JOURNAL OF ARABIC AND ISLAMIC STUDIES

JAIS
ONLINE
Pavel Pavlovitch
middle of the second century AH. In the preceding chapter I have
suggested that Shuʿba b. al-Ḥajjāj may have been the original
disseminator of the tradition. Nevertheless, due to isnād irregularities, I
preferred to leave the question about Shuʿba’s CL status open until
further evidence is derived from parallel lines of transmission. Although
Shuʿba is not present in Hushaym’s isnād, he must have known the
ʿUbāda tradition. This is indicated by the fact that Shuʿba’s lifespan
partly overlaps with that of Hushaym; by the isnād and matn evidence
discussed in the preceding chapter; and not least by a comparison
between the matns cited by Hushaym and Shuʿba. Hushaym’s narrative
differs from Shuʿba’s in three main points: (1) it merges Shuʿba’s
181
clauses 3 and 4 into a single locution; (2) it substitutes verbal nouns for
the verbs occurring in Shuʿba’s clause 4; and (3) it qualifies the verbal
nouns by genitive additions that define the number of lashes and the
duration of banishment. Arguably, the first two points do not allow us to
consider one of the versions as preceding its counterpart. That is to say,
in the first point of difference Hushaym’s variant may have been a slight
abridgement of the earlier Shuʿba version, but, likewise, Shuʿba’s
tradition may have been an expansion of Hushaym’s narrative. In the
latter case the tradition would have been back-projected onto Shuʿba.
Similarly, preference for verbal nouns or verbs in the second point of
difference is not revealing about the relative chronology of the two
variant traditions. The genitive additions to the verbal nouns, however,
evince a development, in which the vague call for flogging and
banishment was elucidated by the respective qualifications. In other
words, traditions void of qualifications must have been earlier than the
qualified ones. Insofar as the qualified expressions clearly go to the
credit of Hushaym b. Bashīr, it stands to reason that the unqualified
traditions go back to an authority as early as Shuʿba b. al-Ḥajjāj.
Consequently, the non-revelation tradition should have existed as early
as the second quarter of the second century AH.
Additional clusters and diving transmission lines
Diagram 3 (p. 184) comprises a number of isnāds that belong to the nonrevelation
group but cannot be attributed with certainty to key figures as
early as Shuʿba b. al-Ḥajjāj (d. 160/776) and Hushaym b. Bashīr (d.
183/799). That is not to say that some isnād bundles do not appear as
converging in early transmitters, but rather that these key figures cannot
be attested as actual CLs. By far the most interesting bundle in Diagram
3 is the one going back to the Baṣran mawlā Saʿīd b. Abī ʿArūba (d.
156–59/772–76). On closer inspection, one finds that Saʿīd is quoted by