JOURNAL OF ARABIC AND ISLAMIC STUDIES

JAIS
ONLINE
Pavel Pavlovitch
first to mention briefly that al-Qaṭṭān was knowledgeable in the
traditions of Ibn Abī ʿArūba. 102
Given that al-Qaṭṭān spent twenty years together with Shuʿba, it is
reasonable to expect that he was acquainted with Shuʿba’s version of the
ʿUbāda tradition. Therefore, one may think that al-Qaṭṭān chose to
disregard Shuʿba’s tradition in favor of another version that may have
been preferable by al-Qaṭṭān’s standards. The version of Hushaym b.
Bashīr, it will be recalled, improves Shuʿba’s tradition by specifying the
number of lashes and setting the exact period of banishment. Therefore it
is not gratuitous to conclude that Hushaym b. Bashīr’s tradition served
al-Qaṭṭān as a base for his version which he fitted out with a new isnād
involving Saʿīd b. Abī ʿArūba. 103
185
In addition to Saʿīd b. Abī ʿArūba, Diagram 3 (p. 184) shows another
key figure, Yūnus b. ʿUbayd (d. 139/756–7). He is cited by al-Shāfiʿī
and al-Nasāʾī. Al-Shāfiʿī’s isnād through ʿAbd al-Wahhāb b. ʿAṭāʾ
Yūnus b. ʿUbayd carries a matn that is characterized by the already
observed use of taghrīb u ʿām in . 104 Additionally, al-Shāfiʿī chooses to
support the first isnād with a second one, said to carry the same matn.
Note, however, al-Shāfiʿī’s reference to an anonymous “trustworthy
[authority] among the people of knowledge” (al-thiqat u min ahl i l-ʿilm),
which speaks much to the detriment of his collective isnād. Unlike al-
Shāfiʿī, al-Nasāʾī cites a tradition that avoids the taghrīb in favor of the
wider-accepted nafy. 105 Another point of departure from al-Shāfiʿī is al-
Nasāʾī’s preference for a single Khudhū ʿan-nī! instead of the dual
exclamation found in the matn of al-Shāfiʿī. Finally, al-Shāfiʿī inverts
the order of the ultimate and the penultimate clauses in the matn.
Although none of these changes on its own signals tampering with the
tradition, taken on aggregate they suggest that al-Shāfiʿī and al-Nasāʾī
derived their respective traditions from dissimilar sources. An alternative
interpretation would be that while the traditions belong to a single source
(viz. Yūnus b. ʿUbayd), the differences arose from an unstable oral
102 Ibn Ḥanbal, Kitāb al-ʿIlal wa-Maʿrifat al-Rijāl, ed. Waṣī Allāh b.
Muḥammad ʿAbbās, 4 vols. (2nd ed., Riyadh: Dār al-Khānī, 1422/2001), 1:338, no.
2494; 1:335, no. 2571.
103 Although Hushaym is from Wāsiṭ, he was reportedly active in Baṣra,
Baghdād and Kūfa (al-Mizzī, Tahdhīb al-Kamāl, 30:279–80). Al-Qaṭṭān must have
been well acquainted with Hushaym’s traditions, as he had a positive opinion about
Hushaym’s transmission from Ḥuṣayn b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān (ibid., 30:281).
104 Al-Shāfiʿī, Risāla, 129, no. 378.
105 Al-Nasāʾī, Sunan, 6:405, no. 7104.