“I am convinced about the veracity of my opinions, but I do consider it likely that they may turn out to be incorrect. Likewise, I am convinced about the incorrectness of the views different from mine, but I do concede the possibility that they may turn out to be correct.” — Imam Shafa’i
The ayah is requesting the Quraish to think about and consider their three goddesses— al lat, al uzza and manat—by enquiring “have you seen” them. These three goddesses were regarded by the pagan Arabs as “God’s daughters”. They were worshipped in most of pre-Islamic Arabia, and had several shrines in the Hijaz and in Najd. The worship of Al-Lat , according to Dr. Mohammed Asad was “particularly ancient and almost certainly of South-Arabian origin; she may have been the prototype of the Greek semi-goddess Leto, one of the wives of Zeus and mother of Apollo and Artemis”. As if these were the “three principal idols of Pagan Arab Idolatry”. The Quraish awed them as powerful daughters of the One God with guaranteed role of meditator with HIM on their behalf.
The shrine of Lat was in Taif and the Bani Thaqif were extremely devoted to it. Uzza was the special goddess of the Quraish and her shrine was situated at Hurad in the valley of Nakhlah, between Makkah and Taif. Maulana Maudoodi adds “The people of Bani Shaiban, who were the allies of the Bani Hashim, were its attendants. The Quraish and the people of other tribes paid visits to it and presented offerings and made sacrifices to it. As for the Kabah, sacrificial animals were driven to it also and it was held in the highest esteem”. The shrine of Manat was situated at Qudaid by the Red Sea between Makkah and Madinah; the people of Aus and Khazraj were its great devotees. Pilgrims, during and after the hajj season circumambulated it and made offerings and sacrifices before it. In the Hajj months, adds Maulana Maudoodi “as soon as the pilgrims became free from their visit to the Kabah and the religious services at Mina and Arafat, they would start raising cries of labbaik, labbaik even there for the purpose of visiting Manat, and the people who intended to go on this second hajj did not run between the Safa and the Marwah”. According to one report, Lāt was in human shape, Uzza had its origin in a sacred tree, and Manat in a white stone.
The Text takes exception to this attitude of the Quraish in the three ayahs following the index ayah:
[3]“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 God 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!”
Here the Holy Text is exposing the stark duplicity of the Quraish who would bury their new born daughters out of disdain for them and yet propose daughters for their Creator. Some versions of the story of cranes (to be discussed shortly) interpret these as the verses with which God “replaced” the words about the exalted cranes.
These ayahs are pretty clear and do not call for any real discussion, but for one reason: they are the basis for the highly controversial term “the Satanic Verses”. The biographies of Muhammad by al-Wāqidī, Ibn Sa’d and Ibn Ishaq as well as the tafsir of al-Tabarī have stories about these verses.
The majority of Muslim scholars have refused to accept this incident as a historical fact because of the theological doctrine of ‘isma (prophetic infallibility i.e., divine protection of Muhammad from mistakes). More over the isnads (chains of transmission) of these stories are also regarded as weak.
Orientalists on the other hand have largely accepted the historicity of this episode. It is very implausible, they maintain that Muslim biographers would fabricate”a story so unflattering about their prophet”. The first use of the expression “Satanic Verses” is attributed to Sir William Muir. It should be noted that the plural “verses” is usually employed even though the passage in question is only six words in Arabic
There are different version of this alleged incident which differ in the construction and detail of the narrative, but all of them originate with a single narrator Muhammad ibn Ka’b. These have been combined together to produce a basic account by different authorities.
A very extensive account of the incident is described by Al-Tabāri in his book, the Ta’rīkh:
[4] He first notes that the Prophet had a deep desire inside to win over the Quraish by giving some concessions; “He pondered this in himself, longed for it, and desired it.” Once, therefore when he was reciting the index ayahs “Satan cast upon his tongue” these words “These are the high-flying cranes and their intercession is to be hoped for (تلك الغرانيق العلى وإن شفاعتهن لترتجى.).” The Quraish were very happy to hear this and the Believers, owing to their full faith in the Messenger did not suspect any slip or error. As he concluded his recitation he went into prostration in response to the dictates of the ayah(the last ayah of Surah Al Najm). Muslims joined him and so did the Quraish; every one present there was in prostration. When the crowd had dispersed, Gabriel appeared and said to the Prophet “O Muhammad, what have you done! You have recited to the people something which I have not brought you from God, and you have spoken what He did not say to you.” At this point the Prophet was “mightily saddened and greatly feared God.” To comfort the Prophet, God sent this revelation
[5] and abrogated what Satan had cast upon his tongue.
