JOURNAL OF ARABIC AND ISLAMIC STUDIES

JAIS
ONLINE
Pavel Pavlovitch
Finally, two more isnād lines converge in the Baghdādī traditionist
Abū al-Naḍr Hāshim b. Qāsim al-Laythī (d. 207/822–3). He is cited by
the direct CR, Abū ʿUbayd (d. 224/839?). 75 There is no need to adduce
the matn as it agrees almost completely with ʿAlī b. al-Jaʿd’s tradition.
The only difference between Abū ʿUbayd and Ibn al-Jaʿd is the
masculine verbal form that the former prefers in clause 4.
The second tradition through Abu al-Naḍr is found in the Musnad of
Abū ʿAwāna. 76 As in the case of the isnāds passing through Ghundar,
the analysis of Abū ʿAwāna’s tradition is complicated by its reliance on
a confused collective isnād. Abū ʿAwāna adduces three isnāds: (1)
Yazīd b. ʿAbd al-Ṣamad Ādam b. Abī Īyās Shuʿba; (2) Ibn Junayd
173
Abū al-Naḍr Shuʿba; (3) Abū Qilāba Abū Bakr b. Bakkār and
Ibn al-Jaʿd Shuʿba. To the last isnād, which doubles above the tier of
Shuʿba and comes together in Abū Qilāba, Abū ʿAwāna attaches a matn
that stands aloof from the other matns included in the Shuʿba cluster. I
have already pointed to its numerous differences, when I analysed the
traditions through Ibn al-Jaʿd. Suffice it to say that Abū ʿAwāna’s matn
is identical with al-Bazzār’s matn attached to the cluster through
Muḥammad b. Jaʿfar Ghundar. This matn, as noted, most likely derives
from the Hushaym b. Bashīr cluster and therefore should not be
associated with the cluster revolving around Shuʿba b. al-Ḥajjāj. For the
current analysis Abū ʿAwāna’s tradition has a negative value: its
evidence excluded, we are left with Abū ʿUbayd’s isnād as a single
attribution to Abū al-Naḍr, which is far from sufficient to consider the
latter a PCL.
Summing up the analysis of the Shuʿba cluster, I should emphasize
the predominantly homogenous structure of the matns constituting its
narrative fabric. The occasional rearrangement of some clauses does not
affect the meaning; it has probably resulted from spontaneous changes
that accompanied the oral transmission of the narrative. Both the
homogeneity and the insignificance of variations across a considerable
number of riwāyas point to a common source of information and
independent ways of transmission. That Shuʿba b. al-Ḥajjāj is the source
in question is suggested by the isnād evidence, which, nevertheless,
presents us with some problems that should not be overlooked. The main
knot of isnād convergence above Shuʿba, Ibn al-Jaʿd, is quoted
exclusively in single-strand isnāds none of which is associated with a
CR. Add to this that Ibn al-Jaʿd must have been a near centenarian (and
75 Abū ʿUbayd, al-Nāsikh wa-l-Mansūkh, 133, no. 240.
76 Abū ʿAwāna, Musnad, 4:121, no. 6251.