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

First Century Sources for the Life of Mu1ammad? A Debate 25
rather improbable. That, at least in the case of Ibn Sa^d, an abridgement of the
text by Ibn Sa^d is the more probable alternative and that no mention of Sura 96
being the first message is to be expected at this place arises from the following observation:
In the chapter in question Ibn Sa^d treats only ‘the coming-down of the
revelation to the Messenger of God’ (dhikr nuzul al-wahy ^ala rasul Allah sl^m) –
this is, by the way, also the chapter’s heading – and at no time in this chapter does
he designate any sura as the first one revealed. And this for good reason, because
the mention of the first piece revealed to the Prophet of the Qur#an’ is the subject
of the subsequent chapter (entitled: dhikr awwal ma nazala ^alayhi min al-Qur#an)
and is reserved for it! Correspondingly, another such version (abridged in another
way) of the al-Zuhr\ tradition in which Sura 96 is named as the first revealed is
found in the chapter just named; indeed, it is immediately adduced there as the
first tradition. 105
In summary it can be said that – contrary to Shoemaker’s claims – it is much
more probable that Ibn Sa^d and likewise Ibn Is1aq produced the abridged versions
in question by shortening the long version (LV I), because their short versions
are in no way identical.
Now, Shoemaker considers the previously mentioned tradition according to
Hisham b. ^Urwa < ^Urwa, 106 which, much like the traditions cited by Ibn Is1aq
und Ibn Sa^d, likewise deals with the beginning of the revelation (but additionally
also conveys the Khad\ja II, i.e., consolation motif! 107), to be quite similar to these
two accounts, as it too contains no Qur#anic motifs (rather only the ‘biblical’ ones:
mention of seeing light and hearing voices). Although Shoemaker – quite correctly
– considers it ‘certainly possible’ that Hisham’s tradition is from ^Urwa, 108
this report would, according to Shoemaker, provide no basis for Schoeler’s conclusion
that ^Urwa might have transmitted more than this tradition.
This contention of Shoemaker’s has meanwhile become obsolete as during
the compilation of the ^Urwa corpus two more traditions going back to Hisham <
105 Ibn Sa^d, Tabaqat, I, 1, 130.
106 Ibid.
107 Shoemaker levels a charge that, “Schoeler invokes close parallels (sc. of Khad\ja’s
response in the Hisham b. ^Urwa tradition) with Khad\ja’s response to Mu1ammad in a few other
versions of the al-Zuhr\ recension, although he fails to specify which ones [italics GS]”
(“In Search of ^Urwa’s Sira,” 308). – Here they are: The phrase in question in the Hisham tradition
(Ibn Sa^d, Tabaqat, I, 1, 130) reads: innaka tasduqu l-hadith wa-tu#addi l-amana wa-tasilu
l-rahim; compare with this the corresponding phrase in the al-Zuhr\ version in al-Tabar\ (Ta#rikh,
I, 1147): innaka la-tasilu l-rahim wa-tasduqu l-hadith wa-tu#addi l-amana; and the al-Zuhr\
version in ^Abdarrazzaq (al-Musannaf, V, 322): innaka la-tasilu l-rahim wa-tasduqu l-hadith
wa-taqri l-dayf wa-tu^inu ^ala nawa#ib al-haqq.
108 Shoemaker, “In Search of ^Urwa’s Sira,” 313, 307.