“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 God will cancel anything (vain) that Satan throws in, and God will confirm (and establish) His Signs: for God is full of Knowledge and Wisdom”
I may add that The Holy Prophet was further comforted by the revelation of three ayahs which follow the index ayahs:
[6] “Nay, shall man have (just) anything he hankers after? But it is to God that the End and the Beginning (of all things) belong. How many-so-ever be the angels in the heavens, their intercession will avail nothing except after God has given leave for whom He pleases and that he is acceptable to Him”.
Obviously God is challenging the Quraish “how can the intercession of their gods be of any avail with Him?”
Another version of the incident is recorded in Wikipedia: “In its essential form, the story reports that Muhammad longed to convert his kinsmen and neighbors of Mecca to Islam. As he was reciting these (the index verses), Satan tempted him to utter the following line: “These are the exalted gharāniq, whose intercession is hoped for. (تلكالغرانيق العلى وإن شفاعتهن لترتجى.)” The Arabic word “gharāniq” generally mean a “crane”. The authors of the tafsir texts during the first two centuries of the Islamic era do not seem to have regarded the tradition as in any way inauspicious or unflattering to Muhammad. According to Muslim orthodoxy, the actual account of events holds that a group of some of the chiefs of the Quraish happened to be passing by as The Prophet was reciting verses from the Qur’an. It moved their hearts so much, that they instantly fell down on their faces in prostration, and bore witness it was from Allah alone. Then some of their peers happened by, and began to accost them and threaten them, and made them feel ashamed, so they denied what had happened, and said that they only fell down in prostration, because the Prophet gave a concession allowing for them to keep their idol worship yet still be Muslim. However, it seems to have been universally rejected by at least the 13th century scholars. Also most modern Muslims likewise see the tradition as problematic, in the sense that it is viewed as “profoundly heretical because, by allowing for the intercession of the three pagan female deities, they eroded the authority and omnipotence of Allah. Hence these modern Muslim scholars have rejected the story. Arguments for rejection are found in Muhammad Abduh’s article “Masʾalat al-gharānīq wa-tafsīr al-āyāt”, Muhammad Husayn Haykal’s “Hayat Muhammad”, Sayyid Qutb’s “Fi Zilal al-Quran” (1965), Abul Ala Maududi’s “Tafhim al-Quran”and Muhammad Nasiruddin al-Albani’s “Nasb al-majānīq li-nasf al-gharānīq”.
Nasr et al have described this same event very succinctly in their modern tafseer “The Study Quran”:
“In several early histories of Islam, it is reported that when the Prophet came to the end of vv. 19–20 (the index ayahs) Satan whispered to him another two verses falsely according these pagan deities an exalted status: “Verily, they are high flying cranes! And their intercession is indeed anticipated/hoped for.” These verses appeared to accept the idols of the pagan Arabs as legitimate deities and greatly pleased the Quraysh, who according to some accounts then prostrated with the Prophet and his followers when the Prophet reached v. 62 (of Surah Al Najm): “So prostrate unto God and worship”. As a result, the persecution of Muslims abated for a brief period. The Prophet later realized that he had been deceived when he received the revelation of 22:52: (this ayah has been quoted earlier)
“And no messenger or prophet did We send before thee, but that when he had a longing, Satan would cast into his longing, whereupon God effaces what Satan cast”.
The Prophet then recanted the satanic interpolation, whereupon the persecution of the Muslims at the hands of the Quraysh resumed. This is known as the ‘Story of the Cranes’ in the Islamic tradition and as the ‘Satanic Verses’ in modern Western literature”.
Additionally they have stated that some accounts of the story of the cranes attach the following ayahs to this verse:
[7]“And their purpose was to tempt thee away from that which We had revealed unto thee, to substitute in our name something quite different;1 (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 them1 a little. In that case We should have made thee taste an equal portion1 (of punishment) in this life, and an equal portion in death: and moreover thou wouldst have found none to help thee against Us!”
