Satanic Verses

For the novel by Salman Rushdie, see The Satanic Verses.

For the controversy over the novel by Salman Rushdie, see The Satanic Verses controversy.

Satanic Verses is an expression coined by the historian Sir William Muir in reference to several verses allegedly delivered by Muhammad as part of the Qur'ān and later retracted. Muslims refer to the delivery and retraction of the two verses as the Gharaniq incident. Narratives involving these verses can be read in, among other places, the biographies of Muhammad by al-Wāqidī, Ibn Sa'd, al-Tabarī, and Ibn Ishaq (the latter as reconstructed by Alfred Guillaume).

Basic narrative

See the complete text of Tabarī's account

There are numerous reports on the incident, which differ in the construction and detail of the narrative, but they may be broadly collated to produce a basic account. In its basic form the story reports that Muhammad longed to convert the people of Mecca (who were, after all, his kinsmen and neighbors) to Islam. As he was reciting Sūra Al-Najm (Q.53), considered a revelation by the angel Gabriel, Satan tempted him to utter the following lines after verses 19 and 20 ("Have you thought of Allāt and al-'Uzzā and Manāt the third, the other?"):

These are the exalted Gharaniq, whose intercession is hoped for (The precise wording varies with the different reports)

Allāt, al-'Uzzā and Manāt were three goddesses worshiped by the Meccans. "Gharaniq" is a hapax legomenon, a word found only in this one place. Commentators say that it means Numidian cranes, which fly at a great height. The subtext to this allegation is that Muhammad was backing away from his otherwise uncompromising monotheism by saying that these goddesses were real and their intercession effective.

The Meccans were overjoyed to hear this and joined Muhammad in ritual prostration (sujūd) at the end of the Sūra. The Muslim refugees who had fled to Abyssinia heard of the end of persecution and started to return home. Islamic tradition holds that Gabriel chastised Muhammad for adulterating the revelation, at which point ^{[Quran 22:52]} is revealed to comfort him, "Never did We send a messenger or a prophet before thee, but, when he framed a desire, Satan threw some (vanity) into his desire: but Allah will cancel anything (vain) that Satan throws in, and Allah will confirm (and establish) His Signs: for Allah is full of Knowledge and Wisdom." Muhammad took back his words and the persecution by the Meccans resumed. Verses ^{[Quran 53:21]} were given, in which the goddesses are belittled. So the passage including verses 19-26 reads:

Have you thought of Allāt and al-'Uzzā and Manāt, the third, the other?

For you males and for Him females? That would be unfair sharing.

They are but names which you have named, you and your fathers; Allah revealed no authority for them; they [the worshippers of idols] follow only opinion and their soul’s fancies, though from their Lord there has come to them guidance.

In early Islam

The earliest biography of Muhammad, Ibn Ishaq (761-767) is lost but his collection of traditions survives mainly in two sources: Ibn Hisham (833) and al-Tabari (915). The story appears in al-Tabari but not in Ibn Hisham. Ibn Sa'd and Al-Waqidi, two other early biographers of Muhammad relate the story. The Satanic Verses incident is reported in the tafsir and the sira-maghazi literature dating from the first two centuries of Islam, and is reported in the respective tafsīr corpuses transmitted from almost every Qur'anic commentator of note in the first two centuries of the hijra. It seems to have constituted a standard element in the memory of the early Muslim community about the life of Muhammad, Shahab Ahmed concludes.

