زیارتگاه منسوب به عمران بن علی
IRQ-BBL-0183
معرفی
این زیارتگاه منطقهای در جنوب بابل باستان و نزدیک حله قرار دارد و در میان مردم به زیارتگاه یا مقام عمران بن علی شناخته میشود. عمار محسن الطائی و دکتر علی کریم محمد در پژوهش «بابل در منابع عربی اسلامی و آثار مادی»، مجله مطالعات تاریخ و آثار، شماره ۹۸، سپتامبر ۲۰۲۵، صفحات ۵۹۱–۵۹۲، این بنای زیارتی و کاربرد محلی دو نام عمر و عمران را ثبت کردهاند. این پژوهش جدید برای اثبات حضور زیارتگاه در جغرافیای دینی بابل و رواج روایت محلی سودمند است، اما سند نسبی سده نخست هجری نیست که هویت فرد مدفون را قطعی کند.
گزارش دفن در بابل در آثار متأخر زیارتگاهی دیده میشود. سید محمدمهدی قزوینی در بخش «المزار» از «فلک النجاة»، صفحه ۱۳۷ بر پایه ارجاع کتابهای بعدی، نوشته است که عمران بن علی در نهروان زخمی شد و قبر او در بابل شناخته بود. سید جعفر بحرالعلوم همین خبر را در «تحفة العالم»، جلد ۱، صفحه ۴۵۹ نقل کرده است. شیخ محمد حرزالدین نیز در «مراقد المعارف»، جلد ۲، صفحات ۱۲۹–۱۳۰، از زیارت مردم حله و گزارشهایی درباره مجروحی که به سوی کوفه برده شد، سنگنوشته و آشکار شدن دوباره قبر یاد میکند. با این حال حرزالدین در صفحه ۱۳۰ به صراحت مینویسد که این ادعا را مستقیما در کتابهای آثار، سیره و تاریخ در دسترس خود نیافته است. بنابراین جزئیات نهروان، سنگ و دفن باید به عنوان گزارشهای متأخر زیارتگاهی عرضه شوند، نه رویدادهای مستقل و قطعی سده نخست هجری.
ساختار خود «تحفة العالم» نیز دلیل کتابی دیگری برای احتیاط به دست میدهد. مؤلف در جلد ۱، صفحه ۴۵۹، فهرست شمارهدار بیستوهفت فرزند امام علی علیه السلام را پایان میدهد و مینویسد که آگاهی او در باب فرزندان امام به همین مقدار رسیده است. پس از بسته شدن این فهرست، در جملهای جداگانه از زخمی شدن عمران و قبر او در بابل سخن میگوید و در پاورقی آن را به «المزار» قزوینی، صفحه ۱۳۷، نسبت میدهد. این چینش نشان میدهد که «تحفة العالم» یک خبر متأخر درباره محل دفن را منتقل میکند و عمران را مستقلا در فهرست نسبی پیشین وارد نمیسازد. ازاینرو احتیاط این صفحه بر شاهد دقیق کتابی استوار است، نه بر نظر شخصی گردانندگان پایگاه.
کتابهای نسبی کهنتر و تخصصی نیز نسب مستقلی برای عمران ارائه نمیکنند که بتوان او را با اطمینان با این زیارتگاه یکی دانست. شیخ مفید در «الارشاد»، جلد ۱، صفحات ۳۵۴–۳۵۵، فرزندان امام علی علیه السلام را نام میبرد و عمر، همزاد رقیه، را ثبت میکند، اما عمران را جداگانه نمیآورد. ابن عنبه در «عمدة الطالب»، صفحات ۳۶۱–۳۶۲، فصلی مستقل درباره عمر اطرف بن امام علی دارد و از مادر، فرزندان و درگذشت او در ینبع سخن میگوید. این متون توضیح میدهند که چرا برخی نویسندگان متأخر احتمال آمیختگی نامهای عمران، عمر و عمرو را مطرح کردهاند؛ با این همه ثابت نمیکنند که زیارتگاه بابل متعلق به عمر اطرف است. بنابراین نباید یک شناسایی نامطمئن را با شناسایی نامطمئن دیگری جایگزین کرد.
بنای موجود و تاریخ زیارت محلی به خودی خود شایسته ثبت است. مرکز میراث حله زیارتگاه کنونی، آیین زیارت و فعالیتهای ساختمانی را گزارش کرده است؛ از جمله بازسازی گنبدها در سالهای ۱۹۱۹–۱۹۲۰ و پوشاندن آنها با کاشی آبی در سالهای ۱۹۲۰–۱۹۲۱. این دادههای جدید تاریخ میراثی مکان را پشتیبانی میکنند، نه نسب کهن مورد اختلاف را. ازاینرو رکورد، این مکان را به عنوان مقام منسوب حفظ میکند، روایت متأخر نهروان و بابل را همراه با منابع نامبرده ثبت مینماید و هویت شخص و ادعای دفن را نیازمند بررسی نگه میدارد. برای هویت اثباتنشده کد شخص ساخته نشده و تا یافتن منبع نسبی و دفنی کهن یا تأیید مستقل، دسته سایر زیارتگاهها و مکانهای تاریخی حفظ شده است.
اهمیت تاریخی / دینی
اهمیت اثباتشده زیارتگاه در آن است که بخشی ماندگار از جغرافیای دینی و فرهنگ زیارت محلی بابل و حله است. پژوهش سال ۲۰۲۵ عمار محسن الطائی و دکتر علی کریم محمد، صفحات ۵۹۱–۵۹۲، بنای زیارتی و روایت محلی عمر یا عمران را ثبت میکند و مرکز میراث حله نیز ساختمان موجود و فعالیتهای معماری سده بیستم را مستند میسازد. این منابع حضور جدید و منطقهای زیارتگاه را ثابت میکنند، هرچند به تنهایی برای اثبات نسب یا دفن سده نخست کافی نیستند.
ارزش اصلی پژوهشی این رکورد در آشکار ساختن لایههای زمانی منابع است. بخش «المزار» از «فلک النجاة»، صفحه ۱۳۷ بر پایه نقل «تحفة العالم»، و «مراقد المعارف»، جلد ۲، صفحات ۱۲۹–۱۳۰، گزارشهای متأخر نهروان و بابل را حفظ کردهاند؛ «مراقد المعارف» همچنین اعتراف مؤلف را ثبت میکند که در کتابهای کهن در دسترس خود شاهد مستقیمی نیافته است. «تحفة العالم»، جلد ۱، صفحه ۴۵۹، خبر عمران را پس از پایان فهرست فرزندان امام علی علیه السلام میآورد، در حالی که «الارشاد»، جلد ۱، صفحات ۳۵۴–۳۵۵، و «عمدة الطالب»، صفحات ۳۶۱–۳۶۲، نسب عمر را ثبت میکنند نه عمران مستقلی که به طور استوار ثابت شده باشد. ذکر این صفحات به خواننده نشان میدهد که چرا نسبت حفظ میشود اما تأیید قطعی دریافت نمیکند.
ازاینرو مکان به عنوان مقام منسوب موجود و میراث منطقهای ارزش دارد، اما ادعای هویت شخص و دفن نیازمند بررسی باقی میماند. دسته سایر زیارتگاهها و مکانهای تاریخی، خودداری از ساخت کد شخص برای هویت اثباتنشده و جداسازی روشن درجات منابع، هم حرمت زیارت محلی و هم امانت تاریخی را حفظ میکند.
منابع
تحفة العالم في شرح خطبة المعالم
السيد جعفر بحر العلوم
ج 1، ص 459
ARTICLE ROLE: SECONDARY ATTRIBUTED PLACE. Tuhfat al-Alim 1:459 closes its numbered list of twenty-seven children of Imam Ali and only afterward adds the Imran/Babylon notice, explicitly attributing it to al-Qazwini's al-Mazar p.137. Maraqid al-Ma'arif 2:129-130 supports the later visitation, wounded-man, inscribed-stone and grave-reappearance reports; on p.130 its author expressly states that he did not directly find the claim in the books of antiquities, biography and history available to him. Al-Irshad 1:354-355 lists Umar, twin of Ruqayyah, without a separate Imran; Umdat al-Talib pp.361-362 gives the genealogy and Yanbu death notice of Umar al-Atraf. These works justify caution but do not prove that the local tradition is false or that the Babylon shrine belongs to Umar; the identity remains unresolved. The 2025 academic study, pp.591-592, documents the present shrine and local Umar/Imran tradition, not an early genealogy. The Hillah Heritage Center supports modern site identity and architectural history, including 1919-1921 work, but is not used as proof of first-century lineage. No person, father or mother code was invented. Map and coordinate links were excluded from historical references.
