IslamicBoard
Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!
View Full Version : Alleged Satanic Verses
Ansar Al-'Adl
02-12-2005, 03:51 AM
Alleged Satanic Verse
18/04/2004
The orientalists allege that the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, was worried about the enmity of the non-believers in Makkah. In such a state of mind one day went to Ka`bah where he recited to the gathering of believers and non-believers Surah An-Najm 53 which is said to have been revealed at that time.
The allegation is that in the course of its recitation and when he uttered the verse 19-20 “Do you see al Lat and al `Uzza and the other third Manat?” Satan threw in the couplet “Those are the swans exalted; verily their intercession is to be expected”.
The Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, then completed the Surah and at the end of it went into prostration in accordance with the last verse. All those present there, the believers and non-believers also did so except an old Quraishi leader (Umayyah Ibn Khalaf or Al-Walid Ibn Al-Mughirah or Abu Umayyah) who raised a handful of dust and touched it with his forehead saying that would suffice for him. The Quraishi leaders are said to have given out as reason for their prostration themselves, by saying that now that the Prophet had recognized the position of their goddesses as intercessors with Allah, there was in fact no point of quarrel with him.
Afterwards, in the evening (some versions do not specify any time) Jibril came to the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, and asked him to recite the Surah, which he did, still reciting the “satanic verses”. Jibril protested, saying that those were not what had been revealed. At this, the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, became very sad and apprehensive of Allah’s wrath. Thereupon two separate passages, 17:73-75 and 22-52 were revealed in reassuring the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, and the “satanic verses” were repealed. The Quraishi leaders became angry and renewed their enmity and opposition with increased vehemence. Meanwhile the news of non-believers’ prostration reached Abyssinia in the form of rumor of their compromise with the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, and the Muslims returned to Makkah.
Reply
The story is so manifestly absurd and untrue that it ought to have been rejected outright as such and not recorded by the chroniclers and traditionalists. But since some of them have recorded it has often been cited as ground for its genuineness, rather than the obviously discrediting features of the story itself.
Imam Fakhr Ad-Din Ar-Razi correctly points out that those who have critically looked at the story have all rejected it as spurious on the grounds of its conflict with the clear testimony of the Qur’an, the rules governing the genuineness of traditions and the dictates of reason.
The Qur’anic evidence against the genuineness of the story is of three kinds.
There are a number of statements in the Qur’an that show that neither Satan nor anyone else could interfere in the process of coming of the revelation. Nor did the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, ever entertain any intention of making compromise with the unbelieving leaders, nor did he ever interpolate in the text of the revelation.
The passages cited as having been revealed as a sequel to the incident and for reassuring the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, prove to the contrary, showing that he had not made even the slightest move towards making a compromise with the unbelieving leaders.
The internal evidence of Surah An-Najm (53), in connection with the revelation of which the story has been foisted, goes against its spirit and purpose.
THE PASSAGES FROM THE QUR’AN THAT DIRECTLY BELIE THE STORY ARE AS FOLLOWS:
“If he (Messenger) were to invent any saying in Our Name, We should certainly have seized him by the right hand and We should then have surely cut off the artery of his heart"
[Qur’an 60:44-46]
“Say; It is not for me, of my own accord, to change it (the revelation). I follow naught but what is revealed unto me"
[Qur'an 10:15 ]
“No falsehood can approach it from the front, nor from the rear (i.e. neither directly nor indirectly). It is sent-down from Allah the All-Wise, the All-Praiseworthy.”
[Qur'an 41:42]
“We indeed have sent down the recital (the Qur’an) and indeed are its Protectors (from any interference).”
[Qur'an 15:9]
“In what way (We have revealed it), that We may make your heart firm thereby; and We have dictated it in stages.”
[Qur'an 25:32]
It is seen from the above that the Qur’an repeatedly assures that Allah has protected it against any possibility of being tampered with directly or indirectly, that it is not for the Prophet to change it or add to it anything. If he had done so, Allah’s severe punishment would inevitably and irresistibly have befallen him. These clear and positive statements directly contradict the story, which says that the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, of his own accord or being deceived by Satan introduced something into the text of revelation. Not only that. The alleged interpolation violated the fundamental teaching of the Qur’an – monotheism (Tauhid) and thus constituted the offence of shirk which Allah warns elsewhere in the Qur’an that He shall under no circumstances forgive.
The story is thus quite contrary to the specific statements of the Qur’an and also to the tenor and purport of its entire text. As such the story is totally unworthy of any credence. This is not simply from a Muslim’s point of view, but also from true historian’s point of view.
The two passages of the Qur’an that are said to have been revealed as a sequel to the story are as follows:
“Indeed they were about to divert you from what We revealed to you, in order that you forge against Us something else, and in that case they would certainly have taken you as a friend. And had We not made you firm, you would almost have inclined towards them a little; and in that case we would have made you taste the double (punishment) in death; and then you would not have found for you as against Us any helper.”
[Qur'an 17:73-75]
These verses were revealed 11 or 12 years after the call to Prophethood.
“Never did We send a Messenger nor a Prophet before you, but that when he formed an intention Satan threw something in his intention; but Allah cancels what Satan throws in and then makes His sign prevail. Allah is All-knowing, All-Wise.
[Qur'an 22:52]
This verse was revealed during the 1st year of Hijrah.
A little careful look at them would at once show that their texts, far from supporting the story, do in fact contradict it.
The first passage shows that it was the unbelievers who attempted to induce the Prophet to making a compromise with them, not that he ever wanted it. The passage further states that Allah made the Prophet’s heart firm against such attempts of the unbelievers. The emphasis here is on the intensity of the unbelievers’ attempts, and Allah’s special favor upon the Prophet making him immune against such efforts and because of such special favor, the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, did not incline towards the unbelievers even a little. Finally the above verse warns that, had the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, been guilty of slight inclination towards the unbelievers’ proposals, he would have been doubly punished by Allah.
It is strange that the orientalists mention the above verses revealed about 8 or 9 years after the alleged incident as assurance from Allah, because during this period so many major events had taken place, including the Hijrah.
The Internal Evidence of Surah An-Najm (53)
The Surah starts emphasizing that,
“He (the Prophet) does not speak out of his desire. It is naught but Wahy (revelation) communicated to him.” In verses 3-4. The Surah declares that the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, has not gone astray, nor erred, nor does he speak out of his own desire, but what he gives out is only revelation communicated to him. It is impossible to think that the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, would immediately add the alleged two verse within this Surah itself, thus contradicting the very essence of the Surah. Though there are over 15 versions of the allegation, all the versions agree that the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, recited the whole of Surah An-Najm on this occasion and prostrated himself at the end of it.
The alleged verses as follows:
“Those are swans exalted. Whose intercession is to be expected.”
These alleged two verses do not fit in any place in the Surah. If we simply insert them after verse 19 and 20 they will read as follows:
“Have you then considered Al-Lat and Al-Uzza (two idols of the pagan Arabs)
[v.19]
And Manat (another idol of the pagan Arabs), the third?
