In this month of Ramadan in which Muslims believe that God revealed the Quran as a guidance to mankind
what are we to make of 'The Satanic Verses'? For an answer to that question I turn to professor
Jonathan A.C Brown's excellent little book 'Muhammad: A Very Short Introduction' published by Oxford University Press and he throws a great deal of light on this subject and on many other issues
to do with the life of Muhammad. And he writes: "The episode that has come to be known as the 'Satanic
Verses' deserves special treatment. Made infamous in Salman Rushdie's 1988 novel of the same title, the
Satanic Verses refers to an incident in the life of the Prophet in which he supposedly announced
verses of the quran which affirmed polytheistic beliefs and then retracted them. In the year 615,
during the darkest time of Quraysh oppression of the Muslims, God revealed the quranic verse
'Have you considered al-Lat, al-'Uzza and al-Manat, the third, the other...' (Quran 53:19-20),
supposedly followed by the verse 'These are the high flying cranes, whose intercession
is to be sought.' The Quraysh enemies of Muhammad were delighted by this because it acknowledged
these three goddesses as noble beings to whom men could pray for intercession
with the one great God - exactly the concession the Meccans had been demanding of Muhammad.
According to this story, soon afterwards Gabriel informed Muhammad that this last verse had not
been revealed by God. Rather, Satan had fooled the Prophet into thinking it was divine revelation.
The verse was removed from the quran and replaced by the verse that follows verse 53:20 in the quran
we know today: 'These [supposed goddesses] are nothing but empty names you have invented,
you and your forefathers, for which God has bestowed no warrant from on high' (53:21-3).
God then comforted Muhammad by revealing that 'We never sent a messenger or prophet before you
without Satan intervening in his desires. But God abrogates what Satan interposes' (Quran 22:52).
The story of these Satanic Verses appears in the Sira
of Ibn Ishaq as well as most early works of quranic commentary (tafsir).
Western historians have accepted it as true based on the historical critical method principle
that reports that seem to contradict orthodoxy must be true (who would make them up?). As professor
Watt notes, the Satanic Verses story is 'so strange that it must be true in its essentials'.
Indeed, the story seems to undermine central pillars of Muhammad's claim to prophecy: his
status as an infallible channel of revelation and the complete reliability of the quran. From
a Muslim point of view, if Satan could interfere in the revelation of the holy book, how do we
know that other verses were not also tampered with? From the point of view of a non-Muslim evaluating
Muhammad's claims to prophethood, his 'error' in the revelation makes him seem like a mere mortal
who first politicked to earn Meccan support and then try to cover up a mistake.
We must be careful however in relying too heavily on the principles of the historical
critical method. Just because we think that a story makes an orthodox tradition look bad does not mean
that the participants in that tradition viewed it in the same way.
The great historian of the Prophet's campaigns al-Waqidi who died in 822, reports that when
Muhammad sent Khalid bin al-Walid to destroy the idol of 'Uzza, it came alive in the form of a
naked black woman with long, wild hair. This also seems to contradict the orthodox vision of Islam.
The Quran repeatedly states that idols cannot speak or defend themselves (see for example quran
21:58-67). Yet in this report we find one coming to life and charging its attacker. Should we believe this
story is true just because it contradicts Islamic orthodoxy? We know this story is not historically
reliable someone - made it up. But why would Muslims invent a story which contradicted the quran?
We must consider the possibility that the early Muslims saw the story of the Satanic Verses,
as well as as well as those of live idols, as totally consistent with their religion. Certainly,
most Muslim scholars later rejected the story of the Satanic Verses as heresy. The Spanish Muslim
scholar Qadi Iyad (died 1149) argued that the story could not have been true because none of
the critics of Muhammad from the Quraysh ever took advantage of the episode to undermine his claims
of prophecy. But other muslim scholars accepted the Satanic Verses as fact. Some, like Ibn
Taymiyya (who died in 1328) explained them by saying that the Prophet was still entirely trustworthy
as a medium of revelation because God would have corrected him whenever the Devil confused him.
In the late antique world in which God constantly intervened in the lives of His prophets,
the Satanic Verses would not seem out of place.' End quote. And I tend to agree with the view as
expressed by Ibn Taymiyya. To be honest it doesn't cause me to doubt the credibility of Muhammad at
all and i think the reason is found in the verse that Professor Jonathan Brown already mentioned and i'll
read it from Professor Abdul Haleem's translation where the quran says 'We have never sent any messenger
or prophet before you (Muhammad) into whose wishes Satan did not insinuate something, but God removes
what Satan insinuates and then God affirms His message.' That's chapter 22 verse 52. And I think
that's it really, if you if you are Muslim you presumably believe that God protected and
preserved the integrity of the quran and that even an attack from Satan was successfully defeated
at the end so the the the credibility of the prophet as as a prophet as a reliable transmitter
of revelation in my view is unaffected by this story. So as I say I agree with the view
expressed by Ibn Taymiyya but I'm NOT a scholar and that's just my impression as a as someone
who's just looking into this subject afresh. I hope you found that interesting. Until next time.