JOURNAL OF ARABIC AND ISLAMIC STUDIES

204
Journal of Arabic and Islamic Studies 11 (2011)
fictional elements, one faces the question of whose variant preamble
stands closer to the earliest version and what might have been the
wording of this version? It may seem that al-Ṭabarī’s clumsy wording is
earlier, whereas Abū ʿAwāna has edited the matn in order to make it
more consistent. Nevertheless, the possibility should not be overlooked
of a reverse process. Al-Ṭabarī may have been influenced by the versions
of the revelation tradition that begin with the fictionalized clause anna lnabiyy
a , ṣalʿam, kāna idhā nazala/nuzzila/unzila ʿalay-hi.
The above issue may be solved, if we succeed in distilling a common
narrative core from the traditions of al-Ṭabarī and Abū ʿAwāna. When
we remove the head-bending clauses, the following wording emerges:
*(1) Anna nabiyy a l-lāh i , ṣalʿam, unzila ʿalay-hi/kāna idhā nazala ʿalay-hi
[l-waḥy u ] (2) fa-idhā/fa-lammā surriya ʿan-hu qāla.
This wording may be attributed to Muʿādh b. Hishām. Once again,
caution is in order, because of the spider structure above Muʿādh, whom
I prefer to consider as an (S)CL. Upon comparison with the hypothetical
version of Ḥammād b. Salama and the basic narrative elements that we
extracted from the traditions in the Ibn Abī ʿArūba cluster, we may
observe that Abū ʿAwāna’s preamble includes an outstanding feature.
All revelation preambles that I studied up to now are based on a
temporal/conditional clause marked by the use of the respective particle,
idhā. This clause requires a complement, which is usually found in the
following clause (clause 1b) that serves more or less consistently as a
link with the dual penalty dictum. Abū ʿAwāna departs from the above
elaborate clause structure in favor of a simpler expression:
*(1) Anna l-nabiyy a , ṣalʿam, unzila ʿalay-hi [l-waḥy u ] dhāta yawm in [(2)
fa-lammā surriya ʿan-hu qāla].
Apparently clause 1, which does not call for any specific complement,
stands closest to the version of the (S)CL Muʿādh b. Hishām.
Unlike the inconsistent penal-dictum wording in the traditions via
Ḥammād b. Salama, the dictum variants in the traditions of al-Ṭabarī and
Abū ʿAwāna via Muʿādh b. Hishām are almost identical and greatly
overlap with the corresponding part in the tradition of Shuʿba b. al-
Ḥajjāj. Note the use of unqualified verbal forms to describe the
punishment for adultery and fornication. It will be recalled that such
verbal forms are an exclusive feature of Shuʿba’s tradition (Diagram 1,
p. 166). Such similarities suggest that the prophetic dictum goes back to
an early transmitter, most likely Muʿādh b. Hishām. Muʿādh’s