JOURNAL OF ARABIC AND ISLAMIC STUDIES

Pavel Pavlovitch
215
from the narrative clause 1b and the entire clause 2, we would be left
with the following clause:
*(1a) Nazala ʿalā rasūl i l-lāh i , ṣalʿam, “wa-l-lātī yaʾtiyna l-fāḥishat a ” (3)
fa-lammā rufiʿa ʿan-hu l-waḥy u qāla.
*(1a) [The verse] “And those of your women who commit abomination”
was revealed to the Messenger of Allāh, may Allāh bless him and grant
him peace. (3) When the revelation was withdrawn from him, he said.
By isolating this narrative core, we may have reconstructed the
JAIS
version of Jarīr b. Ḥāzim. The tradition of Abū Dāwūd al-Ṭayālisī
provides us with important corroborative evidence. In clause 1a al-
Ṭayālisī points out that when a revelation would be sent down upon the
Prophet,
ONLINE
the symptoms of waḥy would be recognizable on him (ʿurifa
dhālika fī-hi). This clause is not present in the version of ʿAbd Allāh b.
Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal, which indicates that al-Ṭayālisī did not receive it from
the common informant, Jarīr b. Ḥāzim. Al-Ṭayālisī’s wording, however,
immediately calls to mind clause 1a 1 in the tradition through Yazīd b.
Hārūn (idhā nazala ʿalay-hi l-waḥy u ʿarafnā dhālika fī-hi). Because
Yazīd b. Hārūn and al-Ṭayālisī rely on different informants, it is
impossible to say which of them is responsible for this formulation.
Arguably, they may have received it from al-Ḥasan al-Baṣrī, but such a
conjecture is hard to prove for two reasons. Jarīr b. Ḥāzim, who may turn
out to be a CL of al-Ḥasan does not seem to have used this formulation;
and Yazīd b. Hārūn’s informant, Maymūn al-Maraʾī/al-Marāʾī is a
suspicious fulān.
Clause 1b in al-Ṭayālisī’s matn is far more important than clause 1a.
Upon comparison with the clause that we isolated from the matn of ʿAbd
Allāh b. Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal, it turns out to feature a notably similar
wording:
Abū Dāwūd al-Ṭayālisī
(clause 1b)
Fa-lammā unzilat “aw yajʿala llāh
u la-hunna sabīl an ” wa-rtafaʿa lwaḥy
u qāla rasūl u l-lāh i , ṣalʿam:
ʿAbd Allāh b. Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal
(reconstructed)
*Nazala ʿalā rasūl i l-lāh i , ṣalʿam, “wal-lātī
yaʾtiyna l-fāḥishat a ” fa-lammā
rufiʿa ʿan-hu l-waḥy u qāla:
Their similarity notwithstanding, the two variants differ in a way that
does not allow us to reconstruct Jarīr’s wording in an exact way.
Nevertheless, al-Ṭayālisī’s introductory fa-lammā may safely be
discarded as an element of fictionalization, which served to connect
clauses 1a and 1b. In addition to this, one may consider the passive