مراقد المعارف
الشيخ محمد حرز الدين
ج 2، ص 129-130
ARTICLE ROLE: SECONDARY ATTRIBUTED PLACE. Tuhfat al-Alim 1:459 closes its numbered list of twenty-seven children of Imam Ali and only afterward adds the Imran/Babylon notice, explicitly attributing it to al-Qazwini's al-Mazar p.137. Maraqid al-Ma'arif 2:129-130 supports the later visitation, wounded-man, inscribed-stone and grave-reappearance reports; on p.130 its author expressly states that he did not directly find the claim in the books of antiquities, biography and history available to him. Al-Irshad 1:354-355 lists Umar, twin of Ruqayyah, without a separate Imran; Umdat al-Talib pp.361-362 gives the genealogy and Yanbu death notice of Umar al-Atraf. These works justify caution but do not prove that the local tradition is false or that the Babylon shrine belongs to Umar; the identity remains unresolved. The 2025 academic study, pp.591-592, documents the present shrine and local Umar/Imran tradition, not an early genealogy. The Hillah Heritage Center supports modern site identity and architectural history, including 1919-1921 work, but is not used as proof of first-century lineage. No person, father or mother code was invented. Map and coordinate links were excluded from historical references.
الإرشاد في معرفة حجج الله على العباد
الشيخ المفيد
ج 1، ص 354-355
ARTICLE ROLE: SECONDARY ATTRIBUTED PLACE. Tuhfat al-Alim 1:459 closes its numbered list of twenty-seven children of Imam Ali and only afterward adds the Imran/Babylon notice, explicitly attributing it to al-Qazwini's al-Mazar p.137. Maraqid al-Ma'arif 2:129-130 supports the later visitation, wounded-man, inscribed-stone and grave-reappearance reports; on p.130 its author expressly states that he did not directly find the claim in the books of antiquities, biography and history available to him. Al-Irshad 1:354-355 lists Umar, twin of Ruqayyah, without a separate Imran; Umdat al-Talib pp.361-362 gives the genealogy and Yanbu death notice of Umar al-Atraf. These works justify caution but do not prove that the local tradition is false or that the Babylon shrine belongs to Umar; the identity remains unresolved. The 2025 academic study, pp.591-592, documents the present shrine and local Umar/Imran tradition, not an early genealogy. The Hillah Heritage Center supports modern site identity and architectural history, including 1919-1921 work, but is not used as proof of first-century lineage. No person, father or mother code was invented. Map and coordinate links were excluded from historical references.
عمدة الطالب في أنساب آل أبي طالب
ابن عنبة
ص 361-362
ARTICLE ROLE: SECONDARY ATTRIBUTED PLACE. Tuhfat al-Alim 1:459 closes its numbered list of twenty-seven children of Imam Ali and only afterward adds the Imran/Babylon notice, explicitly attributing it to al-Qazwini's al-Mazar p.137. Maraqid al-Ma'arif 2:129-130 supports the later visitation, wounded-man, inscribed-stone and grave-reappearance reports; on p.130 its author expressly states that he did not directly find the claim in the books of antiquities, biography and history available to him. Al-Irshad 1:354-355 lists Umar, twin of Ruqayyah, without a separate Imran; Umdat al-Talib pp.361-362 gives the genealogy and Yanbu death notice of Umar al-Atraf. These works justify caution but do not prove that the local tradition is false or that the Babylon shrine belongs to Umar; the identity remains unresolved. The 2025 academic study, pp.591-592, documents the present shrine and local Umar/Imran tradition, not an early genealogy. The Hillah Heritage Center supports modern site identity and architectural history, including 1919-1921 work, but is not used as proof of first-century lineage. No person, father or mother code was invented. Map and coordinate links were excluded from historical references.
