Satanic Verses: Striking A Deep Chord, Part 2

Modern Muslim Scholarship

Among modern Muslim scholars, Shibli Nu’amani observes that “this story is evidently an absurd myth that deserves no comment.” Mawdudi furnishes a detailed refutation by focusing upon its internal and external evidence. For example, the story alleges that the incident took place after the first migration to Habasha (Abyssinia), referring to some of the migrants returning to Makkah after hearing of the event. The Abyssinian migration took place in the month of Rajab (the seventh month of the Islamic calendar) during the fifth year of Prophethood, with some of the migrants returning to Makkah three months later, i.e. in Shawwal of the same year. Verses 73–75 in Chapter 17 of the Qur’an in which the Prophet was supposedly “reproved” for the incident in question were revealed in the eleventh or twelfth year of Prophethood. Does it make sense that Allah would admonish him five or six years after the supposed incident took place? “[V]erse (52) in which the interpolation by Satan was abrogated was sent down in the first year of Hijrah, i.e. about two years after the reproof. Can a person in his senses believe that the Holy Prophet was reproved for the interpolation after six years, and it was abrogated after nine years?”

After discussing the context of the verses, Mawdudi declares that “even a casual reader would detect an obvious contradiction in the passage. The fabricated insertion of “[These are the high-flying ones, whose intercession is to be hoped for!]” is so clearly apparent and such a clumsy attempt at fabrication that no sensible person could accept it other than invention.”

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! These 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]

Looking at the insertion (in bold) the internal incongruity pointing to fabrication is glaringly obvious. Are we supposed to accept that immediately after supposedly praising the goddesses, Lat, Uzzah and Manat, Allah then in complete contradiction hits their worshippers hard, as if to say: “O foolish people! How is it that you have ascribed daughters to Allah and sons to yourself? All this is your own invention which has no authority from Allah.” Thus the internal evidence alone is enough to discredit the story as utterly absurd and meaningless.

Mawdudi also argues, that the revelation of these verses as asserted in the story does not “fit in with the chronological order of the Qur’an.” In connection with the relevant context of the passages he observes: “We reiterate that no Tradition, however strong links it might have, can be accepted when the Text itself is a clear evidence against it, and when it does not fit with the wording, the context, the order etc. of the Qur’an. When the incident is considered in this background, even a skeptical research scholar would be convinced that the Tradition is absolutely wrong.”

The majority of Muslim exegetes such as Syed Qutb, Mufti M. Shafi and Amin Ahsan Islahi view the story as theatrical nonsense, so baseless and contradictory to the fundamental principles of the Islamic religion and such an affront to the intelligence, that to discuss it in any way, shape or form is not appropriate, in other words a complete waste of time.

M. H. Haykal

Among modern historians, M. H. Haykal regards all arguments forming the basis for the veracity of the story as “false, incapable of standing any scrutiny or analysis.” For Haykal, “It is a story whose incoherence is evident upon the least scrutiny” with the multiplicity of the tradition being proof of its lack of authenticity. Haykal claims that there were two motives for the Muslims to return from Ethiopia: (a) The conversion of Umar ibn al-Khattab to Islam, and (b) The breaking out of a revolution against the Negus “in which his personal faith as well as his protection of the Muslims were under attack.” He further argues against the story from the inverted evidence of the Qur’anic text: “Another proof of the falsity of the story, stronger and more conclusive than the foregoing, is the fact that the contextual flow of sura “al-Najm” does not allow at all the inclusion of such verses as the story claims.... The contextual background in which the addition is supposed to have been made furnishes unquestionable and final evidence that the story of goddesses was a forgery.”

Haykal, like Shaykh Muhammad Abduh,  rightly  points  out  that nowhere did the Arabs ever describe their gods or goddesses in terms such as al-gharaniq, neither in their poetry, speeches or traditions, and that  the  word  al-gharaniq  (or  al-gharniq)  was  in  fact  the  name  of  a black  or  white  water  bird,  sometimes  used  figuratively  to  refer  to  a handsome  blond  youth.  The  fact  is  irrefutable  that  the  Arabs  never looked   upon   their   gods   in   this   manner.   Arguing   that   the   story contradicts Muhammad’s candidness, he concludes: “The forgers must have been extremely bold to have attempted their forgery in the most essential principal of Islam as a whole: namely, in the principle of tawhid, where Muhammad had been sent right from the very beginning to make proclamations to all mankind in which he has never accepted any compromise whatever; he was never swayed by anything the Quraysh had offered him whether by way of wealth or royal power.”

Muhammad never compromised the unity and transcendence of God even at the most difficult junctures of his prophetic mission. He did not entertain substantial offers of wealth, power and prestige at the most vulnerable stages of his life as they included compromise of the divine unity and otherness. So to impudently suggest that he would sacrifice tawhid to gain the approval of his adversaries is to fly in the face of historical fact.