[biannaruh]

salam,

I dont know if anybody watched the first of a three pat documentary on the prophet (SAW)? I just came across something that I had no knowledge of and wanted to know if anybody else can shed some light. It was said that there are 3 different versions of a story that apparently the prophet was sitting against the kaba' and he thought revelation came to him where he was going to announce to the idol worshippers that he is willing to strike a compromise whereby they can continue to worship their gods..but it wasnt a revelation..it was satan..thus called satanic verse...?? Omar Raegan goes on to say other scholars state this is a complete fictional account.

Now i understand y the pig rushdie named his book 'satanic verses' ..... anyhow what does anybody know of this?? ive never heard of this story before

jzk

[crestorinfo]

Sister I d like to caution you not to watch such documentaries, they are misleading. Iblees was never able to influence Allah's revelation to our Beloved Rasoolulla . Its better to read authentic Seerah (biography) for gaining knowledge about Rasoolullah life. Stay away from the Documentaries done by Non-Muslims, they will mix lies with the truth.

[enrisaabsotte]

I saw this come up in another thread and I'm surprised that more Muslims have are not aware of the satanic verses. I'm not suggesting it's fact but my understanding is that for some time in early Islamic history there were Islamic scholars who believed it to be true and felt no compromise to their faith because of it.

[CalBettaulp]

I saw this come up in another thread and I'm surprised that more Muslims have are not aware of the satanic verses. I'm not suggesting it's fact but my understanding is that for some time in early Islamic history there were Islamic scholars who believed it to be true and felt no compromise to their faith because of it.

I've never ever seen any source that suggests that any scholar affirmed the story as true.

Remember, many scholars acted as compilers rather than verifiers, and so just because someone mentions something in a book, it does not automatically necessitate that they accept that narration as being true.

[Snweyuag]

salam,

I dont know if anybody watched the first of a three pat documentary on the prophet (SAW)? I just came across something that I had no knowledge of and wanted to know if anybody else can shed some light. It was said that there are 3 different versions of a story that apparently the prophet was sitting against the kaba' and he thought revelation came to him where he was going to announce to the idol worshippers that he is willing to strike a compromise whereby they can continue to worship their gods..but it wasnt a revelation..it was satan..thus called satanic verse...?? Omar Raegan goes on to say other scholars state this is a complete fictional account.

Now i understand y the pig rushdie named his book 'satanic verses' ..... anyhow what does anybody know of this?? ive never heard of this story before

jzk

When I want to buy a car, I refer to Car experts. When you want to know about a country's geography, you go to the relevant experts. These people are using a Hollywood Comic named "Omar Reagan" to answer questions about Islam....................

[GreefeWrereon]

Ugh, this reminded me of when I tried to read that book by Rushdie before I became a Muslim. It was so horrible I don't know where to start. I mean, really, just an atrocious book (I ended up just throwing it away it was that bad)...but then again, everything that guy has written since Midnight's Children--which I really liked--has been horrible. He obviously just gave up.

[Dastyh]

Salman Rushdie became a hack (bad writer)?

That's gonna hurt him in the West...

[uncoodync]

