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

28 Andreas Görke, Harald Motzki, Gregor Schoeler
back to ^A#isha or (more seldom) to other informants as original transmitter(s),
whereas corresponding traditions on the authority of Hisham usually end with
^Urwa as original transmitter. 119 This, however, means that ^Urwa had not, or at
any rate very frequently had not, indicated his sources, and it is very probable
that al-Zuhr\ often elevated the ^Urwa traditions to ^A#isha or other informants.
This could indeed have been done in good faith without any intent of deception;
al-Zuhr\ may have believed that the bulk of ^Urwa’s store of traditions goes back to
his aunt ^A#isha. Therefore the absence of ^A#isha in the isnad of Hisham’s ^Urwa
tradition (quoted by Ibn Sa^d) is indeed an indication of its old age and genuineness,
and an even stronger piece of evidence for its independence of the al-Zuhr\
transmission.
On the following point, however, Shoemaker is to be agreed with: The reconstruction
of the reports that ^Urwa circulated about the first revelation experience
(and of all of his sira traditions, indeed) must essentially be based on the transmission
lines of al-Zuhr\ and Hisham; 120 some other extant transmission lines, in
particular the line Ibn Lah\^a < Abu l-Aswad < ^Urwa, are unusable for that purpose.
Schoeler had described the Abu l-Aswad version from the start as ‘extremely
problematic’ 121 (also for the reason that it is mixed with another version,
that of Musa b. ^Uqba < al-Zuhr\); in Görke’s and Schoeler’s book, in which this
line of transmission could be better assessed than in the earlier study, owing to
the meanwhile completely compiled corpus of ^Urwa traditions, Schoeler used
this version only as an example of a problematical ‘apocryphal’ ^Urwa tradition. 122
The puzzle represented by this line, however, is not solved. This is because the
traditions with the isnad Ibn Lah\^a < Abu l-Aswad < ^Urwa clearly include, apart
from additions, embellishments and miracle stories, also elements going back to
^Urwa (i.e., found likewise in corresponding traditions of al-Zuhr\ < ^Urwa and
Hiåam < ^Urwa), but which are deformed through later additions and alterations.
Shoemaker then deals with a hypothesis by means of which Schoeler –
with reference to A. Sprenger 123 – had attempted to determine ^Urwa’s sources
for his version of the revelation experience. As explained above, according to Hisham’s
tradition, ^Urwa had not named any informant at all; and the fact that
al-Zuhr\’s tradition indicates ^A#isha as ^Urwa’s source is based in all probability,
pursuant to what was said above, on elevation of the isnad. Regarding Ibn Is1aq’s
long version of the revelation experience (LV III; transmitted on the authority of
119 Görke and Schoeler, Die ältesten Berichte, 16, 255f.
120 Shoemaker, “In Search of ^Urwa’s Sira,” 314–317, in particular 317.
121 Quoted by Shoemaker, ibid., 314.
122 Görke and Schoeler, Die ältesten Berichte, 18f., 33f.
123 Sprenger, Das Leben und die Lehre des Mohammad, I, 339f.