المزار، فصل من فلك النجاة في أحكام الهداة
السيد محمد مهدي القزويني
ص 137 بحسب إحالة تحفة العالم ج 1 ص 459؛ ويبدأ البح
Page/Volume: ص 137 بحسب إحالة تحفة العالم ج 1 ص 459؛ ويبدأ البحث في الطبعة الرقمية الحديثة عند ص 145 | ARTICLE ROLE: SECONDARY ATTRIBUTED PLACE. Tuhfat al-Alim 1:459 closes its numbered list of twenty-seven children of Imam Ali and only afterward adds the Imran/Babylon notice, explicitly attributing it to al-Qazwini's al-Mazar p.137. Maraqid al-Ma'arif 2:129-130 supports the later visitation, wounded-man, inscribed-stone and grave-reappearance reports; on p.130 its author expressly states that he did not directly find the claim in the books of antiquities, biography and history available to him. Al-Irshad 1:354-355 lists Umar, twin of Ruqayyah, without a separate Imran; Umdat al-Talib pp.361-362 gives the genealogy and Yanbu death notice of Umar al-Atraf. These works justify caution but do not prove that the local tradition is false or that the Babylon shrine belongs to Umar; the identity remains unresolved. The 2025 academic study, pp.591-592, documents the present shrine and local Umar/Imran tradition, not an early genealogy. The Hillah Heritage Center supports modern site identity and architectural history, including 1919-1921 work, but is not used as proof of first-century lineage. No person, father or mother code was invented. Map and coordinate links were excluded from historical references.
بابل في المصادر العربية الإسلامية والشواخص المادية
عمار محسن الطائي؛ د. علي كريم محمد
مجلة دراسات في التاريخ والآثار، العدد 98، أيلول 20
Page/Volume: مجلة دراسات في التاريخ والآثار، العدد 98، أيلول 2025، ص 591-592 | ARTICLE ROLE: SECONDARY ATTRIBUTED PLACE. Tuhfat al-Alim 1:459 closes its numbered list of twenty-seven children of Imam Ali and only afterward adds the Imran/Babylon notice, explicitly attributing it to al-Qazwini's al-Mazar p.137. Maraqid al-Ma'arif 2:129-130 supports the later visitation, wounded-man, inscribed-stone and grave-reappearance reports; on p.130 its author expressly states that he did not directly find the claim in the books of antiquities, biography and history available to him. Al-Irshad 1:354-355 lists Umar, twin of Ruqayyah, without a separate Imran; Umdat al-Talib pp.361-362 gives the genealogy and Yanbu death notice of Umar al-Atraf. These works justify caution but do not prove that the local tradition is false or that the Babylon shrine belongs to Umar; the identity remains unresolved. The 2025 academic study, pp.591-592, documents the present shrine and local Umar/Imran tradition, not an early genealogy. The Hillah Heritage Center supports modern site identity and architectural history, including 1919-1921 work, but is not used as proof of first-century lineage. No person, father or mother code was invented. Map and coordinate links were excluded from historical references.
books.rafed.net
ARTICLE ROLE: SECONDARY ATTRIBUTED PLACE. Tuhfat al-Alim 1:459 closes its numbered list of twenty-seven children of Imam Ali and only afterward adds the Imran/Babylon notice, explicitly attributing it to al-Qazwini's al-Mazar p.137. Maraqid al-Ma'arif 2:129-130 supports the later visitation, wounded-man, inscribed-stone and grave-reappearance reports; on p.130 its author expressly states that he did not directly find the claim in the books of antiquities, biography and history available to him. Al-Irshad 1:354-355 lists Umar, twin of Ruqayyah, without a separate Imran; Umdat al-Talib pp.361-362 gives the genealogy and Yanbu death notice of Umar al-Atraf. These works justify caution but do not prove that the local tradition is false or that the Babylon shrine belongs to Umar; the identity remains unresolved. The 2025 academic study, pp.591-592, documents the present shrine and local Umar/Imran tradition, not an early genealogy. The Hillah Heritage Center supports modern site identity and architectural history, including 1919-1921 work, but is not used as proof of first-century lineage. No person, father or mother code was invented. Map and coordinate links were excluded from historical references.
www.aljawadain.iq
ARTICLE ROLE: SECONDARY ATTRIBUTED PLACE. Tuhfat al-Alim 1:459 closes its numbered list of twenty-seven children of Imam Ali and only afterward adds the Imran/Babylon notice, explicitly attributing it to al-Qazwini's al-Mazar p.137. Maraqid al-Ma'arif 2:129-130 supports the later visitation, wounded-man, inscribed-stone and grave-reappearance reports; on p.130 its author expressly states that he did not directly find the claim in the books of antiquities, biography and history available to him. Al-Irshad 1:354-355 lists Umar, twin of Ruqayyah, without a separate Imran; Umdat al-Talib pp.361-362 gives the genealogy and Yanbu death notice of Umar al-Atraf. These works justify caution but do not prove that the local tradition is false or that the Babylon shrine belongs to Umar; the identity remains unresolved. The 2025 academic study, pp.591-592, documents the present shrine and local Umar/Imran tradition, not an early genealogy. The Hillah Heritage Center supports modern site identity and architectural history, including 1919-1921 work, but is not used as proof of first-century lineage. No person, father or mother code was invented. Map and coordinate links were excluded from historical references.
