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

46 Andreas Görke, Harald Motzki, Gregor Schoeler
grounded than Shoemaker’s speculation that the transmission of a common link
was based on “rumors and legends” circulated by “anonymous individuals” 193 or
that it was invented by the common link himself. 194
As has been seen, the introduction to Shoemaker’s critical review of
Motzki’s study “The Murder of Ibn Ab\ l-0uqayq: On the Origin and Reliability of
some Maghazi-Reports” (2000), already hints at weaknesses in Shoemaker’s arguments
that become more obvious as one proceeds in reading the review.
Al-Zuhr\’s Version
There are several stories about the murder of the Jew Ibn Ab\ l-0uqayq. Motzki
demonstrates through an isnad-cum-matn analysis of the numerous variants that
al-Zuhr\ propagated one of these stories. He is clearly the common link in the
isnads and the common source of this version. 195 Shoemaker accepts Motzki’s
result as “very likely” 196 because of the “complex transmission history” of the
variants of the story in question, i.e., he accepts it solely because of the variegated
isnads that accompany these variants.
Motzki attempts to go even further: he tries to determine al-Zuhr\’s source for
these stories because he sees the common link primarily as the first systematic
propagator of a tradition, and not necessarily as its forger. 197 Identification of the
source proves to be difficult because the transmitters from al-Zuhr\ give different
names for his informant: ^Abd al-Ra1man b. Ka^b b. Malik, ^Abdallah b. Ka^b b.
Malik, Ibn Ka^b b. Malik and ^Abd al-Ra1man b. ^Abdallah b. Ka^b b. Malik. These
differences in names led Motzki to the obvious conclusion that al-Zuhr\ did not
always designate his source by the same name. However, each case concerns
a son or grandson of Ka^b b. Malik. Motzki therefore identifies Ka^b b. Malik’s
children as al-Zuhr\’s likely sources for his version of the incident. Motzki points
to two pieces of evidence that support this argument. Firstly, it is noticeable that
al-Zuhr\’s isnad is defective in most of the variants, i.e., it ends with his informant’s
name(s) and does not name an eyewitness to the event or, at least, a Com-
193 Shoemaker, “In Search of ^Urwa’s Sira,” 333, 336.
194 Motzki has addressed the problem of a tradition’s history before its circulation by the common
link in his studies “Der Prophet und die Schuldner,” 1–83 and “Ar-radd ^ala r-radd,”
147–163 (Engl. transl. “The Prophet and the Debtors” and “Al-Radd ^ala l-Radd,” 125–230).
Shoemaker does not mention these publications.
195 Motzki, “The Murder,” 177–179, 190–207.
196 Shoemaker, “In Search of ^Urwa’s Sira,” 332.
197 See the references in note 191.