JOURNAL OF ARABIC AND ISLAMIC STUDIES

JAIS
ONLINE
Pavel Pavlovitch
The narrative consists of what we may term a revelation preamble
(clause 1) and the prophetic (dual-penalty) maxim (clauses 2–4) as we
know it from the non-revelation cluster. Al-Nasāʾī’s preamble is notably
fictionalized; the description of the Prophet’s pallid face, his grief and
his relief after the withdrawal of revelation are a dramatic prelude that
clearly aims to convince the recipient that the following penal maxim
was divinely inspired.
Al-Ṭabarī’s variant tradition 112 differs from that of al-Nasāʾī in
several respects. In clause 1b al-Ṭabarī chooses the explicative locution
anzala l-lāh u ʿalay-hi dhāt a yawm in instead of al-Nasāʾī’s shorter fanazala/nuzzila
ʿalay-hi dhāt a yawm in . By introducing an explicit subject,
193
al-Ṭabarī offers a lectio facilior. It removes the ambiguity in the reading
of the predicate in al-Nasāʾī’s matn, which—as the lectio difficilior—
signals the earlier version. Al-Ṭabarī also prefers a reverse order of the
final two clauses; that is, he puts 4b before 4a. As noted, such changes
are most probably inadvertent and cannot be treated as evidence pointing
to a dissimilar source of information. Far from inspiring similar
confidence is the third difference between al-Ṭabarī and al-Nasāʾī. While
the former chooses rajm un bi-l-ḥijāra to describe the punishment for
adultery, the latter prefers the single-worded wa-l-rajm. It must be
recalled that the locution ramy un /rajm un bi-l-ḥijāra has been identified as
a version-specific feature that distinguishes the tradition of Yaḥyā b.
Saʿīd al-Qaṭṭān from the tradition of Hushaym b. Bashīr who prefers the
single-worded wa-l-rajm.
One may surmise that Yazīd b. Zurayʿ(d. 182–3/798–9) transmitted a
similar tradition to each of Bishr b. Muʿādh and Muḥammad b. ʿAbd al-
Aʿlā, who in turn transmitted it to al-Ṭabarī and al-Nasāʾī. But how can
one account for the differences between the variants of al-Ṭabarī and al-
Nasāʾī from one side, and, from another side, the peculiarities of Yazīd’s
matn, which betray an acquaintance with two important versions that
belong to the non-revelation cluster? The first question is impossible to
answer because of the spider isnād structure above Yazīd b. Zurayʿ.
Although this leaves us wondering about the original wording of Yazīd’s
hypothetical tradition, let us, for the sake of argument, proceed to the
second question. It entails two hypotheses.
Yazīd b. Zurayʿ lived and worked in Basra, therefore we may exclude
a direct influence from the Wāsiṭī traditionist Hushaym b. Bashīr. Yaḥyā
b. Saʿīd al-Qaṭṭān is not known to have related traditions on the authority
of Yazīd b. Zurayʿ. Nor, for that matter, is Yazīd b. Zurayʿ known to
112 Al-Ṭabarī, Jāmiʿ, 6:496.