[v.20]
Those are swans exalted. Whose intercession is to be expected.
[???]
Is it for you the males and for Him the females?
[v. 21]
That indeed is a division most unfair
[v.22]
They are but names, which you have named, - you and your fathers- for which Allah has sent down no authority. They follow but a guess and that which they themselves desire, whereas there has surely come to the Guidance from their Lord.
[v.23]
Or shall man have what he wishes?
[v.24]
But to Allah belongs the last (hereafter) and the first (the world)”
[v.25]
A simple glance shows that the alleged satanic verses shown in bold above do not fit in any place in the Surah An-Najm. The whole text from verses 19 to the end of the Surah has a unity and continuity on both theme and sequence. There is no giving-in on the question of intercession by anyone; no relaxation of the principle of individual and personal responsibility, no softening down of denunciation of the conduct of the unbelieving leaders and no room given to accommodating their attitudes.
The following additional information should be noted on this insinuation.
The story has come down in about a dozen varying versions and does not have a strong chain of narrators (Isnad). It is technically regarded as Mursal – i.e. its Isnad does not go up beyond the second generation (Tabi`un) after the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him. One of the versions traces back to `Abd Allah Ibn `Abbas as eye-witness, who was born some five years after the alleged event was said to have taken place. Apart from this, all the persons in the Isnad have names who are considered weak, unreliable or unknown.
The report itself suffer from grave differences and disagreements in all the four essential respects, namely:
* The occasion of the incident;
* Nature of the Prophet’s alleged act;
* The wording of the alleged “satanic verses”- as many as 15 different texts;
* The effect or sequel of the alleged incident.
There are reports that say, more significantly, that while the unbelievers heard the alleged “satanic verses”, the believers did not at all hear them. All the versions unanimously show that no objection or uneasiness was expressed by any of the believers at the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, alleged utterance of the verses, nor to his alleged dropping of them subsequently. If such an unusual incident as the giving out of some compromising verses and their subsequent withdrawal had at all taken place, it would have been narrated by some of the many Companions of the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him.
`Abdallah Ibn Mas`ud says that Surah An-Najm was the first Surah, which the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, recited in front of a gathering of believers and non-believers at the Ka`bah compound. When he finished it and went into prostration, all those who were present, believers and non-believers also prostrated themselves. It is an acknowledged fact that the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, and the Muslims could not publicly and in a body perform prayer or recite the Qur’an at the Ka`bah before the conversion of `Umar, may Allah be pleased with him, and the revelation of Sura An-Najm took place after his conversion. Conversion of `Umar, may Allah be pleased with him, was a great gain to Islam.
The Qur’an has the stunning effect on every non-believing Quraishi who heard it and their leaders such as `Utbah Ibn Rabi`ah themselves had confessed to this. As such, the non-believers without realizing what they were doing would have gone to prostration as commanded in the last verse of the Surah, together with the Muslims. Since the Quraishi leaders prostrated themselves or made a show of prostration, they must have been pressed by their followers to explain their act. When they realized what they have done, they would have tried to find a justification for their unintentional act of abiding by the Qur’anic command.
The other fact that needs emphasizing in this connection is that the text of the so-called “satanic verses” was no new composition made on the occasion. It was an old couplet that the Quraishi pagans used to recite in praise of their goddess while circumambulating the Ka`bah. It is also to be remembered that the unbelievers used to create noise and disturbances whenever the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, or Muslims recited the Qur’an publicly. Therefore, it is very likely that when the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, recited the Surah and mentioned al-Lat and al-`Uzza in the course of his recitation and in a denunciatory strain, some of the Quraishi unbelievers instantly interrupted and protested by shouting out the couplets. Significantly enough, some versions of the story clearly state that the “satanic verses” were uttered not by the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, but by Satan or some unbelievers, and they specifically state that the Muslims did not hear it.
Excerpted with slight modifications from:WWW.prophetmuhammed.org
18/04/2004
The orientalists allege that the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, was worried about the enmity of the non-believers in Makkah. In such a state of mind one day went to Ka`bah where he recited to the gathering of believers and non-believers Surah An-Najm 53 which is said to have been revealed at that time.
The allegation is that in the course of its recitation and when he uttered the verse 19-20 “Do you see al Lat and al `Uzza and the other third Manat?” Satan threw in the couplet “Those are the swans exalted; verily their intercession is to be expected”.
The Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, then completed the Surah and at the end of it went into prostration in accordance with the last verse. All those present there, the believers and non-believers also did so except an old Quraishi leader (Umayyah Ibn Khalaf or Al-Walid Ibn Al-Mughirah or Abu Umayyah) who raised a handful of dust and touched it with his forehead saying that would suffice for him. The Quraishi leaders are said to have given out as reason for their prostration themselves, by saying that now that the Prophet had recognized the position of their goddesses as intercessors with Allah, there was in fact no point of quarrel with him.
Afterwards, in the evening (some versions do not specify any time) Jibril came to the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, and asked him to recite the Surah, which he did, still reciting the “satanic verses”. Jibril protested, saying that those were not what had been revealed. At this, the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, became very sad and apprehensive of Allah’s wrath. Thereupon two separate passages, 17:73-75 and 22-52 were revealed in reassuring the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, and the “satanic verses” were repealed. The Quraishi leaders became angry and renewed their enmity and opposition with increased vehemence. Meanwhile the news of non-believers’ prostration reached Abyssinia in the form of rumor of their compromise with the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, and the Muslims returned to Makkah.
Reply
The story is so manifestly absurd and untrue that it ought to have been rejected outright as such and not recorded by the chroniclers and traditionalists. But since some of them have recorded it has often been cited as ground for its genuineness, rather than the obviously discrediting features of the story itself.
Imam Fakhr Ad-Din Ar-Razi correctly points out that those who have critically looked at the story have all rejected it as spurious on the grounds of its conflict with the clear testimony of the Qur’an, the rules governing the genuineness of traditions and the dictates of reason.
The Qur’anic evidence against the genuineness of the story is of three kinds.
There are a number of statements in the Qur’an that show that neither Satan nor anyone else could interfere in the process of coming of the revelation. Nor did the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, ever entertain any intention of making compromise with the unbelieving leaders, nor did he ever interpolate in the text of the revelation.
The passages cited as having been revealed as a sequel to the incident and for reassuring the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, prove to the contrary, showing that he had not made even the slightest move towards making a compromise with the unbelieving leaders.
The internal evidence of Surah An-Najm (53), in connection with the revelation of which the story has been foisted, goes against its spirit and purpose.
THE PASSAGES FROM THE QUR’AN THAT DIRECTLY BELIE THE STORY ARE AS FOLLOWS:
“If he (Messenger) were to invent any saying in Our Name, We should certainly have seized him by the right hand and We should then have surely cut off the artery of his heart"
[Qur’an 60:44-46]
“Say; It is not for me, of my own accord, to change it (the revelation). I follow naught but what is revealed unto me"
[Qur'an 10:15 ]
“No falsehood can approach it from the front, nor from the rear (i.e. neither directly nor indirectly). It is sent-down from Allah the All-Wise, the All-Praiseworthy.”
