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

First Century Sources for the Life of Mu1ammad? A Debate 3
year 11/632 and that these sources are highly problematic when used as sources
for the life of Mu1ammad: since no archaeological surveys have been conducted
in Mecca or Medina, there is no external evidence that could be adduced to support
the accounts presented in the Muslim sources. The non-Muslim sources –
several of which predate the Muslim sources – often are at variance with the Muslim
accounts, if they mention Mu1ammad at all. Several of the Muslim accounts
about the life of Mu1ammad appear to be interpretations of the Qur#anic text and
do not constitute independent sources, but rather seem to have grown from exegetic
speculations. Other accounts clearly reflect later theological, legal or political
debates, while yet others constitute what can be termed salvation history. Moreover,
the accounts often contradict each other regarding chronology, the persons
involved or the course of events. 2
Is it possible, then, to say anything about the life of Mu1ammad? A number
of scholars have argued that it is not, some going even so far as to claim that
Mu1ammad was not even a historical person and that all the accounts that allegedly
refer to his life are later projections and purely fictitious. 3 Gregor Schoeler,
Harald Motzki, and Andreas Görke in several articles have attempted to show
that despite the apparent difficulties with the Muslim narrative sources, by a careful
analysis of the different lines of transmission and the related contents of a
given tradition it is possible to reconstruct earlier layers of these sources. They
have argued that in some cases these earlier layers are likely to reflect traces of the
historical Mu1ammad and that this is the case, for instance, in a number of traditions
traced back to ^Urwa b. al-Zubayr, a nephew of the Prophet’s wife ^A#isha
and one of the persons understood to have been the first to write and teach about
the life of the Prophet.
Shoemaker in his article criticises these conclusions. First, he argues that
Schoeler and Görke often push the evidence beyond what it can bear and that
few traditions can with certainty be traced back to ^Urwa. However, Shoemaker
would admit that a number of traditions can be traced back to ^Urwa’s student
Ibn Shihab al-Zuhr\ (d. 124/744), but the reach back to ^Urwa to him “is generally
not convincing,” 4 since there are too few isnads to securely establish this link. Secondly,
he argues that in several cases Schoeler, Görke and Motzki withhold or
invent evidence or adjust it in order to fit their arguments. And finally, he remarks
that the method used – the isnad-cum-matn analysis – fails to reveal anything new
2 Cf. Crone, “What Do We Actually Know About Mohammed?” and Görke, “Prospects and
Limits,” 137–151, here 137–140 for a detailed description of the problems regarding the sources
for the life of Mu1ammad.
3 Nevo and Koren, Crossroads to Islam, 11.
4 Shoemaker, “In Search of ^Urwa’s Sira,” 257.