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

First Century Sources for the Life of Mu1ammad? A Debate 43
abling him to use such isnads to establish a much earlier common link for certain
traditions.” 179
Shoemaker fails to mention that Motzki has provided detailed reasons explaining
his divergence from Juynboll’s method. Juynboll excluded traditions
that are attested to by only single strand isnads: He considered them unhistorical,
i.e., unusable for a historical reconstruction, because he based his dating solely
on the isnads. This made sense for his approach. Motzki, on the other hand, uses
not only the isnads but also the texts (matns) of the traditions. Under certain
conditions, which are explained below, these texts enable him to take the single
strand traditions into account as well. 180
Motzki’s arguments in support of his approach are not even discussed by
Shoemaker: He simply dismisses them as “not persuasive,” relying on critical
remarks by Christopher Melchert that he does not verify. Melchert objects to
Motzki’s study “Quo vadis 0ad\©-Forschung,” which, inter alia, advocates the
use of single strand traditions and also introduces the isnad-cum-matn analysis,
because, according to Melchert, no clear and meaningful text can be attributed
to the supposed common link, Nafi^: “Nafi^ is quoted every way. Motzki talks of
identifying a kernel of historical truth, but if that is taken to be whatever element
is common to his multiple versions, it seems to be normally so small as to be virtually
worthless.” 181
Melchert’s criticism, however, is unjustified. An examination of the zakat
al-fitr tradition with the aid of the isnad-cum-matn analysis shows that Nafi^ is the
real common link. This conclusion is not undermined by the facts that it is possible
to reconstruct several text variants traceable to Nafi^ and that the text common
to the main variants is rudimentary in comparison with the variants. Although
the text, which is certainly attributable to Nafi^, is rudimentary compared
to some traditions from students, it is definitely a comprehensible tradition: “The
Messenger of God made the almsgiving of the fast-breaking (zakat/sadaqat al-fitr)
a duty, one sa^ dates or one sa^ barley for each freeman or slave.” This text contains
three essential elements: the obligation of zakat al-fitr, the type and quantity
of alms, and the persons obliged to distribute alms. This text is not “virtually
worthless.”
The evidence pointing to Nafi^ as the author of the rudimentary text of the
tradition is not undermined by the fact that the traditions traced back to Nafi^’s
179 Shoemaker, “In Search of ^Urwa’s Sira,” 266.
180 This is explained in Motzki, “Quo vadis Hadi©-Forschung?,” 40–80; 193–231 (Engl. transl.
“Whither Hadith Studies?,” 47–124), a study quoted by Shoemaker in this context.
181 Melchert, “The Early History of Islamic Law,” 293–324, esp. 303.