This is one of the most famous Ziaraat. I would like to translate an article which is basically in Urdu language* so that those who cannot understand Urdu, take advantage of this.The translation would not be word to word. In that article, they gave a Concise and Detailed answer. I will only be translating Detailed answer. Those people who are interested only in opinions of Scholars who have authenticated this, they may refer to these two links

 

1- Authenticity of Ziarat-e-Ashura: I

2- Authenticity of Ziarat-e-Ashura: II

 

 

Let me start with it

 

Ziarat Ashura has reached us from Imam Baqir (asws) and Imam Jafar (asws). And its subject is in accordance with teachings of Quran and other Ahadeeth, so we cannot say that it is not authentic in regards to its Subject. As regards to its sanad/chain, its basic sources are two books, i.e, Kamil uz Ziaraat by Ibn Qawalawiya & Misbaah ul Mutahajid by Sheikh Tusi. We would first speak of Kamil uz Ziarat.

 

Ibn Qawalawiya writes about Reward of Ziarat Ashura

حَدَّثَنِی حَكِیمُ بْنُ دَاوُدَ بْنِ حَكِیمٍ وَ غَیرُهُ عَنْ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ مُوسَى الْهَمْدَانِی عَنْ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ خَالِدٍ الطَّیالِسِی عَنْ سَیفِ بْنِ عَمِیرَةَ وَ صَالِحِ بْنِ عُقْبَةَ جَمِیعاً عَنْ عَلْقَمَةَ بْنِ مُحَمَّدٍ الْحَضْرَمِی، وَ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ إِسْمَاعِیلَ عَنْ صَالِحِ بْنِ عُقْبَةَ عَنْ مَالِكٍ الْجُهَنِی عَنْ أَبِی جَعْفَرٍ الْبَاقِرِ ع قَالَ مَنْ زَارَ الْحُسَینَ ع یوْمَ عَاشُورَاءَ مِنَ الْمُحَرَّمِ…”.

 

And After that He writes

قَالَ صَالِحُ بْنُ عُقْبَةَ الْجُهَنِی وَ سَیفُ بْنُ عَمِیرَةَ قَالَ عَلْقَمَةُ بْنُ مُحَمَّدٍ الْحَضْرَمِی فَقُلْتُ لِأَبِی جَعْفَرٍ (ع) عَلِّمْنِی دُعَاءً أَدْعُو بِهِ فِی ذَلِكَ الْیوْمِ…”.

Alaqama bin Mohammad Hazrami says that I asked Imam Abu Jafar (asws) to teach me a prayer which I recite on this day…… [1]

 

So the narration is reaching us via 2 narrators, Alqama bin Mohammad Hazrami & Malik bin Ayeen Jahni. And Salih bin Uqba is taking it from both of them, though he is alone in one chain where as in other, he is accompanied by Saif bin Umaira. So We get three chains

 

1- Hakeem bin Daood etc — Mohammad bin Musa al Hamdani —- Mohammad bin Khalid al Tayalsi —— Saif bin Umaira —— Alqama bin Mohammad al Hazrami

2- Hakeem bin Daood etc —- Mohammad bin Musa al Hamdani — Mohammad bin Khalid al Tayalsi —- Salih bin Uqba —– Alqama bin Mohammad

3- Mohammad bin Ismaeel — Salih bin Uqba —- Malik Jahni — Imam Baqir (asws)

 

Now

 

In this 3rd chain, there are two possibilities

a) Ibn Qawalawiya took this from the book of Mohammad bin Ismaeel. And Sheikh Tusi also took it from that book, as we will discuss later. And the chain of Mohammad bin Ismaeel is then mentioned till Salih bin Uqba

b) Mohammad bin Khalid is taking it from Mohammad bin Ismaeel; and then the chain is like this

Hakeem bin Daood etc—–Mohammad bin Musa —–Mohammad bin Khalid —Mohammad bin Ismaeel bin Bazi’i—-Salih bin Uqba  —-Malik Jahni

 

But this seems distant possibility. And what is more strong, is that Mohammad bin Ismaeel’s book was prevalent in that era, and Sheikh Tusi and Sheikh Ibn Qawalawiya took it from that book

 

Let us see authenticity of this chain.

