زیارتگاه منسوب به عمران بن علی

معرفی

منابع

منبع اولیه — تحفة العالم في شرح خطبة المعالم زیاد

Notes: 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 Map and coordinate links were excluded from historical references.

منبع اولیه — مراقد المعارف زیاد

Notes: 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.

منبع اولیه — الإرشاد في معرفة حجج الله على العباد زیاد

Notes: 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.

منبع اولیه — عمدة الطالب في أنساب آل أبي طالب زیاد

Notes: 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.

منبع ثانویه — المزار، فصل من فلك النجاة في أحكام الهداة متوسط

Notes: 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.

منبع ثانویه — بابل في المصادر العربية الإسلامية والشواخص المادية متوسط

Notes: 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.

منبع اینترنتی — books.rafed.net متوسط

Notes: 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.

منبع اینترنتی — www.aljawadain.iq متوسط

Notes: 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.

منبع اینترنتی — books.rafed.net متوسط

Notes: 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.

منبع اینترنتی — books.rafed.net متوسط

Notes: 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.

منبع اینترنتی — h-najaf.iq متوسط

Notes: 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.

منبع اینترنتی — books.rafed.net متوسط

Notes: 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.

منبع اینترنتی — jcoart.uobaghdad.edu.iq متوسط

Notes: 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.

منبع اینترنتی — mk.iq متوسط

Notes: 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.

منبع اینترنتی — www.imamali.net متوسط

Notes: 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.

زیارتگاه‌های نزدیک

شخصیت‌ها و مکان‌های مرتبط