books.rafed.net
ARTICLE ROLE: SECONDARY ATTRIBUTED PLACE. Tuhfat al-Alim 1:459 closes its numbered list of twenty-seven children of Imam Ali and only afterward adds the Imran/Babylon notice, explicitly attributing it to al-Qazwini's al-Mazar p.137. Maraqid al-Ma'arif 2:129-130 supports the later visitation, wounded-man, inscribed-stone and grave-reappearance reports; on p.130 its author expressly states that he did not directly find the claim in the books of antiquities, biography and history available to him. Al-Irshad 1:354-355 lists Umar, twin of Ruqayyah, without a separate Imran; Umdat al-Talib pp.361-362 gives the genealogy and Yanbu death notice of Umar al-Atraf. These works justify caution but do not prove that the local tradition is false or that the Babylon shrine belongs to Umar; the identity remains unresolved. The 2025 academic study, pp.591-592, documents the present shrine and local Umar/Imran tradition, not an early genealogy. The Hillah Heritage Center supports modern site identity and architectural history, including 1919-1921 work, but is not used as proof of first-century lineage. No person, father or mother code was invented. Map and coordinate links were excluded from historical references.
books.rafed.net
ARTICLE ROLE: SECONDARY ATTRIBUTED PLACE. Tuhfat al-Alim 1:459 closes its numbered list of twenty-seven children of Imam Ali and only afterward adds the Imran/Babylon notice, explicitly attributing it to al-Qazwini's al-Mazar p.137. Maraqid al-Ma'arif 2:129-130 supports the later visitation, wounded-man, inscribed-stone and grave-reappearance reports; on p.130 its author expressly states that he did not directly find the claim in the books of antiquities, biography and history available to him. Al-Irshad 1:354-355 lists Umar, twin of Ruqayyah, without a separate Imran; Umdat al-Talib pp.361-362 gives the genealogy and Yanbu death notice of Umar al-Atraf. These works justify caution but do not prove that the local tradition is false or that the Babylon shrine belongs to Umar; the identity remains unresolved. The 2025 academic study, pp.591-592, documents the present shrine and local Umar/Imran tradition, not an early genealogy. The Hillah Heritage Center supports modern site identity and architectural history, including 1919-1921 work, but is not used as proof of first-century lineage. No person, father or mother code was invented. Map and coordinate links were excluded from historical references.
h-najaf.iq
ARTICLE ROLE: SECONDARY ATTRIBUTED PLACE. Tuhfat al-Alim 1:459 closes its numbered list of twenty-seven children of Imam Ali and only afterward adds the Imran/Babylon notice, explicitly attributing it to al-Qazwini's al-Mazar p.137. Maraqid al-Ma'arif 2:129-130 supports the later visitation, wounded-man, inscribed-stone and grave-reappearance reports; on p.130 its author expressly states that he did not directly find the claim in the books of antiquities, biography and history available to him. Al-Irshad 1:354-355 lists Umar, twin of Ruqayyah, without a separate Imran; Umdat al-Talib pp.361-362 gives the genealogy and Yanbu death notice of Umar al-Atraf. These works justify caution but do not prove that the local tradition is false or that the Babylon shrine belongs to Umar; the identity remains unresolved. The 2025 academic study, pp.591-592, documents the present shrine and local Umar/Imran tradition, not an early genealogy. The Hillah Heritage Center supports modern site identity and architectural history, including 1919-1921 work, but is not used as proof of first-century lineage. No person, father or mother code was invented. Map and coordinate links were excluded from historical references.