[Qur'an 41:42]
“We indeed have sent down the recital (the Qur’an) and indeed are its Protectors (from any interference).”
[Qur'an 15:9]
“In what way (We have revealed it), that We may make your heart firm thereby; and We have dictated it in stages.”
[Qur'an 25:32]
It is seen from the above that the Qur’an repeatedly assures that Allah has protected it against any possibility of being tampered with directly or indirectly, that it is not for the Prophet to change it or add to it anything. If he had done so, Allah’s severe punishment would inevitably and irresistibly have befallen him. These clear and positive statements directly contradict the story, which says that the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, of his own accord or being deceived by Satan introduced something into the text of revelation. Not only that. The alleged interpolation violated the fundamental teaching of the Qur’an – monotheism (Tauhid) and thus constituted the offence of shirk which Allah warns elsewhere in the Qur’an that He shall under no circumstances forgive.
The story is thus quite contrary to the specific statements of the Qur’an and also to the tenor and purport of its entire text. As such the story is totally unworthy of any credence. This is not simply from a Muslim’s point of view, but also from true historian’s point of view.
The two passages of the Qur’an that are said to have been revealed as a sequel to the story are as follows:
“Indeed they were about to divert you from what We revealed to you, in order that you forge against Us something else, and in that case they would certainly have taken you as a friend. And had We not made you firm, you would almost have inclined towards them a little; and in that case we would have made you taste the double (punishment) in death; and then you would not have found for you as against Us any helper.”
[Qur'an 17:73-75]
These verses were revealed 11 or 12 years after the call to Prophethood.
“Never did We send a Messenger nor a Prophet before you, but that when he formed an intention Satan threw something in his intention; but Allah cancels what Satan throws in and then makes His sign prevail. Allah is All-knowing, All-Wise.
[Qur'an 22:52]
This verse was revealed during the 1st year of Hijrah.
A little careful look at them would at once show that their texts, far from supporting the story, do in fact contradict it.
The first passage shows that it was the unbelievers who attempted to induce the Prophet to making a compromise with them, not that he ever wanted it. The passage further states that Allah made the Prophet’s heart firm against such attempts of the unbelievers. The emphasis here is on the intensity of the unbelievers’ attempts, and Allah’s special favor upon the Prophet making him immune against such efforts and because of such special favor, the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, did not incline towards the unbelievers even a little. Finally the above verse warns that, had the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, been guilty of slight inclination towards the unbelievers’ proposals, he would have been doubly punished by Allah.
It is strange that the orientalists mention the above verses revealed about 8 or 9 years after the alleged incident as assurance from Allah, because during this period so many major events had taken place, including the Hijrah.
The Internal Evidence of Surah An-Najm (53)
The Surah starts emphasizing that,
“He (the Prophet) does not speak out of his desire. It is naught but Wahy (revelation) communicated to him.” In verses 3-4. The Surah declares that the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, has not gone astray, nor erred, nor does he speak out of his own desire, but what he gives out is only revelation communicated to him. It is impossible to think that the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, would immediately add the alleged two verse within this Surah itself, thus contradicting the very essence of the Surah. Though there are over 15 versions of the allegation, all the versions agree that the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, recited the whole of Surah An-Najm on this occasion and prostrated himself at the end of it.
The alleged verses as follows:
“Those are swans exalted. Whose intercession is to be expected.”
These alleged two verses do not fit in any place in the Surah. If we simply insert them after verse 19 and 20 they will read as follows:
“Have you then considered Al-Lat and Al-Uzza (two idols of the pagan Arabs)
[v.19]
And Manat (another idol of the pagan Arabs), the third?
[v.20]
Those are swans exalted. Whose intercession is to be expected.
[???]
Is it for you the males and for Him the females?
[v. 21]
That indeed is a division most unfair
[v.22]
They are but names, which you have named, - you and your fathers- for which Allah has sent down no authority. They follow but a guess and that which they themselves desire, whereas there has surely come to the Guidance from their Lord.
[v.23]
Or shall man have what he wishes?
[v.24]
But to Allah belongs the last (hereafter) and the first (the world)”
[v.25]
A simple glance shows that the alleged satanic verses shown in bold above do not fit in any place in the Surah An-Najm. The whole text from verses 19 to the end of the Surah has a unity and continuity on both theme and sequence. There is no giving-in on the question of intercession by anyone; no relaxation of the principle of individual and personal responsibility, no softening down of denunciation of the conduct of the unbelieving leaders and no room given to accommodating their attitudes.
The following additional information should be noted on this insinuation.
The story has come down in about a dozen varying versions and does not have a strong chain of narrators (Isnad). It is technically regarded as Mursal – i.e. its Isnad does not go up beyond the second generation (Tabi`un) after the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him. One of the versions traces back to `Abd Allah Ibn `Abbas as eye-witness, who was born some five years after the alleged event was said to have taken place. Apart from this, all the persons in the Isnad have names who are considered weak, unreliable or unknown.
The report itself suffer from grave differences and disagreements in all the four essential respects, namely:
* The occasion of the incident;
* Nature of the Prophet’s alleged act;
* The wording of the alleged “satanic verses”- as many as 15 different texts;
* The effect or sequel of the alleged incident.
There are reports that say, more significantly, that while the unbelievers heard the alleged “satanic verses”, the believers did not at all hear them. All the versions unanimously show that no objection or uneasiness was expressed by any of the believers at the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, alleged utterance of the verses, nor to his alleged dropping of them subsequently. If such an unusual incident as the giving out of some compromising verses and their subsequent withdrawal had at all taken place, it would have been narrated by some of the many Companions of the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him.
`Abdallah Ibn Mas`ud says that Surah An-Najm was the first Surah, which the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, recited in front of a gathering of believers and non-believers at the Ka`bah compound. When he finished it and went into prostration, all those who were present, believers and non-believers also prostrated themselves. It is an acknowledged fact that the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, and the Muslims could not publicly and in a body perform prayer or recite the Qur’an at the Ka`bah before the conversion of `Umar, may Allah be pleased with him, and the revelation of Sura An-Najm took place after his conversion. Conversion of `Umar, may Allah be pleased with him, was a great gain to Islam.
The Qur’an has the stunning effect on every non-believing Quraishi who heard it and their leaders such as `Utbah Ibn Rabi`ah themselves had confessed to this. As such, the non-believers without realizing what they were doing would have gone to prostration as commanded in the last verse of the Surah, together with the Muslims. Since the Quraishi leaders prostrated themselves or made a show of prostration, they must have been pressed by their followers to explain their act. When they realized what they have done, they would have tried to find a justification for their unintentional act of abiding by the Qur’anic command.
