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

40 Andreas Görke, Harald Motzki, Gregor Schoeler
actual clauses of the treaty, etc. The crucial question is how the version ascribed
to Hisham < ^Urwa relates to these versions. At first glance, it seems that the Hisham
version could indeed just be another variant of the al-Zuhr\ version in that it
shares some elements with only one of the different recensions – i.e., it mentions
that the A1ab\sh were offered khazir, which is otherwise only mentioned by ^Abd
al-Ra1man b. ^Abd al-^Az\z < al-Zuhr\, or it includes the discussion of Mu1ammad
with Abu Bakr on which way to proceed, which is recorded by Ma^mar and ^Abd
al-Ra1man, but not by Ibn Is1aq. A closer examination of the material, however,
reveals that the versions traced back to al-Zuhr\ despite their differences are
much closer to each other both in structure and in wording than any of these version
is to the one(s) traced back to Hisham. Only in the Hisham version do we find
a date, and only here al-Miqdad, who claims that in contrast to the Jews, the Muslims
would not leave their prophet alone, figures in the narrative. In Hisham’s version
there are fewer delegates mentioned than in the versions of al-Zuhr\. In all al-
Zuhr\ versions, there are four delegates, of which three are named in all versions –
Budayl b. Warqa#, Mikraz b. 0afs and ^Urwa b. Mas^ud. In Ibn Is1aq’s and ^Abd al-
Ra1man’s versions, the fourth delegate is given as al-0ulays b. ^Alqama, while in
Ma^mar’s version it is a man from the Banu Kinana. In all versions al-Suhayl b.
^Amr comes to sign the treaty. Although the order of the delegates differs, they all
have a specific role – one is identified by Mu1ammad as a pious man, another as a
wicked man, one has a dispute with Abu Bakr etc. In Hisham’s version, in contrast,
there are only two delegates, one of the Banu 0ulays (with a similar role as the
pious al-0ulays in al-Zuhr\’s version), and ^Urwa b. Mas^ud, before Mikraz b. 0afs
and al-Suhayl b. ^Amr both come to conclude the treaty. The whole story of the
delegates is much briefer and less developed than in any of al-Zuhr\’s versions.
Al-Zuhr\’s versions also have elements which are not found in Hisham’s version,
as the protests of Abu Bakr and ^Umar against the signing of the treaty. Taking all
the evidence together, it seems unlikely that the Hisham version is just another
variant of al-Zuhr\’s teachings. As it differs more from the versions traced back to
al-Zuhr\ than these differ among each other, it is more likely that it is indeed an
independent tradition (as the isnad indicates) and that it has a common source,
namely the teaching of ^Urwa.
Conclusion (Andreas Görke)
Shoemaker raised a number of important points regarding the authenticity of the
sira traditions traced back to ^Urwa b. al-Zubayr, and in some points he is undoubtebly
right: it is true, for instance, that the sira traditions – not only those of
^Urwa, but sira traditions in general – have been preserved in considerably fewer