Transmission of the narrative

The tradition of the Satanic Verses never made it into any of the musannaf, or canonical, hadīth compilations (though see below for possible truncated versions of the incident that did). The temporary control taken by Satan over Muhammad, though hinted at in the Qur'an itself, made such traditions unacceptable to the compilers. This is a unique case in which a group of traditions are rejected only after being subject to Qur'anic models, and as a direct result of this adjustment. The reference and exegesis about the Verses appear in early histories (Ibn Ishaq's Sirat Rasul Allah (Life of Muhammad), al-Tabāri's Ta'rīkh as well as al-Tabarānī's [d. 971] al-Mu'jam al-kabīr). In addition to appearing in Tabarī's Tafsīr, it is used in the Tafsīr's of Muqātil, 'Abd al-Razzāq, and Ibn Kathir, as well as the naskh work of Nahhās, the asbāb collection of Wāhidī, and even the late-medieval al-Suyūtī's compilation al-Durr al-Manthūr fī'l-Tafsīr bi'l-Mathūr.

Objections to the incident were raised as early as the fourth Islamic century, such as in the work of Abu Ja'far am-Nahhas (d. 338 AH), and continued to be raised throughout later generations by scholars such as Abu Bakr ibn al-`Arabi (d. 543 AH), Fakhr ad-Din Razi (606 AH), as well as al-Qurtubi (671 AH). The most comprehensive refutation of the incident came in Qadi Iyad's "al-Shifa`". The incident was discounted on two main bases. The first was that the incident contradicted the doctrine of isma, divine protection of Muhammad from mistakes. The second was that the descriptions of the chain of transmission extant since that period are not complete and sound (sahih). Ibn Kathir in his commentary points out that the various isnāds available to him by which the story was transmitted were almost all mursal, or without a companion of Muhammad in their chain. There exists a muttasil (complete) version of the isnad continuing to the Companion Ibn 'Abbas, but this only survives in a few sources. Scholar Uri Rubin states that the name of Ibn 'Abbas must have been part of the original isnad, and was removed so that the incident could be deprived of its sahih isnad and discredited.

Those scholars who acknowledged the historicity of the incident apparently had a different method for the assessment of reports than that which has become standard Islamic methodology. For example, Ibn Taymiyya took the position that since tafsir and sira-maghazi reports were commonly transmitted by incomplete isnads, these reports should not be assessed according to the completeness of the chains but rather on the basis of recurrent transmission of common meaning between reports.

Qurtubī (al-Jāmi' li ahkām al-Qur'ān) dismisses all these variants in favor of the explanation that once Sūra al-Najm was safely revealed the basic events of the incident (or rumors of them) "were now permitted to occur to identify those of his followers who would accept Muhammad's explanation of the blasphemous imposture" (JSS 15, pp. 254-255).

By the time of Qurtubī (d. 1272), a series of ever more elaborate exculpations had accrued to the basic narrative. These variously claimed that:

• The entire incident is nothing more than a rumor started by Meccans.
• Muhammad uttered the Satanic Verses unaware.
• Satan deceived Muhammad into reciting the verses by delivering them in the guise of the angel Gabriel; this would cast all other revelations from Gabriel in doubt.
• Satan, while invisible, projected his voice so that the verses seemed to emanate from Muhammad.
• Some enemy of Muhammad (either satanic or human) recited the verses in Muhammad's voice to discredit him.

Views

The verses are seen as problematic to many Muslims as they are "profoundly heretical because, by allowing for the intercession of the three pagan female deities, they eroded the authority and omnipotence of Allah. But they also hold... damaging implications in regard to the revelation as a whole, for Muhammad’s revelation appears to have been based on his desire to soften the threat to the deities of the people." Different responses have developed concerning the account:

Academic views

Since William Muir the historicity of this episode (whether as an actual discrete event, or as a dramatization of a longer process of accommodation and then confrontation with Meccan polytheism) has been largely accepted by Western scholars of Islam. William Montgomery Watt and Alfred Guillaume argued for its authenticity based upon the implausibility of Muslims fabricating a story so unflattering to their prophet: "Muhammad must have publicly recited the satanic verses as part of the Qur'ān; it is unthinkable that the story could have been invented by Muslims, or foisted upon them by non-Muslims."