I hope this would be beneficial

Salamun 'alaykum Here is an issue that the enemies of
Islam fish out the toilet every now and
again to cast doubts into the hearts of
the believers and potential Muslims to
be. This is not a new claim that
originated with Salmun Rushdie. No, in fact the enemy of Islam Muhammad Ibn
Abdul Wahhab also used the same
arguement in his Mukhtasar Seerat ur-
Rasulillahi. So it is nothing new.
However, by the grace of Allah this
argument has been totally demolished, but before we get into that I would like
to provoke some thought about
preservation of history. Robin Hood is a world famous
character. Loved and treasured. We
have seen many films and cartoons
made about him, yet when we study
Robin Hood as an historical figure, we
find discrepancies in the historical accounts. Even some historians
considered him a highway robber, a cut
throat thieve. However, the historical
works when all laid out and placed
under the microscope of examination
all fail the test of authenticity and have no transmission to where such and
such historical accounts can be
attributed. In fact, we will find that the
mystery figure of Robin Hood to be
nothing more than a myth, and cannot
be proven by fact. We cannot say this about Prophet
Muhammad sal Allahu alayhi wassallam,
the one who said: "The best of
generations is my generation, then the
one after that, then the one after that.
After them will appear untrustworthy people" Saheeh al-Bukhaari, The book
of the Merits of the companions of the
Prophet sal Allahu alayhi wasallam,
Volume 5, hadeeth no. 2 and 3, also of
simular import in Saheeh al-Bukhari,
The Book of Witnesses, Volume 3, Number 820; Volume 8, The Book
of ar-Riqaaq, Number 437 and more. The Holy Prophet sal Allahu alayhi
wasallam also said: “At the head of
every one hundred years, Allah will
send to this nation one who will revive
for it its Religion. Mishkaat ul-
Masaabeeh, hadeeth no. 248 and classified as authentic
He also said: "This knowledge will be
carried by the trustworthy ones of
every generation - they will expel from
it the alterations made by those going
beyond bounds, the false claims of the liars, and the false interpretations of the
ignorant" Sunan Abu Dawuud, Kitaab
ul-Malaaham, hadeeth no. 4291 and
even the Wahhabi scholar Albaani has
classified this hadeeth as Saheeh in his
Silsilah as-Saheehah 2/148, hadeeth no. 599 We see from the three above
Ahaadeeth that the knowledge’s of
Islam, including biography and history,
would be preserved and carried forth
by the trustworthy scholars, but yet the
Prophet sal Allahu alayhi wasallam also warned us that there would also be
untrustworthy people. But despair not, Allah has preserved
this deen through trustworthy scholars
and isnaad in which ‘Abdullah Ibn
Mubarrak said: “The Religion is isnaad [authentic
unbroken transmission], and if it was
not for isnaad, people can say
whatever they wish [about this deen]”. Therefore we should only take reports
about our religion from the righteous
known revivors of each century who
have had the knowledge passed down
and preserved through them. No historian can ever boast a greater
preservation than the knowledge’s that
the Muslims scholars have compiled.
Whereas they cannot proof if Robin
Hood existed, we can proof that the
Prophet sal Allahu alayhi wasallam, his companions and all the Islamic scholars
[including Ibn Qudaamah al Maqdasi
who was from the same years as Robin
hood is said to have lived] existed. This
is a miracle of the Prophet's words
""This knowledge will be carried by the trustworthy ones of every generation" And the words of the Messenger of
Allah sal Allahu alayhi wasallam indeed
ring true when he said "they will expel
from it the alterations made by those
going beyond bounds, the false claims
of the liars, and the false interpretations of the ignorant" Well, here he is, a 5th/6th century
theologian, the revivor of the deen and
accepted authority of his time. His name
is Qadi Iyad Ibn Musa al Yahsubi [544
AH/ 1149CE]. He refuted this
nonesensical claim of the Satanic verses hundreds of years ago. He was indeed,
according to the Prophets words, one
who expelled the alterations, refuted
the false claims of the liars, and
corrected the false interpretations, and
this can be seen on in his following discourse on the alleged Satanic verses.
Enjoy.... ----------------------------------- ln this section we will deal with certain
questions posed by calumniators. One of them is what is related about the
Prophet's recitation of the sura entitled
"The Star" (53). It is said that he recited,
"Have you seen al-Lat and al- 'Uzza and
Manat, the third, the other?" (53:19) and then added, "Those are the high-
soaring cranes whose intercession is
hoped for." Transmitted by Ibn Jarir,
Ibn al-Mundhir and Abu Hatim with a
broken isnad from Sa'id ibn Jubayr. When the Prophet finished the sura, he
prostrated, and the Muslims prostrated
and so did the unbelievers since they
had heard him praise their gods. One of the transmissions says that
Shaytan cast it on the Prophet's tongue
while he was hoping for something to
be sent down on him to bring his
people nearer. Another version says he was hoping
that nothing would be sent down on
him which would alienate them. This story goes on to say that Jibril then
came to him and the Prophet recited the
sura to him. When he reached these
words, Jibril said to him, "I did not
bring you these." The Prophet was distressed because of
this and Allah sent down the following
ayat to console him, "We did not send any Messenger or
Prophet before you, but that Shaytan
cast into his recitation when he was
reciting but Allah abrogates what
Shaytan casts and then Allah confirms
His signs. Allah is Knowing, Wise," (22:52) and "They very nearly deceived you away
from what We revealed to you, that you
might forge lies other than it against Us,
and then they would have taken you as
a friend." (17:73) Know that we have two approaches for
discussing the problems posed by this
hadith. One approach considers its root
to be weak and the other considers it
sound. As for the first approach, it is enough
for you to know that this hadith is not
related by any of the people of sound
hadith, i.e. the authors of the Six Books,
nor does anyone reliable relate it with a
sound direct isnad. It is only commentators and historians
who are fascinated by strange things,
be they sound or faulty, that are fond of
this kind of thing. Qadi Bakr ibn al-'Ala'
al-Maliki spoke the truth when he said
that people were put to the test by some sectarians and commentators and
the heretics continued to adhere to the
story in spite of the weakness of its
transmission, the disarray of the
various versions of it, the gap in its
isnad and the discrepancy in its words. One variant says that it took place
during the prayer while another says
that it was sent down on him while he
was summoning the people. Another
says that he said it happened while he