The other fact that needs emphasizing in this connection is that the text of the so-called “satanic verses” was no new composition made on the occasion. It was an old couplet that the Quraishi pagans used to recite in praise of their goddess while circumambulating the Ka`bah. It is also to be remembered that the unbelievers used to create noise and disturbances whenever the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, or Muslims recited the Qur’an publicly. Therefore, it is very likely that when the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, recited the Surah and mentioned al-Lat and al-`Uzza in the course of his recitation and in a denunciatory strain, some of the Quraishi unbelievers instantly interrupted and protested by shouting out the couplets. Significantly enough, some versions of the story clearly state that the “satanic verses” were uttered not by the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, but by Satan or some unbelievers, and they specifically state that the Muslims did not hear it.
Excerpted with slight modifications from:WWW.prophetmuhammed.org
http://www.islamonline.net/English/I...rticle04.shtml
Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
Ansar Al-'Adl
02-12-2005, 03:52 AM
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 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 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 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 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?
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]
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.
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!
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Polemics/sverses.html
Abdel
04-18-2005, 04:48 PM
I appreciate what you've wrote above, but:
There's also the strong opinion that there's some truth in that story, as I believe so. In fact, the Qur'an confirms that aswell the Sunnah and the opinion of the early Muslimcommunity. This has been explained by some very knowledgeable scholars in Islam.
It would be therefore wiser if you could emphasize the other side of the coin - as some young Muslims later may come across that side of the story.
ReplyThere's also the strong opinion that there's some truth in that story, as I believe so. In fact, the Qur'an confirms that aswell the Sunnah and the opinion of the early Muslimcommunity. This has been explained by some very knowledgeable scholars in Islam.
It would be therefore wiser if you could emphasize the other side of the coin - as some young Muslims later may come across that side of the story.
kadafi
04-18-2005, 11:22 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Abdel
The second article discuss the fact that it's not mentioned in the Sunnah nor was it the belief of the early Muslim community.
Welcome, Guest!
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up
When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up
Abdel
04-25-2005, 11:50 AM
al-Salam,
Have you seen the argument of Ibn Taymiyah, Ibn Hajar and others in confirming part of that story?
The fact only that it has been transmitted by the Salaf makes it more reliable than many false ahadith allegedly transmitted on the authority of the Prophet - such as many reported in some wellknown books.
You should have read what these two have written, incl. Qadi 'Iyad's passages, and the reports transmitted from the Imam of the Sira/Maghazi, Abu Bakr Muhammad b. Ishaq b. Yasar al-Madani, rahimahullah.
In fact, if you read al-Albani's and al-Halabi's refutations of al-Qissat al-Gharaniq, you'll acknowledge that forgery is a farfetched thesis - since they recorded many routes for it, even a few authentically reported from some of the Salaf.
If any Muslim want sincerily to know the truth of that story, he should set aside the biasedness away that has infiltrated his heart because of the Shubuhat of the Orientalists - may Allah destroy them! I too disbelieved that story - as many Western young Muslims do - but in the Muslimslands, many cite that story - before Rushdie ever wrote about it - and a unbiased person, reading all that what has been written about it: from the beginning till the present time, then he can make his judgement about it.
Since that has not been done, nor has anyone above sincerily uncovered the facts surrounding that story - something the Shaykh al-Islam has done - none should postulate it as fiction á plain.
Sincerily, your Muslimbrother.
ReplyHave you seen the argument of Ibn Taymiyah, Ibn Hajar and others in confirming part of that story?
The fact only that it has been transmitted by the Salaf makes it more reliable than many false ahadith allegedly transmitted on the authority of the Prophet - such as many reported in some wellknown books.
You should have read what these two have written, incl. Qadi 'Iyad's passages, and the reports transmitted from the Imam of the Sira/Maghazi, Abu Bakr Muhammad b. Ishaq b. Yasar al-Madani, rahimahullah.
In fact, if you read al-Albani's and al-Halabi's refutations of al-Qissat al-Gharaniq, you'll acknowledge that forgery is a farfetched thesis - since they recorded many routes for it, even a few authentically reported from some of the Salaf.
If any Muslim want sincerily to know the truth of that story, he should set aside the biasedness away that has infiltrated his heart because of the Shubuhat of the Orientalists - may Allah destroy them! I too disbelieved that story - as many Western young Muslims do - but in the Muslimslands, many cite that story - before Rushdie ever wrote about it - and a unbiased person, reading all that what has been written about it: from the beginning till the present time, then he can make his judgement about it.
Since that has not been done, nor has anyone above sincerily uncovered the facts surrounding that story - something the Shaykh al-Islam has done - none should postulate it as fiction á plain.
Sincerily, your Muslimbrother.
Ansar Al-'Adl
04-25-2005, 05:26 PM
:sl:The reason why it seems to originate from some sources is best explained by what many of the biographers have said. When the Prophet saws recited Surah An-Najm to the Quraysh, they were so stunned by the beauty of the recitation that they prostrated when the last verse was recited, "Fasjudu lillahi wa'abudu" (Therefore, prostrate to Allah and worship Him). Later they were furious with themselves for doing something like that so they invented the tale that they had only done it because the Prophet praised their gods - which was evidently false.
:w:
Reply:w:
Abdel
04-25-2005, 06:48 PM
al-Salamu alaikum,
Insha'Allah I shall give some references. What I intented was to draw attention to the other side of the debate, and the notables who defend that opinion.
Since you wrote such a large article, I supposed that you was familiar with the people who adhered to that view. Since I believe that before one postulate such opnion, he should at least read and studied part of the literature on it before.
Drawing readers to the opinions of the orientalists - and opening the doors of doubts - should be avoided at all costs, especially when many are not aware of the fact that this issue is much weightier than it looks like.
As I said - in due time, inshallah - I shall send you some references, namely from the Majmu' al-Fatawa of Ibn Taymiyyah, from his Risalah on the 'Ismah (infallibility) of the Prophet, sallalahu 'alayhi wa-sallam, his Kitab al-Nubuwwa and from others Rasa'il from him. There are also the relevant passages in the Fath al-Bari by the Hafidh Ibn Hajar, in his commentary on particular ahadith I do not recall, besides in the K. al-Sira of Ibn Hisham according to the Sarh of Ibn Sayyid al-Nas. May I ask you the following question:
Are you aware of the conflicting opinions, not just as such, but also the specific details and arguments - especially of Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah?
wa-Salamu 'alaikum.
ReplyInsha'Allah I shall give some references. What I intented was to draw attention to the other side of the debate, and the notables who defend that opinion.
Since you wrote such a large article, I supposed that you was familiar with the people who adhered to that view. Since I believe that before one postulate such opnion, he should at least read and studied part of the literature on it before.
Drawing readers to the opinions of the orientalists - and opening the doors of doubts - should be avoided at all costs, especially when many are not aware of the fact that this issue is much weightier than it looks like.
As I said - in due time, inshallah - I shall send you some references, namely from the Majmu' al-Fatawa of Ibn Taymiyyah, from his Risalah on the 'Ismah (infallibility) of the Prophet, sallalahu 'alayhi wa-sallam, his Kitab al-Nubuwwa and from others Rasa'il from him. There are also the relevant passages in the Fath al-Bari by the Hafidh Ibn Hajar, in his commentary on particular ahadith I do not recall, besides in the K. al-Sira of Ibn Hisham according to the Sarh of Ibn Sayyid al-Nas. May I ask you the following question:
Are you aware of the conflicting opinions, not just as such, but also the specific details and arguments - especially of Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah?
wa-Salamu 'alaikum.