Alford T. Welch, in the Encyclopedia of Islam, argues that this reason alone would be insufficient to assert its authenticity. He says that the story in its present form is certainly a later, exegetical fabrication although there could be some historical basis for the story. Welch states that the story falsely claims that the chapter 53:1-20 and the end of the chapter are a unity; Furthermore the date for the verse 22:52 is later than 53:21-7, and almost certainly belongs to the Medinan period. Further several details in the setting of the story such as the mosque, the sad̲j̲da do not belong to the Meccan phase of Muhammad's career. Welch also thinks that the story is more likely to have not been mentioned in the Ibn Ishaq's biography of Muhammad. He says that the above analysis does not rule out "the possibility of some historical kernel behind the story." One such possibility, Welch says, is that the story is of a historical telescoping nature: "that a situation that was known by Muhammad's contemporaries to have lasted for a long period of time later came to be encapsulated in a story that restricts his acceptance of intercession through these goddesses to a brief period of time and places the responsibility for this departure from a strict monotheism on Satan."

John Burton argued for its fictitiousness based upon a demonstration of its actual utility to certain elements of the Muslim community – namely, those legal exegetes seeking an "occasion of revelation" for eradicative modes of abrogation. Burton supports his theory by the fact that Tabari does not discuss the story in his exegesis of the verse 53:20, but rather in 22:52. Burton further notes that different versions of the story are all tracable to one single narrator Muhammad b. Ka'b, two generations removed from Ibn Ishaq, but not contemporary with the event. Burton's solution to the problem has not been widely accepted. G.R. Hawting writes that this is partly due to the complexity of his argument, but mainly to the fact that the satanic verses incident does not serve to justify or exemplify a theory that God reveals something and later replaces it himself with another true revelation. Burton, in his rejection of the authenticity of the story, sided with L. Caetani, who wrote that the story was to be rejected not only on the basis of isnad, but because of the fact that "had these hadiths even a degree of historical basis, Muhammad's reported conduct on this occasion would have given the lie to the whole of his previous prophetic activity."

Maxime Rodinson finds that it may reasonably be accepted as true "because the makers of Muslim tradition would never have invented a story with such damaging implications for the revelation as a whole." He writes the following on the genesis of the verses: "Obviously (Tabari's account as good as says so in fairly clear words) Muhammad's unconscious had suggested to him a formula which provided a practical road to unanimity." Rodinson writes that this concession, however, diminished the threat of the Last Judgement by enabling the daughters of Allah to intercede for sinners and save them from eternal damnation. Further, it diminished Muhammad's own authority by giving the priests of Uzza, Manat, and Allat the ability to pronounce oracles contradicting his message. Disparagement from Christians and Jews who pointed out that he was reverting to his pagan beginnings and rebelliousness and indignation from among his own followers influenced him to go back on his revelation. However, in doing so he denounced the gods of Mecca as lesser spirits or mere names, cast off everything related to the traditional religion as the work of pagans and unbelievers, and consigned the Meccan's pious ancestors and relatives to Hell. This was the final break with the Quraysh.

Since John Wansbrough's contributions to the field in the early 1970s, though, scholars have become much more attentive to the emergent nature of early Islam, and less willing to accept back-projected claims of continuity:

To those who see the tradition as constantly evolving and supplying answers to question that it itself has raised, the argument that there would be no reason to develop and transmit material which seems derogatory of the Prophet or of Islam is too simple. For one thing, ideas about what is derogatory may change over time. We know that the doctrine of the Prophet's infallibility and impeccability (the doctrine regarding his 'isma) emerged only slowly. For another, material which we now find in the biography of the Prophet originated in various circumstances to meet various needs and one has to understand why material exists before one can make a judgment about its basis in fact...