was sleepy and yet another says that his self spoke to him and made him
forgetful. Another variant says that Shaytan said
it on his tongue and when the Prophet
recited it to Jibril, he said, "This is not
how I recited it to you." Another says
that Shaytan told them that the Prophet
had recited it and when the Prophet heard that, he said, "By Allah, it was not
sent down like that." None of the commentators who relate
this story, Like Ibn Jarir, Abu Hatim and
Ibn al-Mundhir, nor the Followers, Such
as az-Zuhri and Qatada, gave it an isnad
or traced it back to one of the
Companions. Most of its paths of trans* mission are weak. The marfu' hadith containing it from
Shu'ba from Abu Bishr from Sa'id ibn
Jubayr from Ibn 'Abbas, says, "I
imagine (showing the doubtfulness of
it) that the Prophet was in Makka." Abu Bakr al-Bazzar says that this hadith
is not known with a direct con- nected
isnad except from Shu'ba and he was
unsure about it.[ There is a lengthy
discussion on the weakness of its isnad
which is omitted.] As for the implications, it has already
been clearly shown, proof has been
established and the community is in
agreement that the Prophet was
protected and free from things like this,
both from any desire for something like this to be revealed to him, in which
there is praise for other gods than Allah
- which is disbelief - and also from
Shaytan being able to overcome him
and make the Qur'an obscure to him in
such a way as to make him put in it what is not actually part of it. It is not conceivable that the Prophet
could believe that something which
was not part of the Qur'an was part of it
so that Jibril would have to inform him
of it. All of this is impossible for the
Prophet. It is impossible for the Prophet to have said this from himself
intentionally. That would amount to
either disbelief or forgetfulness and he
is protected from both these things. It has been confirmed both by proofs
and by consensus that the Prophet is
protected from any disbelief coming
into his heart or onto his tongue, either
intentionally or through forgetfulness,
or that what the Angel cast into him should resemble anything that Shaytan
can cast, or that Shaytan should have a
way to get to him, or for him to forge
lies against Allah intentionally, or
through forgetfulness regarding
something that had not been revealed to him. Allah says, "Had he invented any sayings against
us, We would have seized him by the
right hand..." (69:44-45) and He says, "Then We would have made you taste
the double of life and the double of
death. Then you would not have found
any helper against Us." (17:75) The second point to be made is the
general impossibility of this story. If
these words had been as they are
related, it would have been
incongruous, contradictory, mixing
praise and censure, and feeble. That would not have been hidden from the
Prophet and the Muslims and leaders of
the idol-worshippers who were with
him. It is not concealed from the most
insignificant person who reflects on it,
so how could it have been hidden from people who had great knowledge and
were thoroughly versed in the science
of eloquent, sound Arabic? The third point is that it is known that
the habit of the hypocrites and the
idolworshippers, those who were
weak of heart and the ignorant Muslims
was to bridle at the first opportunity. His
enemies would use the slightest excuse to cause confusion about the Prophet
and abuse the Muslims. They gloated
over them time after time. Those with a
sickness in their hearts who had
professed Islam abandoned it at the
least doubt. However, in spite of this, no one related
anything about this story other than
the weak version that has already been
mentioned. If the story had actually
been true, Quraysh would definitely
have used it to attack the Muslims, and the Jews would have used it as a proof
against the Muslims as in the
haughtiness they used regarding the
relation of the Night Journey which led
to the apostasy of some of the Muslims
who were weak. The same thing also happened in relation to the
circumstances of the Treaty of
Hudaybiyya. [Some people were upset
by this treaty because they thought it
put the Muslims in a weak position.] There would have been no temptation
or trial greater than this affliction if it
had really occurred. There would have
been nothing which the enemy would
have used to provoke dissension more
than such an event if it had been possi* ble to do so, but not a single word of it
is related, neither from the recalcitrant
nor from any Muslim. This shows that the whole story is false
and not to be accepted, and there is no
doubt that one of the shaytans of men
or jinn foisted this hadith onto one of
the heedless people of hadith in order
to cause confusion among weak Muslims.
The fourth point is that the people who
transmitted this story maintained that
Allah's words, "They very nearly beguiled you away
from what We revealed to you, that you
might forge lies other than it against Us,
and then they would have taken you as
a friend," (17:73) were sent down about it. These two
ayats in fact refute the tradition they
have related because Allah says that
they only very nearly beguiled to make
him forget. If it had not been that He
had majde him firm, he would have relied on them.
The contents of this ayat and what is
understood from it is that Allah pro*
tected him from forging a lie and made
him firm so that he did not rely on them
at all, let alone a lot. They relate in their weak traditions that, in addition to the
reliance and the forging, the Prophet
added praise of their gods and that he
said, "I have forged against Allah and
said what He did not say." This is contrary to what is to be
understood from the ayat and would
make the hadith weak, even if it had
been sound. This is similar to what He
says in another ayat, "Had it not been for the bounty of Allah
upon you and His mercy, a group of
them wanted to mislead you but they
only mislead themselves and they do
not harm you at all." (4:113) It is related from Ibn 'Abbas, "All the
things about which the Qur'an says
'almost' or 'nearly' did not occur."
Allah says, "The radiance of His lightning nearly
snatches away the sight." (24:43) It
does not in fact do so. When "He nearly
hid it," He did not do so. Qadi al-Qushayri said that when the
Prophet passed by their gods, Quraysh
and Thaqif tried to make him look at
them and promised him that they
would believe in him if he did. He did
not and would not do it. Ibn al-Anbari said that the Messenger did not go near
them nor rely on them. Other tafsirs on
the meaning of this ayat have
mentioned what we have mentioned
regarding what Allah said about His
Messenger being protected which shows that this matter is without basis. All that remains to be learned from the
ayat is that Allah strengthened His
Messenger by protecting him and
making him firm regarding what the
unbelievers were about to do when
they wanted to beguile him. What is meant by that is that the Prophet was
