, Page 54. In Bihar al-Anwar, the name of Nu’mani appears as Muhammad bin ‘Abdillah bin Ibrahim al-Nu’mani, whereas in Mahj al-Da’awat the title Abu ‘Abdillah appears in the beginning of the name. It seems that ‘bin ‘Abdillah’ is a copyist error for Abu ‘Abdillah and there was an attempt to reconcile the variations in manuscripts. In any case, ‘Bin ‘Abdullah” is extra to the name.
 Falah al-Sa’il of Ibn Ta’us, Page 49, 245 and 288
 al-Rjial of Najashi, Page 268, Entry #669; and Page 355, Entry #669
Bihar al-Anwar, Volume 90, Page 142-144. Also volume 86, Page 202; Volume 94, page 190 quoting from Kitab al-‘Atiq al-‘Gharawi
 His narration from Nu’mani is present in Kanz al-Fawa’id, Volume 1, Page 352, and in Mustadrak, Volume 13, Page 217. In these two books, instead of Talib, his name has been altered to Abi Talib, which is a mistake.
 Kanz al-Fawa’id, Volume 1, Page 352
 His name appears in al-Fakhri of al-Marwazi, Page 61; and Shajarah Mubaraka, Page 51
 Tahzeeb ul-Ansab, Page 233; Shajarah Mubaraka, Page 149; Muntaqal al-Talbiyyah Page 146 and 300; al-Fakhri, Page 58 and 61; al-Aseeli, page 309; ‘Umdah al-Talib, Page 327; Tuhfa al-Azhar, Page 198; Lubab al-Ansab, Page 616; Ansab Sharif Abi al-Hasan Futuni, Page 145 of a handwritten manuscript which is with Ayatullah Zanjani – the grandfather of the author of this article.
 Lubab al-Ansab, Page 616
 Tarikh Madina Dimashq, Volume 42, Page 340-341
 Ibn ‘Asakir writes after mentioning this narration that the name of ‘Abdullah bin al-Huway’ah bin Sabra al-Abdari (whose name has been misspelled as ‘Abdullah bin Dhabi’ah al-‘Abdi in some chains of narrations) has been dropped from this chain.
 al-Rijal of Najashi, Page 2161, Entry #684; and Page 377, Entry #1026
 Bihar al-Anwar, Volume 61, Page 233
 Qamus al-Rijal, Volume 7, Page 437
 al-Kamil of Ibn Athir, Volume 8, page 333; al-Tanbih wa al-Ashraf, page 338
 al-Rijal of Shaykh Tusi, Page 432, Entry #6191
 al-Ghaybah of Shaykh Tusi, Page 322, Entry #270
 al-Rijal of Najashi, Page 262
Sayyid Ali studied in the seminary of Qom from 2012 to 2021, while also concurrently obtaining a M.A in Islamic Studies from the Islamic College of London in 2018. In the seminary he engaged in the study of legal theory, jurisprudence and philosophy, eventually attending the advanced kharij of Usul and Fiqh in 2018. He is currently completing his Masters of Education at the University of Toronto and is the head of a private faith-based school in Toronto, as well as an instructor at the Mizan Institute and Mufid Seminary.
1 thought on “Sources of Nu’mani’s al-Ghaybah – Part 2”
Thank you very mach