G. R. Hawting, The Idea of Idolatry and the Emergence of Islam: From Polemic to History, pp. 134-135

In Rubin's recent contribution to the debate, questions of historicity are completely eschewed in favor of an examination of internal textual dynamics and what they reveal about early medieval Islam. Rubin locates the genesis of many prophetic traditions in the early Muslim desire to prove to other scriptuaries "that Muhammad did indeed belong to the same exclusive predestined chain of prophets in whom the Jews and the Christians believed. In order to do so, the Muslims had to establish the story of Muhammad's life on the same literary patterns as were used in the vitae of the other prophets". The incident of the Satanic Verses, according to him, conforms to the common theme of persecution followed by isolation of the prophet-figure.

As the story was adapted to include Qur'ānic material (Q.22:50, Q.53, Q.17:73-74) the idea of satanic temptation was added, heightening its inherent drama as well as incorporating additional biblical motifs (c.f. the Temptation of Christ). Rubin gives his attention to the narratological exigencies which may have shaped early sīra material as opposed to the more commonly considered ones of dogma, sect, or political/dynastic faction. Given the consensus that "the most archaic layer of the biography, [is] that of the stories of the kussās [i.e. popular story-tellers]" (Sīra, EI²), this may prove a fruitful line of inquiry.

Although there could be some historical basis for the story, in its present form it is certainly a later, exegetical fabrication. Sūra LIII, 1-20 and the end of the sūra are not a unity, as is claimed by the story; XXII, 52, is later than LIII, 21-7, and is almost certainly Medinan (see Bell, Trans., 316, 322); and several details of the story- the mosque, the sajda, and others not mentioned in the short summary above- do not belong to a Meccan setting.

Kur'ān, Encyclopaedia of Islam (EI)²

Muslim scholars' views

Almost all modern Muslim scholars have rejected the story. Muhammad Husayn Haykal dismisses it as "a fable and a detestable lie," in his book The Life of Muhammad. Rubin describes that work as marked by apologetic motives. Muslim convert Cyril Glasse writes "it is clear that the idea expressed in the Satanic Verses is so completely against the spirit of the Islamic message that it is impossible to believe that the Prophet could have actually entertained them as authentic even for a moment."

Claims that this story must have been a fabrication by the Meccans and other enemies of Muhammad, and that Ibn Ishaq, al-Tabarī, and al-Wāqidī only reported what they heard from others is belied, however, by the frequent reliance on this tradition within Islamic exegesis. Others argue that even if the story is to be accepted as authentic, it does not pose theological problems as the concept of ismah (Prophetic infallibility) does not imply that Muhammad could never make a mistake, only that no mistake made by Muhammad would be left uncorrected by God. Other Muslims reject this excuse because it allows for an element of time between when the Prophet utters a false utterance, and when God corrects it. Fazlur Rahman has argued that if we are to trust Ibn Ishaq on other matters, we must trust him on this one.

This entire matter was a mere footnote to the back-and-forth of religious debate, and was rekindled only when Salman Rushdie's 1988 novel, The Satanic Verses, made headline news. The novel contains some fictionalized allusions to Islamic history, which provoked both controversy and outrage. Muslims around the world protested the book's publishing, and Iran's Ayatollah Khomeini issued a fatwa sentencing Rushdie to death, saying that the book blasphemed Muhammad and his wives.

Related traditions

Several related traditions exist, some adapted to Qur'ānic material, some not. One version, appearing in Tabarī's Tafsīr and attributed to Urwah ibn Zubayr (d. 713), preserves the basic narrative but with no mention of satanic temptation. Muhammad is persecuted by the Meccans after attacking their idols, during which time a group of Muslims seeks refuge in Abyssinia. After the cessation of this first round of persecution (fitna) they return home, but soon a second round begins. No compelling reason is provided for the caesura of persecution, though, unlike in the incident of the satanic verses, where it is the (temporary) fruit of Muhammad's accommodation to Meccan polytheism. Another version attributed to 'Urwa has only one round of fitna, which begins after Muhammad has converted the entire population of Mecca, so that the Muslims are too numerous to perform ritual prostration (sūjud) all together. This somewhat parallels the Muslims and mushrikūn prostrating themselves together after Muhammad's first, allegedly satanically infected, recitation of Sūra al-Najm, in which the efficacy of the three pagan goddesses is acknowledged (Rubin, pp. 157-158).

