"Those Are The High Flying Claims"

M S M Saifullah, Qasim Iqbal, Mansur Ahmed & Muhammad Ghoniem

© Islamic Awareness, All Rights Reserved.

Last Modified: 23th August 1999

Assalamu-`alaikum wa rahamatullahi wa barakatuhu:

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

1
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

2
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

3
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

4
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?

5
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]

6
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.

7
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!

References

[1] Z. Bashier, The Makkan Crucible, 1991 (Revised Edition), The Islamic
Foundation, p. 185 (See footnote 9).

[2] Abu Ja`far Muhammad bin Jarir al-Tabari, Tarikh al-Tabari: Tarikh al-Umam
wal-Muluk, 1997, Volume I, Dar al-Kutub al-'Ilmiyyah, Beirut (Lebanon), p. 550.

[3] Ibid., p. 13.

8
[4] T. Khalidi, Arabic Historical Thought In The Classical Period, 1994, Cambridge
University Press, p. 47.

[5] Ibid., p. 48.

[6] M. M. J. Fischer & M. Abedi, "Bombay Talkies, The Word And The World:
Salman Rushdie's Satanic Verses", Cultural Anthropology, 1990, Washington,
Volume 5, No. 2, p. 127.

[7] J. Burton, "Those Are The High-Flying Cranes", Journal Of Semitic Studies, 1970,
Volume 15, No. 2, p. 265.

[8] Z. Bashier, The Makkan Crucible, Op Cit., pp. 171-176.

[9] Ibid., p. 223.

[10] W. M. Watt, Muhammad At Mecca, 1960, Oxford University Press, p. 103.

[11] Ibid.

Collected And Organized By Abu Ali Al-Maghribi

Submitter2allah@gmail.com
Skype: Abuali-almaghribi