JOURNAL OF ARABIC AND ISLAMIC STUDIES

194
Journal of Arabic and Islamic Studies 11 (2011)
have transmitted from al-Qaṭṭān. Nevertheless, al-Qaṭṭān was reportedly
acquainted with Yazīd, which indicates that transmission of knowledge
between the two was not impossible. 113
An either direct or indirect borrowing is not the only possible
explanation of the similarity between the tradition of Yazīd b. Zurayʿ
and those of Hushaym b. Bashīr and Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd al-Qaṭṭān. Both al-
Qaṭṭān and Ibn Zurayʿ rely on Saʿīd b. Abī ʿArūba as their common
informant. It should be recalled that when analyzing al-Qaṭṭān’s role in
the non-revelation cluster (Diagram 3, p. 184), I could not prove that his
version or parts thereof go to the credit of Saʿīd b. Abī ʿArūba. If,
notwithstanding the single-strand isnāds in the traditions of al-Ṭabarī and
Abū ʿAwāna, we accept Yazīd b. Zurayʿ as a (S)PCL of Saʿīd b. Abī
ʿArūba, the same would likely apply on al-Qaṭṭān. Having conceded two
possible PCLs of Ibn Abī ʿArūba, we may consider him as an earlier CL,
and by extension as a hypothetical PCL of Qatāda b. Diʿāma.
Does the matn evidence support the testimony of the isnāds? Al-
Qaṭṭān, it should be recalled, is an unambiguous transmitter of a version
of the non-revelation tradition; Yazīd b. Zurayʿ, on his part, would have
have transmitted a matn that includes the revelation preamble. As al-
Qaṭṭān and Yazīd b. Zurayʿ agree on an almost identical version of the
dual-penalty dictum and disagree on the existence of the revelation
preamble, the latter may be considered intrusive in Yazīd b. Zurayʿ’s
matn. The spider branches over the tier of Yazīd b. Zurayʿ do not allow
us to make a definite conclusion about the redactor who added the
preamble to Yazīd’s original tradition. The issue may become more
transparent, as we progress through the revelation bundle.
The next knot of isnād convergence to which I turn now draws on
three key figures instead of the usual one (Diagram 5, p. 192). Abū
ʿAwāna cites Yazīd b. Sinān (d. 264/878) and Muḥammad b. Isḥāq al-
Ṣaghānī (d. 270/883), whereas al-Shāshī relies on Muḥammad b. Isḥāq
al-Ṣaghānī and Aḥmad b. Mulāʿib (d. 275/888). Such double attributions
indicate doubts about the actual transmitter of the tradition. Nevertheless,
since both Abū ʿAwāna and al-Shāshī share al-Ṣaghānī as their common
informant, he may have been the actual CL/PCL of the tradition. Matn
analysis may help us in substantiating al-Ṣaghānī’s contribution. Let us
start with Abū ʿAwāna’s matn:
(1a) Kāna rasūl u l-lāh i , ṣalʿam, idhā nazala/nuzzila ʿalay-hi kuriba lidhālika
wa-tarabbada la-hu wajh u -hu (1b) fa-awḥā l-lāh u ʿazza wa-jalla
113 Ibn Abī Ḥātim, Jarḥ, 9:263.