Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:10, 29 July 2007

Template:QuranRelated

Satanic Verses is an expression coined by the historian Sir William Muir in reference to several verses allegedly interpolated into an early version of the Qur'ān and later expunged. Muslims refer to the interpolation and removal of the two verses as the Gharaniq incident. Narratives involving these verses can be read in, among other places, al-Wāqidī and al-Tabarī's recension of Ibn Ishaq's biography of Muhammad, the Sīrat Rasul Allah.

Basic narrative

In its basic form the story reports that Muhammad longed to convert the people of Mecca (who were, after all, his kinsmen and neighbors) to Islam. As he was reciting Sūra Al-Najm (Q.53), considered a revelation by the angel Gabriel, Satan tempted him to utter the following lines after verses 19 and 20 ("Have you thought of Allāt and al-'Uzzā and Manāt the third, the other?"):

These are the exalted Gharaniq, whose intercession is hoped for.

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

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

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

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

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

In Early Islam

The satanic verses incident is reported in the tafsir and the sira-maghazi literature dating from the first two centuries of Islam, and is reported in the respective tafsīr corpuses transmitted from almost every Qur'anic commentator of note in the first two centuries of the hijra. It seems to have constituted a standard element in the memory of the early Muslim community about the life of Muhammad.

Views

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

Traditional Islamic view

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

Ibn Kathir in his commentary points out the weakness of the various isnāds by which the story was transmitted, almost all of them mursal, or without a companion of Muhammad in their chain. Those scholars who acknowledged the historicity of the incident apparently had a different method for the assessment of reports than that which has become standard Islamic methodology. For example, Ibn Taymiyya took the position that since tafsir and sira-maghazi reports were commonly transmitted by incomplete isnads, these reports should not be assessed according to the completeness of the chains but rather on the basis of recurrent transmission of common meaning between reports. There is a muttasil (complete) version of the isnad continuing to the Companion Ibn 'Abbas, but this only survives in a few sources. Rubin explains that the name of Ibn 'Abbas must have been part of the original isnad, and that his name was removed so that the incident could be deprived of its sahih isnad and discredited.

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

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

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

Academic view

Since William Muir the historicity of this episode (whether as an actual discrete event, or as a dramatization of a longer process of accommodation and then confrontation with Meccan polytheism) has been largely accepted by Western scholars of Islam. William Montgomery Watt and Alfred Guillaume argued for its authenticity based upon the implausibility of Muslims fabricating a story so unflattering to their prophet:

Muhammad must have publicly recited the satanic verses as part of the Qur'ān; it is unthinkable that the story could have been invented by Muslims, or foisted upon them by non-Muslims.

Watt, Muhammad at Mecca

John Burton argued for its fictitiousness based upon a demonstration of its actual utility to certain elements of the Muslim community – namely, those legal exegetes seeking an "occasion of revelation" for eradicatory modes of abrogation. However, his solution to the problem has not been widely accepted. G.R. Hawting writes that this is partly due to the complexity of his argument, but mainly to the fact that the satanic verses incident does not serve to justify or exemplify a theory that God reveals something and later replaces it himself with another true revelation.

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

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

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

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

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

Rubin's extensive examination of early sīra material severely compromises Burton's argument that the incident was fabricated solely to support certain lines of exegesis, since several non-Qur'ānic (and hence exegetically useless) versions of the tale exist. This does not affect the possibility, though, that the "final" version of the story was indeed the result of such elaboration:

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

Kur'ān, Encyclopaedia of Islam (EI)²

Modern Islamic view

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

Claims that this story must have been a fabrication by the Meccans and other enemies of Muhammad, and that Ibn Ishaq, al-Tabarī, and al-Wāqidī only reported what they heard from others is belied, however, by the frequent reliance on this tradition within Islamic exegesis.

Others argue that even if the story is to be accepted as authentic, it does not pose theological problems as the concept of ismah (Prophetic infallibility) does not imply that Muhammad could never make a mistake, only that no mistake made by Muhammad would be left uncorrected by God. Other Muslims reject this excuse because it allows for an element of time between when the Prophet utters a false utterance, and when God corrects it.

A number of Muslim scholars, notably Fazlur Rahman, have argued that if we are to trust Ibn Ishaq on other matters, we must trust him on this one.

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

Related traditions

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

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

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

Tabarī's account

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

Template:QuoteScholar

See also

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

Notes

1. Shahab Ahmed, Satanic Verses in Encyclopedia of the Qur'an, Brill Online.
2. EoQ.
3. John D. Erickson (1998). Islam and Postcolonial Narrative. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
4. Uri Rubin, The Eye of the Beholder. The Darwin Press, 1995, page 162.
5. Uri Rubin, The Eye of the Beholder. The Darwin Press, 1995, page 163.
6. Uri Rubin, The Eye of the Beholder. The Darwin Press, 1995, page 163.
7. The isnad provided by Ibn Ishaq reads: Ibn Mumayd-Salamah-Muhammad Ibn Ishaq-Yazid bin Ziyad al-Madani-Muhammad bin Ka’b al-Qurazi. Tafsir Ibn Khatir on Sura 22
8. EoQ.
9. Uri Rubin, The Eye of the Beholder. The Darwin Press, 1995, page 256.
10. Uri Rubin, The Eye of the Beholder. The Darwin Press, 1995, page 256.
11. EoQ, Satanic Verses. For scholars that accept the historicity, see
    • Michael Cook, Muhammad. In Founders of Faith, Oxford University Press, 1986, page 309.
    • Etan Kohlberg, A Medieval Muslim Scholar at Work: Ibn Tawus and His Library. Brill, 1992, page 20.
    • F.E. Peters, The Hajj, Princeton University Press, 1994, page 37. See also The Monotheists: Jews, Christians, and Muslims in Conflict and Competition, Princeton University Press, 2003, page 94.
    • Peter Malcolm Holt, Ann K. S. Lambton, and Bernard Lewis, The Cambridge History of Islam. Cambridge University Press, 1977, page 37.
    • Muhammad, Encyclopedia of Islam Online
    • William Muir, The Life of Mahomet, Smith, Elder 1878, page 88.
    • Thomas Patrick Hughes, A Dictionary of Islam, Asian Educational Services, page 191.
    • John D. Erickson, Islam and Postcolonial Narrative. Cambridge University Press, 1990, page 140.
    • Maxime Rodinson, Prophet of Islam, Taurus Parke Paperbacks, 2002, page 113.
    • Montgomery Watt, Muhammad: Prophet and Statesman. Oxford University Press 1961, page 60.
    • Fazlur Rahman, Major Themes of the Qur'an. Bibliotheca Islamica, Chicago, 1980, page 89.
    • Daniel J. Sahas, Iconoclasm. Encyclopedia of the Qur'an, Brill Online.
12. Burton, Journal of Semitic Studies (JSS) 15
13. G.R. Hawting, The Idea of Idolatry and the Emergence of Islam. Cambridge University Press, 1999, page 135.
14. Eye of the Beholder, p. 21
15. Muhammad Husayn Haykal, Hayat Muhammad, 9th edition (Cairo, Maktaba an-Nahda al-Misriya, 1964, pp.164-7)
16. Uri Rubin, editor, The Life of Muhammad. Ashgate, 1998, page xviii.
17. Glasse, Cyril, The New Encyclopedia of Islam, 2001
18. Tafsir, Vol. IX
19. Rubin, p. 165.
20. Rubin, p. 166

References

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

External links

Islamic commentators

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

Non-Islamic commentators

• The Satanic Verses in Qur'an

• Islamic texts
• Qur'an