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

30 Andreas Görke, Harald Motzki, Gregor Schoeler
early ‘Qur#anisation’ has already been proven above for a tradition traceable with
certainty back to ^Urwa (appearance of an angel). Moreover, even if Shoemaker’s
assertion that Ibn Is1aq’s Wahb version might contain more Qur#anic elements
and references than al-Zuhr\’s version was accurate, this could not be used as
an argument for a later emergence; because al-Zuhr\’s version, as well, contains
many such elements and references. It even contains a distinctive Qur#anic allusion
not included in Wahb’s version, the zammiluni motif, i.e., the report that the
Prophet had hurried to Khad\ja and shouted: ‘Cover me,’ which heralds the revelation
of Sura 73. 131 When Shoemaker writes: “ … Ibn Is1aq’s Wahb-account must
explain the meaning of tahannuth for its audience while the al-Zuhri version can
take this knowledge for granted …” (italics GS), 132 this is clearly wrong: Al-Zuhr\’s
version 133 likewise includes an explanation of al-tahannuth (wa-huwa al-ta^abbud
al-layali dhawat al-^adad)!
There is evidence of the circumstance that the iqra# story already existed at
the end of the first century – and indeed in the form transmitted by Ibn Is1aq
(LV III; appearance of the angel during sleep) –, and from then onwards was disseminated,
possibly by qussas, ‘throughout the world.’ Schoeler has called attention
to a highly interesting discovery made by the specialist in Nordic studies
Klaus von See. 134 Von See had noted that a tradition in the Venerable Bede’s Historia
Ecclesiastica Gentis Anglorum completed in 731, namely, the story about the
monk Caedmon, 135 exhibits highly notable parallels to the iqra# story. These parallels
are indeed so precise that von See argues that Bede’s tradition must somehow
be dependent on the iqra# story. 136 Shoemaker, however, with reference
to Bell and Rubin, holds, to the contrary, that the similarities between the two
reports can better be explained through the common influence of the biblical
tradition. Besides that, the interval for any transmission to England would be too
brief. 137
With these assertions, Shoemaker misappropriates the entire line of argument
furnished for this thesis by von See and, in his wake, Schoeler. Moreover,
since Shoemaker fails to quote or paraphrase the parallel texts, it remains concealed
from the reader that “none of the many parallels to Caedmon’s vision
believed up to now to be furnishable shows even remotely a similarity as does
131 Abd al-Razzaq, al-Musannaf, V, 322; al-Tabar\, Ta#rikh, I, 1147.
132 Shoemaker, “In Search of ^Urwa’s Sira,” 319.
133 ^Abd al-Razzaq, al-Musannaf, V, 322.
134 von See, “Caedmon and Muhammed.”
135 Beda Venerabilis, 396–399.
136 von See, “Caedmon and Muhammed,” 231–233.
137 Shoemaker, “In Search of ^Urwa’s Sira,” 320–321.