 

Ibn Qawalawiya said in Preface of that book

 

I do not know all those narrations which have been attributed to Ahlubait (asws) in regards to Ziaraat, but those narrations which I have mentioned in this Book, they have been mentioned by our companions in Reliable way. And I have not mentioned any such narration which has been mentioned by Majhool/unknown people from infamous narrators to Imam, or those who are not famous in Ilm-ul-Hadeeth……………[2]

 

Sheikh Hur Amili, writes while explaining trustworthiness of narrators of Ali bin Ibrahim’s Tafsir, He said regarding narrators of Kamil-uz-Ziaraat

And in the same way, Jafar bin Mohammad bin Qawalawiya also testified to the narrators of Kamil, and his explanation in this regard is more apparent than that of Ali bin Ibrahim [3]

 

However, some scholars have accepted this for just the first narrator of this book, that means, the one from who Ibn Qawalawiya took the narration[4]. That was the stance which was later accepted by Agha Khoi [5] though in his previous work, he said that This statement is clear proof that Ibn Qawalawiya took the narration from trustworthy narrators to Imam [6]

 

Let us review the narrators.

 

HAKEEM BIN DAOOD

His tautheeq is not established in books of Rijal, however, he has not been criticised either. Tusi took narration from him in Tehzeeb. [7] Mohadith Noori counted him as Sheikh of Ibn Qawalawiya [8]. On this principle that he has general Tautheeq, and there is no criticism on him, there is no problem in counting him as Trustworthy

 

MOHAMMAD BIN MUSA AL HAMDANI

Some people termed him Weak [9], however, as per Al Khoi, there is clash between tautheeq/trustworthiness given by Ibn Qawalawiya and weakness given by others, making him Majhool/unknown [10]

Mohammad bin Khalid Tayalsi and Mohammad bin Ismaeel bin Bazi’i would be discussed later

 

UQBA BIN QAIS

There is not trustworthiness or weakness mentioned for him [11]

 

MALIK AL JAHNI

It is mentioned in other chains that He narrated from Imam (asws). He is amongst companions of Imam Baqir (asws) and as per Sheikh Mufid, he is praised by Him [12]

 

As per those who consider all narrators of Kamil uz Ziaraat “Thiqa”, the narration would not have any problem. However, for those who follow other, it cannot be termed Sahih as such.

 

Now

Let us mention what Tusi said. He mentioned it with two chains.

 

Let us see what the first chain is alike

روى محمد بن إسماعیل بن بزیع عن صالح بن عقبه و سیف بن عمیره عن علقمه بن محمد الحضرمى «قلت لأبى جعفر: علمنى دعاءً أدعو به ذلك الیوم إذا أنا زُرته من قرب، و دعاءً ادعو به إذا لم أَزَره مِن قُرب و أَومات مِن بَعد البلاد، و من دارى بالسلام إلیه.  قال: فقال لى یا علقمه إذا أنت صلیت ركعتین-

Narrated by Mohammad bin Ismaeel bin Bazi’i from Salih bin Uqba and Saif bin Umaira from Alqama bin Mohammad al Hazrami……………[13]

 

Let concentrate on the following

1- Sheikh Tusi is taking it from Mohammad bin Ismaeel bin Bazi’i. And he mentioned his chain to him in Fehrest in this way

محمد بن إسماعیل بن بزیع؛ له كتاب فی الحج، أخبرنا به ابن أبی‏ جید عن محمد بن الحسن بن الولید عن علی بن إبراهیم عن أبیه عن محمد بن إسماعیل؛ ابن ابى جید، او از محمد بن الحسن بن الولید، او از على بن ابراهیم قمى، او از پدرش و او از محمد بن اسماعیل بن بزیع………………………

.[14]

 

So the chain in reality is like this

شیخ طوسی، علی بن أحمد بن محمد بن أبی جید، محمد بن حسن بن ولید، علی بن ابراهیم قمی، ابراهیم، محمد بن اسماعیل بن بزیع.

 

In short, it can be said that all narrators mentioned in this are Trustworthy, rather more than that, and there is no need to explain their trustworthiness. We would look into following aspects, however we see it in detail

 

Ibn Abi Jayyad

He is teacher of Tusi and Najashi. And it is accepted that all teacher of Najashi are Trustworthy. We find al Khoi saying that chain of Tusi to Saffar except for Basair is Sahih, rather even in this book, it is so as is apparent because there is Ibn Abi Jayyad in it, and he is Thiqa since he was Sheikh of Najashi [15]

 

Mohammad bin Hasan bin Walid

He is a great Shia scholar, and himself counted as Scholar of Jarh-o-Tadeel. Najashi praised him, and counted him as Thiqa [16]

 

Ali bin Ibrahim Qummi

He is thiqa and a grand scholar in Shia world [17]

 

Ibrahim bin Hashim Qummi

He is the first one to propagate ahadeeth of Kufa in Qum, and wrote books as well. [18] Hilli said that Arjah is that one whose words are accepted [19]

 

Now

 

We see the chain from Mohamad bin Ismaeel bin Bazi’i to Alqama

 

Mohammad bin Ismaeel bin Bazi’i

He took narration from two people, who took it from Alqama

Najashi said for him: He was born in a family in which there was Hamza bin Bazi’i. He was a trustworthy and pious man [20].

