JOURNAL OF ARABIC AND ISLAMIC STUDIES

158
Journal of Arabic and Islamic Studies 11 (2011)
is true that for Mujāhid the Qurʼānic sabīl is identical to ḥadd, but there
is nothing in his exposition that may elucidate his notion of ḥadd in this
case.
Muqātil b. Sulaymān’s Tafsīr is the earliest exegetical work that
includes the prophetic sunna in the discussion of the punishment for
adultery and fornication. The halakhic ending of the commentary ad
Qurʾān 4:15–6 is suspect of being a later addition to the preceding
paraphrastic narrative. Although the dual-penalty tradition is not
supported by a formal isnād, which indicates an undeveloped wielding of
the sunna, its presence in a halakhic narrative does not allow us to
consider it as part of Muqātil’s original Tafsīr.
The tension between the sunna and scripture comes to the fore in the
works of Abū ʿUbayd and al-Muḥāsibī. Abū ʿUbayd cites the dual
penalty tradition, which he supports by an isnād going back to the
authority of ʿUbāda b. al-Ṣāmit. To avoid an impression that the Quranic
ordinance was abrogated by a decree of a lesser order, Abū ʿUbayd
maintains that khudhū ʿan-nī ensued from divine inspiration (waḥy),
thereby sharing a common source with scripture. Al-Muḥāsibī goes a
step further in asserting the divine origin of rajm. Instead of emphasizing
the revealed character of khudhū ʿannī, which he mentions only in
passing, al-Muḥāsibī maintains that there was an actual stoning verse in
the Qurʾān. Although formally withdrawn from the received text, āyat
al-rajm remained binding in the cases of adultery. The works of Abū
ʿUbayd and al-Muḥāsibī clearly show that by the first quarter of the third
century AH the exegetical discussion of rajm centered on the relationship
between scripture and the sunna. The legal content of the ʿUbāda
tradition was abundantly clear: exegetes and jurists were not interested in
the issue of a single versus a dual penalty for adultery.
Al-Shāfiʿī, who is conversant with these developments, adds to his
exposition even more prophetic traditions. Not only does al- Shāfiʿī
marshal ʿUbāda after Qurʾān 4:15–6, but he also adduces the Māʿiz
tradition and the tradition about the employer’s wife to support his claim
that adultery incurs a single penalty; that is, rajm. Melchert has noted
that Abū ʿUbayd and al-Muḥāsibī apparently ignore al-Shāfiʿī’s skillful
treatment of abrogation. 48 To this I may add that al-Shāfiʿī’s insistence
on a single penalty for adultery clearly sets him apart from the other
works that I studied section. It is remarkable that neither Abū ʿUbayd
nor al-Muḥāsibī seem to have been aware of al-Shāfiʿī’s advocacy of a
single penalty for adultery. Both of them disregard the Māʿiz and the ajīr
48 Melchert, “Qurʾānic Abrogation,” 91–2.