0021-1818_islam_98-1-2-i-259

8 Andreas Görke, Harald Motzki, Gregor Schoeler
ferent lines of transmission. In any case, the traditions are analysed in much more
detail in Görke’s and Schoeler’s recent book, 33 and had Shoemaker had the
chance to study this chapter more thoroughly, he might have reconsidered his
assessment that the book basically adds nothing new to the findings made in the
article.
Even without recourse to the book, however, some of his arguments can be
shown to be based on misconceptions. This already starts with his statement that
“[a]ccording to Görke and Schoeler, this assemblage of traditions was originally
a single, extended narrative composed by ^Urwa, beginning with the Meccans’
opposition to Mu1ammad’s preaching, followed successively by the emigration
of some early Muslims to Abyssinia (including the story of Abu Bakr
and Ibn al-Dughunna), the spread of Islam in Mecca, the return of the refugees
from Abyssinia, the renewed hostility of the Meccans, the meetings of ^Aqaba, the
departure of many Muslims for Medina, and concluding with Mu1ammad’s hijra
to Medina in the company of Abu Bakr.” 34 Yet, this is not what Görke and
Schoeler said. They did indeed conclude that ^Urwa composed or transmitted a
narrative made up of several elements. But, as they made clear, their conclusion
was: “We can therefore assume that ^Urwa’s reports comprised at least the following
elements: 1) The harassment of the Muslims in Mecca, 2) The subsequent emigration
of some Muslims to Abyssinia, 3) The ongoing harassment of the Muslims
in Mecca and the emigration of many of them to Medina, 4) The emigration of the
Prophet to Medina together with Abu Bakr and ^Amir b. Fuhayra.” 35 Thus among
the material that Görke and Schoeler assumed to be traced back to ^Urwa they
did not include the story of Abu Bakr and Ibn al-Dughunna, nor the spread of
Islam in Mecca, nor the return of the refugees from Abyssinia, nor the meetings of
^Aqaba, as Shoemaker claimed.
Shoemaker takes particular interest in the story of Abu Bakr and Ibn al-Dughunna.
Over nine pages he argues that this story cannot be traced back to ^Urwa,
but instead has to be credited to al-Zuhr\ at best, and that even this attribution
is questionable. 36 This result of his, he claims, stands in contrast to Görke’s and
Schoeler’s position, as – according to Shoemaker – they maintain that this narrative
“also belongs to this complex of ‘authentic’ ^Urwa material.” 37 However, in
the article Shoemaker refers to, what Görke and Schoeler actually say is quite
the opposite from what Shoemaker claims their position to be: “It is difficult to
33 Görke and Schoeler, Die ältesten Berichte, 38–77.
34 Shoemaker, “In Search of ^Urwa’s Sira,” 270.
35 Görke and Schoeler, “Reconstructing the Earliest Sira Texts,” 219f.
36 Shoemaker, “In Search of ^Urwa’s Sira,” 284–92.
37 Ibid., 284, cf. 289.