He says in regards to that narration; My father told me that Mohammad bin Ali bin Hussein said that …………….. We few men were sitting with Imam Raza (asws) and Mohammad bin Ismaeel was mentioned. Imam said that I wish that there is someone like him in you. [21]

Sheikh Tusi said: He was Sahih and trustworthy [22]

He took narration from 2:- Salih bin Uqba and Saif bin Umaira.

 

Salih bin Uqba

He is companion of Imam Sadiq (asws) . [23] Najashi mentioned him without any praise or criticism [24]

Syed Behr ul Uloom said that Since he was mentioned by Sheikh and Najashi, and not said anything about his religion, this is proof that he was Imami [25]

So, if this is point of view is accepted, then his faith is established. But still there is no clear evidence for his Trustworthiness.

However, Mohammad bin Hussein bin Abi Khitaab and Mohammad bin Ismaeel bin Bazi’i took narrations from him, and it is not possible that a person like Mohammad bin Ismaeel, who has praise from Imam (asws), would narrate from a weak narrator. Though Ibn Ghadairi termed him Weak and Exaggerator [26], and Allama mentioned that in his book Marjaan [27]

However, criticism on part of Ghadairi is not given much importance. Al Khoi said that Trustworthiness given by Ali bin Ibrahim cannot be negated by weakness given by Ibn Ghadairi, since we have seen that this book is not proven from him. So this man is reliable [28]

Secondly, Tusi and Najashi have attributed their chains to his book, and this in itself is a proof that he is trustworthy.

 

Saif bin Umaira

He is thiqa and taken narrations from Imam Sadiq and Imam Kadhim (asws). And Najashi and Tusi have termed him Trustworthy [29]

So, even if someone questions reliability of Salih bin Uqba, narrations is still proven due to clear reliability of Saif bin Umaira.

 

Alqama bin Mohammad al Hazrami

He is a companion of Imam Baqir and Imam Sadiq (asws) [30]. His clear trustworthiness is not proven and Sheikh has just mentioned him [31]. However, Syed Ali Barujardi pointed to this mentioning and a narration, and said that He is Hasan [32]

There are certain other supporting evidence which proves his reliability. For example, We would see while examining other chain of Sheikh Tusi that Saif bin Umaira (thiqa) had a dispute with Safwan bin Mehran (thiqa) in regards to Ziarat Imam Hussein (aswS). And Said told Safwan that the recitation which You did after Ziarat, it is not present in the narration of Alqama from Imam Baqir (asws). And he replied that I have heard it from Imam Sadiq (asws).

We clearly see that Saif bin Umaira argued with him from Narration of Alqama, which means he considered him Reliable, else He would not argue by his narrations. And even Safwan did not object to Alqama, rather he said that He had heard from Imam Sadiq (asws) [33]

In other words, Safwan accepted narration of Alqama, the only difference was the recitation of a prayer after that, which is not present in narration of Alqama. But that was heard by Safwan from Imam Sadiq.

Also, Sheikh Kashi mentioned a narration where He and his brother, met Zaid bin Ali, and that proves that they were steadfast in their belief in Imamat of Imam Sadiq (asws) [34]

 

So far, We have seen that chain till now is fine.

 

However, Sheikh Tusi has also mentioned this narration with another chain

 

It is as under:-

Mohammad bin Khalid al Tayalsi—–Saif bin Umaria————Safwan bin Mehran and some some companions went to Najaf. When they had completed Ziarat, Safwan faced Abu Abdullah (asws) {meaning to karbala} and told us: Do Ziarat of Imam Hussein (asws) from here since I have Imam Sadiq (asws) did that when I was with him. Saif says that then Safwan recited this Ziarat which was narrated by Alqama bin Mohammad al Hazrami from Imam Baqir on Ashura. Saif then told Safwan that the prayer which you recited, it is not there in that of Alqama. He replied that I heard it from Imam Sadiq (asws) [35]

What is apparent from this narration is that Imam Sadiq (asws) had recited this Ziarat which was narrated by Alqama, and it was used by Imam Sadiq, from whom Safwan heard with some additions.