You must have noticed that both Tabari and Nasr have have referred to an ayah which was revealed at this point “to comfort the Prophet”. This ayah needs some elaboration:
[8] “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 God will cancel anything (vain) that Satan throws in, and God will confirm (and establish) His Signs: for God is full of Knowledge and Wisdom”.
This ayah is an example of the challenges that one faces in translating Quranic revelations. The word تَمَنّىٰhas two meanings: desire/fancy and spoke/recited/narrated; either has been used by different scholars. The “desire” of the Prophet is referring to his passion and efforts to teach, train and drill people for his mission of Truth and Islam. And satan (used in the generic sense to include both the devil and its human form) throws in obstructions and impediments. Imam Ahsan Islahi is emphatic that only the first meaning—desire— is valid. He is unable to comprehend how the meaning of recitation has been inserted into this word. He has not found this meaning at all in the Arabic literature. While Maulana Maudoodi has explained the ayah based on each of these meanings alternately: “If the first meaning is taken, it will imply: Satan tried to prevent the fulfillment of his desire. If the second meaning is taken, it will imply: When the Prophet recited the Revelations, Satan created different sorts of doubts about its truth and meanings in the minds of the people”. He continues to render the meaning of the next segment of the ayah: فَيَنسَخُ اللَّهُ ما يُلقِي الشَّيطانُ ثُمَّ يُحكِمُ اللَّهُ آياتِهِ using again each of these meanings: “If the first meaning is adopted, it will imply: Allah fulfills the Prophet’s desire and makes his mission successful in spite of the obstacles of Satan and confirms the truth of His revelations by fulfilling His promises to the Prophet. In case of the second meaning, it will imply: Allah eradicates all the doubts and objections inspired by Satan in the hearts of the people and clarifies the confusion created about any verse of the Quran in subsequent revelations”. Further down, the ayah reads أَلقَى الشَّيطانُ i.e. Satan threw some. Threw what? The text is silent on it; a common Sunna of Allah Ta’aala Subhaanahoo. The different mufassirs have filled in the blank with different and appropriate words: vanity, aspersion, some misunderstanding, opposition, a suggestion, try to tamper, interfere with, some falsehood and lastly his fancy.
Mufti Mohammed Shafi summarily dismisses this issue of Satanic verses in these words: “However, some books of traditions have reported here an incident which is not proved by authentic sources. The incident is known as hadith-ul- gharaniq. Some scholars have held that it is invented by some heretics and enemies of Islam. But even those who believe this tradition to be worthwhile have taken pains to remove the doubts, which the words raise about the categorical and undisputed laws of Quran and Sunnah. The plain and simple meaning of the verse has been explained above and the alleged incident in no way affects this meaning. Making this incident as a part and parcel of the commentary on this verse, thereby creating unnecessary doubts, and then attempting to answer those doubts is an exercise in futility and absolutely undesirable”.
Nasr et al in “The Study Quran” have concluded, after a close and detailed analysis that the incident appears highly implausible for several reasons. I have simply enumerated these reasons:
Commentators who reject the account tend to begin by pointing out that the often contradictory versions of the story are poorly sourced and poorly corroborated
The story has also been attacked as incoherent on what might be called psychological grounds.
Chronological considerations also cast doubt on the story, or at least its connection with ayahs 22:52 and 17:73–75.
There are also theological grounds for rejecting the incident as an explanation
From what might be called a literary or thematic point of view, the verses in question do not necessitate this story as their basis
As for how the “story of the cranes” found its way into Islamic literature, some type of miscommunication or misattribution would be more plausible
It is conceivable that the story of the “exalted cranes” survived as an invention of bitter former idolaters, out of a kind of tribal pride that had yet to die out, possibly as the result of a misremembered incident related to the Prophet, the Quraysh, and the mention of their idols elsewhere; the accounts offer a strained and implausible chronology based upon revelations taking place years apart from one another; and the accounts themselves contradict one another in substantial ways.
The Reader, I am sure has not noted any thing exceptional about the ayahs discussed herein. In fact, this was so till very recently. There is no mention of the controversial phrase—(تلك الغرانيق العلى وإن شفاعتهن لترتجى.)—in the Quran nor in any of the books of the Sihaahe Sitta (the six Sahih texts). Most of the Muslim scholars and historians who referred to them as the gharaniq verses rejected this material as fake. “These traditions are undoubtedly a fabrication of the heretics and foreign hands, and have not been found in any of the authentic books” says Muraghi, in his commentary. The non-Muslim orientalists, however accepted this incident since no Muslim, in their opinion would forge a tradition so damaging to the personality of the Prophet. Additionally, they coined the phrase “the satanic verses” to describe this phrase; this term was unknown to Muslims.
