The Satanic Verses

Allah has repeatedly pledged throughout the Quran that He will structure and compile, explain and protect the Quran from falsehood 

15:9"Verily, we have sent down the Reminder, and, verily, we will guard it". 

This verse comes in answer to the prophet's opponents, trying to discredit him with taunts and sarcasms. It tells them this reminder is divinely sent, meaning not the product of the person they are objecting to. So in reality they are opposing God who sent it. And even if they try to oppose the One who sent it, the only way being to tamper or destroy His communications, then the verse tells them in the form of a strong affirmation, this revelation will remain firmly guarded.

This noble Book is not the result of some human whim. It was an inspiration to Muhammad 42:52, whose descent is independent of his will and desires 53:3. Allah says of him 

69:44-47"if the messenger were to invent any sayings in Our name, We should certainly seize him by his right hand, And We should certainly then cut off the artery of his heart: Nor could any of you withhold him (from Our wrath)". 

The prophet wont be able to successfully pass off something false as divinely inspired because by the manner of his sudden death, those around him will understand that the prophecy of preservation came true and that what he was about to utter, or started uttering was false. Should he even misinterpret and lie over the true meaning of what is revealed to him, his heart would be sealed and he would become like the worst rejecters among his nation, blindly wandering on 42:24. Other verses issue similar warnings against tampering with the Quran to such an extent that it was imprinted in the psyche of the memorizers and all the believers. When the malicious critics of Islam try using this divine pledge of protection, something no other scripture has ever had, against the prophet, they do nothing but shoot themselves in the foot. For instance when they connect the symptoms of the prophet's death, years after ingesting a poison, to the statement in 69:45-47 about instantly (not progressively) seizing and putting him to death should he try passing off as revelation something that isnt, then they are still testifying inadvertently to the Quran's authenticity; The prophecy came true and the false prophet, God forgive them for that saying, was put to death and prevented. 

When they quote from the false, discredited and discarded story of the "satanic verses" where the prophet says 

"I have fabricated things against God and have imputed to Him words which He has not spoken" 

then they are equally attesting to the preservation of the Quran. The same report states that this supposed "coming back to his senses" was caused by Gabriel, who 

"came to the Messenger of God and said, "Muhammad, what have you done? You have recited to the people that which I did not bring to you from God, and you have said that which was not said to you". 

Even if we assume in the worst case, just for argument's sake, that the prophet did pass off as revelation something that wasnt, then there is still the inescapable fact that he was under constant watch, immediately reprimanded for his deed, and the false revelation pointed and discarded from the rest.

This Book is part of a Divine Scheme meaning its implementation will be under the direct surveillance of the Almighty Himself. During the time of revelation of the Quran, the Almighty made arrangements so that the purity of the Revelation travels intact from its descent from Heaven to the heart of the prophet Muhammad to the point that evil ones were not allowed near it during the process 

26:210-212"No evil ones have brought down this (Revelation), It would neither suit them nor would they be able (to produce it). Indeed they have been removed far from even (a chance of) hearing it".

Allah bears witness that what has been revealed to His Prophet has been done 

4:166"with His knowledge, and the angels bear witness too and Allah is sufficient for a witness". 

Merely coming down from the heavens was not sufficient to prove its divine origin. It could have been done through satanic agencies, or could have been polluted with confusing falsehood had God not made all necessary arrangements that no evil spirit could interfere with it. God and the angels commanded to deliver the Quran 2:97,80:11-16 bear witness that the revelation right from the start of its descent, to its reaching down to the prophets and up to its communication and delivery to the people is duly protected and guarded against change and alteration, from whatever source it might come. And God encompasses his messenger and protects him from any evil interference during all these processes 

10:61,72:26-28"He makes a guard to march before him(the messenger) and after him, so that He may know that they(the messengers) have truly delivered the messages of their Lord, and He encompasses what is with them, and He records the number of all things" 

19:64"and we(angels of revelation) do not come down but by the command of your Lord; His is whatever is before us and whatever is behind us and whatever is between these". 

All prophets were confronted to the machinations of evil spirits, trying to interfere with their desire to establish the truth. They did so through any means they could, such as by inciting their enemies further against them, propagating falsehood, attempting to make them compromise some of their principles with their enemies'. But God protects His message from corruption and ultimately defeats their falsehood and obstacles, and establishes the Truth instead 6:56,22:51-55,41:26,68:9,10:15,17:73-4. 