 

This is clear that there is no problem in reliability of Saif and Safwan [36]. We will ponder on two issues.

 

1- Chain of Tusi to Mohammad ibn Khalid

2- Reliability of Mohammad bin Khalid

 

Chain of Tusi to book of Mohammad bin Khalid is like this

Hussein bin Ubaid ullah ghadairi ——– Ahmad bin MOhammad bin Yahya A’tar ——-His father —— Mohammad bin Ali Mahboob ————Mohammad bin Khalid al Tayalsi [37]

 

This chain is Sahih, with all Trustworthy narrators

 

Husseing bin Ubaidullah Ghadairi

He is Teacher of Tusi [38] and Najashi[39]. We have already mentioned that Teachers of Najashi are all Thiqa/trustworthy, and need no further proof. So Khoi said: He is teacher of Najashi and his all teachers are trustworthy [40]

 

Ahmad bin Mohammad bin Yahya

His trustworthiness can be prove via following things:-

a) He is teacher of Sudooq, and Sudooq narrated a lot of narrations from him with Tardhi { “رضى اللہ عنہ”}, which is proof of his trustworthiness.

b) He had given permission (Ijaza) and that consider this to be a sign of Tautheeq. So Mohaqqiq Behraini said in this regard:

Being the one who gives Ijaza, it is the highest state of trustworthiness and glory [41]

and he said

Those Sheikh who had given Ijaza, their justice cannot be doubted [42]

c) Many scholars have termed his narrations Sahih and termed him trustworthy. Allama Majlisi writes:

Ahmad bin Mohammad Atar, he is amongst those who gave Ijaza, and scholars termed his narrations authentic. Sheikh Tusi took narrations from him via Ibn Ghadairi and Ibn Abi Jayyad [43]

In same way, Hilli has counted chains of Sudooq to Abdur Rehman bin Abi Najraj and Ubaid ullah bin abi Yaqoob as authentic, and both these chains have Ahmad bin Mohammad bin Yahya al Atar, which proves that He counted him as Trustworthy. [44]

So there is no doubt in regards to his Reliability.

 

Mohammad bin Yahya al Atar

He is teacher of Sheikh Kulaini, and Kulaini took many narrations from him. Najashi praised him a  lot and counted him as trustworthy [45]. Tusi mentioned that Kulaini has taken a lot of narrations from him, and he narrated a lot. [46]

 

Mohammad bin Ali bin Mahboob

Najashi praised him in very high words, and counted him Thiqa/trustworthy. [47]

 

Mohammad bin Khalid al Tayalsi

In order to prove his reliability, we would look into following points.

a)Mohammad bin Ali bin Mahboob, who is famous in Shiite world, took narrations from him, showing his trust in him.

b) The fact that He was counted in chain of those who wrote Usool; and in that we find that Saif bin Umaira and Mohammad bin Maroof, they were narrated by Mohammad bin Jafar razaz through Tayalsi, which shows trust of Razaz on him

Similarly, there is another Asl, that of Raziq bin Zubair that Abdullah bin Jafar Hameeri narrated from Tayalsi. Mohammad bin Khalid narrated a lot from Usool

c) Apart from those mentioned above, a lot of trustworthy narrators took narrations from him like Saad bin Abdullah Qummi, Salma bin Khitab, His son Abdullah bin Mohammad bin Khalid, Alli bin Ibrahim, Ali bin Sulaiman, Mohammad bin Hasan al Saffar, Mohammad bin Hussein bin Abi Khitaab, Mawia bin Hakim [48]

d) Sheikh Tusi writes for him that Many Usool were narrated from him [49]

This sentence has a lot of weightage, and it shows him being Hasan atleast

Also, Keep in mind that there is no criticism on him, even from Ibn Ghadairi. So even this is an authentic chain.

 

So

 

We have seen 2 chains of tusi, and We see that first chain is Sahih, and there should be no doubts on Alqama. And other chain also contains trustworthy narrators, and even Tayalsi is acceptable since many greats have taken narrations from him.