protected and free from it. This is what
should be understood from the ayat. The second approach is based on
considering the hadith to be sound. In
which case, the Imams of the Muslims
have different responses to that, of vary*
ing strengths. One from Qatada and Muqatal is that the
Prophet was dozing when reciting this
sura and these words flowed on his
tongue as if he were asleep. This would
not be not valid for the Prophet in any
of his states nor would Allah have creat* ed that on his tongue nor could
Shaytan overcome him either while
asleep or awake because the Prophet
was completely protected. Al-Kalbi said that the Prophet was
speaking to himself when Shaytan said
that on his tongue. In Ibn Shihab's
version from Abu Bakr ibn 'Abdu'r-
Rahman, he said that he forgot and
when told about it said that it was from Shaytan. All of these things are
impossible for the Prophet in any state.
Shaytan has no power to make him say
things. It is said that perhaps the Prophet said
it, while he was reciting, by way of
rebuke for the unbelievers in the same
way that Ibrahim said, "This is my
Lord," (6:76) according to one of the
interpretations and as Ibrahim also said, "Rather the greatest of them did
this." (21:63) After a silence and then a
clarification of the words, he returned
to his recitation. This is possible if the
separation was clear and the context
indicated what was meant. In this case what he said was not part of what is
recited. This is one of the things that
Qadi Abu Bakr has mentioned. There is
no argument against this interpretation
in what is related about him being in
the prayer. It is not impossible that the words occurred before the prayer. That which appears to be true in Qadi
Abu Bakr's opinion, and that of others
among precise people who hold the
same opinion, regarding the interpreta*
tion of this hadith, if indeed it is sound,
is that the Prophet was reciting the Qur'an slowly as his Lord had
commanded him to, making the ayats
distinct and precise in his recitation as
has been reliably related about his
practice. It was possible that Shaytan
was lurking nearby and during the silence slipped in different words which
were attuned to the voice of the
Prophet, so that the unbelievers
present thought that the Prophet had
said them and so publicised them. As
far as the Muslim is concerned, this does not impair the preservation of the sura,
which occurred before that incident, as
Allah revealed. They were certain about
the Prophet's censure of idols. Musa ibn 'Uqba related something
similar in his book The Raids, saying
that the Muslims did not hear these
words. Shaytan cast them into the ears
of the idol-worshippers and into their
hearts. What is related about the Prophet's sorrow was because of the
publicity given to the incident and the
uncertainty which made it a cause for
trial. Allah says, "We did not send any
Messenger or Prophet before but that
Shaytan cast into his fancy when he
was fancying..." (22:52) "Fancying"
here means recitation. Allah also says,
"They only know fancies of the Book," (2:78) i.e. recitation. He further
says, "Allah will abrogate what Shaytan
cast," (22:52) meaning, take it away
and remove all doubt concerning it and
make the ayat clear. It has been said that the ayat means
that a state of forgetfulness came over
the Prophet when he was reciting and
then he became conscious of it and
returned from it. This is roughly what
al-Kalbi was indicating about the ayat, when he said that he was speaking to
himself, taking "when he was fancying"
to mean "was speaking to himself."
Something similar to this is related in
the transmission of Abu Bakr ibn
'Abdu'r-Rahman. This forgetfulness in the recitation is
valid only if it in no way alters the
meaning, changes the phrases or adds
something that is not part of the Qur'an.
It might constitute omitting an ayat or a
word of it. However, the Prophet never remained in this state of forgetfulness.
He was conscious of it and reminded of
it immediately as we will mention when
discussing what sorts of forgetfulness
are permitted for him and what are not. Part of what is known regarding the
interpretation of this incident is that
Mujahid related this story of the "high-
soaring cranes." If we consider the
story to be valid, then we must say that
it is not impossible that this was part of the Qur'an. According to this version,
what is meant by the high-soaring
cranes and their intercession being
hoped for is that they are angels. Al-
Kalbi says that they are angels. The
unbelievers used to believe that the idols and the angels were the
daughters of Allah. This is refuted in
this sura by His words, "What! Have you
males and He females?" (53:21) By this Allah denies their assertion. It is
correct to hope for intercession from
the angels. When the idol- worshippers
interpreted it as referring to their gods,
Shaytan made it ambiguous to them,
decked it out to them in their hearts and cast that impression into them.
Then Allah abrogated what Shaytan
cast and made His ayat clear and
cancelled the recitation of the two
phrases which Shaytan had been able
to make unclear, in the same way that many other parts of the Qur'an were
abrogated and their recitation
cancelled. There is a wisdom in Allah's sending it
down and there is a wisdom in its
abrogation. "By it He misguides
whomever He wills and guides
whomever He wills. He only misguides
the iniquitous by it," (2:26) and "...so that He may make what Shaytan casts a
trial for those in whose hearts there is
sickness and the hard-hearted. The
wrongdoers are in a far schism, and so
that those who have been given
knowledge know that it is the Truth from your Lord so they believe in Him
and their hearts are humble to
Him." (22:53-54) Another explanation is that when the
Prophet recited this sura and reached
the mention of al-Lat, al-'Uzza and
Manat, the third, the other, the
unbelievers feared he would bring
something that censured them and they preceded him in praising them
with these words. They then mixed
them in with the recitation of the
Prophet and publicised it as was their
custom.
They said, "Do not listen to this Qur'an and talk about it. Perhaps you will be
overcome." (41:267) This action was
ascribed to Shaytan since he provoked
them to do it. They announced the
interpolated passage and publicised it
saying that the Prophet had said it. He was distressed about it because they
had lied and they had forged lies
against him. Allah consoled him when
He said, "We did not send before
you..." (22:52) He made clear for the
people the truth from the false and the Qur'an was preserved and its ayats
were made exact. He repudiated what
the enemy had made obscure and Allah
ensured this by His words, "We sent
down the remembrance and We
preserve it." (15:9) Taken from Qadi Iyad’s Ash-Shifaa,
translated by Aisha Bewly and titled
Muhammad, Messenger of Allah Sal
Allahu alayhi wasallam, pgs 300-306 in
the chapter of the Protection of the
Prophets

