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

18 Andreas Görke, Harald Motzki, Gregor Schoeler
^Urwa were transmitted in two recensions by the time of Ibn 0anbal (d. 241/855)
and ^Umar b. Shabba (d. 262/876), i.e., one to two generations before al-Tabar\.
Point 1 of Shoemaker’s arguments is thus simply not correct. The isnads for the
letters in the version of Hisham as given by Ibn 0anbal and al-Tabar\ are identical
for the first generations (Hisham > Aban al-^Attar > ^Abd al-Samad), as are the isnads
given by al-Tabar\ and Ibn Hajar for the respective versions of Abu l-Zinad
(Abu l-Zinad > Ibn Ab\ l-Zinad > Ibn Wahb). Therefore, we may assume that if the
letters were indeed forged, this would have happened at the latest by the time of
Ibn Wahb (d. 197/812) and ^Abd al-Samad (d. ca. 207/822).
Ad 3: Shoemaker’s idea that al-Tabar\ expanded on the letter quoted by Ibn
0anbal and then invented other letters is likewise not convincing. Firstly, Ibn
0anbal explicitly says that he is only quoting part of the letter, i.e., that the tradition
he had was longer than what he includes in his Musnad. Secondly, if al-
Tabar\ were indeed responsible for the long letters, why would he write them in
a way that does not fit his works? Most of these letters describe a sequence of
events. Therefore al-Tabar\ frequently only quotes parts from a letter and then
complements this description with other material from different sources, before
he proceeds to quote the next passage from the letter. If al-Tabar\ invented the
letters, why did he not produce shorter and more focused letters that would not
require addressing the separate sections of a particular letter in this manner? He
also quotes other traditions that are not in accord with the letters. Why should he
invent letters that neither fit into the format of his works nor are in accordance
with his other material?
Ad 4: If ^Urwa indeed wrote the letters, why have other authorities of the sira
not included them in their works? This, indeed, seems a crucial question, but
the answer perhaps lies in the character of the letters. As Shoemaker rightly observes,
what al-Tabar\ (and Ibn 0anbal and Ibn 0ajar) record are not transcripts
of documents, but reports about these letters that were transmitted as other sira
traditions. The letters themselves – assuming that they were indeed sent by ^Urwa
to an Umayyad caliph – would have been out of reach for the scholars of the sira.
What al-Tabari and others recorded thus can only have been based on the notes or
copies of these letters, which ^Urwa may have kept. It seems not to have been uncommon
to keep an archive of copies of letters, and we have evidence of letters
that apparently constitute copies from a personal archive and not the letters actually
sent. Thus there is a papyrus that includes two letters from the same sender
to two different addressees on a single page, 73 which can only be explained by as-
73 Papyrus Nessana 77. This information was kindly provided by Robert Hoyland. See his forthcoming
publication “P. Nessana 77 revisited” in Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam.