Al-Ṣaymarī describes al-Qāsim as a descendant of ʿAbd Allāh ibn Masʿūd and a scholar accomplished in both jurisprudence and Arabic. Muḥammad ibn al-Ḥasan cites him in his books, by name or kunya. He succeeded Sharīk ibn ʿAbd Allāh al-Nakhaʿī as judge of Kufa.
2 source accounts
ومن أصحاب أبي حنيفة القاسم بن معن
وهو من ولد عبد الله بن مسعود، وهو مع تقدمه في الفقه وتبحره فيه إمام في العربية مقدم فيها، و[قد] روى عنه محمد بن الحسن في كتبه مصرحا بذكره ومكنيا عنه، وولي قضاء الكوفة بعد شريك بن عبد الله النخعي.
ومن أصحاب أبي حنيفة: القاسم بن معن.
وهو من ولد عبد الله بن مسعود رضي الله عنه، وهو مع تقدمه في الفقه وتبحره فيه: إمام في العربية، مقدم فيها. وقد روى عنه محمد بن الحسن في كتبه، مصرحا بذكره، ومكنيا عنه. وولي قضاء الكوفة بعد شريك بن عبد الله النخعي.
Show English translation
Among Abū Ḥanīfa’s companions was al-Qāsim ibn Maʿn.
He was a descendant of ʿAbd Allāh ibn Masʿūd. Alongside his distinction in jurisprudence and his profound knowledge of it, he was a leading authority in Arabic, pre-eminent in that field. [Indeed,] Muḥammad ibn al-Ḥasan transmitted reports from him in his books, referring to him explicitly by name and also by his kunya. He held the judgeship of Kufa after Sharīk ibn ʿAbd Allāh al-Nakhaʿī.
Among Abū Ḥanīfa’s companions was al-Qāsim ibn Maʿn.
He was a descendant of ʿAbd Allāh ibn Masʿūd, may God be pleased with him. Alongside his distinction in jurisprudence and his profound knowledge of it, he was a leading authority in Arabic, pre-eminent in that field. Indeed, Muḥammad ibn al-Ḥasan transmitted reports from him in his books, referring to him explicitly by name and also by his kunya. He held the judgeship of Kufa after Sharīk ibn ʿAbd Allāh al-Nakhaʿī.
Both report texts and their locations have been checked against the supplied scans. Punctuation and spacing are lightly normalized; editorial dates and entry numbers are kept outside the report text.
Editorial biographical information
Death date printed by the modern editor: 175 AH. Baktāsh edition, p. 258. This is not a date stated in the older report text.
Edition comparison
Editorial marking
The older edition marks قد as supplied with square brackets. Baktāsh prints it without those brackets. Both main texts read فيها; the older edition’s footnote records فيه as the original reading. Baktāsh also prints رضي الله عنه after Ibn Masʿūd, absent from the older passage. These do not change the biographical claim.
Al-Afghānī · 1985
و[قد] روى عنه محمد بن الحسن
Baktāsh · 2023
وقد روى عنه محمد بن الحسن
Al-Afghānī edition, p. 156, n. 1.
Baktāsh edition, p. 258, companion entry 5.
Editorial addition
Baktāsh prints 175 AH as al-Qāsim’s death date beside the entry. The date is editorial metadata, not part of this biographical sentence.
Baktāsh edition, p. 258, companion entry 5.
أخبرنا عباس بن الفضل الهاشمي قال ثنا أحمد بن محمد قال ثنا علي بن محمد النخعي قال ثنا نجيح قال ثنا ابن كرامة قال كنا عند وكيع يوما فقال رجل أخطأ أبو حنيفة فقال وكيع يقدر أبو حنيفة يخطىء ومعه مثل أبي يوسف وزفر في قياسهما ومثل يحيى بن أبي زائدة وحفص بن غياث وحبان ومندل في حفظهم للحديث والقاسم بن معن في معرفته باللغة والعربية وفضيل بن عياض وداود الطائي في زهدهما وورعهما من كان هؤلاء جلساءه لم يكن يخطىء لأنه إن أخطأ ردوه
أخبرنا عباس بن الفضل الهاشمي قال ثنا أحمد بن محمد قال ثنا علي بن محمد النخعي قال ثنا نجيح قال ثنا ابن كرامة قال كنا عند وكيع يوما فقال رجل أخطأ أبو حنيفة فقال وكيع يقدر أبو حنيفة يخطىء ومعه مثل أبي يوسف وزفر في قياسهما ومثل يحيى بن أبي زائدة وحفص بن غياث وحبان ومندل في حفظهم للحديث والقاسم بن معن في معرفته باللغة والعربية وداود الطائي والفضيل بن عياض في زهدهما وورعهما من كان هؤلاء جلساءه لم يكن يخطىء لأنه إن أخطأ ردوه
Show English translation
ʿAbbās ibn al-Faḍl al-Hāshimī informed us, saying: Aḥmad ibn Muḥammad related to us, saying: ʿAlī ibn Muḥammad al-Nakhaʿī related to us, saying: Nujayḥ related to us, saying: Ibn Karāma related to us, saying: We were with Wakīʿ one day when a man said Abū Ḥanīfa made a mistake.” Wakīʿ said: “Could Abū Ḥanīfa make a mistake when he had with him the likes of Abū Yūsuf and Zufar in their analogical reasoning, the likes of Yaḥyā ibn Abī Zāʾida, Ḥafṣ ibn Ghiyāth, Ḥibbān, and Mandal in their memorization of hadith, al-Qāsim ibn Maʿn in his knowledge of language and Arabic, and al-Fuḍayl ibn ʿIyāḍ and Dāwūd al-Ṭāʾī in their renunciation and scrupulousness? Someone whose companions were these people would not err, because if he erred they would correct him.”
ʿAbbās ibn al-Faḍl al-Hāshimī informed us, saying: Aḥmad ibn Muḥammad related to us, saying: ʿAlī ibn Muḥammad al-Nakhaʿī related to us, saying: Nujayḥ related to us, saying: Ibn Karāma related to us, saying: We were with Wakīʿ one day when a man said Abū Ḥanīfa made a mistake.” Wakīʿ said: “Could Abū Ḥanīfa make a mistake when he had with him the likes of Abū Yūsuf and Zufar in their analogical reasoning, the likes of Yaḥyā ibn Abī Zāʾida, Ḥafṣ ibn Ghiyāth, Ḥibbān, and Mandal in their memorization of hadith, al-Qāsim ibn Maʿn in his knowledge of language and Arabic, and Dāwūd al-Ṭāʾī and al-Fuḍayl ibn ʿIyāḍ in their renunciation and scrupulousness? Someone whose companions were these people would not err, because if he erred they would correct him.”
Sources: Al-Afghānī · pp. 158–159 / Baktāsh · pp. 262–263
Both report texts and their locations have been checked against the supplied scans. Punctuation and spacing are lightly normalized; editorial dates and entry numbers are kept outside the report text.
Edition comparison
Order of names
The older edition lists al-Fuḍayl before Dāwūd; Baktāsh lists Dāwūd before al-Fuḍayl.