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

First Century Sources for the Life of Mu1ammad? A Debate 55
events can be traced with some credibility to al-Zuhr\”), 240 and assumes that al-
Zuhr\ did not invent the story himself but instead “pieced together the various
traditions about this episode, many of which may have originated among the
members of the Ka^b family [ital. HM].” 241 Motzki shares this view but, for good
reason, he also includes the versions of ^Abdallah b. Unays and Abu Is1aq al-
Sab\^\ among these “various traditions,” which were already in circulation prior
to al-Zuhr\, i.e., in the first century.
At the end of his critical discussion of Motzki’s study, Shoemaker concedes
that the murder of Ibn Ab\ l-0uqayq might indeed be a historical fact. However, he
does not exclude the possibility that the entire story is an invention modeled on
reports of murders of other Jewish opponents of Mu1ammad. Shoemaker provides
a taste of how this invention might have taken place. 242 Of course, it must be
said in this regard that there are no limits to the imagination: Hypothetically, anything
is possible. Researchers should, however, rely on the evidence available in
the sources at hand. For early Islam these are primarily the Islamic traditions with
their texts and chains of transmission and, occasionally, extra-Islamic sources.
The possible influence of other literatures on the texts must naturally also be
taken into account. Shoemaker sees in the narratives about the murder of Ibn
Ab\ l-0uqayq a “rather clear imitation and influence of biblical models.” 243 In
contrast, Motzki, while not excluding the possibility that biblical texts had some
influence, considers the relevant evidence too weak. 244
One of Shoemaker’s final arguments aimed at playing down the significance
of studying the transmission material is the meagerness of the historical kernel
so painstakingly reconstructed by Motzki: “It ultimately does not reveal much
about the ‘historical Mu1ammad’ or the nature of his religious movement.” 245 The
first part of this two-pronged attack is admittedly true, yet it does not detract from
the value of this type of study. After all, acknowledging how little we know with
certainty about the historical Mu1ammad is in itself progress. Yet a multitude of
individual stones can indeed impart an idea of the original, complete mosaic. The
second part of Shoemaker’s attack, i.e., that the reconstructed historical kernel
240 Ibid., 336.
241 Ibid., 333.
242 Ibid., 337–338.
243 Ibid., 339.
244 Motzki, “The Murder,” 229. See also Schoeler’s arguments concerning Mu1ammad’s first
experience of revelation mentioned above 56.
245 Shoemaker, “In Search of ^Urwa’s Sira,” 338. See also 339: “It holds extremely little
information of any value for reconstructing either the beginnings of Islam or the life of
Mu1ammad”.