As a side note, one demonic entity, rarely spoken of in the Arabic literature is named al Abyad, meaning white, and in some weak ahadith he is said to be particularly going after the prophets. The prophets however were immune to his suggestions. When he attempted to deceive Muhammad by taking the form of Gibril, the latter came down 

"and put his hand between him and the Prophet and pushed him (al-Abyad) gently. By this, he was thrust away from Mecca and landed in the furthest parts of India." 

Contrast this immunity granted to the true prophets, with the shining light convolutedly appearing to a certain Saul, sworn enemy of Jesus, convincing him to infiltrate the movement of his disciples and alter its foundations. Paul himself exposes his tortured inner self, when he mentions the satanic angel constantly pursuing him 2Cor12. It is no surprise then that he disliked the restrictions of the Law, seeing it as a curse. 

Whatever the devil creates from obstacles to counter the messengers' desires, ie their desires to establish the truth, becomes a trial for the people. This is speaking of the difficulties experienced by the messengers and their followers in the face of adversity. The people respond differently to these trials. Some go further in their rejection and doubts. Others become persuaded of it being the Truth based on the simple observation that, had the revelation been false and leading people astray, evil forces wouldnt have been so restless and agitated in their opposition. We see this phenomenon today, all around us and the restless but fruitless efforts by the opponents of Islam, trying hard to convince Muslims to abandon their faith. Also, the unwavering stance of the messengers in the face of these obstacles provides further proof for their selflessness and sincerity, more particularly in the basic notion of monotheism which evil entities were most focused against 10:104-6. 

The satanic verses polemic, regardless of its authenticity, perfectly fits this scheme by the evil entities -human and jinn- to oppose the messengers' desire to establish the truth. With it, they try creating doubt and confusion in the mind of the people. 

This story, from an authentic viewpoint is rejected by ibn Ishaq who is himself among the transmitters, as quoted by Tabari in introduction to the story 

"About this story Imam Muhammad bin Ishaq, the compiler of sirah, was asked, he said: ‘This is from the fabrication of the heretics.’ And he wrote a book on the issue". 

As to the chain coming from ibn Abbas, it has the known liar and forger al Kalbi in the isnad. More on that point further below. 

Nowadays, even among western scholars of Islam, studies by the likes John Burton, Uri Rubin, Jaakko Hämeen-Anttila, Gerald Hawting, Nicolai Sinai and Patricia Crone have all expressed profound reservations about the historicity of the story. It is also discarded through simple textual analysis. The alleged verses do not fit the passage in 53:19-23 which actually is a condemnation of idol worship, as well as the larger context which reinforces the incorruptibility of the divine revelation, affirms God's all encompassing power and negates intercession which is what the polytheists precisely believed regarding their lesser gods. The sura itself begins with a forceful announcement that 

53:2-5"Your companion [Muhammad] has not strayed, nor has he erred, Nor does he speak from [his own] inclination. It is not but a revelation revealed, Taught to him by one intense in strength.."

From a textual criticism viewpoint, the story fails miserably; not a single manuscript exists proving its existence. The main words that constitute the passage are unique to it, not found anywhere in the Quran. This is the criteria of authenticity known as "hapax legomena". Not only that, but al gharaaniq/the cranes is a word that the Arabs have nowhere used to describe their gods, whether in their poetry or in their speeches.

Despite these irrefutable basic facts, the story was used in the past and nowadays to create doubts in the minds of the believers and to obstruct the establishment of the truth. And this despite the fact that it isnt a Quranic statement, nor a prophetic tradition, not even an authentic statement of one of the Companions. At best it is a statement of a tabi’i, ie non-eye witness expressing what he considered to be the reason for the revelation of a particular passage. Narrations which attempt to explain the context of the revelation of verses are often weak. This is something that many scholars such as Ahmad bin Hanbal, Suyuti and Zarkashi have attested to. Also, transmission doesnt equal to acceptance and we have ample such examples in hadith and seera, for both advantageous and disadvantageous reports. Second, even accepting it doesnt make it true. People accepted and still do, all sorts of things until proven false. In the case of the gharaaniq for example, nobody dismissed it primarily based on matn/content. Like with any report, regardless of contents, the scholars first study the chain, which in this case, dismisses the story. Matn is considered corroborative.

Besides the chain from ibn Abbas in which the liar al Kalbi is present, Al Albani grades the chain through ibn jubayr from ibn Abbas as sahih mursal, meaning in hadith terminology going back to a non contemporary to the prophet, a tabi'i. 

