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

First Century Sources for the Life of Mu1ammad? A Debate 13
years earlier. 52 Thus we cannot simply rely on the chronology of any of the sira
authorities.
Relying on the presentation of the material in the hadith collections is even
more problematic. As has been shown by Muhammad Qasim Zaman, the hadith
collectors did not necessarily attempt to provide a consistent narrative of events
in their collections. 53 They collected traditions that were in some way connected
to an event as long as they had reliable isnads. They may have attempted to provide
some chronological order, but this was not their main interest. Thus drawing
any far reaching conclusion from the place where a tradition is found in a hadith
collection seems unwarranted.
Finally, Shoemaker’s argument is based on the assumption that the emigration
to Abyssinia was a single event, that at a certain point of time a number of
Muslims went there together and eventually returned. While this is not impossible,
it is by no means certain. It would be just as reasonable to assume that the emigration
was rather a process which took place over a certain period of time. This
would also explain the apparent disagreement over when this actually happened
and whether the Muslims returned to Mecca or went to Medina from Abyssinia.
Whatever the historical basis, the traditions traced back to al-Zuhr\ < ^Urwa
ultimately leave us with two possibilities to explain their dissimilarities: either
Ibn Is1aq quoted only a part of a longer tradition from al-Zuhr\, changed the text
of the tradition (eliminating the reference to Abyssinia) and quoted the rest of the
tradition with a different isnad. Or, either Ma^mar, ^Uqayl or Yunus (or their respective
transmitters) combined different stories from various authorities without
acknowledging this and eliminated some of the isnads to create the impression
that all parts in fact were traceable to al-Zuhr\ < ^Urwa, while the other two
copied his version, again without acknowledging it. Both scenarios involve some
intentional manipulation of the text, but the second scenario requires that at least
three persons intentionally suppressed their real sources. When we take into account
the results from the assessment of the complete ^Urwa corpus, it seems
more likely that it was indeed Ibn Is1aq who made the changes: Ibn Is1aq can be
shown in other cases to have introduced changes to the traditions he transmits
from al-Zuhr\ < ^Urwa; for instance he seems to have given ^Al\ a more prominent
role in the account of al-0udaybiya. 54 Ma^mar, on the other hand, seems to have
been a more reliable transmitter. 55 Another point indicating that the changes may
52 Ibn Hisham, al-Sira al-nabawiyya, 2:276ff.
53 Muhammad Qasim Zaman, “Maghazi and the Muhaddithun,” 1–18, esp. 6, 10.
54 Cf. Görke, “The Historical Tradition About al-0udaybiya,” 260.
55 Cf. Görke and Schoeler, Die ältesten Berichte, 250.