[Nafheense]

i came across this on the subject....

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Polemics/sverses.html

1. Introduction

We would like to discuss some of the claims of a Christian missionary concerning the so-called 'Satanic verses'. The gist of the missionary's argument is in the last paragraph, which we have divided into various points for the sake of refutation:

But, to repeat, Rushdie did not originate the satanic verses. Nor did Jews, Christians or other non-Muslims. The sources for the satanic verses, at-Tabari and Ibn Sa'd, are reputable Muslim sources for early Quranic commentary and Islamic history. Muslims today who simply dismiss the account of these writers as fabricated and unhistorical must at least answer the question why such reputable persons would fabricate it. The question is not new. But, it seems, a serious Muslim response is hard to find.

We agree that Salman Rushdie did not originate the so-called 'Satanic' verses. In the Islamic sources the whole saga is known as Hadith al-Gharaniq al-cUla; therefore neither are the Islamic sources responsible for such a theatrical title. Who then coined the term 'Satanic verses'? As the tradition of defamation against Islam demonstrates, it could only have been Christian missionaries. Indeed, it was an English missionary, the belligerent Sir William Muir, who fashioned the term 'Satanic verses'.[1]

The word Maometis means The number of the beast, i.e., 666, by which Muhammad(P) was known in the Middle Ages. The names Mahoun and Mahound refer to Muhammad(P), imagined by credulous Europeans to be a pagan God. These derogatory names were concocted by "love-thy-neighbor", "turn-thy-cheek" Christians who maintained an open policy of defamation against Islam and Muhammad(P) throughout the Middle Ages. Apparently, this policy still exists today, though in a more sophisticated apparatus.

Now let us address the statements from the Christian missionary:

The sources for the satanic verses, at-Tabari and Ibn Sa'd, are reputable Muslim sources for early Quranic commentary and Islamic history.

Where do Ibn Jarir al-Tabari (d. 310/923) and Ibn Sa'd claim to be the sources of the so-called 'Satanic verses'? It is precisely the opposite. They have only transmitted the story as it was transmitted to them. Al-Tabari mentions the so-called 'Satanic verses' story[2] in his Tarikh as well as an important set of statements in the introduction of his book, which states:

Let him who examines this book of mine know that I have relied, as regards everything I mention therein which I stipulate to be described by me, solely upon what has been transmitted to me by way of reports which I cite therein and traditions which I ascribe to their narrators, to the exclusion of what may be apprehended by rational argument or deduced by the human mind, except in very few cases. This is because knowledge of the reports of men of the past and of contemporaneous views of men of the present do not reach the one who has not witnessed them nor lived in their times except through the accounts of reporters and the transmission of transmitters, to the exclusion of rational deduction and mental inference. Hence, if I mention in this book a report about some men of the past, which the reader of listener finds objectionable or worthy of censure because he can see no aspect of truth nor any factual substance therein, let him know that this is not to be attributed to us but to those who transmitted it to us and we have merely passed this on as it has been passed on to us.[3]

Thus, al-Tabari faithfully displayed these accounts in the exact manner through which he received them. Can he then be held liable if any objectionable accounts should arise? To translate this into laymen's terms, al-Tabari has simply refused accountability by avoiding the task of historical criticism. Therefore, any spurious accounts are not to be attributed to him.