Ibn hajar says all chains are weak (except the one through ibn jubayr which other scholars deem mursal) but conjectures that the multiplicity points to some degree of truth, including chains with narrators accepted by both Bukhari and Muslim, although not going to a companion directly. This includes a chain with the tabi'i Abu Bakr ibn `Abd al-Rahman ibn al-Harith. Al Albani refutes him, saying it is true that weak (here mursal) reports put together become authentic, but not every single time, and he gives several examples as to why. To further corroborate ibn hajjar's methodological error, the tradition mentioning prostration in sura Najm is found in bukhari, attested in several sahih chains, none of them mentioning satanic interference. 

Ibn Kathir before him considered at best the chains to be mursal, adding that none are sahih. This is because we have a statement from ibn Abbas in sahih Bukhari that the prostration in sura najm occurred at the end of the sura, not its middle, and in a different context, as Muslims still do today. This contradicts the information that came down to us through weaker chains in the story of the gharaaniq. Al Qurtubi thus rightly observes that the isnad of the story is munkar/disconnected and that it 

"was not mentioned by anyone from the people of authenticity". 

Al Razi, long before, in his tafsir al kabir rejected the story on the same basis. What is further interesting is that according to Al-Bazzar as quoted by ibn Kathir, he could not find any chain to the story that was not disconnected, except the one with the forger al-Kalbi in it. Al Haythami references al-Bazzar and adds that the men in the chain through ibn Jubayr are sahih. Of course, the cited individuals in themselves are trustworthy, but this doesn't mean the chain itself is established. Prior to ibn Taymiyyah, the most prominent Islamic scholars wrote detailed refutations of the story based on both content and chain of transmission. These include al Qadi iyyad and al Razi, as previously mentioned. Al Qadi iyyad noted 

"not one of the mufassirun and tabiun who narrated the story provided a sound isnad for it or traced it back to a companion. Most of the chains of transmission are utterly weak". 

The leading scholars of ibn Taymiyyah's own Hanbali madhab, such as al Jawzi and al Baghdadi equally dismissed it. Thus by ibn Taymiyyah's time the majority position of orthodoxy was against the historicity of the incident. Ibn Taymiyyah admits to the hadith masters' assessment of the weakness of the chain, but argues that it should not be rejected solely on this basis "because the transmission of the report is sound". Nowhere does he explain by what criteria he validates the hadith, putting him at variance with the absolute majority of scholars of his time and beyond. Neither does he name those salaf who accepted it, in fact the prominent figures of his own madhab rejected it, as referenced earlier. Ibn Taymiyyah was reacting to the new vague of sunni orthodoxy by reconstructing what he saw as the original opinions of the salaf on various issues, including the doctrine of divine protection of the messengers. The story integrated well in his own interpretation of that principle which he believed to be the one of the salaf. Ibn Taymiyyah believed that prophets could commit minor sins but would immediately repent and be corrected, by virtue of their divine protection. This contrasts with the shia and the growing sunni view who rejected outright the possibility of the prophets sinning. The story of satan's interference was a good occasion for ibn Taymiyyah to prove his point. He even begins a work on ulum al hadith by referencing the incident, adding that whether one believes it or not, his point still stands that the satanic verses were cancelled. Ibn Taymiyyah's attitude here demonstrates that, contrary to what the critics of Islam claim, the story doesn't demonstrate an evolution within mainstream Islam in regards to what is acceptable or not to believe about the prophet Muhammad. Firstly because, as shown earlier, nobody dismissed the story primarily based on matn/content, but because even within orthodoxy, those like ibn Taymiyyah that fully accepted it saw it as strong proof of the Quran's veracity.

As a side note, not a single hadith scholar even as much as mentions the incident in a work on ulum al hadith, given its universally recognized weakness. It is interesting to note that ibn Qayyim and ibn Kathir, two of ibn Taymiyyah's most famous pupils, did not endorse the story. In fact al Maqdisi, whose father was another student of ibn Taymiyyah, rejects it.