Ansar Al-'Adl
04-25-2005, 08:03 PM
:sl:
I would appreciate it if you could bring those references to my attention, and as a clarification, I did not write these articles. I have reformatted them now, and added the source for both.
While we are waiting for your evidence, I found some more articles, which I shall paste here.
Introduction The knowledgeable person may question: why raise an issue that have been discussed and put to rest by both Muslim and non-Muslim scholars countless times? Well, firstly, the issue of the so-called "Satanic Verses"[1] have been blown out of proportion so much that the Christian missionaries have taken advantage of this issue. The sad thing is that not many Muslims are aware of the whole story behind the Hadith al-Garaniq al-'Ula saga, as the issue is known to the Islamic world.
Having said that, we cannot resist to notice the deception contained in Christian anti-Islam and anti-Muslim tautological rhetoric websites. These people are so obviously fearful of Islam that they had to resort to a source which have unanimously been rejected by all Islamic scholars, both past and present.
A claim from a Christian who tries to perpetuate this issue says that
"Satanic Verses": The Saga That Never Was
Below we reproduce several articles written by Muslims on the issue. Insha'allah, for now, these articles would suffice, and we plan to reproduce the chapter dealing with this issue from Zakaria A. Bashier. As we see it, there is no need to reinvent the wheel and write a refutation to the unsubstantiated and rehashed arguments of the missionaries when other Muslim scholars have already dealt extensively with the issue.
We hope that this issue have now been finally put to rest. And indeed, only God knows best!
ReplyI would appreciate it if you could bring those references to my attention, and as a clarification, I did not write these articles. I have reformatted them now, and added the source for both.
While we are waiting for your evidence, I found some more articles, which I shall paste here.
Those Are Their High-Flying Lies Indeed!
Mohd Elfie Nieshaem Juferi
Introduction The knowledgeable person may question: why raise an issue that have been discussed and put to rest by both Muslim and non-Muslim scholars countless times? Well, firstly, the issue of the so-called "Satanic Verses"[1] have been blown out of proportion so much that the Christian missionaries have taken advantage of this issue. The sad thing is that not many Muslims are aware of the whole story behind the Hadith al-Garaniq al-'Ula saga, as the issue is known to the Islamic world.
Having said that, we cannot resist to notice the deception contained in Christian anti-Islam and anti-Muslim tautological rhetoric websites. These people are so obviously fearful of Islam that they had to resort to a source which have unanimously been rejected by all Islamic scholars, both past and present.
A claim from a Christian who tries to perpetuate this issue says that
The Satanic verses are still here in the Quran, its to late to change them because the Prophet, according to his own claims, is to do the correcting under inspiration...you have seen how the "Satanic Verses" are not answered by the disclaimers or politics and tricks of Muhammad.
One really wonders at the arrogance of this Christian missionary who claims that the so-called 'Satanic verses' are "not answered". The knowledgeable Muslim cannot fail to mention Zakaria A. Bashier who deals with this issue quite thoroughly in his book, The Meccan Crucible. Others of equally notable merit are M H Haykal's The Life Of Muhammad and S.M. Darsh's "Those Are The High-Flying Cranes", of which both will be mentioned below."Satanic Verses": The Saga That Never Was
Below we reproduce several articles written by Muslims on the issue. Insha'allah, for now, these articles would suffice, and we plan to reproduce the chapter dealing with this issue from Zakaria A. Bashier. As we see it, there is no need to reinvent the wheel and write a refutation to the unsubstantiated and rehashed arguments of the missionaries when other Muslim scholars have already dealt extensively with the issue.
We hope that this issue have now been finally put to rest. And indeed, only God knows best!
Ansar Al-'Adl
04-25-2005, 08:52 PM
:sl:
The view of Ibn Taymiyyah, which you referred to is spoken about in the first link (S. M. Darsh).
To put it in the correct perspective, Ibn Taymiyyah states:
Hence, it is incorrect to say that Ibn Taymiyyah agreed with the story. He did NOT believe that Prophet Muhammad saws made this statement because of any personal desire, but he believed that it was a chance for the Prophet Muhammad saws to clearly refute the views of the pagans.
And this was clarified when the prophet Muhammad saws refuted their views on it immediately.
Hence, even Ibn Taymiyyah does not agree with the story as it has been presented (by the enemies of Islam). He believed that Satan had no influence on the Prophet Muhammad saws.
For more detailed information please read the following article which discusses the issue in great detail:
http://www.bismikaallahuma.org/Polemics/darsh.htm
I hope that answers your questions. The story is unanimously rejected as a forgery, but a small group of scholars believed in a seemingly similar account, which still had no theological iimplications.
And I should also clarify that the point the enemies of Islam are attempting to make is that these whispers of satan actually were part of the Qur'an for some time, and that they may reflect other satanic inspirations in the Qur'an.
Such a notion is clearly false since the Qur'an is vehemtly opposed to Satan and warns its followers against him:
35:6 Verily Satan is an enemy to you: so treat him as an enemy. He only invites his adherents, that they may become Companions of the Blazing Fire.
:w:
ReplyThe view of Ibn Taymiyyah, which you referred to is spoken about in the first link (S. M. Darsh).
To put it in the correct perspective, Ibn Taymiyyah states:
To make that which Satan has proposed a temptation for those in whose hearts is a disease, and those whose hearts are hardened, could happen only if Satan's spurious line were brought out into the open to be heard by people, not something hidden, in the soul. The temptation which happens as a result of this kind of rectification, is like that which happens as a result of this kind of change. Rectification of what has been uttered loudly proves more strongly the truthfulness and self-denial of the Messenger (SAW) than any other measure. Indeed, if he uttered something and later ordered that it be rectified - both instructions being Allâh's - and he is believed, and if he says that the rectification is Allâh's true word, that it abrogates and utterance preceding it, and that that which has been rectified is not Allâh's true word, then this demonstrates that he accepts the truth and that he speaks the truth. (Al-Fatawa, v 10, p. 292.)
This cannot all be the desire of the heart, which the Prophet did not utter. (Al-Fatawa, pp. 120-121.)
This cannot all be the desire of the heart, which the Prophet did not utter. (Al-Fatawa, pp. 120-121.)
Hence, it is incorrect to say that Ibn Taymiyyah agreed with the story. He did NOT believe that Prophet Muhammad saws made this statement because of any personal desire, but he believed that it was a chance for the Prophet Muhammad saws to clearly refute the views of the pagans.
this is what Satan has slipped into their ear, and not what the Prophet actually uttered
And this was clarified when the prophet Muhammad saws refuted their views on it immediately.
Hence, even Ibn Taymiyyah does not agree with the story as it has been presented (by the enemies of Islam). He believed that Satan had no influence on the Prophet Muhammad saws.