books.rafed.net
ARTICLE ROLE: SECONDARY ATTRIBUTED PLACE. Tuhfat al-Alim 1:459 closes its numbered list of twenty-seven children of Imam Ali and only afterward adds the Imran/Babylon notice, explicitly attributing it to al-Qazwini's al-Mazar p.137. Maraqid al-Ma'arif 2:129-130 supports the later visitation, wounded-man, inscribed-stone and grave-reappearance reports; on p.130 its author expressly states that he did not directly find the claim in the books of antiquities, biography and history available to him. Al-Irshad 1:354-355 lists Umar, twin of Ruqayyah, without a separate Imran; Umdat al-Talib pp.361-362 gives the genealogy and Yanbu death notice of Umar al-Atraf. These works justify caution but do not prove that the local tradition is false or that the Babylon shrine belongs to Umar; the identity remains unresolved. The 2025 academic study, pp.591-592, documents the present shrine and local Umar/Imran tradition, not an early genealogy. The Hillah Heritage Center supports modern site identity and architectural history, including 1919-1921 work, but is not used as proof of first-century lineage. No person, father or mother code was invented. Map and coordinate links were excluded from historical references.
jcoart.uobaghdad.edu.iq
ARTICLE ROLE: SECONDARY ATTRIBUTED PLACE. Tuhfat al-Alim 1:459 closes its numbered list of twenty-seven children of Imam Ali and only afterward adds the Imran/Babylon notice, explicitly attributing it to al-Qazwini's al-Mazar p.137. Maraqid al-Ma'arif 2:129-130 supports the later visitation, wounded-man, inscribed-stone and grave-reappearance reports; on p.130 its author expressly states that he did not directly find the claim in the books of antiquities, biography and history available to him. Al-Irshad 1:354-355 lists Umar, twin of Ruqayyah, without a separate Imran; Umdat al-Talib pp.361-362 gives the genealogy and Yanbu death notice of Umar al-Atraf. These works justify caution but do not prove that the local tradition is false or that the Babylon shrine belongs to Umar; the identity remains unresolved. The 2025 academic study, pp.591-592, documents the present shrine and local Umar/Imran tradition, not an early genealogy. The Hillah Heritage Center supports modern site identity and architectural history, including 1919-1921 work, but is not used as proof of first-century lineage. No person, father or mother code was invented. Map and coordinate links were excluded from historical references.
mk.iq
ARTICLE ROLE: SECONDARY ATTRIBUTED PLACE. Tuhfat al-Alim 1:459 closes its numbered list of twenty-seven children of Imam Ali and only afterward adds the Imran/Babylon notice, explicitly attributing it to al-Qazwini's al-Mazar p.137. Maraqid al-Ma'arif 2:129-130 supports the later visitation, wounded-man, inscribed-stone and grave-reappearance reports; on p.130 its author expressly states that he did not directly find the claim in the books of antiquities, biography and history available to him. Al-Irshad 1:354-355 lists Umar, twin of Ruqayyah, without a separate Imran; Umdat al-Talib pp.361-362 gives the genealogy and Yanbu death notice of Umar al-Atraf. These works justify caution but do not prove that the local tradition is false or that the Babylon shrine belongs to Umar; the identity remains unresolved. The 2025 academic study, pp.591-592, documents the present shrine and local Umar/Imran tradition, not an early genealogy. The Hillah Heritage Center supports modern site identity and architectural history, including 1919-1921 work, but is not used as proof of first-century lineage. No person, father or mother code was invented. Map and coordinate links were excluded from historical references.
www.imamali.net
ARTICLE ROLE: SECONDARY ATTRIBUTED PLACE. Tuhfat al-Alim 1:459 closes its numbered list of twenty-seven children of Imam Ali and only afterward adds the Imran/Babylon notice, explicitly attributing it to al-Qazwini's al-Mazar p.137. Maraqid al-Ma'arif 2:129-130 supports the later visitation, wounded-man, inscribed-stone and grave-reappearance reports; on p.130 its author expressly states that he did not directly find the claim in the books of antiquities, biography and history available to him. Al-Irshad 1:354-355 lists Umar, twin of Ruqayyah, without a separate Imran; Umdat al-Talib pp.361-362 gives the genealogy and Yanbu death notice of Umar al-Atraf. These works justify caution but do not prove that the local tradition is false or that the Babylon shrine belongs to Umar; the identity remains unresolved. The 2025 academic study, pp.591-592, documents the present shrine and local Umar/Imran tradition, not an early genealogy. The Hillah Heritage Center supports modern site identity and architectural history, including 1919-1921 work, but is not used as proof of first-century lineage. No person, father or mother code was invented. Map and coordinate links were excluded from historical references.