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

52 Andreas Görke, Harald Motzki, Gregor Schoeler
between correspondences in content and similarities in content. The similarities
naturally have a certain margin of fluctuation. Moreover, Motzki sees structural
correspondences between both texts: The sequence of their units of content follows
a similar scheme. This becomes visible when the units of content of al-
Waqid\’s tradition are numbered, combined in groups and compared with the sequence
of the units in al-Tabar\’s account that is said to derive from one of Ibn
Unays’ daughters. This is what Motzki did in his study. Motzki even succeeds in
reconstructing the skeleton of a complete narrative out of the units of content
that correspond or show similarities in both versions. 227 The structural correspondence
in the sequence of units of content and the common kernel of content cannot
be a coincidence. How are they to be explained? Forgery is unlikely, neither
by the Medinan al-Waqid\ (d. 207/822), who could have used as a model the version
of Ja^far b. ^Awn al-Kuf\ (d. 206/821 or 207/822), one of the transmitters in al-
Tabar\’s isnad; nor by Ja^far b. ^Awn, who could have used al-Waqid\’s version as a
model: both versions differ too starkly in details and vocabulary. It is more plausible
to assume that both narratives – al-Waqid\’s and al-Tabar\’s – are based on
oral traditions and have a common origin in the far past. Motzki considers
it possible that both traditions have their origin in accounts from ^Abdallah b.
Unays, whom both traditions designate as the murderer of Ibn Ab\ l-0uqayq.
The isnads of both of the traditions point to ^Abdallah b. Unays as the original
source, 228 and the common kernel of content might go back to him. Motzki therefore
calls him “the common source.” 229
Shoemaker rejects the result of Motzki’s analysis of the two narratives that
point to ^Abdallah b. Unays as the common link of the isnads. Shoemaker’s
objection is based on the precarious state of the transmission: “The network of
transmitters in this instance is not sufficiently dense that their convergence
on ^Abdallah b. Unays reveals any meaningful evidence that he is its author
[ital. HM], particularly since he is the story’s central actor [ital. HM].” 230 The first
part of Shoemaker’s objection would apply if this were a case of pure isnad
analysis. However, in this case Motzki relies primarily on the matns; the isnads
are secondary.
The second part of Shoemaker’s objection, “particularly since he is the
story’s central actor”, is curious. Why can the “central actor” of an event not have
reported about it himself? Shoemaker does not explain his objection. Does he
227 See ibid., 212–213.
228 Ibid., 239.
229 Ibid., 212.
230 Shoemaker, “In Search of ^Urwa’s Sira,” 335.