For more detailed information please read the following article which discusses the issue in great detail:
http://www.bismikaallahuma.org/Polemics/darsh.htm
I hope that answers your questions. The story is unanimously rejected as a forgery, but a small group of scholars believed in a seemingly similar account, which still had no theological iimplications.
And I should also clarify that the point the enemies of Islam are attempting to make is that these whispers of satan actually were part of the Qur'an for some time, and that they may reflect other satanic inspirations in the Qur'an.
Such a notion is clearly false since the Qur'an is vehemtly opposed to Satan and warns its followers against him:
35:6 Verily Satan is an enemy to you: so treat him as an enemy. He only invites his adherents, that they may become Companions of the Blazing Fire.
:w:
Muezzin
09-13-2005, 06:20 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Abdul Aziz
I've never heard of Rashad Khalifa.
Bittersteel
09-18-2005, 04:03 AM
there seems to be so many versions of the story.Which one is true(who started it)?And how many believe that satanic verses exist and have left Islam?
ReplyAnsar Al-'Adl
09-19-2005, 12:03 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Abdul Aziz
The very first article represents the views of the vast majority of Muslim scholars.
And how many believe that satanic verses exist and have left Islam?
:w:
Bittersteel
09-20-2005, 06:45 PM
where did Al-Tabari hear the story from?
so actually the verses were revealed in the following order:
615-the alleged Satanic verse
621-then the verse 17:73-75 the "admonishing verse"
623- the verse 22:52 the so-called consoling verse.
yes it sounds strange.
So brothers if the were no such verse uttered then why was it mentioned?(Just curious,don't think I believe in it).
anopther question which may sound stupid:Did Gabriel come to meet Muhammad on that evening? and also why did the disbelievers join the Muslims in prayer?
Replyso actually the verses were revealed in the following order:
615-the alleged Satanic verse
621-then the verse 17:73-75 the "admonishing verse"
623- the verse 22:52 the so-called consoling verse.
yes it sounds strange.
So brothers if the were no such verse uttered then why was it mentioned?(Just curious,don't think I believe in it).
anopther question which may sound stupid:Did Gabriel come to meet Muhammad on that evening? and also why did the disbelievers join the Muslims in prayer?
Ansar Al-'Adl
09-20-2005, 07:12 PM
:sl:
Addressed in this verse:
http://www.islamicboard.com/showpost...26&postcount=2
There have been thousands of fabricated hadith all invented for different reasons.
What are you trying to say?
Because they were overpowered by the amazing recitation, and this serves as a testimony to the literary miraculous nature of the Qur'an.
:w:
Reply
format_quote Originally Posted by Abdul Aziz
http://www.islamicboard.com/showpost...26&postcount=2
So brothers if the were no such verse uttered then why was it mentioned?(Just curious,don't think I believe in it).
anopther question which may sound stupid:Did Gabriel come to meet Muhammad on that evening?
and also why did the disbelievers join the Muslims in prayer?
:w:
`Abd al-Azeez
08-29-2006, 05:18 PM
:sl:
Intro
Christian missionaries and anti-Islamics over the years have tainted the image of Islam, fabricating lies against Prophet Muhammad (sa) and completeley defiling his character. One such lie hold against the prophet (sa) is the lie of the ‘Satanic Verses’ , which they call Muhammad’s (sa) compromise with idolatry (nauzubillah). The absurd story goes as follows:
One day while the Holy Prophet (sa) while praying in a mixed party of the Meccan idolotors and the Muslims was reciting Surah an-Najm and under Satanic inspiration (nauzubillah) added two verses to Surah an-Najm , which are as follows [in brackets]:
[Qur'an 53:19]
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!]
The Prophet (sa), 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 (sa) and the Islamic movement. The story also says that the angel Gabriel came to the Prophet (sa) 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 (sa) and made him apprehensive. 'Admonishing' the Prophet (sa), 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 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 (sa) 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]
They call this the ‘lapse’ of Muhammad (sa) (nauzubillah). This refutation will explore the sources of the missionary argument and find out if the story holds water.
Sources of the Missionary argument
The missionaries have two major sources:
(1) Ibn Sa'd
(2) Ibn Jarir al-Tabari
It is worthy to note that the alleged story was transmitted from al-Waqidi ( Muhammad Ibn Umar ) to Ibn Sa'd who was a known fabricator of events, Imam Al-Shafi'i who was a comtemporary of al-Waqidi and knew him personally has this to say :
“Al-Waqidi is a liar.”
and also:
“In Madeenah there were seven people who used to forge chains of narration. One of them was al-Waqidi.”
Imam Ibn Hanbal says thus about al-Waqidi:
“Al-Waqidi is a liar”
Imam Bukhari who collectted and compiled the most authentic book of ahadith, Shahih Bukhari said he didn't write a single letter by Al-Waqidi. So the credibility of of the story transmitted by al-Waqidi to Ibn Sa'd is zero. Now we'll turn to al-Tabari:
Al-Tabari mentions the so-called 'Satanic verses' story in his Tarikh as well as an important set of statements in the introduction of his book, which states:
So what Al-Tabari is basically saying is that don't blame him if what he records sounds fishy, which makes this story unreal. Another element in why the story is not credible from al-Tabari is because , Karen Armstrong in her book Muahmmad [sa] devotes a whole chapter to this subject. In it she says Al-Tabari:
‘In his history Tabari preserves a tradition which gives a very different version of the story ’ (p.113)
Thus both transmitters of this story are unreliable.
Other Problems with the Story
Other than the reliability of the transmitters there are also many other problems with this story;
It is mentioned in the story that after reciting the so called 'Satanic Verses' verse 52 of Surah al-Hajj were revealed in connection with the story, but in reality Surah al-Hajj was revealed 7 or 8 years later which completeley shreads this story to piecies. It is obvious to any rational person that this story is pure fantasy and furthermore, Ibn Hisham who wrote an exahaustive biography of the prophet (sa) never mentiones this story at all.
:w:
______________
REFRENCES:
* Islamic-Awareness
* Karen Armstrong
* Wikipedia
:w:
ReplyIntro
Christian missionaries and anti-Islamics over the years have tainted the image of Islam, fabricating lies against Prophet Muhammad (sa) and completeley defiling his character. One such lie hold against the prophet (sa) is the lie of the ‘Satanic Verses’ , which they call Muhammad’s (sa) compromise with idolatry (nauzubillah). The absurd story goes as follows:
One day while the Holy Prophet (sa) while praying in a mixed party of the Meccan idolotors and the Muslims was reciting Surah an-Najm and under Satanic inspiration (nauzubillah) added two verses to Surah an-Najm , which are as follows [in brackets]:
[Qur'an 53:19]
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!]
The Prophet (sa), 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 (sa) and the Islamic movement. The story also says that the angel Gabriel came to the Prophet (sa) 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 (sa) and made him apprehensive. 'Admonishing' the Prophet (sa), 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 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 (sa) 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]
They call this the ‘lapse’ of Muhammad (sa) (nauzubillah). This refutation will explore the sources of the missionary argument and find out if the story holds water.
