The Identification of this source. account of the conversion of ‘Imrán ibnu’l-Ḥuṣayn is borrowed from this work, (A. f22b. I. i. 7). The identity of the author of this work is conjectural; a work of the same title is recorded in the Fihrist (p. 69) under the list of the works of the son of the ancient Commentator, Abu’l-Mundhir Hishám b. Muḥammad b. as-Sá’ib b. Bishr al-Kalbí; moreover in the Kitábu’l-Aṣnám* (p. 63) of Hishám Ibnu’l-Kalbí, edited by Aḥmad Zakí Pásha, the title of this book appears in the list of his works.

Besides Indirect indebtedness of al-‘Awfí. this we have reason to assume an indirect acquaintance of al-‘Awfí with the elder Ibnu’l-Kalbí’s* Tafsír, as there are two references to this Commentary on the Qur’án (iii, 16; xxv, 40), from which two anecdotes are borrowed. (1). The Prophet and the two rabbis. (A. f26b. I. i. 32). Cf. Ma‘álimu’t-Tanzíl p. 150. (2). Aṣḥábu’r-Rass and how the ‘Anqá’-i-mughrib* became extinct. (D. f93a. IV. xxii. 2067). Unfortunately this work is also lost, but extracts of it are found in the works of az-Zamakhsharí, aṭ-Ṭabarí and al-Baghawí.

This The Asrár as a source established from internal evi­dence. is one of those sources, though not mentioned directly, yet established com­pletely after an investigation of the anecdotes concerning the Shaykh Abú Sa‘íd b. Abi’l-Khayr of Mayhana, in the Jawámi‘, and comparison with the Asráru’t-Tawḥid of Muḥammad ibnu’l-Munawwar, who composed it from an earlier work, identified as the Ḥálát wu Sukhunán-i-Shaykh Abú Sa‘íd ibn Abi’l-Khayr, by V. A. Zhukovski, the editor of both. The date of the composition of this work is not precisely known, but it is certain that it was written at the end of the twelfth century somewhere about 1200 A. D.. Dr. R. A. Nicholson in his masterly monograph on the life and activities of the Shaykh (published in his “Studies in Islamic Mysticism”) has drawn an actual portrait of him, and unveiled the myths connected with his personality. Nothing more can be added to it from the anecdotes given in the Jawámi‘, because all the eight anecdotes selected by al-‘Awfí are directly taken from the Asrár (chapter II) in which the Shaykh is shown in the marvellous surroundings, successful display of telepathic powers and glorious achievements, which are attributed to the last period of his life (i. e. circa 400-440 A. H. = 1009-1049 A. D.).

In Anecdotes borrowed. the Table of Contents (Pt. I. ch. iii. anecdotes 110—118) parallel references and descriptive titles of the anecdotes of the Shaykh are fully given with a view to establish the authenticity of al-‘Awfí; here a few points about his method of utilisation of this source will be sketched.

The Comparison of ‘Aṭṭár and ‘Awfí’s method of utilisation of this source. third chapter, which contains the anecdotes of the saints, is remarkable for its sources; as they run parallel to those used by his famous contemporary Farídu’d-Din ‘Aṭṭár in his Tadhkiratu’l-Awliyá’. The Risála of al-Qushayrí forms the main basis of both, but ‘Aṭṭár made a very free use of it, whereas al-‘Awfí in relating stories of the older Ṣúfís kept as far as possible to the original. Coming to Abú Sa‘íd, al-‘Awfí selected a unique work of its kind, abridged the longer anecdotes from the Asrár, and presented them as accurately as possible in his Jawámi‘. On the other hand, ‘Aṭṭár most probably had more than one source in this case also, and so his eclectic method did not allow him to be very faithful to the original. E. g. the anecdote of a deserted traveller and the tiger-ride-miracle of the Shaykh common to the Tadhkira (II, pp. 331-2) and the Jawámi‘ (A. f44b. I. iii. 110), which is evidently taken from the Asrár (pp. 76-84) where it is told at a much greater length than in either of these, will illustrate the point, and a comparison of both with the original passage will show the greater accuracy of al-‘Awfí, in the utilisation of this source, than of ‘Aṭṭár.

This The anecdote borrowed from this source. extremely rare work is mentioned only once, as the source of the anecdote of the early appearance of Manes in the reign of Bahrám b. Hurmuz, the Persian King. (A. f70a. I. iv. 163).

The Determination of the author­ship of this work. name of the author is not given, but it is the same work which al-‘Awfí has himself mentioned in the Lubáb, (I, pp. 91-2) in the biography of its author, Ẓahíru’d-Dín Muḥammad b. ‘Alí as-Samarqandí al-Kátib, along with his other works, with a special note about the recasting of the Sindbád-náma. But there is a difference in the title of the work and the name of the author, only so far, that in the Ms. of the Sindbád-náma [Or. 255 Br. Mus.] f11b, the author mentions his own name as Bahá’u’d-Dín Muḥammad b. ‘Alí b. Muḥammad b. ‘Umar (or Ḥasan) aẓ-Ẓahírí al-Kátib as-Samarqandí, and in the Ms. of A‘rádhu’r-Riyása preserved in the Library of Leyden [Codex 904 Warn.], the title of the work along with the full name of its author is mentioned as the A‘rádhu’s-Siyása fí Aghrádhi’r-Riyása, without his Laqab, Bahá’u’d-Dín, and with Ḥasan instead of ‘Umar as his great-grandfather, which is undoubtedly correct.