This would not be difficult to understand, given the fact that the so-called 'Satanic verses' were transmitted from al-Waqidi to Ibn Sa'd. Ibn Sa'd (d. 230/845), who was the secretary of al-Waqidi (d. 207/823), also assumed the role of a mere transmitter by citing the text and its isnad. Concerning the two historians, al-Waqidi and Ibn Sa'd, the contemporary scholar, Tarif Khalidi, says:

For it is clear that Waqidi is in fact the senior partner. Ibn Sa'd, known of course as 'katib al-Waqidi', was a secretary-editor of his master and of the materials he had assembled and then amplified.[4]

In other words, neither al-Waqidi nor Ibn Sa'd were eye-witnesses to the revelation of 'Satanic verses'; they were simply the transmitters.

It is also worthwhile to mention that:

... Waqidi was attacked for loose isnad usage by strict practitioners of Hadith...[5]

Claiming that the issue of so-called 'Satanic verses' incident is true just because al-Tabari or Ibn Sa'd mentioned them amounts to a deliberate distortion of the facts.

Now we will address the issue of why Muslims today simply dismiss the account mentioned by these two writers. To begin with, Muslims exegetes in the past have dismissed these accounts, too. This is not something new. Michael Fischer and Mehdi Abedi, writing on the issue of Salman Rushdie's novel The Satanic Verses as well as the Islamic account of the so-called 'Satanic' verses, say (and notice their curious argument):

The story that Muhammad could have used the Satanic suggestion is rejected by almost all exegetes, but the fact that the story persists as a subject of exegetes' discussions is testimony to the reality of the temptation both for Muhammad and for later Muslims in their own struggles with such "Babylons" as London, New York, Paris, or Hamburg.[6]

Since the story is rejected by almost all the exegetes, are the Muslims not justified in dismissing the account related to the so-called 'Satanic verses'?

One is also tempted to add the research done by Orientalists like John Burton, who instead of parroting Muir and Watt, concluded with an original argument:

There existed therefore a compelling theoretical motive for the invention of these infamous hadiths. If it be felt that this has now been demonstrated, there should be no further difficulty in suggesting that those hadiths have no historical basis.[7]

From here, let us move on to the Muslim argument against the so-called 'Satanic' verses.
2. 'Satanic' Verses & The Muslim Argument

In this section, we will examine the Christian missionary's complaint:

But, it seems, a serious Muslim response is hard to find.

One really wonders if this missionary has even read any literature, both modern as well as old, on this subject. We have seen above that according to Michael Fischer and Mehdi Abedi almost all the Islamic exegetes have rejected the story of so-called 'Satanic' verses. They have not just rejected it without giving their reasons! In the modern literature, there is a copious amount of work done by Muslims dealing with the 'Satanic verses'. Notable among them are the two books of Abu A'la Mawdudi Tahfim al-Qur'an (1972) and Sirat-i Sarwar-i 'Alam (1979), which critically examines all the aspects of the story and evaluates the writings of early Muslim scholars on this subject quite thoroughly. One is also tempted to mention the works of Sayyid Qutb (Fi Zilal al-Qur'an) and M. H. Haykal (The Life Of Muhammad). Zakaria Bashier, in his book, The Makkan Crucible, deals with the issue quite thoroughly.[8] Also mentioned in Appendix 2 in his book is an article The 'Satanic' Verses And The Orientalists (A Note On The Authenticity Of The So-Called Satanic Verses).[9] This is a revised version of the article that was published in the journal, Hamdard Islamicus. We reproduce the article below with minor modifications.

Al-Tabari, Ibn Sa'd and some other Muslim writers have mentioned (though they vary considerably in the matters of detail) that Prophet Muhammad(P), under Satanic inspiration added two verses to Surah an-Najm [53], which are as follows:

These are the high-flying ones, whose intercession is to be hoped for!

The Prophet(P), it is alleged, recited these along with other verses of Surah an-Najm in the prayer. The idolators of Makkah who were present in the Ka'bah at that time joined him in the prayer because he praised their deities and thus won their hearts. The story afterwards reached Abyssinia where the Muslims, persecuted by the Makkan infidels, had earlier migrated and many of them returned to Makkah under the impression that the disbelievers no longer opposed the Prophet(P) and the Islamic movement. The story also says that the angel Gabriel came to the Prophet(P) the same evening and told him about the mistake he had committed by reciting verses which were never revealed to him. This naturally worried the Prophet(P) and made him apprehensive. 'Admonishing' the Prophet(P), God revealed the following verses of Surah al-Isra' which read:

And their purpose was to tempt thee away from that which We had revealed unto thee, to substitute in our name something quite different; (in that case), behold! they would certainly have made thee (their) friend! And had We not given thee strength, thou wouldst nearly have inclined to them a little. In that case We should have made thee taste an equal portion (of punishment) in this life, and an equal portion in death: and moreover thou wouldst have found none to help thee against Us! [Qur'an 17:73-75]

This made the Prophet(P) feel very guilty until God revealed the following consoling verse of Surah al-Hajj:

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. [Qur'an 22:52]

This is the gist of the story mentioned by al-Tabari and some other writers that has been used by the Christian missionaries. The story would, among other things, imply that the Prophet(P) and his Companions(R) took the 'Satanic' verses as a true revelation from God, otherwise nobody would have accepted them.

Let us now examine the story and its contents in the light of internal and external evidence and evaluate it on the basis of criteria of historical criticism. In doing so, first of all one has to find out the chronological sequence in the story and establish whether or not all its details relate to one period and are interconnected. Special attention should be devoted to determining the periods of revelation of the three verses mentioned in the report, which will validate or falsify the episode.

It can easily be gleaned from the story that the incident of reciting the 'Satanic' verses and the consequent prostration of the disbelievers in the Ka'bah happened after the first batch of Muslims had migrated to Abyssinia. This migration, according to all the reliable sources, occurred in the month of Rajab of the fifth year of the Prophetic call or about eight years before the Hijrah to Madinah. Therefore, the incident must have happened close to this date and not long after the migration to Abyssinia.

The verses of Surah al-Isra' (17:73-5) which were revealed, according to the story, to 'admonish' the Prophet(P) for allegedly reciting the 'Satanic' verses, in fact were not revealed until after the event of the Mi'raj. The Mi'raj or the Ascent of the Prophet(P), according to historical sources, occurred in the tenth or eleventh year of the Prophetic call, i.e., two or three years before the Hijrah to Madinah. If this is so, then it implies that the 'Satanic' verses were not detected or for some reason no mention was made about the alleged interpolation of the verses for five or six years and only afterwards was the Prophet(P) admonished for it. Can any sensible person believe that the interpolation occurs today, while the admonition takes place six years later and the abrogation of the interpolated verses is publicly announced after nine years. The relevant verse of Surah al-Hajj (22:52) according to the commentators of the Qur'an was revealed in the first year of Hijrah, i.e., about eight to nine years after the incident and about two and a half years after the so-called admonition of the Prophet(P) (17:73-5). Can anybody who knows about the Qur'an, its history and revelation, understand and explain how the incident of interpolation was allowed to be tolerated for six years and also why the offensive 'verses' were not abrogated until after nine years?

The implication of this argument is that since the abrogating verses were revealed nine years after the original event, that would mean that for nine years Muslims had been asking Lat, Manat and Uzza for intercession! In other words outright idolatry resulting from compromised monotheistic beliefs. It is therefore quite pretentious to suggest any historicity in the notion that Muslims had been asking Lat, Manat and Uzza for intercession over the span of almost a decade.

Watt's theory is that

... the earliest versions do not specify how long afterwards this (abrogation) happened; the probability is that it was weeks or even months.[10]

is nothing but a hypothesis. Had he investigated the chronology of the three revelations relative to the story, he could not possibly have missed the facts related above.

Let us now turn to some internal evidence. It has been said in the story that the 'Satanic' interpolation occurred in Surah an-Najm (53:19) which delighted the idolators present in the Ka'bah and as a gesture of friendship and good-will, they all bowed down with the Prophet(P). In order to comment on the story it would seem necessary to read the verses in the Qur'an, adding the alleged 'Satanic' verses, and find out what is actually meant to be conveyed here. It would read as follows.

Have ye seen Lat and 'Uzza, And another, the third (goddess), Manat? [These are the high-flying ones, whose intercession is to be hoped for!] What! for you the male sex, and for Him, the female? Behold, such would be indeed a division most unfair! hese are nothing but names which ye have devised,- ye and your fathers,- for which Allah has sent down no authority (whatever). They follow nothing but conjecture and what their own souls desire!- Even though there has already come to them Guidance from their Lord! [Qur'an 53:19-23]

If one reads the bold part of the alleged Satanic verses quoted above, one fails to understand how God on the one hand is praising the deities and on the other hand discrediting them by using the subsequent phrases quoted above. It is also difficult to see how the Quraysh leaders drew the conclusion from this chapter that Muhammad(P) as making a conciliatory move and was adopting a policy of give and take.

Drawing the conclusions from various reports connected with the story, Watt suggests that

... at one time Muhammad must have publicly recited the Satanic verses as part of the Qur'an; it is unthinkable that the story could have been invented later by Muslims or foisted upon them by non-Muslims. Secondly, at some later time Muhammad announced that these verses were not really part of the Qur'an and should be replaced by others of a vastly different import.[11]

Watt's suggestion that Muhammad(P) replaced the 'Satanic' verses with some others of a vastly different import is pure speculation. If one takes the 'Satanic' verses to be true, it would imply that the verses to be found in 53:19f. were not revealed in the same period. Watt's suggestion also implies that Muhammad(P) and his followers read the 'Satanic' verses in place of or in addition to the verses found in the Qur'an for 'weeks and even months' and that when Muhammad(P) later realized that these verses could not be correct, then the true version and continuation of the passage was revealed to him. This supposition is again pure speculation and is not based on any historical data. The story which we have summarized in the beginning suggests that Muhammad(P) did not realize his fault until God admonished him six years later and that the matter was rectified perhaps another two and a half years after. In the meantime the Muslims were supposedly asking Allat, Manat and Uzza for intercession! Had the genuine state of affairs truly been this ridiculous, it would have been impossible for Muhammad(P) to have maintained such a loyal following.

