JOURNAL OF ARABIC AND ISLAMIC STUDIES

230
Journal of Arabic and Islamic Studies 11 (2011)
General conclusions Literary analysis vs. isnād-cum-matn analysis
Between ca. 100 AH and ca. 250 AH the stoning narratives in Islamic
exegesis had seen a considerable measure of evolution. As the existing
sources show, at the beginning of the second century AH the penalty for
zinā was considered in terms of Qurʾān 2:15–6 and Qurʾān 24:2. The
surviving commentaries of Mujāhid b. Jabr (d. 100–4/718–22) and al-
Ḍaḥḥāk (d. 105/723)—so long as the attributions to these exegetes are
genuine—show little exegetical elaboration; no need is felt to explain the
punishment for zinā by extra-Quranic evidence. What is more, neither of
the two exegetes is interested in the stoning penalty for zinā, nor do they
seem to recognize different categories of sexual offenders (viz. adulterers
and fornicators).
The results of the isnād-cum-matn analysis of the revelation cluster
tally with the evidence derived from the works of Mujāhid and al-
Ḍaḥḥāk. Al-Ḥasan al-Baṣrī (d. 110/728) most likely circulated the
following short tradition:
*(1) Unzilat “Qurʾān 4:15” fa-lammā rufiʿa l-waḥy u qāla rasūl u l-lāh i ,
ṣalʿam: (2) “Khudhū-hunna! Iqbalū-hunna!”
*(1) [The verse] “Qurʾān 4:15” was revealed and when the revelation was
withdrawn, the Messenger of Allāh, may Allāh bless him and grant him
peace, said: (2) “Take them [these verses]! Accept them [these verses]!”
Much like the comments of Mujāhid and al-Ḍaḥḥāk, al-Ḥasan’s
tradition is confined to exegesis of Qurʾān 4:15. It does not refer to any
alternative source of legislation in the case of zinā. Insofar as al-Ḥasan
does not mention terms like ḥadd and rajm, their limited appearance in
the commentaries of Mujāhid and al-Ḍaḥḥāk may be considered as a
halakhic accretion that goes to the credit of (much) later transmitters of
the text.
Muqātil b. Sulaymān’s (d. 150/767) Tafsīr is the earliest exegetical
work that discusses stoning in some detail. It distinguishes between
virgin and non-virgin offenders, and resorts to the prophetic sunna to
elucidate the ordinance of Qurʾān 2:15–6 and by extension that of
Qurʾān 24:2. On closer inspection, Muqātil’s commentary ad Qurʾān
4:15–6 leaves the impression that several narrative layers coalesced in a
single narrative. The earliest of these layers consists of simple
paraphrastic exegesis similar to that employed by Mujāhid and al-
Ḍaḥḥāk. At a later stage, the original narrative has apparently undergone
more paraphrastic accretions. Eventually a halakhic ending was attached
to the narrative, in which the prophetic sunna justifies the penalties for