It was the publication of Salman Rushdie’s novel “the Satanic Verses” in 1988 which brought the index ayah into focus and triggered great agitation in the entire Ummah, not only emotionally but also physically. This was ratcheted up by the famous/notorious fatwa of Ayatollah Khomeini for Death to Rushdie. It is worth noting that a few years earlier the Iranian Islamic government had bestowed an award on the Persian translation of Rushdie’s book “Shame”.
I have not read the book. One of the comments on this book reads: “As with his previous books, Rushdie used magical realism and relied on contemporary events and people to create his characters. The title refers to the satanic verses, a group of Quranic verses that refer to three pagan Meccan goddesses. The Satanic Verses consists of a frame narrative, using elements of magical realism, interlaced with a series of sub-plots that are narrated as dream visions experienced by one of the protagonists. The frame narrative, like many other stories by Rushdie, involves Indian expatriates in contemporary England. The two protagonists, Gibreel Farishta and Saladin Chamcha, are both actors of Indian Muslim background. Farishta is a Bollywood superstar who specializes in playing Hindu deities. (The character is partly based on Indian film stars Amitabh Bachchan and N. T. Rama Rao.) Chamcha is an emigrant who has broken with his Indian identity and works as a voiceover artist in England……. Embedded in this story is a series of half-magic dream vision narratives………A third dream sequence presents the figure of a fanatic expatriate religious leader, the “Imam”, in a late-20th-century setting. This figure is a transparent allusion to the life of Ruhollah Khomeini in his Parisian exile, but it is also linked through various recurrent narrative motifs to the figure of the “Messenger”.
Pardon my ignorance, all this has passed over my head. Hurt Muslims were by this book, but that does not seem to be the motive of the author. Either way, the response—emotional and active—of we Muslims has harmed the image of Islam world wide immensely more than that done by this ugly book. And the fatwa of great Ayatollah Khomeini cuts across the founding principles of Justice and Tolerance of our glittering Deen. Sounds presumptuous on my part, I agree. But it is consistent with the first address to the bedouin of the Ummah by the first caliph Sayyidna Abu Bakr when he asked them to follow hm only if he is with the Quran and oppose him if he dictates against it.
Some of the disturbing and disparaging remarks for Muslims in this book include “the use of the name Mahound, said to be a derogatory term for Muhammad used by the English during the Crusades; the use of the term Jahilia, denoting the ‘time of ignorance’ before Islam, for the holy city of Mecca; the use of the name of the Angel Gibreel (Gabriel) for a film star, of the name of Saladin, the great Muslim hero of the Crusades, for a devil, and the name of Ayesha the wife of Muhammad for a fanatical Indian girl who leads her village on a fatal pilgrimage. Moreover, the brothel of the city of Jahilia was staffed by prostitutes with the same names as Muhammad’s wives, who are viewed by Muslims as ‘the Mothers of all Believers’. Other issues many Muslims have found offensive include Abraham being called a “bastard” for casting Hagar and Ishmael in the desert” according to McRoy.
Finally a small note. I have come across in my present study two statements which generate disturbing questions about the credibility of our extensive religious literature:
1. As al-Qurṭubī —Imam Abu ‘Abdullah Al-Qurtubi (Arabic: أبو عبدالله القرطبي) was a famous mufassir, muhaddith and faqih scholar from Cordoba of Maliki origin (1214 to 1273). He is most famous for his commentary of the Quran, Tafsir al-Qurtubi— points out, commentators on the Quran and historians did not employ consistently rigorous filters for what they would record and transmit, and often strange and baseless material is to be found in their works.
2. The early transmitters of this story either saw no great theological or logical problem with the story or simply passed on a story they had heard without taking a firm position on it, as happens countless times in the early tafsīr tradition. Many commentators, in attempting to move the tafsīr genre from a collection of opinions to a normative account of the Quran, took great pains to demonstrate the baseless nature of the story.
……..and Allah knows best.
May Allah Ta’aala bless us with true understanding–“fahm”–of our Deen, Aameen.
Dr. Khalid Mitha
