JOURNAL OF ARABIC AND ISLAMIC STUDIES

JAIS
ONLINE
Pavel Pavlovitch
205
hypothetical version emerges when we combine the already
reconstructed preamble with the prophetic dictum:
*(1a) Anna l-nabiyy a , ṣalʿam, unzila ʿalay-hi [l-waḥy u ] dhāta yawm in
[(1b) fa-lammā surriya ʿan-hu qāla:] “(2) Khudhū ʿan-nī (3) Qad jaʿala
l-lāh u la-hunna sabīl an . (4) Al-thayyib u bi-l-thayyib i wa-l-bikr u bi-l-bikr
(5a) Ammā l-thayyib u fa-yujladu thumma yurjam (5b) wa-ammā l-bikr u fayujladu
thumma yunfā”.
This reconstruction makes the narrative fairly cohesive: it disposes of
the awkward relationship between the revelation preamble and the
following dual-penalty maxim as observed in the traditions of Ibn
Ḥanbal and Ibn al-Mundhir via Ḥammād b. Salama and the tradition of
al-Ṭabarī via Muʿādh b. Hishām. It seems that if there was an early
version of the tradition, it would have been based on the looser narrative
structure. The reconstructed version of Muʿādh b. Hishām gives an
insight into that narrative, which, I think, would have been void of the
connective clause fa-lammā surriya ʿan-hu qāla. This clause is a
necessary complement to the preceding conditional clause as observed in
the majority of the preamble variants, but becomes dispensable in the
reconstructed variant of Muʿādh.
Did Muʿādh b. Hishām receive his tradition from Qatāda b. Diʿāma?
In addition to Muʿādh, we have found only one possible (S)CL,
Ḥammād b. Salama. His status however is precarious; we do not know
whether he transmitted the revelation preamble. Even if he did, his
variant is based on the more developed conditional-clause structure,
which does not allow us to advance any hypothesis about the wording of
Qatāda’s tradition. Furthermore, the variants of the dual-penalty dictum
on the authority of Ḥammād differ to a degree that does not allow us to
attribute them to a single source. It is true that Ibn Ḥanbal’s variant via
Ḥammād shares structural features with Shuʿba’s tradition, which is the
core of Muʿādh’s prophetic dictum, and may therefore go to Qatāda b.
Diʿāma. Nevertheless, Ibn Ḥanbal deviates considerably from Shuʿba in
preferring genitive compounds to Shuʿba’s earlier verbal forms. Thus
one is left wondering about the wording of both the revelation preamble
and the prophetic dictum if they were transmitted by Qatāda b. Diʿāma.
ʿAbd al-Razzāq al-Ṣanʿānī cites a tradition that may help us verify the
above reconstruction of Muʿādh b. Hishām’s matn and decide whether it
goes to Qatāda b. Diʿāma. On the authority of Maʿmar b. Rāshid via
Qatāda, ʿAbd al-Razzāq cites the following matn: