Satanic Verses “Al-Gharaneeq”[Thread]
This is quite misleading. The work on this subject reflects the intellectual dishonesty of certain western historians and intellectuals. Let's go through the details to understand the flawed approach adopted by some on this subject -1/n
This is quite misleading. The work on this subject reflects the intellectual dishonesty of certain western historians and intellectuals. Let's go through the details to understand the flawed approach adopted by some on this subject -1/n
First and foremost the title "Satanic Verses" is wrong, to begin with. It was one verse, not verses. this reflects the bias from the start.
The lack of understanding of how the recording of Arabic history evolved over the years contributes to this misunderstanding. 2/n
The lack of understanding of how the recording of Arabic history evolved over the years contributes to this misunderstanding. 2/n
Early historians likes of Ibn Ishaq, Ibn Hisham's work records all the events, narrations, and everything even including the traditions & narrations of Jews & Christians. The focus was to record as much as possible regardless of checking the authenticity & reliability -3/n
of narrations. This resulted in the addition of a lot of unverifiable, false & unauthentic narrations in the historical records. This large chuck of record was the reason that paved the way for the establishment of the "science of tradition" around the 9th century. -4/n
Unlike Roman & Greek history, which is primarily based on the narrator the Arabic history foundation is the Chains of narrations alongside the narrator. The idea that its narrations were present and were rejected based on Theological doctrine is totally wrong. -5/n
These were fabricated narrations based on unreliable and unverifiable sources. The science of hadith/ʿilm al-ḥadīth covers content known as the “gist” (matn) of the matter, and the “leaning” (isnād) referred to as a chain of narrators. -6/n
If a person is an eyewitness when he was not even born at that time then such a narration can’t be taken as true. Similarly, if the chain is disconnected (Munqaṭi) like the source of narration can’t be verified it can’t be true regardless of theological view on the subject. -7
This is the case here as well. There is only one companion (primary witness) as mentioned in the thread ‘Abd Allah Ibn ‘Abbas R.A.
Interestingly he was only 5 at the time of this revelation (613-616 AD) He was born in 619 CE. No primary witness in any of the other narrations.-8
Interestingly he was only 5 at the time of this revelation (613-616 AD) He was born in 619 CE. No primary witness in any of the other narrations.-8
This is the reason why even the orientalist English historian David Samuel Margoliouth in his commentary on Arab History said “Muslims are justified in taking pride in their science of traditions” -9
Apart from Hadiths, even major Tafsirs & Scholars have categorically rejected this narration, regarded as baseless and fabricated by Ibn Hazm, Qurtubī, al-Bayhaqī, Jawzi, Ibn Khatir, etc.
Leave theological doctrines.
Here are a few questions.-10
Leave theological doctrines.
Here are a few questions.-10
- If any such event took place, why is there no commentary or narration by even a single companion of Prophet P.B.U.H in both Sunni & Shia texts?
- Why there is a lot of differences in the text of each of the narrations despite the fact it was just one verse (Sentence)?
-11
- Why there is a lot of differences in the text of each of the narrations despite the fact it was just one verse (Sentence)?
-11
- In terms of its health. It’s Murskal and Munkar; Disconnected: None of the narration has a single primary source (direct witness name). Similarly, no strong chain of narrators.
-12
-12
- Why the Quresh did not use this event to discredit the Prophet P.B.U.H later in his life? They extensively used Miraj in their arguments but no mention of this being used in arguments by Quresh Why?
- Why no companion ask about details of the event? As they usually used to
-13
- Why no companion ask about details of the event? As they usually used to
-13
- There are multiple Sahi (Verified & authentic narrations) hadiths in Bukhari & Muslim from Abdullah bin Masood R.A & others regarding the verse of Sajda mentioning that “The prostration took place at the end of the Surah”. None of it has any mention of any such event”.
-14
-14
The first Surah in which a prostration was mentioned, was Sura An-Najm (The Star). Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) prostrated & everybody behind him prostrated except a man whom I saw taking a hand-full of dust in his hand and prostrated on it. -15
Later I saw that man killed as an infidel, and he was Umaiya bin Khalaf.
[12] Sahih Bukhari 4863
-16
[12] Sahih Bukhari 4863
-16
The Prophet (ﷺ) performed a prostration when he finished reciting Surat-an-Najm, and all .....prostrated along with him.
-Sahih Bukhari 4862
-17
-Sahih Bukhari 4862
-17
- The verified narrations contradict the claim of prostration in the middle of Surah, where this alleged verse was revealed. Even the Last verse supports this Prostration at the end.
فَٱسْجُدُوا۟ لِلَّهِ وَٱعْبُدُوا۟ ۩
Instead, prostrate to Allah and worship ˹Him alone˺
-18
فَٱسْجُدُوا۟ لِلَّهِ وَٱعْبُدُوا۟ ۩
Instead, prostrate to Allah and worship ˹Him alone˺
-18
- The continuity of subject and Theme of Surah defies the claim, the verses before and after this verse negates the very alleged claim that was laid in these fabricated narrations. So what's the point of it?
-19
-19
These fabricated narrations were discarded by Scholars in accordance with the science of tradition but why and When did it remerge when there was consensus among both Shia and Sunni Scholars over the subject?
-20
-20
These fabricated narrations were purposely collected in the 18th century when Orientalist Scholars translated the work of historians like Tabari & others into English. They collected all such weak & fabricated narrations in their pursuit to discredit Islam and Muslims -21
But it contributed little because the scholars of that era gave an academic response to all such criticism. Later on, Modern day Orientalists like him used the same old work of 18-19th Century orientalists based on unverifiable and fabricated text having a biased framework -22
to again start a debate over such non-issues, which carried little to no importance in contemporary religious studies. This only highlights the intellectual dishonesty of modern-day orientalists. -23
Side Note: I don't want to go into detail about each & every narration of this event. Like one is narrated by Muhammad bin Al Saeb Al Kalbi. Imam Ahmad said that Al-Kalbi is unreliable. Ibn Hibban 10th century Scholar wrote in detail about who he was.
But In the 7th century after the conquest of Persia under the Rashidun Caliphate, a lot of Zoroastrians converted to Islam. During the 8th-9th Century, they started the “Counter revolution”, adding a lot of fabricated narrations in the historic text. It took scholars
years to clean the texts from such fabricated and weak narrations but it is still being used by modern-day Islamophobes to run the million-dollar industry. It's a nice subject if one wants to do research on Islamic history.
Loading suggestions...