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

First Century Sources for the Life of Mu1ammad? A Debate 53
mean that if ^Abdallah b. Unays really was the source of the narratives he would
have told them in the first person? If this is what Shoemaker means, his argument
is unsound. According to the isnads, the accounts we have before us were
transmitted by ^Abdallah b. Unays’ children (his son and daughter). It is thus obvious
that they worked their father’s information about the event into narratives
about him. The transmitters of the following generation named in the isnads –
who, as in al-Zuhr\’s version, belong to the Ka^b b. Malik family – might also have
been responsible for content and style of the accounts. The designation “author”
for ^Abdallah b. Unays, which Shoemaker uses and which he erroneously portrays
as Motzki’s view, is applicable in a figurative sense at best. For his part,
Motzki does not speak of an “author” but rather of the “common source,” i.e., the
person to whom the pivotal pieces of information of the account can be traced. As
^Abdallah b. Unays was himself a participant in the event, these main pieces of information,
i.e., the common core of the content, might reflect historical facts.
To recapitulate, Motzki concludes that both of the accounts reported in al-
Waqid\’s and al-Tabar\’s works are family traditions from the circle of the Ka^b b.
Malik family and go back to ^Abdallah b. Unays’ children who might have narrated
to members of the Ka^b b. Malik family, at least the core of facts common to
both accounts as recounted to them by their father. Both of the narratives thus
possibly go back to the first century H., and the common core might even date
back to the first half of the first century. This dating is based on the isnads and
matns of both of the accounts. These results of the isnad-cum-matn analysis are
admittedly based on only two traditions that, moreover, are extant with only
single strand isnads. Owing to this precarious state of the tradition, any dating of
^Abdallah b. Unays’ version is much less certain than is the case for al-Zuhr\’s
version, which is available in numerous matn and isnad variants. On this point,
Shoemaker and Motzki are in agreement.
In contrast to Motzki, however, Shoemaker thinks that the paucity of isnads
makes them useless for dating: “On the whole the evidence of the isnads does not
present a very compelling case for any connection with ^Abdallah b. Unays.” 231
This leaves Shoemaker with only one option: To use the texts for dating. The first
possible contenders for the origin of both texts would consequently be both authors,
al-Waqid\ (d. 207/822) and al-Tabar\ (d. 310/923), in whose works the traditions
are found. But without giving any reasons, Shoemaker rules them out as authors
(Shoemaker: “producers”) of the narratives: “Both compilers very likely [ital. HM]
found these traditions more or less in the state that they transmit them.” 232 Accord-
231 Ibid., 335.
232 Somewhat hesitantly in the case of al-Waqid\. Ibid., 336.