This Dedicated to Mas‘ud b. ‘Alí. work has been utilised by Prof. Barthold in his “Turkistán”, and the following is the account given by him in person, for the benefit of the present writer. The Qilij Ṭamgháj Khán, whom Mírzá Muḥammad of Qazwín, in connection with the account of the Sindbád-náma (Lubáb I, pp. 318-9) has identified with the “last but one ruler of the Ílak Kháns” viz., Ibráhím b. al-Ḥusayn, is not the same person. He is Ruknu’d-Dín Mas‘úd b. ‘Alí who ruled in Samarqand between 1163-1178 A. D.; and whom Ibráhím b. al-Ḥusayn succeeded immediately (1178/9-1200 A. D.).

Ethé Date of com­position uncertain. in the Grundriss der Iranischen Philologie, (Vol. II. p. 258), gives the date of the composition of this work as about 552 A. H. = 1157 A. D. i. e. 6 years earlier than the accession of Mas‘úd b. ‘Alí; whatever the date of the composition may be, it is certain that it was written at about the same time as the Chahár Maqála, and it was a rare work even in the days of al-‘Awfí, who says in the Jawámi‘ (A. ff. 70) that he has read it, and describes it in the following manner in the Lubáb, (I, p. 91-2):

<Arabic> The nature of its contents.

Although Reason for including these works in the Conspectus. the works enumerated below do not form part of the direct sources of al-‘Awfí, they have attracted the attention of ancient and modern writers, and on account of their importance a description of them is given here. As they are mentioned in one anecdote on the life and doctrines of Manes (D. f219b. III. viii. 1622), it will be convenient to ignore the alphabetical order.

The al-‘Awfí indebted to al-Bírúní for this account. direct source of this anecdote appears to be the Átháru’l-Báqiya, where these very five works are mentioned, and al-Bírúní’s source for this account is different from that of Ibnu’n-Nadím*, al-Mas‘údí*, al-Ya‘qúbí*, or ash-Shahristání*, who are the most important Islamic authorities on the subject.

a.	The Injíl, or the Gospel.
b.	The Kitábu’sh-Sháburqán, (or The Sháhpuhrakán or Sháhpuriyyán**).
c.	The Kanzu’l-Iḥyá, (or Sifru’l-Iḥyá or Kanzu’l-Akhbár**).
d.	The Sifru’l-Jabábira, (or Sifru’l-Jáyiza**).
e.	The Sifru’l-Asrár, (or the Sifru’l-Asfár).

a. Short notes on these five works of Manes	The Injíl*, or the Gospel, about which Flügel* is silent, contained according to al-Bírúní 22 Gospels, “which he arranged after the letters of the alphabet: twenty-two letters.” (In Syriac, the number of letters is 22, but in the Fihrist (p. 17) the letters of Manes are said to exceed the Arabic alphabet.) Further, al-Bírúní mentions a few doctrines from the Gospels, which are the cardinal principles of his religion. (pp. 207-8.)
b.	The Kitábu’sh-Sháburqán*, which is the only one written in Persian, as its title and object indicate, is characterised by al-Bírúní, who shows an intimate knowledge of the work, as “of all Persian books one that may be relied upon”, since “Mání in his law has forbidden telling lies, and he had no need whatever for falsifying history”*. (See, Flügel’s Mani, No. 322, p. 365, for other particulars). This work contained three chapters, which are enumerated in the Fihrist, (p. 336, l. 16). Ya‘qúbí, Mas‘údí and Shahristání also quote from it.
c.	The Kanzu’l-Iḥyá or Sifru’l-Iḥyá (or Aḥyá), the origin and identification of which is so ably discussed by Flügel, (No. 324, p. 367-9), is described by al-Ya‘qúbí as containing, “an account of the salvation wrought by the Light and the corruption wrought by the Darkness.”
d.	The Sifru’l-Jabábira, or the Book of the Giants; again Flügel (No. 320 p. 362-3), discussing the nature and contents of this work, on the authority of Mosheim writes, “Dass Mání hier überhaupt von seiner Dämonologie, von dem Wesen der Dämonen in seiner Gesammtheit gehandelt hat.”
e.	The Sifru’l-Asrár, which is also mentioned by other authorities as Sifru’l-Asfár, is the first work mentioned among the Syriac written works of Manes in the Fihrist, where its chapter headings are enumerated. (See, Flügel No. 307, pp. 354-6, for other particulars.)

Besides these, in the Fihrist (pp. 336-7) nearly 77 tracts of Manes* and other chief Manichaeans are enumerated, in which, according to al-Bírúní, “he asserted that he explained what the Messiah had (only) hinted.”

This anecdote of Manes and Manichaean religion is entirely based on al-Bírúní’s account in the Áthár (pp. 207-8), just like some other accounts* of the great ‘Heresiarchs.’