Pharmacopoeias for the Hospital and the Shop r 201al- ̔Attar has been the one adding information about the different names
in different places.
However, there are a few recipes with almost no difference, such as a
gargle for clearing the brain, where al-Kuhin al- ̔Attar strains the liquid,
but not necessarily through silk, as Ibn Abi ’l-Bayan recommends,^24 or
they simply have different names for the same thing, as in the identical
recipe for a poultice called a jabar in Minhaj al-dukkan and a dimad in
al-Dustur al-bimaristani.^25
Al-Kuhin al- ̔Attar has certain expressions that he adds almost invari-
ably, no matter whom he is quoting. The most common addition is the
word nafi ̔, “beneficial,” which often appears tagged on to recipes. This
almost never appears in the sources; indeed, when a similar word, like
mujarrab, “tried and tested,” appears in the source-recipe, in Minhaj al-
dukkan it will usually be accompanied by nafi ̔ as well. An interesting
variant is nafi ̔ in sha’a allah. The addition of “God willing” has the effect
of weakening the approval expressed by “beneficial”—perhaps this recipe
is not so beneficial after all? This might be the medico-pharmaceutical
equivalent of the historians’ allahu a ̔lam, “God knows best,” indicating
at least a lack of certain knowledge and even distrust.
Up to now we have dealt principally with the professional identity of
the two authors. What of their religious identity? We know from Ibn Abi
Usaybi ̔a’s biography of Ibn Abi ’l-Bayan that he was a Karaite Jew. This
information could not be derived from the extant text of al-Dustur al-
bimaristani—it contains not the slightest hint as to the religious identity
of its author. Neither the Jewish nor the Muslim dietary laws have had
any influence on the ingredients used to prepare drugs of classical Greek
origin. The ashes of crabs and scorpions, wine, and the flesh of various
unclean animals all appear there. The same is true of the recipes recorded
in Minhaj al-dukkan. However, in contrast to al-Dustur al-bimaristani,
Minhaj al-dukkan does contain clues that hint at al-Kuhin al- ̔Attar’s Jew-
ishness. The first clue, of course, is his name. The combination of al-Kuhin
(= the priest) al-Haruni (= the Aaronid) al-Isra’ili (= the Israelite) sug-
gests an actual Jew, rather than a Jewish convert to Islam or a descendant
of one, possible interpretations of the nisba al-isra’ili by itself. Ibn Abi
’l Bayan’s name, as it appears in al-Dustur al-bimaristani, does not even
include this nisba. Without Ibn Abi Usaybi ̔a’s biography, there would be
no evidence that Ibn Abi ’l Bayan was Jewish at all, let alone a Karaite.