In summary, not a single chain goes back directly to the prophet, or to a companion, while we have companion reports about the incident without the storytelling part of the satanic verses. One of the narrators, al Muttalib, was in fact a polytheist at the time of the recital of surah najm/53, and he was among the few (Musnad 8034) who did not prostrate when everyone else did. Prostration in sura najm has nothing to do with the prophet's alleged compromising stance. Prostration is required at the end of the sura, in relation to an actual command to prostrate, long after the section where the satanic verses were supposedly included. Nor is prostration required solely in sura najm but rather at 15 other occasions scattered throughout the suras of this mighty Quran. So despite the fact that the authentic narrations do speak of prostration at the recital of sura najm/53 yet nothing is said of the satanic interference or the whole polemic surrounding the revelation of the passage starting at v19. The authentic reports relate how the first time the sura was publicly recited, it had such an impact upon the listeners that not only the Muslims followed the prophet's prostration, but many among those present from the pagan Quraysh were equally overwhelmed and fell with their faces to the ground. What can at most be deduced is that this polemic was invented to cover up this sudden defection, or temporary complacent attitude by some idolaters, with a few of them remaining standing out of pride. It is important to mention here that both the Quran and ahadith relate the mesmerizing effect the recitation of the Quran had upon both believers and disbelievers. Regardless of contents, the language itself, like captivating music, had such impact upon a people known for their deep appreciation of eloquent language and poetry, that they would call it magic, sorcery, produced with assistance of the jinn etc. The staunchest enemies of the prophet would listen in secret to the recital of the Quran at night. These were a people who recognized and understood, highly valued eloquent speech. They would fall down prostrate in admiration of the most eloquent poets, as al Farazdaq did to one of Labid's poems. This is a point difficult to recognize unless one is familiar with the standards of the Arabic language, and the culture of the time. As an illustration, we may see even today, people loving a type of music regardless of how conflicting with their values the lyrics are, even dancing to it.

Also, no historical connection exists between sura 53 and 22, the first revealed 5 years into the prophetic call and the latter in Medina or for the earliest estimates 8 years after sura 53. 

Finally, regardless of authenticity (no matter how strong the evidence against the story is presented, Islam's restless enemies will keep regurgitating it), there is nothing embarrassing about the satanic verses story. It depicts how the prophet and the revelation were ultimately protected through divine intervention, which was the position of ibn Taymiyyah as stated earlier. This, contrary to discrediting the Quran, enhances its credibility as miraculously preserved. Further, this story places the Ishmaelite prophet right along the pattern of the biblical prophets. Those orientalists and Judeo-Christian critics conveniently brush aside the depiction of their prophets; deceived by sorcery (Moses) or influenced by evil to the point they become murderers, adulters and even idolaters (Aaron, David, Solomon). But contrary to their Ishmaelite counterpart, God did not even intervene to straighten them in the process. 

As to Criteria of embarrassment, it doesnt constitute an argument in favour of the story's authenticity. Christians invented and transmitted the infancy Gospel of Thomas' wicked, murderous Jesus as a child. Does it mean it is true because the author was Christian and would therefore not make up something shameful about Jesus? In the history of Islam, as in Judeo-Christianity, people invented things in regards to their own religious figures for all sorts of reasons, whether to advance a wicked or pious agenda. Second, what is embarrassing in a context isnt in another. For example the story can easily be seen as a pious fabrication, to prove that God protects His messengers, as shown earlier.

Putting aside the issue of authenticity, the Quran is full of passages making sure, and testifying that the prophet does not compromise his stance with anyone.

The Quran relates how the prophet's opponents among the pagans and the People of the Book did everything to make him compromise his revealed principles with theirs, forge verses or deliberately corrupt them. Much to their dismay, the message was divinely protected from the interference of the evil ones -men and jinn- from its descent from heaven all the way to its uttering by the prophet. During that time the prophet was repeatedly warned 2:145,10:37,42:15 and never allowed to yield one bit to them despite the hardships he and his followers suffered. Like the prophets of old, who despite the pressure to alter the divine messages and make them more appealing he answered

2:120,10:15,13:37,17:75,68:9,69:44-7,40:66"Say: I am forbidden to serve those whom you call upon besides Allah when clear arguments have come to me from my Lord, and I am commanded that I should submit to the Lord of the worlds".

As reflected is sura qalam, which is among the earliest Meccan suras, pressure was already being imposed on the prophet at the onset of his mission to change and compromise his message. It is to be noted, when the Quran unapologeticaly warns its messenger in the context of temptation to avoid yielding to his opponents, these frequently seen conditional statements do not mean that the prophet was actually tempted in doing so.

There are many implicit meanings to these warnings, including that regarding the obligation to abide by the divine law/sharia, there is no difference between a prophet and a regular believer. The second thing is that, seeing that the prophet is warned, how much more should they be careful of their responsibilities in upholding the principles of this revelation. And finally, seeing and hearing that the messenger is in no position to change anything in Allah's ordinances, the enemies should know that it would be fruitless to even think of approaching him with such objective.

