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

First Century Sources for the Life of Mu1ammad? A Debate 17
have been important sources for al-Zuhr\, Ibn Is1aq and others – but none of
these early scholars mention them. 68
5) Other scholars have shown the adducing of letters to be a literary topos in
both the Greco-Roman and the Islamic historical tradition, and the invention
of letters was so widespread that a very careful approach has to be taken. 69
6) The content of the letters is not ascribed to ^Urwa in other sources. 70
7) The letters, in contrast to the Constitution of Medina, are not in conflict with
the later tradition. While this dissonance with the later tradition in the case
of the Constitution of Medina both explains its weak attestation and lends it
credibility, the same cannot be said for ^Urwa’s letters. 71
Let us examine these arguments more closely. Ad 1 and 2: It is true that the letters
are not widely attested. However, al-Tabar\’s works are not the only sources mentioning
these letters of ^Urwa. As Shoemaker himself observed, Ibn 0anbal quotes
a short version of the letter about the hijra also according to ^Abd al-Samad, the
second link in al-Tabar\’s isnad. Shoemaker’s argument that al-Tabar\ may have
invented the additional isnad through Abu l-Zinad to shore up the tradition is not
convincing: if al-Tabar\ had wanted to do so, why did he not quote the text in more
detail? Why should he have provided the text with a different addressee? This
would rather undermine the authority of the original text instead of enhancing it.
Why should he mention this isnad only in the case of the hijra and not to support
any other letter? This seems to make little sense. It is much more likely that al-
Tabar\ indeed knew of the letter in the version traced back to ^Urwa via Abu
l-Zinad – regardless of the question whether this letter indeed originated with
^Urwa or is a later forgery. This is corroborated by the fact that a passage from another
letter – on the conquest of Mecca – in a version of Abu l-Zinad is quoted by
Ibn 0ajar al-^Asqalan\ on the authority of ^Umar b. Shabba. 72 Ibn 0ajar claims not
to just have heard the tradition, but to have taken it from ^Umar b. Shabba’s (now
lost) Kitab Makka, and there is no reason to doubt this statement. As in the case
of the letter al-Tabar\ quoted on the authority of Abu l-Zinad, this letter, too, is addressed
to al-Wal\d and not to ^Abd al-Malik, and again it is close in content and
wording to the respective passages in the respective letter in the recension of Hisham
b. ^Urwa, but shows some deviations. Although the attestation of the letters
therefore remains weak, there are more indications that at least some letters of
68 Ibid., 276.
69 Ibid., 279–280.
70 Ibid., 280.
71 Ibid., 275–276.
72 Cf. Görke and Schoeler, Die ältesten Berichte, 229–230.