Satanic Verses: Striking A Deep Chord

Backdrop

Islam emerged against the backdrop of the Christian Byzantine Empire and the dominant, authoritarian Catholic Church. It posed a challenge to the Christian imperial dominance by undermining the Christian religious beliefs that bolstered their political power. This transformation was initiated through the prophetic mission of Prophet Muhammad (SAW) and the dissemination of the Qur'anic teachings. The core principles of Islam – Allah, Rasul (the Prophet), and the Qur’an – serve as the foundational pillars that unite, invigorate, and sustain the Islamic community. Throughout history, adversaries of Islam have attempted to weaken the Muslim Ummah by attacking their faith in these fundamental tenets. Efforts have been made to cast doubt on the Islamic doctrine of al-Tawhid (the Oneness and Unity of God), the impeccable moral character of Prophet Muhammad (SAW), and the authenticity, integrity, and relevance of the Holy Qur’an.

The Western Christian perspective, shaped by a belief in its racial, political, economic, and cultural superiority, often assumes a corresponding religious supremacy. Given that their own religious doctrines and scriptures are fraught with inconsistencies and have undergone evolution and refinement over centuries, they are not readily convincing to the critically thinking and educated. Consequently, they project an expectation of similar flaws onto Islamic theology, despite Islam's coherent, rational, and systematic approach, its unaltered scriptural history, and the morally exemplary prophetic model. This leads to subjective biases being imposed on Islamic heritage under the guise of objective research and critical analysis. In essence, their own insecurities and complexities are projected onto Islamic beliefs, reducing them to a level of uncertainty and confusion.

Historical efforts to undermine Islam, from early Christian responses to Prophet Muhammad's mission, through the Crusades, colonial-era Oriental studies, to modern Islamophobic campaigns, have consistently aimed to weaken Muslims by attacking their religious foundations. In the realm of politics, where religious theology often forms the base, attacking a religion's theological principles is tantamount to assailing its political and social structures.

Salman Rushdie

The controversy surrounding Salman Rushdie's “Satanic Verses” exemplifies this cycle. The controversy exploited a weak narrative within Islamic literature, misappropriated it with questionable scholarly methods, and used it to attack the foundations of Islam. The narrative targeted the Islamic belief in the Prophet's infallibility, the Qur’an's divine protection, the sincerity of the prophetic mission, and the consistency and universality of Islamic moral principles.

Critics overlooked the fact that the Qur’an vigorously condemns all forms of idolatry, monolatry, and polytheism, while emphatically affirming the unity and transcendence of God. It is inconceivable that Prophet Muhammad (SAW), a staunch proponent of al-Tawhid, would ever compromise this principle and engage in Shirk (associating partners with God).

Shirk

Shirk, the act of associating anything or anybody with God, is according to the Qur’an, the only unforgivable sin: “Allah forgives not that partners should be set up with Him; but He forgives anything else, to whom He pleases; to set up partners with Allah is to devise a sin most heinous indeed” (4:48). Verse 4:116 reiterating the same message contains an additional line: “one who joins other gods with Allah, has strayed far, far away (from the right path).” In verse 31:13, shirk is declared “the highest wrong-doing”. “Being true in faith to Allah, and never assigning partners to Him: if anyone assigns partners to Allah [he] is as if he had fallen from heaven and been snatched up by birds, or the wind had swooped (like a bird on its prey) and thrown him into a far-distant place” (22:31).

Mawdudi notes that in this parable, heaven “means the original human nature. Man by nature is the servant of none else but Allah and inherently accepts the Doctrine of Tawhid. That is why the one who follows the guidance of the Prophets becomes firm in these dictates of his nature and soars higher and higher. On the other hand, the one who rejects Allah or associates a partner with Him falls down from the “heaven” of his nature. Then he either becomes a victim of Satans and evil leaders like the birds of the parable, which snatch away the fallen man, or he becomes a slave of his lusts, passions, whims, etc., which have been likened to the wind in the parable. They lower him down from one wrong position to the other till he falls into the deepest abyss of degradation.”

In addition to these appalling warnings, the Qur’an has vehemently denied the existence of gods as divinities other than the Almighty: “Whatever you worship apart from Him is nothing but names which you have named, you and your fathers, for which Allah has sent down no authority: the Command is for none but Allah: He has commanded that you worship none but Him: that is the right religion, but most men understand not.” (12:40)

Hence, the concept of deities is merely a creation of human imagination, lacking any real existence. This notion is echoed in Surah al-Najm, which says: “Have you considered Lat, Uzza, and the third goddess, Manat? Is it that you have sons and He has daughters? That, indeed, is an unjust division. They are but names you have named, you and your fathers, for which Allah has revealed no evidence. They follow but assumption and what their souls desire, and certainly, guidance has come to them from their Lord.” (53:19-23) This passage clearly articulates the idea that gods are fabrications of human thought, without any divine endorsement or reality. They are the result of mere speculation and the whims of human desire, even though divine guidance has been provided.