The image of Muslims and pagans prostrating themselves together in prayer in turn links the story of the satanic verses to very abbreviated sūjud al-Qur'ān (i.e. prostration when reciting the Qur'ān) traditions found in the authoritative mussanaf hadīth collections, including the Sunni canonical ones of Bukhāri and Tirmidhī. Rubin claims that apparently "the allusion to the participation of the mushrikūn emphasises how overwhelming and intense the effect of this sūra was on those attending. The traditions actually state that all cognizant creatures took part in it, humans as well as jinns.

Rubin further argues that this is inherently illogical without the Satanic Verses in the recitation, given that in the accepted version of verses Q.53:19-23, the pagans' goddesses are attacked. The majority of traditions relating to prostration at the end of Sūra al-Najm solve this by either removing all mention of the mushrikūn, or else transforming the attempt of an old Meccan to participate (who, instead of bowing to the ground instead puts dirt to his forehead proclaiming "This is sufficient for me") into an act of mockery. Some traditions even describe his eventual comeuppance, saying he is later killed at the battle of Badr. [2] Thus, according to Rubin, "the story of the single polytheist who raised a handful of dirt to his forehead… [in]… attempt of an old disabled man to participate in Muhammad's sūjud… in… a sarcastic act of an enemy of Muhammad wishing to dishonor the Islamic prayer". And "traditions which originally related the dramatic story of temptation became a sterilized anecdote providing prophetic precedent for a ritual practice".

Tabarī's account

An extensive account of the incident is found in al-Tabāri's history, the Ta'rīkh (Vol. I):

The prophet was eager for the welfare of his people, desiring to win them to him by any means he could. It has been reported that he longed for a way to win them, and part of what he did to that end is what Ibn Humayd told me, from Salama, from Muhammad ibn Ishaq, from Yazīd ibn Ziyād al-Madanī, from Muhammad ibn Ka'b al-Qurazī:

When the prophet saw his people turning away from him, and was tormented by their distancing themselves from what he had brought to them from God, he longed in himself for something to come to him from God which would draw him close to them. With his love for his people and his eagerness for them, it would gladden him if some of the hard things he had found in dealing with them could be alleviated. He pondered this in himself, longed for it, and desired it.

Then God sent down the revelation. 'By the star when it sets! Your companion has not erred or gone astray, and does not speak from mere fancy…' [Q.53:1] When he reached God's words, "Have you seen Allāt and al-'Uzzā and Manāt, the third, the other?' [Q.53:19-20] Satan cast upon his tongue, because of what he had pondered in himself and longed to bring to his people, 'These are the high-flying cranes and their intercession is to be hoped for.'

When Quraysh heard that, they rejoiced. What he had said about their gods pleased and delighted them, and they gave ear to him. The Believers trusted in their prophet with respect to what he brought them from their Lord: they did not suspect any slip, delusion or error. When he came to the prostration and finished the chapter, he prostrated and the Muslims followed their prophet in it, having faith in what he brought them and obeying his command. Those mushrikūn of Quraysh and others who were in the mosque also prostrated on account of what they had heard him say about their gods. In the whole mosque there was no believer or kāfir who did not prostrate. Only al-Walīd bin al-Mughīra, who was an aged shaykh and could not make prostration, scooped up in his hand some of the soil from the valley of Mecca [and pressed it to his forehead]. Then everybody dispersed from the mosque.

Quraysh went out and were delighted by what they had heard of the way in which he spoke of their gods. They were saying, 'Muhammad has referred to our gods most favourably. In what he has recited he said that they are "high-flying cranes who intercession is to be hoped for".'

Those followers of the Prophet who had emigrated to the land of Abyssinia heard about the affair of the prostration, and it was reported to them that Quraysh had accepted Islam. Some men among them decided to return while others remained behind.