It is obvious that Watt and other Orientalists accept part of the story and reject the related parts along with their destructive implications, apparently because they are unable to find any link or sequence. Had there been any element of truth in the story, it could have caused a great scandal against Islam and the Prophet(P) and every detail of this scandal must have found its place in the hadith literature. Why is the authentic hadith collection conspicuously silent about the scandalous part of the story? Does it not lead to the conclusion, contrary to the established fact, that hadith literature itself is very defective as it failed to record such an important event which led the Prophet(P) and his Companions(R) to read 'Satanic' verses for weeks, months or perhaps even years without realizing the error, all the while asking for the intercession of Lat, Manat and Uzza? In fact, al-Bukhari, Muslim, Abu Dawud, Nasa'i and Ahmad b. Hanbal all record the story, but only to the extent that was true. They all mention that the Prophet(P) did recite Surah an-Najm and that, at the end when he prostrated, the idolaters present were so overawed that they also joined him in prostration. These leading Muhaddithun do not mention the blasphemous story which other sources have recorded.
3. Conclusions

It is quite clear that the nature of the story is absurd and it cannot stand the external and internal criticism. It is even clearer from the Qur'an that it is not possible for the Prophet(P) to accept anything in the Qur'an from any external source. If this is so, then how can one take seriously, let alone believe in the so-called story of the 'Satanic' revelation? This is why the leading traditionalists and the exegetes in Islam have regarded this story as malicious and without foundation.

It is unfortunate that an eminent historian like al-Tabari mentioned this story in his Tarikh al-Umam wal-Muluk and did not make any comment on its authenticity except to mention that he had faithfully transmitted whatever he received. Although there is great advantage in such a methodology (See reference 2 above) there are also risks. Unscrupulous people, i.e., the Christian missionaries, may take advantage of this and try to concoct something as they indeed did in the fabrication of the malicious story of the 'Satanic' verses.

The fact that al-Tabari, Ibn Sa'd and others have recorded this story in their works does not prove that the story itself is true. The missionary entertains a challenge to the Muslims:

Muslims today who simply dismiss the account of these writers as fabricated and unhistorical must at least answer the question why such reputable persons would fabricate it. The question is not new. But, it seems, a serious Muslim response is hard to find.

What the fellow is desperately pleading for is the source of the story. We have already witnessed that neither al-Tabari nor Ibn Sa'd is responsible for producing these stories. While the missionary himself conveniently attributes the accounts of al-Tabari and Ibn Sa'd with historical legitimacy, at least with regards to this particular incident, he is directing a sort of challenge to the Muslims who reject the historicity of the account. Thus, if the Muslims, not to mention Orientalists, dismiss the story as having no historical basis, then the missionary demands to know where the story came from, i.e. who is the individual responsible for concocting such an outlandish story. Somehow, he feels as though this is an uncomfortable question. However, an answer to this silly challenge is, what does it matter what the source is of such an absurd rumour? Rumours with even the most powerful effects of credulity have rarely seen their source discovered. Yet, we are not aware of any Muslims that actually believe the aforementioned story, and this position is cogently justified on the grounds of rigorous historical criticism. However, episodes of fabulous rumors followed by a credulous following are quite common outside the history of Islam. For example, it was rumoured that Jesus(P) traveled to India. It was rumoured that St. Matthew actually wrote the Gospel According to St. Matthew. It was rumoured that Islamic fundamentalists were responsible for the Oklahoma bombing. It was rumoured that UFOs visited Roswell, New Mexico. However, just because we do not know the individuals responsible for these rumours, does this mean that the rumours are true? Is the absence of an identified source of these rumours supposed to be construed as some sort of threat? The naïve implications of this method of inquiry should bring shame upon anybody who entertains them.

Finally, in light of the above, it can quite effortlessly be concluded that the Christian missionaries' attempt to answer to the inimitability of the Qur'an, by building upon the poor scholarship of a fellow missionary, is thus nothing other than a product of gross ignorance and sheer tomfoolery.

And Allah knows best!

[heennaRaf]

Ugh, this reminded me of when I tried to read that book by Rushdie before I became a Muslim. It was so horrible I don't know where to start. I mean, really, just an atrocious book (I ended up just throwing it away it was that bad)...but then again, everything that guy has written since Midnight's Children--which I really liked--has been horrible. He obviously just gave up.

I had managed to read Mid Night's Children in my third attempt. Somebody had said that there is a Page 15 group in UK-the group who has not been able to go beyond page 15 of Rushdie's books. The semi-modern technology called magic realism is better at other places, for example, I have much better memories of G.Garcia Marquez's Love in Time of Cholera. Life is full of sorrows but it also full of joys. People like Rushdie talk about sorrow and cut our joys and hope. The result is obvious for us all to see-the growing amount of hopelessness in those parts of the world where people like Rushdie are revered. Wallahualam.