Die Eroberung von Damaskus: Quellenkritische Untersuchung zur Historiographie in Klassisch-islamischer Zeit.

• Author: Berg, Herbert
• Position: Book review

Die Eroberung von Damaskus: Quellenkritische Untersuchung zur Historiographie in klassisch-islamischer Zeit. By JENS SCHEINER. Islamie History and Civilization. vol. 76. Leiden: BRILL, 2010, Pp. xii + 816.$303.

Jens Scheiner's exhaustive study of the extant reports about the main characters, events, and dates surrounding the conquest of Damascus is destined to become the definitive work on the subject and a model for many examinations of important historical events in the earliest years of Islam. The conquest of Damascus in the first half of the second decade of Islam merits such attention not only because it is so early, but also because the extant reports contain so many contradictions. They differ in the chronology, the length of the siege (or even if there was one), who represented the besieged, and, most importantly, whether Kh[a.bar]lid b. al-Wal[i.bar]d or Ab[u.bar] 'Ubayda b. al-Janrr[[a.bar]]h was the commander. The conquest. of Damascus is also one of the first significant Muslim events for which there are non-Muslim sources, but they, too, are problematic. Scheiner's goal is to bring some order to this chaos. Such an important event has, of course, been examined before, particularly by Albrecht Noth, but Scheiner considers Moth's conclusions too imprecise.

For his far more detailed study, Scheiner employs a methodology implemented by previous scholars such as Gregor Schoeler, Andreas Gorke, and, of course, Harald Motzki. The isn[a.bar]d-cum-main method seeks to reconstruct earlier traditions out of the extant traditions by looking at the transmission history-of related traditions (Oberlieferungskomplex). This analysis therefore involves first collecting all of the traditions relevant to a particular event or issue, and then comparing all of the isn[a.bar]ds (the chains of transmitters or tradents) with each other and matns (the reports "authenticated" by the isn[a.bar]ds) with each other. The former are examined for identical tradents and the latter for structure, motifs, and noteworthy expressions. Correspondence between the information within the isn[a.bar]ds and that within the mains suggests for Scheiner that the isn[a.bar]ds do indicate the actual transmission history of the report. If such a correspondence is not evident, it suggests that the matns were not transmitted as the isn[a.bar]ds claim. Moreover, the isnad-curn-matn method also compares the matns of common links and partial common links formed by various isn[a.bar]ds by looking at the main elements of the plot, motifs and themes, and even word choice and order. Not only is it possible sometimes to ascribe alterations to the matns to specific tradents, but also at times to reconstruct older versions of the tradition and to determine its terminus ante quern, especially if there are sufficient variations.

If one were to critique Scheiner's...