When the prophet Micaiah the son of Imlah was under the same kind of pressure, he answered, knowing the dangerous repercussions of refusing to yield to the rejecters

1Kings22:14"As the Lord lives, for what the Lord will say to me, that will I speak".

The prophet Isaiah was equally warned not to yield to the disbelievers' requests Isa8:11 who, unhappy with his strong warnings and admonitions, would openly demand that he should forsake the straight path, the true God and give them false prophecies

Isa30:10-11"You shall not prophesy for us true things. Speak to us with smooth talk; prophesy mockery".

The prophet's opponents practiced deception upon him, and tempted him with greed, held out threats, and raised a storm of false propaganda against him, and persecuted him and applied economic pressure and social boycott against him. Yet the prophet did not compromise an iota of what was revealed to him, even in the direst Meccan period. Although he did experience fear at the consequences, never did he withhold a word that needed to be uttered in the face of his opponents, so as to soften their stance. Even when his uncle and protector Abu Talib was pressured by a Meccan delegation to withdraw his tribal protection of Muhammad and the Muslims, he firmly replied: 

"0 my uncle, if they placed the sun in my right hand and the moon in my left hand to cause me to renounce my task, verily I would not desist therefrom until Allah made manifest His cause or I perished in the attempt". 

The prophet then turned to depart until Abu Talib called him back 

"Say whatever you please; for by the Lord I shall not desert you ever". 

It is to be stressed that the prophet took this stance when his uncle, his last resort, seemed on the verge of letting him down. This attitude, besides the established reputation he had as a man of great integrity by his friends and foes, before and after the revelation, confirm the testimony of God Himself about His chosen one 

68:4"And indeed, you are of a great moral character".

The Quran also presents situations where the prophet is showing fear in communicating certain revelations to his people 5:67,33:37 fearing their reaction, judgements or taunting but the Quran would compel him to keep transmitting what he is receiving, not to ever

11:12"give up part of what is revealed to you"

showing how he wasnt acting according to his whims

2:120"If you (Muhammad) give in to their whims and desires despite the knowledge that has reached you, you will have no protector or helper against Allah". 

In short, they did all that could be done to defeat his resolve. But just as he repeatedly, from the onset of his mission, rejected any compromise in religion, even less with the basic concept of monotheism 10:104. Since the earliest Meccan verses, he was admonished to distance himself from all rijz/filth 74:5. The mufassirun have included all kind of spiritual evils under that term, idolatry, sinfulness, impurity etc.  The wording here does not imply a previous tendency or involvement in those evils. It assumes a scenario so as to enforce the point that everyone is liable to punishment for transgression 

10:106"And do not invoke besides Allah that which neither benefits you nor harms you, for if you did, then indeed you would be of the wrongdoers". 

The conditional form of the second part of the verse shows that the premise is a warning, not an accusation. There are many such statements where the prophet is urged to stay away from someone or something that is against the truth revealed to him 26:113,28-86-8 or to behave in a certain way that is upright 

33:1"O Prophet, fear Allah and do not obey the disbelievers and the hypocrites. Indeed, Allah is ever Knowing and Wise. And follow that which is revealed to you from your Lord. Indeed Allah is ever, with what you do, Acquainted". 

Their hopes of finding common ground between Islam and their ancestral beliefs which they showed they werent truly attached to and were ready to compromise so long as their worldly interests were preserved, was definitely shattered with the very first word of sura kafirun 

"Say: O kafirun". 

That simple word "qul/say" unambiguously showed them that what the prophet was presenting, his answer to their offers, wasnt his that he would be in a position to negotiate; a third party was sending a message through him and, contrary to them, was so firm in his position that a forceful announcement of dissociation had to be made. That opening word reveals another important point, the sending authority wants to make a strong, unforgiving statement and is pushing the messenger to communicate it despite his often described soft character, gentleness and even sometimes reluctance to transmit a particular message, as described in the Quran.

The second verse elaborates 

109:2"I do not serve that which you serve". 

It follows by refuting any possibility of amalgamating Islam's monotheism with the polytheism of its addressees 

"Nor will you worship that which I worship". 

The next verse increases the intensity of the declaration of acquittal as it shows that the prophet never even considered worshiping their idols before his prophetic call so how could they imagine he would make any compromise with them now that he has received the Quran 

"Nor did I worshiped that which you worshipped". 

This is thus the monotheistic pattern of the prophet, his constancy that began before his call. He had dissociated himself from all practices linked to polytheism, and was wandering in search of guidance as to how to properly worship the One Creator.