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

First Century Sources for the Life of Mu1ammad? A Debate 21
less elaborate than in the regular traditions, and there are fewer quotations from
the Qur#an. Thus while the content does not conflict with the later tradition, the
style does: it seems that the letters preserve a more rudimentary version in which
several later tendencies – as the growing elaboration of the stories, the tendency
to identify anonymous persons, the increase of miraculous elements and the increase
of Qur#anic references – have not yet been at work or have been so on a
much smaller scale. 78
Thus, most of the arguments brought forward by Shoemaker against the
authenticity of ^Urwa’s letters are not convincing. A production of these letters in
the time of al-Tabar\ or his direct authorities seems highly unlikely. As at least
some points of the letters do have parallels in other traditions on the authority of
^Urwa, it is rather probable that the letters did indeed in some way originate with
^Urwa. This does not mean that they were transmitted verbatim – on the contrary,
this can be ruled out already by comparing the different versions of the existing
letters. It is quite possible that in the course of transmission parts of the letters
were omitted and other parts added, intentionally or unintentionally. In addition,
the relation between the letters of ^Urwa and the traditions traced back to Abu
l-Aswad and Musa b. ^Uqba, which are partially identical in wording, still needs
to be clarified. 79 Precisely for this reason Görke and Schoeler argued that only
those parts of the letters should be assumed to go back to ^Urwa that have parallels
in other traditions traced back to him.
As can be seen, Görke and Schoeler were much more careful and hesitant
in concluding that material originated with ^Urwa than Shoemaker claims.
Nevertheless, it could be shown that more material on the hijra can convincingly
be traced back to ^Urwa than Shoemaker admits, and that many of Shoemaker’s
proposed scenarios of possible forgery can easily be dismissed.
What about the historicity of ^Urwa’s accounts of the hijra? In their article,
Görke and Schoeler suggested that the reconstructed contents of ^Urwa’s reports
“reflect the general outline of the events correctly.” 80 This general outline
should not be confused with Watt’s basic framework, as Shoemaker does. 81
Watt had argued that the basic framework of the sira – consisting of a list of expeditions,
their main protagonists, the number of people involved, the outcome,
and the chronological data –, was generally known to scholars and was usually
78 Cf. ibid., 264.
79 For some thoughts on this relation, see ibid., 66–68, 83–92, 235–236, 274.
80 Görke and Schoeler, “Reconstructing the Earliest Sira Texts,” 220.
81 Shoemaker, “In Search of ^Urwa’s Sira,” 270.