Al-Tabari and Ibn Sa'ad

Unfortunately, in the historical texts of Tabari and Ibn Sa’ad, there is a detailed account concerning the Sabab al-Nuzul (context of revelation) of these verses. This event garnered widespread attention following the release of Salman Rushdie's provocative novel "The Satanic Verses" in 1988. Numerous Western scholars have extensively analyzed this incident, suggesting that at one point during Prophet Muhammad’s mission, he acknowledged the legitimacy of the Makkan deities. This purported acknowledgment was seen as an attempt to mend relations with the Makkan adversaries and to strengthen his own political influence.

M. Watt 

For example, M. Watt cites Tabari’s narrative, positing that Prophet Muhammad, observing the Makkans' reluctance towards his teachings, wished to simplify their path to acceptance. During this period, Surah al-Najm was revealed. According to tradition, as Prophet Muhammad recited the verses, “Have ye considered al-Lat, al-Uzza, and Manat, the third, the other?”, an interference occurred. It is said that, in his eagerness to communicate with his people, he inadvertently uttered additional verses suggested by Satan: “these are the swans exalted, Whose intercession is to be hoped for.” This inclusion momentarily pleased the Makkans, who, seeing Prophet Muhammad prostrate, followed suit in prostration. This incident reached the Muslims in Abyssinia, who had fled there to escape Makkan persecution. Watt concludes that the angel Gabriel subsequently corrected Prophet Muhammad, leading to the revelation of verse 22:51. This verse served to comfort the Prophet and abrogate the mistakenly included ‘satanic verses’. Although the Quraysh claimed that Prophet Muhammad had revised his stance on the goddesses, the idolaters had already capitalized on the initial misstep.

Expounding on various other interpretations and contrasting them with the aforementioned account, Watt contends that a comparative analysis of these different versions allows us to discern the underlying factual consistency among them. By separating these objective elements from the subjective motives attributed by different historians in their explanations, we can gain a clearer understanding of the events. He notes that “at least two facts about which we may be certain. Firstly, at one time Prophet 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 Prophet Muhammad announced that these verses were not really part of the Qur’an and should be replaced by others of a vastly different import. The earliest versions do not specify how long afterwards this happened; the probability is that it was weeks or even months.” Elsewhere, Watt argues that “The story is so strange that it must be true in essentials.”

Maxime Rodinson also argues that the tradition “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.”

The conclusion Watt reaches is desperate. He argues: “The Muslim scholars, not possessing the modern Western concept of gradual development, considered Prophet Muhammad from the very first to have been explicitly aware of the full range of orthodox dogma. Consequently, it was difficult for them to explain how he failed to notice the heterodoxy of the satanic verses. The truth rather is that his monotheism was originally, like that of his more enlightened contemporaries, somewhat vague, and in particular was not so strict that the recognition of inferior divine beings was felt to be incompatible with it. He probably regarded al-Lat, al-Uzza, and Manat as celestial beings of a lower grade than God, in much the same way as Judaism and Christianity have recognized the existence of angels. The Qur’an in the later...Meccan period speaks of them as jinn, although in the Medinan period, they are said to be merely names. This being so, it is perhaps hardly necessary to find any special occasion for the satanic verses. They would not mark any conscious retreat from monotheism, but would simply be an expression of views that Prophet Muhammad always held.” Watt emphatically asserts that “Indeed there is little about idols through the whole Meccan period.”

M. Rodinson argues along the same lines observing: “Prophet Muhammad’s unconscious had suggested to him a formula which provided a practical road to unanimity. It did not appear to conflict with his henotheism, since these ‘great birds’ were, like angels or jinns, conceived of as subordinate to Allah. Elsewhere they were called the ‘daughters of Allah’. On the other hand, this provided a clear indication that the new teaching was in no way revolutionary and that the new sect honored the city’s divinities, respected their shrines and recognized their cult as legitimate ones.

