Nasb-and-the-Nawasib

who do not possess knowledge of the reality of affairs, characterise their stance
as one which is contradictory and not well thought out.
Hence it is narrated regarding Sufyān al-Thawrī that when he would enter Baṣrah
he would narrate reports regarding the virtues of ʿAlī I and when he would
enter Kūfah he would narrate reports regarding the virtues of ʿUthmān I. 1
He would say:
إذا كنت في الشام فاذكر مناقب علي وإذا كنت بالكوفة فاذكر مناقب أبي بكر وعمر
When you are in Shām, mention the merits of ʿAlī I and when you are in
Kūfah mention the merits of Abū Bakr and ʿUmar L. 2
Similarly when he went to Yemen, he asked, “What are these people known for?”
He was told that they are known for consuming Nabīdh and for ʿAlī I. Hence
he did not narrate a single ḥadīth regarding any of the two till he departed from
Yemen. 3
ʿAlī ibn al-Madīnī was similar in that when he would go to Kūfah he would display
the Sunnah and when he would go to Baṣrah he would display partisanship for
the Ahl al-Bayt. 4
It is clear that the rationale for the variant approaches adopted by these two
Imāms was that they realised that Naṣb was prevalent amongst the people of
Shām and Baṣrah and that Shīʿism was prevalent amongst the people of Kūfah
and Yemen; thus they felt the need to mention the merits of ʿAlī I in Shām
and Baṣrah but not in Yemen and Kūfah. 5
1 Ḥilyah al-Awliyāʾ 7/27; al-Jāmiʿ li Akhlāq al-Rāwī wa ʾᾹdāb al-Sāmiʿ 2/118; Tabyīn Kadhib al-Muftarī p. 389;
Tārīkh al-Islām 10/237.
2 Ḥilyah al-Awliyāʾ 7/27; Siyar Aʿlām al-Nubalāʾ 7/260
3 Kitāb al-Sunnah of al-Khallāl 2/410.
4 Tārīkh Baghdād 11/463; Tahdhīb al-Kamāl 21/17; Siyar Aʿlām al-Nubalāʾ 11/47; Tārīkh al-Islām 17/278.
5 Tārīkh Madīnah Dimashq 1/364; Siyar Aʿlām al-Nubalāʾ 11/47.
230