رسالة د. كهلان الخروصي

They do not even present the opinions of J~bir b. Zayd. This draws one’s attention to one possible assumption: that we have two different works of Abƒ ^ufra: one is named J~mi` Ab‚ ^ufra and the other is Kit~b Ab‚ ^ufra. The latter seems to be the one described above by Ibn Khalfƒn، al-Barr~d‚ and al-Shamm~kh‚. This explanation is supported by the treatise “al-Lum`a al-mar‡iyya” of the much later Omani scholar `Abd All~h b. ™umayd al-S~lim‚ (d.1332/1914). In it he mentions two works: Kit~b ?um~m and J~mi` Ab‚ ^ufra. He describes the first work as compiled by Abƒ ^ufra `Abd al-Malik b. ^ufra in which he transmitted the opinions and traditions of J~bir b. Zayd،<sup>(1)</sup> while he says nothing about the latter work except that it is one of the very early works which has been described to him but he “has not obtained any copy of it”.<sup>(2)</sup> This clearly indicates that the two different works share the same author (or the same transmitter): one is J~mi` Ab‚ ^ufra، which is the one most likely to have been used by al-Kind‚، and the second work is Kit~b Ab‚ ^ufra، which is the one under consideration here.

… To sum up، there are apparently three titles given or used to refer to this work: Ibn Khalfƒn used Kit~b Ab‚ ^ufra، al-Barr~d‚ said that the book is known as Kit~b ?um~m، al-Shamm~kh‚ called it >th~r al-Rab‚`، and finally al-S~lim‚، who probably derived his information from al-Barr~d‚، as can be noticed in many places of his treatise، called it Kit~b ?um~m.