 

So Tusi took 2 narrations, and there are more than two narrators in each category

 

1st Category:- Alqama + Safwan bin Mehran

2nd Category:- Saif bin Umaira + Salih bin Uqba

3rd Category:- Mohammad bin Ismaeel bin Bazi’i + Mohammad bin Khalid al Tayalsi

 

So, if we even doubt Alqama, Safwan removes the issues for us

Same, if we have issues with Salih bin Uqba, Saif bin Umaira compensates it for us

Also, if someone hits at Mohammad bin Khalid, Mohammad bin Ismaeel bin Bazi’i removes doubts for us, making the narration Sahih in Sanad .

.

.

.

===================================

REFERENCES:-

* Urdu article can be found over here. Apart from this, there is Arabic book named, Darasa fi Sanad Ziarat Ashura by Sheikh Jafar Tabreezi, and that can studied here. Agha Qazwini also wrote an article on this issue in Persian language, and that can be read here

1- Kamil uz Ziarat, page 325-328

2- The words are

وقد علمنا انا لا نحيط بجميع ما روي عنهم في هذا المعنى ولا في غيره، لكن ما وقع لنا من جهة الثقات من أصحابنا رحمهم الله برحمته ، ولا أخرجت فيه حديثا روي عن الشذاذ من الرجال، يؤثر ذلك عنهم عن المذكورين غير المعروفين بالرواية المشهورين بالحديث والعلم

My translation would be:- And we must know that I have do not grasp all what has been narrated in this regards or other; but what is present in this book is from Thiqaat/trustworthy in our companions, May Allah have mercy on them. And I did not take narration which have been narrated from different/lonely ones in narrators, who are mentioned as “Not Famous in narrations from Famous ones” in Hadeeth and Knowledge

Kamil uz Ziarat, page 37

4- حول أسانيد “كامل الزيارات” لابن قولويه، (على كل حال، فإن في المراجع و المجتهدين الحاليين من يرى وثاقة جميع الرواة في “الكامل” و منهم – مثل الأستاذ في الحوزة العلمية الشيخ جعفر السبحاني – من يقوي كلام المحدث النوري و يراه هو الصحيح و بالتالي لا يرى وثاقة أحد من رواة الكامل إلا الراوي الأول في كل سند)

5-  اما بالنسبة الى من ورد في أسانيد كامل الزيارات فقد رأينا أخيرا اختصاص التوثيق بخصوص المشايخ المروي عنهم بلا واسطة، و عليه فلم تثبت وثاقة الجوهري أيضا، و أما التمييز في الروايات المشتركة باشتراك الراوي و المروي عنه- على تقدير وثاقة الجوهري- فهو منتف طبعا فتسقط الرواية عن الاعتبار. صراط النجاة (للخوئي مع حواشي التبريزي)، ج‏2، ص 457

Sirat un Nijaat, 2/457

6- فإنك ترى أن هذه العبارة واضحة الدلالة على أنه لا يروي في كتابه رواية عن المعصوم إلا وقد وصلت إليه من جهة الثقات من أصحابنا رحمهم الله

Maujam Rijal ul Hadeeth, 1/50

7- Tehzeeb, 6/41 & Maujam rijal ul Hadeeth, 2/186

8- Khatima Mustadrak ul Wasail, 3/251-256

9- Maujam Rijal ul Hadeeth, 15/207; Rijal un Najashi, p.348; Fehrest Tusi p. 174 & 410

10- Maujam, 17/283. But as We have mentioned that the view of al Khoi changed, therefore this rule gets nullified and we are left with Weakness only

11- Maujam, 11/156

12- Maujam 14/156-158

13- Misbah ul Mutahajid, Sheikh Tusi, p.772

14- Fehrest Tusi, p. 140, number 594. And he also mentioned another chain on p. 155, number 691 which is like this one

محمد بن إسماعيل بن بزيع؛ له كتب منها كتاب الحج، أخبرنا به الحسين بن عبيد الله عن الحسن بن حمزة العلوي عن علي بن إبراهيم عن أبيه عنه و أخبرنا به ابن أبي جيد عن محمد بن الحسن عن سعد، و الحميري، و أحمد بن إدريس و محمد بن يحيى عن أحمد بن محمد، و محمد بن الحسين عنه

15- Maujam, 15/250

طريق الشيخ إليه [ صفار] صحيح في غير كتاب بصائر الدرجات، بل فيه أيضا على الأظهر ، فإن في طريقه ابن أبي جيد ، فإنه ثقة ، لأنه من مشايخ النجاشي.