Sources of the Missionary argument
The missionaries have two major sources:
(1) Ibn Sa'd
(2) Ibn Jarir al-Tabari
It is worthy to note that the alleged story was transmitted from al-Waqidi ( Muhammad Ibn Umar ) to Ibn Sa'd who was a known fabricator of events, Imam Al-Shafi'i who was a comtemporary of al-Waqidi and knew him personally has this to say :
“Al-Waqidi is a liar.”
and also:
“In Madeenah there were seven people who used to forge chains of narration. One of them was al-Waqidi.”
Imam Ibn Hanbal says thus about al-Waqidi:
“Al-Waqidi is a liar”
Imam Bukhari who collectted and compiled the most authentic book of ahadith, Shahih Bukhari said he didn't write a single letter by Al-Waqidi. So the credibility of of the story transmitted by al-Waqidi to Ibn Sa'd is zero. Now we'll turn to al-Tabari:
Al-Tabari mentions the so-called 'Satanic verses' story 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
( Tarikh al-Tabari: Tarikh al-Umam wal-Muluk p. 550.)So what Al-Tabari is basically saying is that don't blame him if what he records sounds fishy, which makes this story unreal. Another element in why the story is not credible from al-Tabari is because , Karen Armstrong in her book Muahmmad [sa] devotes a whole chapter to this subject. In it she says Al-Tabari:
‘In his history Tabari preserves a tradition which gives a very different version of the story ’ (p.113)
Thus both transmitters of this story are unreliable.
Other Problems with the Story
Other than the reliability of the transmitters there are also many other problems with this story;
It is mentioned in the story that after reciting the so called 'Satanic Verses' verse 52 of Surah al-Hajj were revealed in connection with the story, but in reality Surah al-Hajj was revealed 7 or 8 years later which completeley shreads this story to piecies. It is obvious to any rational person that this story is pure fantasy and furthermore, Ibn Hisham who wrote an exahaustive biography of the prophet (sa) never mentiones this story at all.
:w:
______________
REFRENCES:
* Islamic-Awareness
* Karen Armstrong
* Wikipedia
:w:
AvarAllahNoor
09-22-2006, 10:48 AM
This is a very old subject i know! - I was wondering if this is to what salman rusdie said/claimed?
And what he said/calimed that made him think in this manner.
As i've been told before this is an Islamic site and i have no need to cause trouble just learning about things that concern muslims!
ReplyAnd what he said/calimed that made him think in this manner.
As i've been told before this is an Islamic site and i have no need to cause trouble just learning about things that concern muslims!
Ansar Al-'Adl
09-23-2006, 05:40 AM
This issue predates Rushdi; he only popularized an age-old basless tale by including it in his fiction novel.
Peace.
ReplyPeace.
AvarAllahNoor
09-23-2006, 12:47 PM
Has his book been discussed on here or is it a forbidden subject?
ReplyAbdulwaheed
09-23-2006, 01:21 PM
This is the first time i've heard about the satanic verses. Alhamdulillah, i've learnt many things on this site. I knew muslims didnt like Salman Rushdie for defaming the prophet SAW, but i had no idea what he said. what was his book about?
Reply`Abd al-Azeez
09-23-2006, 03:18 PM
Brother, his book is just a filthy attack on the Prophet (saw), really disgusting actually, I haven't read it myself and nor do I plan to but here is a taste of his vulgar style:
Prophet Abraham (as) is called a 'bast***' (nauzubillah) p.95
He calls Salman al-Farsi (ra) 'some sort of bum' , Hazrat Bilal (ra) an 'enormous black monster' [nauzubillah] (pgs 101-102)
Diffenitley a sick man who deserved his punishment. He also frequently calls prophet Muhammad (saw) 'Mahound' in his book, just like Christians did in the time of the crusades.
ReplyProphet Abraham (as) is called a 'bast***' (nauzubillah) p.95
He calls Salman al-Farsi (ra) 'some sort of bum' , Hazrat Bilal (ra) an 'enormous black monster' [nauzubillah] (pgs 101-102)
Diffenitley a sick man who deserved his punishment. He also frequently calls prophet Muhammad (saw) 'Mahound' in his book, just like Christians did in the time of the crusades.
Islamicboy
10-24-2006, 05:22 AM
I recently saw Rushdi on cnn i never knew who he was. Recently i read about his book and was going to post it on this site for refutation but alhumdillaah that was amazing refutation.
ReplyNoName55
06-06-2007, 11:03 PM
Reply to alpiana for copy/pasting absurdities from Kuffar at ****** .>Alleged Satanic Verses
http://www.islamicboard.com/4525-post1.html
home to IslamOnline
IslamOnline.net is not responsible for the content of external linked Web sites.
****** edited by Al Madani : 2 Days Ago at 12:29 AM. Reason: It's better to not link to them or mention the site
Replyhttp://www.islamicboard.com/4525-post1.html
home to IslamOnline
IslamOnline.net is not responsible for the content of external linked Web sites.
****** edited by Al Madani : 2 Days Ago at 12:29 AM. Reason: It's better to not link to them or mention the site
lilah
06-06-2007, 11:15 PM
i think it's really sad how some have to make up lies about islam in order to refute it. it's one thing if you don't agree with the beliefs, it's another thing to pull fiction from your bum and call it fact.
oh well...they only hurt themselves
Replyoh well...they only hurt themselves
vpb
06-06-2007, 11:17 PM
NoName55, bro I don't think you should spend time refuting things like that. it's loss of time.
ReplyNoName55
06-06-2007, 11:20 PM
are you being abusive towards me or the kuffaar?
Edit: even if you are addressing the kuffar, you are still using profanities
Edit 2
I dont make thing up but he does:
http://www.islamicboard.com/758071-post2.html
http://www.islamicboard.com/comparat...tml#post758071
ReplyEdit: even if you are addressing the kuffar, you are still using profanities
Edit 2
I dont make thing up but he does:
http://www.islamicboard.com/758071-post2.html
http://www.islamicboard.com/comparat...tml#post758071
lilah
06-07-2007, 03:40 AM
hey, don't be so defensive, i wasn't refering to you but to the ones making the allegations :rollseyes
Replybarney
06-07-2007, 03:50 AM
2.106] Whatever communications We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, We bring one better than it or like it. Do you not know that Allah has power over all things?
ReplyNoName55
06-07-2007, 09:56 AM
^^ this is refutation not debating forum, so be gone and cease and desist from dirtying this thread, your nonsense has been dealt with by me, in another thread, go find and read that
Replylilah
06-07-2007, 05:36 PM
this is the why just relying on the english translation is dangerous....if you go to the arabic text, you'd see that 'communication' is the word 'aya' which can mean 'verse' or 'miracle'. Furthermore, that section of quran was talking about the people of the book, the people of Moses (pbuh) and Jesus (AS)... the miracles of Moses (pbuh) and Jesus (AS) have long been forgotten and have been replaced with a better miracle, the quran...al hamdullilah....