Bargain

Watt explains the motive behind these verses by claiming that the leading Quraysh made some sort of offer to Prophet Muhammad; he was to receive certain worldly advantages, and in return make some acknowledgment of their deities. The promulgation of the satanic verses was doubtless linked to this bargain, and their abrogation was simply a result of the failure of compromise. Watt further claims that Prophet Muhammad “came to realize that acknowledgment of the Banat Allah, as the three idols (and others) were called, meant reducing God to their level. His worship at the Kaabah was outwardly not very different from theirs at Nakhlah, at-Ta’if, and Qudayd. And that would mean that God’s messenger was not greatly different from their priests and not likely to have much more influence; hence the reform on which Prophet Muhammad had set his heart would not come about.”

In other words, it was not the strict monotheistic conception of God that alerted Prophet Muhammad to this awful mistake and prompted him to change his position but rather the desire for political advantage.

Rodinson argues that Prophet Muhammad changed his mind because such an acknowledgment “meant that the sect renounced all claim to originality. Jews and Christians pointed out maliciously that Prophet Muhammad was reverting to his pagan beginnings. Besides, what force had the threat of the Last Judgment if the daughters of Allah, propitiated by traditional offerings and sacrifices, would intercede on behalf of sinners and save them from eternal damnation? Above all, what authority was left to the herald sent by Allah if any little priest of al-Uzza or Manat could pronounce oracles contradicting his message?”

By drawing these conclusions both Watt and Rodinson touch upon several sensitive issues crucial to the very core of the Islamic faith. It is important, therefore, to analyze their assumption and reasoning respectively and in detail.

Analysis & Refutation

First is the issue of the certainty with which Professor Watt attests to the authenticity of this tradition, particularly the part claiming that the words quoted about the goddesses were pronounced by the Prophet himself. No doubt al-Tabari, and following him, many historians and Qur’anic exegetes have repeated the tradition. All the more strange is that even Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani observes that, “Even though all the links by which this Tradition has been related are either weak or “broken”, except in one case that of Sa’id ibn Jubayr, the very fact that it has been related through so many “links” is proof that there is some truth about it.” Ibn Hajar also observes that “there are two more chains of narrators (in addition to the one mentioned above) that satisfy the conditions of Bukhari and Muslim (al-Sahihayn) requisite for an authentic report.” At the same time, he observes that, “These reports are, however, all “mursal” traditions, and those who believe the “mursal” traditions may argue on their basis.”

Mursal Report

Mursal is hadith terminology used to denote a disconnection between the Prophet and the original reporter of a tradition.

The authenticity of the “links”, however, does not necessarily mean that all contents of the narration are historically correct or based on facts that cannot be denied. Such a supposition is clearly reflected from the observations of Ibn Hajar himself. He notes that although there is enough proof to conclude that the story has some truth in it, nevertheless parts are so atrocious that they must be rejected and interpreted in the light of other facts. One of these consists of the assertion that Satan put the words “they are exalted swans and their intercessions are to be hoped” into the mouth of the Prophet. He argues that: “This cannot be accepted due to the fact that the Prophet was infallible. It is impossible for the Prophet to intentionally add something to the Qur’an that does not belong to it, or forgetfully say something contradictory to what he had brought about “Tawhid” (Oneness and Unity of God). That is why the scholars had given the tradition various interpretations....”

The best among these interpretations, contends Ibn Hajar, is the one which states “The Prophet (peace be upon him) was reciting the Qur’an. Satan kept an eye out waiting to insert something into his recitation. Satan found this opportunity during one of the pauses of the Prophet’s recitation and uttered these words in a tone resembling that of the Prophet. The people close to the Prophet heard it, took it as his words and publicized it.... Therefore, these words are the words of Satan and in no way the words uttered by the Prophet himself....”

It becomes clear, particularly in the example of Ibn Hajar, that even the limited number of scholars who examined the historical validity of this tradition also rejected the notion that the Prophet ever expressed any form of acknowledgment or praise for the Makkan gods.

Asserting the authenticity of this tradition by suggesting a) that Prophet Muhammad personally spoke these words, or b) without including the caveats noted by the scholars mentioned, is misleading. Additionally, this tradition is classified as 'mursal', indicating that its transmission does not originate directly from the Prophet, his Companions, or their immediate disciples. Instead, it comes from a 'Tabi’i' (a follower of the Companions) who claims to report what “the Prophet said.” Such mursal narrations are generally considered weak in Islamic scholarship due to the absence of a direct link to the Prophet's immediate circle. As a result, it is challenging to lend credence and authority to a weak narration, particularly when it contradicts the core message of the Qur'an. The fundamental principle of the Qur'an, al-Tawhid, the Oneness of God, is an indisputable fact, corroborated by all historical and scriptural evidence, and cannot be discredited or compromised by weak “mursal” reports.

On the other hand, there have been many eminent historians and exegetes who have declared the story as utterly baseless. M. M. Ahsan has provided a detailed list of distinguished Muslim scholars who have categorically “rejected the story as preposterous and without foundation.”

Ibn Kathir

For instance, the renowned Quranic exegete Ibn Kathir observed that “Many exegetes have mentioned the story of swans..., but through links all of them are inauthentic. I have not found a correct version of this story with continuous links.” Muhammad ibn Ishaq, the writer of Sirah declared the story as “the work of Zanadiqah (atheists)”. Imam Abu Mansur al-Maturidi argued that the story was “what the Devil inspired to his atheist followers to cause doubts about the authenticity of the religion (Islam) in the minds of the weak. The majesty of the Prophet is absolved from such a narration or act.” According to Ibn Khuzaymah, “This story had been invented by the heretics.” Al-Qadi Iyad gave a detailed refutation of it arguing: “The very fact that this narration has neither been narrated by any of the authentic collections of the hadith nor by any creditable narrator with continuous and authentic links, is a proof of its baselessness. It has been narrated frequently only by those exegetes and historians who are fond of going after all kinds of odd and obscure narration, and who seize upon anything that comes their way without looking into its nature or truthfulness.”

Qadhi Iyad

The narrative in question is heavily marred by uncertainties. Qadhi Iyad meticulously analyzes the discrepancies and contradictions in various accounts regarding the details, location, and context of the story, concluding that such inconsistency is sufficient to render the story unequivocally false and baseless. He also emphasizes the unanimous Islamic belief in the Prophet's infallibility, asserting that it precludes the possibility of him committing any reprehensible act. As a figure of mercy to humanity, whose name is intimately connected with Allah in the Qur'an, the notion that the Prophet would seek or accept verses extolling deities other than Allah is not only blasphemous but also implausible. The idea that Satan could overpower or confuse the Prophet, causing him to mistake non-Qur'anic verses as Qur'anic, is equally offensive and irreverent. Additionally, it is disrespectful to suggest that the Prophet remained unaware of this alleged deception until Gabriel's intervention or that he intentionally or inadvertently uttered these words. Prophets, chosen by God, are immune to Satan's influence or deceit in any form, and such lapses are inconceivable, especially for Prophet Muhammad, regarded as the greatest of all prophets. Moreover, the absence of any mention of this alleged incident in the Qur'an, Hadith, or any credible sources further undermines its validity.

The entire theory is so fundamentally flawed, riddled with internal inconsistencies, and overwhelmingly dismissed by scholars based on a lack of evidence, that the very notion of its fabrication becomes self-evident.

Al-Qadi astutely points out that if such an incident had truly occurred, it would have undoubtedly been seized upon by both the Makkan pagans and the Jewish tribes, who would have used it vigorously to challenge Prophet Muhammad's credibility. Moreover, an event of this magnitude would likely have led to some of the less steadfast Muslims renouncing their faith, akin to the reactions following al-Isra’ (the Prophet's night journey to Jerusalem and ascension to Heaven), or at least to similar expressions of doubt as those witnessed during the Hudaybiyyah Treaty incident. The absence of any widespread publicity, discussion, or use of this event to malign Prophet Muhammad raises significant questions. Had the incident actually taken place, it would have been a scandal of such scale that every detail would have been meticulously recorded in the Hadith. The fact that no Muslim renounced their faith due to this purportedly grievous act of conciliation, and that none of the Prophet’s adversaries seemingly took advantage of this event to discredit him (with no historical accounts indicating they even broached the subject), strongly suggests that the entire story was a fabrication concocted later without any historical foundation.

Abu Bakr ibn al Arabi

Qadi Abu Bakr ibn al-Arabi puts forward ten separate arguments to refute the claim that the Prophet ever pronounced these alleged words which supposedly acknowledged the Makkan’s pagan deities. As he concludes: “The Qur’an very eloquently, and both explicitly and implicitly explains the infallibility of the Prophet… So we advise you to place the Qur’an in front of your eyes and read the words carefully, so as not to attribute to the Qur’an what does not belong there, or to connect to it meanings utterly unacceptable.”

In addition to the scholars discussed, Imam Fakhar al-Din al-Razi, Muhammad ibn Ahmad al-Qurtubi, Muhammad ibn Yusuf al-Kirmani, Mahmud ibn Ahmad Badr al-Din al-Ayni, and al-Alusi have all rejected the account as baseless and absurd.

To be continued.