Gabriel came to the Prophet and said, O Muhammad, what have you done! You have recited to the people something which I have not brought you from God, and you have spoken what He did not say to you.'

At that the Prophet was mightily saddened and greatly feared God. But God, of His mercy, sent him a revelation, comforting him and diminishing the magnitude of what had happened. God told him that there had never been a previous prophet or apostle who had longed just as Muhammad had longed, and desired just as Muhammad had desired, but that Satan had cast into his longing just as he had cast onto the tongue of Muhammad. But God abrogates what Satan has cast, and puts His verses in proper order. That is, 'you are just like other prophets and apostles.'

And God revealed: 'We never sent any apostle or prophet before you but that, when he longed, Satan cast into his longing. But God abrogates what Satan casts in, and then God puts His verses in proper order, for God is all-knowing and wise.' [Q.22:52]

So God drove out the sadness from His prophet and gave him security against what he feared. He abrogated what Satan had cast upon his tongue in referring to their gods: 'They are the high-flying cranes whose intercession is accepted [ sic ]'. [replacing those words with] the words of God when Allāt, al-'Uzzā and Manāt the third, the other are mentioned: 'Should you have males and He females [as offspring]! That, indeed, would be an unfair division. They are only names which you and your fathers have given them'… as far as 'As many as are the angels in heaven, their intercession shall be of no avail unless after God has permitted it to whom He pleases and accepts' [Q.53:21-26]- meaning, how can the intercession of their gods be of any avail with Him?

When there had come from God the words which abrogated what Satan had cast on to the tongue of His prophet, Quraysh said, 'Muhammad has gone back on what he said about the status of our gods relative to God, changed it and brought something else', for the two phrases which Satan had cast on to the tongue of the Prophet had found a place in the mouth of every polytheist. They, therefore, increased in their evil and in their oppression of everyone among them who had accepted Islam and followed the Prophet.

The band of the Prophet's followers who had left the land of Abyssinia on account of the report that the people of Mecca had accepted Islam when they prostrated together with the Prophet drew near. But when they approached Mecca they heard that the talk about the acceptance of Islam by the people of Mecca was wrong. Therefore, they only entered Mecca in secret or after having obtained a promise of protection.

Among those of them who came to Mecca at that time and remained there until emigrating to Medina and taking part in the battle of Badr alongside Muhammad there was, from the family of 'Abd Shams b. Abd Manāf b. Qussayy, 'Uthmān b. 'Affān together with his wife Ruqayya the daughter of the Prophet. Abū Hudhayfa b. 'Utba with his wife Shal bint Suhayl, and another group with them, numbering together 33 men.

See also

• Hadith
• Sira
• Criticism of the Qur'an
• Al-Lat, Al-Uzza, Manat
• The Satanic Verses

References

• Fazlur Rahman (1994). Major Themes in the Qur'an. Biblioteca Islamica. ISBN 0-88297-051-8.
• John Burton (1970). "Those Are the High-Flying Cranes". Journal of Semitic Studies. 15: 246–264.
• Uri Rubin (1995). The Eye of the Beholder: The Life of Muhammad as Viewed by the Early Muslims: A Textual Analysis. The Darwin Press, Inc. ISBN 0-87850-110-X.
• G. R. Hawting (1999). The Idea of Idolatry and the Emergence of Islam: From Polemic to History. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-65165-4.
• Nāsir al-Dīn al-Albānī (1952). Nasb al-majānīq li-nasfi qissat al-gharānīq (The Erection of Catapults for the Destruction of the Story of the Gharānīq).

External links

Islamic commentators

• Muhammad: The man and the message
• Those are the High Flying Claims
• The "Satanic Verses": Did Muhammad (PBUH) Compromise Islam?
• STORY OF THE CRANES or "SATANIC VERSES"

Non-Islamic commentators

• The Satanic Verses in Qur'an

[[[cs:Satanské verše]]