Reply
"Whichever Ayah We relinquish or cause to be forgotten We replace it with its equal or with that which is greater, did you not know that God is capable of all things?" 2:106
What the interpreters claim is that this verse confirms that some Quranic verses are invalidated by others. They interpret ‘Ayah’ in this verse to mean a verse in the Quran.
However the word Ayah, as used in the Quran, can have one of four different meanings:
a- It could mean a miracle from God as in:
"And We supported Moses with nine profound Ayah’s (miracles)." 17:101
b- It could also mean an example for people to take heed from as in:
"And the folk of Noah, when they disbelieved the messengers, We have drowned them and set an Ayah (example) of them for all people." 25:37
c- The word ‘Ayah’ can also mean a sign as in:
"He said, ‘My Lord, give me an ‘Ayah’ (sign).’ He said, ‘Your Ayah is that you will not speak to people for three consecutive nights." 19:10
d- It could mean a verse in the Quran, as in:
"This is a book that We have sent down to you that is sacred, perhaps they will reflect on its ‘Ayat’ (verses)." 38:29
Now if we consider verse 106 of Sura 2, we can easily spot that the word ‘Ayah’ in this particular verse could not mean a verse in the Quran. It can mean any of the other meanings (miracle, example or sign) but not a verse in the Quran. This is because of the following reasons:
1- The words "cause to be forgotten" could not be applicable if the word ‘Ayah’ in this verse meant a verse in the Quran. How can a verse in the Quran become forgotten? For even if the verse was invalidated by another (as the interpreters falsely claim) it will still be part of the Quran and thus could never be forgotten.
2- The words "We replace it with its equal" would be meaningless if the word ‘Ayah’ in this verse meant a Quranic verse, simply because it would make no sense for God to invalidate one verse then replace it with one that is identical to it!
3- If the word ‘Ayah’ in verse 106 meant a miracle an example or a sign, then all the words of the verse would make perfect sense. The words "cause to be forgotten" can apply to all three meanings and that is what actually happens with the passing of time. The miracles of Moses and Jesus have long been forgotten. We only believe in them because they are mentioned in the Quran.
Similarly the words "We replace with its equal or with that which is greater" is in line with the miracles of God. God indeed replaces one miracle with its equal or with one that is greater than it. Consider the following verse :
"And We have sent Moses with Our Ayah’s (miracles or signs) to Pharaoh and his elders proclaiming : ‘I am a messenger from the Lord of the universe’. When he brought them our Ayah’s they laughed at him. Every Ayah We showed them was greater than the one that preceded it." 43:46-48
What the interpreters claim is that this verse confirms that some Quranic verses are invalidated by others. They interpret ‘Ayah’ in this verse to mean a verse in the Quran.
However the word Ayah, as used in the Quran, can have one of four different meanings:
a- It could mean a miracle from God as in:
"And We supported Moses with nine profound Ayah’s (miracles)." 17:101
b- It could also mean an example for people to take heed from as in:
"And the folk of Noah, when they disbelieved the messengers, We have drowned them and set an Ayah (example) of them for all people." 25:37
c- The word ‘Ayah’ can also mean a sign as in:
"He said, ‘My Lord, give me an ‘Ayah’ (sign).’ He said, ‘Your Ayah is that you will not speak to people for three consecutive nights." 19:10
d- It could mean a verse in the Quran, as in:
"This is a book that We have sent down to you that is sacred, perhaps they will reflect on its ‘Ayat’ (verses)." 38:29
Now if we consider verse 106 of Sura 2, we can easily spot that the word ‘Ayah’ in this particular verse could not mean a verse in the Quran. It can mean any of the other meanings (miracle, example or sign) but not a verse in the Quran. This is because of the following reasons:
1- The words "cause to be forgotten" could not be applicable if the word ‘Ayah’ in this verse meant a verse in the Quran. How can a verse in the Quran become forgotten? For even if the verse was invalidated by another (as the interpreters falsely claim) it will still be part of the Quran and thus could never be forgotten.
2- The words "We replace it with its equal" would be meaningless if the word ‘Ayah’ in this verse meant a Quranic verse, simply because it would make no sense for God to invalidate one verse then replace it with one that is identical to it!
3- If the word ‘Ayah’ in verse 106 meant a miracle an example or a sign, then all the words of the verse would make perfect sense. The words "cause to be forgotten" can apply to all three meanings and that is what actually happens with the passing of time. The miracles of Moses and Jesus have long been forgotten. We only believe in them because they are mentioned in the Quran.
Similarly the words "We replace with its equal or with that which is greater" is in line with the miracles of God. God indeed replaces one miracle with its equal or with one that is greater than it. Consider the following verse :
"And We have sent Moses with Our Ayah’s (miracles or signs) to Pharaoh and his elders proclaiming : ‘I am a messenger from the Lord of the universe’. When he brought them our Ayah’s they laughed at him. Every Ayah We showed them was greater than the one that preceded it." 43:46-48
lilah
06-07-2007, 05:41 PM
i just have to add how i think it's funny how alot of these anti islamic sites spend night and day going over trying to find supposed contradictions in the quran, as if that is what keeps them from entering islam.... yet they stand and swear by the blatant contradictions in their own religous texts.....:skeleton:
Reply- Qatada -
06-07-2007, 05:43 PM
:salamext:
Alhamdulillah this thread is also useful :)
http://www.islamicboard.com/refutati...ic-verses.html
ReplyAlhamdulillah this thread is also useful :)
http://www.islamicboard.com/refutati...ic-verses.html
barney
06-09-2007, 10:02 PM
Yeah, I've been on Christian and Mormon and Hindu forums & when you point out the contradictions in their texts, they start ranting about "Interpretation" and "In Context". if you point out the context is pretty much exactly what you have just argued, they'll get a Clergyman or a "scholor" (Lol), to make some judgement on it, effectively altering the words of their scripture situationally. Then they'll close the thread.
Weird how those sites do that.+o(
ReplyWeird how those sites do that.+o(
Umar001
06-10-2007, 06:24 PM
But then you'd have to check the validity of the context being brought forth. An example would be a contradiction in the Bible, a person harmonises the text, without knowledge of the actual original composition. So their harmonisation might be invalid. I think that's the turning point for me. I hardly ever asked anyone to admit to the contradictions, but rather just assesed their explanation to it.
ReplyBassam Zawadi
10-15-2007, 10:51 AM
assalamu alaykum
i also wrote an article about the issue here http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/pr...satanic_verses
Replyi also wrote an article about the issue here http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/pr...satanic_verses
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up
When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up
Similar Threads
-
Replies: 1Last Post: 04-16-2010, 12:57 AM
-
Replies: 247Last Post: 08-20-2009, 12:27 PM
-
Replies: 1Last Post: 04-20-2009, 11:57 PM
-
Replies: 31Last Post: 04-18-2008, 09:16 PM
-
Replies: 0Last Post: 09-27-2007, 03:38 PM
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.