JOURNAL OF ARABIC AND ISLAMIC STUDIES

218
Journal of Arabic and Islamic Studies 11 (2011)
Ḥasan know the dual-penalty maxim as an independent tradition? And
who attached the maxim to al-Ḥasan’s exegetical tradition?
Approaches to the reconstruction of the revelation tradition
The non-revelation cluster is a suitable starting point in our quest to
answer the above questions. Our analysis of the non-revelation traditions
has uncovered three PCLs: Shuʿba b. al-Ḥajjāj (d. 160/776), Hushaym b.
Bashīr (d. 183/799) and Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd al-Qaṭṭān (d. 198/813). As
shown in Diagram 4 (p. 190), the isnāds of Shuʿba and al-Qaṭṭān
converge on Qatāda b. Diʿāma. Al-Qaṭṭān quotes Qatāda through the
agency of Saʿīd b. Abī ʿArūba, about whose possible CL status in the
non-revelation cluster I expressed doubts. My analysis of Ibn Abī
ʿArūba’s position in the revelation cluster has allowed me to reconsider
this conclusion, albeit not without hesitation.
The numerous revelation traditions passing through Ibn Abī ʿArūba
include a penal maxim that shares narrative features with the nonrevelation
traditions of Shuʿba Qatāda and al-Qaṭṭān Abī ʿArūba
Qatāda. Shuʿba was reportedly acquainted with Ibn Abī ʿArūba,
whereas al-Qaṭṭān is a clear (P)CL in the non-revelation cluster. Contrary
to our expectations fostered by Ibn Abī ʿArūba’s presence as a possible
CL in the revelation cluster (Diagram 5, p. 192), neither Shuʿba, nor al-
Qaṭṭān relates a tradition that includes the revelation preamble. It stands
to reason, therefore, that Ibn Abī ʿArūba knew a tradition that included
the penal maxim but did not include the revelation preamble. If accurate,
this inference would allow us to concede two PCLs of Qatāda b. Diʿāma,
namely, Saʿīd b. Abī ʿArūba and Shuʿba b. al-Ḥajjāj. On this basis we
may proceed to reconstructing Qatāda’s version. Insofar as Shuʿba’s
tradition was definitely void of the revelation preamble, and Ibn Abī
ʿArūba’s tradition was likely so, Qatāda would have related the penal
maxim alone.
At this stage, the question arises whether Qatāda heard the penal
maxim from al-Ḥasan al-Baṣrī? The optimistic answer would be that,
having proven Qatāda’s CL status with respect to al-Ḥasan, we may
consider the single strand Hushaym b. Bashīr Manṣūr b. Zādhān
al-Ḥasan (Diagrams 2 and 4, pp. 175 and 190) as a limited evidence of
al-Ḥasan’s contribution to the circulation of the dual-penalty maxim.
When asked about the punishment for zinā, al-Ḥasan would express his
personal opinion (raʾy) according to which the virgin should be flogged
and banished and the non-virgin should be flogged and stoned. In reality,
this optimistic conclusion stumbles at a major obstacle.