JOURNAL OF ARABIC AND ISLAMIC STUDIES

174
Journal of Arabic and Islamic Studies 11 (2011)
is, indeed, said to have been so) in order to have met his alleged
informant, Shuʿba b. al-Ḥajjāj. Muḥammad b. Jaʿfar Ghundar is another
important key figure in the Shuʿba cluster. Due to the discrepant matns
associated with Ghundar’s apparent PCL, Muḥammad b. al-Muthannā,
Ghundar may be considered cautiously as a (S)PCL. The importance of
another key figure, Abū al-Naḍr, is belittled by the existence of confused
collective isnāds in the traditions that pass through them. Shabāba b.
Sawwār is the only indubitable CL of Shuʿba, but note that Shabāba
appears in only two isnāds. Thus, at least two of the four key figures
may be thought, albeit not without a shade of hesitation, as transmitters
of a tradition going back to Shuʿba b al-Ḥajjāj. Consequently, the
remaining isnāds, most especially those associated with Ibn al-Jaʿd,
enjoy greater chance of being authentic attributions to Shuʿba.
Additional evidence in support of Shuʿba’s contribution to the early
circulation of the ʿUbāda tradition may be found in the parallel isnād and
matn clusters. One of these clusters, to which I proceed now, is
associated with Hushaym b. Bashīr.
The Hushaym b. Bashīr cluster
Alongside Shuʿba b. al-Ḥajjāj, the Wāsiṭi traditionist Hushaym b. Bashīr
(104–5–183/722–4–799) is one of the key figures in the ʿUbāda bundle
(Diagram 2, p. 175). Qutayba b. Saʿīd (148–50–240/765–8–854), who
hailed from Balkh but was also active in Baghdad, is an important key
figure above the level of Hushaym b. Bashīr. Al-Tirmidhī (d. 279/892),
who s a direct CR of Qutaybacites the following matn:
(1) Khudhū ʿan-nī! (2) Fa-qad jaʿala l-lāh u la-hunna sabīl an . (3a) Althayyib
u bi-l-thayyib i jald u miʾat in thumm a l-rajm (3b) wa-l-bikr u bi-l-bikr i
jald u miʾat in wa-nafy u sana.
(1) Take it from me! (2) Allāh has appointed a way for them. (3a) A nonvirgin
with a non-virgin [punish them with] one hundred strokes then
stoning, (3b) a virgin with a virgin [punish them with] one hundred
strokes and a year’s banishment. 77
Al-Nasāʾī, who like al-Tirmidhī is in the position of a direct CR, cites
an identical tradition. The formal differences boil down to al-Nasāʾī’s
use of fa-qad instead of qad at the beginning of clause 2, and of the
77 Al-Tirmidhī, Sunan, ed. Aḥmad Muḥammad Shākir, 5 vols. (2nd ed., Cairo:
Muṣṭafā al-Bābī al-Ḥalabī, 1398/1978), 4:41, no. 434.