16- Rijal un Najashi, p. 383

17- Rijal un Najashi, p. 260; Rijal Ibn Daood, p. 237; Khulasa Hilli, p.100

18. Rijal un Najashi, p. 16; Fehrest Tusi, p. 12

19. Al Khulasa, p.5

20. Mohammad bin Ismaeel bin Bazi’i……He was born in house having Hamza bin Bazi’i, and he was in piou people of this group and thiqa………

21- Rijal Najashi, p. 330-332

22- Rijal Tuis, p. 364

23- Rijal Tusi, p. 138

24-Rijal Najashi, p. 200

25- This is because Tusi in Fehrest and Najashi in hi Rijal kept this rule that they would metion those narrators who are Shia, otherwise they will mention that they are not Shia. So those who have been included in this without mentioning their religion, that is counted as Shia, and that in itself is praise. It is written in Fawaid ul Rijalia

فائدة الظاهر أن جميع من ذكر الشيخ في (الفهرست) من الشيعة الإمامية إلا من نص فيه على خلاف ذلك من الرجال : الزيدية ، والفطحية ، والواقفية وغيرهم، كما يدل عليه وضع هذا الكتاب ، فإنه في فهرست كتب الأصحاب ومصنفاتهم ، دون غيرهم من الفرق.

وكذا ( كتاب النجاشي ) . فكل من ذكر له ترجمة في الكتابين، فهو صحيح المذهب ممدوح بمدح عام يقتضيه الوضع لذكر المصنفين العلماء والاعتناء بشأنهم وشان كتبهم ، وذكر الطريق إليهم ، وذكر من روى عنهم ومن رووا عنه.

ومن هذا يعلم أن إطلاق الجهالة على المذكورين في ( الفهرست ) و ( رجال النجاشي ) من دون توثيق أو مدح خاص، ليس على ما ينبغي .

[Syed Behr ul Uloom, Fawaid ur Rijalia, 4/111-116]

26- Ibn Ghadairi, p.69

27- al Khulasa, p.230

28- Maujam, 10/85-86.

أقول: لا يعارض التضعيف المنسوب إلى ابن الغضائري ، توثيق علي بن إبراهيم ، لما عرفت غير مرة من أن نسبة الكتاب إلى ابن الغضائري لم تثبت ، فالرجل من الثقات

29- Fehrest Tusi, p. 140; Rijal un Najashi, p. 189

30- Rijal Tusi, p. 140 and 262

31- Rijal Tusi, p. 262

32- Taraif ul Miqaal, 1/527

وی مي‌گويد: علقمة بن محمد الحضرمي الكوفي، أسند عنه “ق” وهو أخو أبي بكر الحضرمي كما في ” قر ” وكان علقمة أكبر من أخيه كما في حديث بكار عن أبيه عبد الله وعمه علقمة ، وحكى فيه مناظرة أبيه مع زيد، وفيه اشعار على حسنه وكونه اماميا ثابت الاعتقاد

33- Misbah ul Mutahjid, p. 777-781

34- Rijal ul Kashi, p. 416-417

35- Misbah ul Mutahjid, p. 77

وروى محمد بن خالد الطيالسي عن سيف بن عميرة قال : خرجت مع صفوان بن مهران الجمال وعندنا جماعة من أصحابنا إلى الغري بعد ما خرج أبو عبد الله عليه السلام فسرنا من الحيرة إلى المدينة فلما فرغنا من الزيارة صرف صفوان وجهه إلى ناحية أبي عبد الله الحسين عليه السلام فقال…  .

36- Rijal un Najashi, p. 198

37- Fehrest Tusi, p. 421.

38- Rijal Tusi, p. 425

: الحسين بن عبيد الله الغضائري، يكنى أبا عبد الله، كثير السماع ، عارف بالرجال ، وله تصانيف ذكرناها في الفهرست ، سمعنا منه وأجاز لنا بجميع رواياته ، مات سنة أحدي عشره وأربعمائة.

39- Rijal un Najashi, p. 69

: الحسين بن عبيد الله بن إبراهيم الغضائري أبو عبد الله، شيخنا رحمه الله.

40- Maujam, 7/23

41- Mairaaj Ahlulkamal, p. 44

42- Same book as 41, p. 88. Also, Fawaid ur Rijalia, p. 44; al Matbo’o fi Akhir rijal ul Khaqani, p. 192-193

43- al Wajeeza fi Ilm ur Rijal, p. 154

44- see Al Riaya fi ilm ur Daraya, p. 371

45- Rijal un Najashi, p. 353

46- Rijal Tusi, p. 439

47- Rijal Najashi, p. 349

48- Maujam , 17/76

49-Rijal Tusi, p. 441

 

Advertisements