Below is an except from ‘The Misrepresented Prophet’ (Available now)

What is Qissatul Gharaniq?

The ‘Story of the Crane’ is a controversial incident that allegedly took place during the da’wah and I will present multiple versions and conclude on them.

The term ‘Satanic Verses’ is commonly used to refer to the incident in modern times, first used by William Muir (d.1905) in his book on the history of Islam.

Version 1 (Sahih al-Bukhari):

حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو مَعْمَرٍ، حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ الْوَارِثِ، حَدَّثَنَا أَيُّوبُ، عَنْ عِكْرِمَةَ، عَنِ ابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ ـ رضى الله عنهما ـ قَالَ سَجَدَ النَّبِيُّ صلى الله عليه وسلم بِالنَّجْمِ وَسَجَدَ مَعَهُ الْمُسْلِمُونَ وَالْمُشْرِكُونَ  وَالْجِنُّ وَالإِنْسُ

‘It was narrated to us from Abu Ma’mar, that Abdul Warith narrated to us, that Ayyub narrated to us from Ikrimah (who transmitted it) from Ibn Abbas May Allah be pleased with them both who said “The Prophet ﷺ prostrated (at the end of the recitation of Surah An-Najm) and the Muslims, Polytheists, Jinn and people prostrated with him (as well)”[[1]]

This version of events is the most authentic in terms of historicity, stating that the Prophet ﷺ recited the Surah and prostrated after reciting the final verse as it commands to ‘prostrate for Allah and worship him’.

The Muslims prostrated in accordance with the verse and the actions of the Prophet ﷺ and the polytheists prostrated due to the shear power of the Qur’an.

The Qur’an was in Arabic and they all understood it, with such a powerful message they fell into prostration and it is important to note that the Makkans did believe in Allah [سبحانه وتعالى], they transgressed by associating partners with him.

Everyone prostrated and another narration in the Sahih mention that everyone prostrated except Al-Waleed Ibn Al-Mughirah due to his old age.

This eventually spread to the Muslims in Axum, who heard that everyone in Makkah accepted Islam and they decided to return home.

Version 2 (Tarikh At-Tabari):

Muhammad ibn Ka’b Al-Quraydhi narrated that:

“Allah [سبحانه وتعالى] revealed ‘By the Star when it sets, your comrade does not err, nor is he deceived; nor does he speak out of (his own) desire’ ... and when he came to the words: ‘Have you thought upon Al-Lat and Al-'Uzza’ ‘and Manat, the third the other?’

Satan cast on his (the Prophet ﷺ) tongue, because of his inner debates and what he desired to bring to his people, the words: “These are the high-flying cranes; verily their intercession is accepted with approval”.

When Quraysh heard this, they rejoiced and were happy and delighted at the way in which he spoke of their gods and they listened to him, whilst the Muslims, having complete trust in their Prophet ﷺ in respect of the messages which he brought from Allah [سبحانه وتعالى], did not suspect him of error, illusion, or mistake.

When he came to the prostration, having completed the surah, he prostrated himself and the Muslims did likewise, following their Prophet ﷺ, trusting in the message which he had brought and following his example.

The polytheists of the Quraysh and others who were present likewise prostrated themselves because of the reference to their gods which they had heard, so that there was no believer or unbeliever, who did not prostrate himself.

The one exception was al-Walid b. al-Mughirah, who was a very old man and could not prostrate himself”[[2]]

The angel Jib’reel came in the evening to review the Surah with him and he (the Prophet ﷺ) uttered the two phrases which Satan cast onto his tongue and Jib’reel said “I did not bring you these two verses” and the Prophet ﷺ said that “I have fabricated verses against God and have claimed words which he has not spoken”.

Subsequently Allah [سبحانه وتعالى] revealed the following:

وَإِن ڪَادُواْ لَيَفۡتِنُونَكَ عَنِ ٱلَّذِىٓ أَوۡحَيۡنَآ إِلَيۡكَ لِتَفۡتَرِىَ عَلَيۡنَا غَيۡرَهُ ۥ‌ۖ وَإِذً۬ا لَّٱتَّخَذُوكَ خَلِيلاً۬

“And indeed, they were about to tempt you away from that which We revealed to you in order to [make] you invent about Us something else; and then they would have taken you as a friend”[[3]]

He became depressed and anxious until the revelation of the following verse:

وَمَآ أَرْسَلْنَا مِن قَبْلِكَ مِن رَّسُولٍۢ وَلَا نَبِىٍّ إِلَّآ إِذَا تَمَنَّىٰٓ أَلْقَى ٱلشَّيْطَـٰنُ فِىٓ أُمْنِيَّتِهِۦ فَيَنسَخُ ٱللَّهُ مَا يُلْقِى ٱلشَّيْطَـٰنُ ثُمَّ يُحْكِمُ ٱللَّهُ ءَايَـٰتِهِۦ ۗ وَٱللَّهُ عَلِيمٌ حَكِيمٌۭ

“And we did not send (before you) a Rasool or Nabi except when he recites (our verses) Satan casts his doubts into the recitation of his, so Allah abrogates (the doubts) casted by Satan. Subsequently Allah establishes his revelations and Allah is All-Knowing and All-Wise”[[4]][[5]]  

Why is this story problematic and how do we respond to it?

The most authentic version of the story as mentioned in Sahih Al-Bukhari (aforementioned) is completely acceptable and causes no aspersions against the Prophet ﷺ. However the version mentioned in the Tarikh At-Tabari proves that the Prophet ﷺ could not distinguish between the revelation from Allah  [سبحانه وتعالى] and Satan.

This destroys any credibility that the Prophet ﷺ holds and therefore must be tackled academically.

This incident is mentioned in many books of history like the Seerah of Ibn Ishaq etc, but all sources use the same chains of narration, so I will go through a few chains and relate what the scholars have said regarding it.

Isnad 1:

Layth Ibn Sa’d narrated from Yunus, who narrated from Az-Zuhri, who narrated from Abu Bakr Ibn Abd Al-Rahman Ibn Al-Harith Ibn Hisham…

Imam An-Nahhas stated that this chain of narration is disconnected and therefore cannot be relied upon to establish the report.[[6]]

Isnad 2:

Al-Waqidi narrated from Kathir Ibn Ziyad, who narrated from Muttalib Ibn Abdillah who said…

Imam An-Nahhas stated that this chain of narration is منكر منقطع (disconnected and weak) and cannot be used to establish the facts of the incident as stated by the narrator.[138]

Isnad 3:

Ibn Abi Hatim said Yunus Ibn Habib narrated from Abu Dawud, who narrated from Shu’ba from Abu Bishr, from Sa’eed Ibn Jubayr who said…

Imam Ibn Kathir stated that this chain of narration is مرسل (the source of information is missing), as Sa’eed Ibn Jubayr never met the Prophet ﷺ but narrates that the Prophet ﷺ said ‘so and so happened’. He was not present during the alleged incident and we cannot verify who he (Sa’eed) narrated the story from making the chain of narration weak and unreliable.[[7]]

  Isnad 4:

Ibn Abi Hatim said Musa Ibn Abi Musa Al-Kufi narrated from Muhammad Ibn Ishaq, who narrated from Muhammad Ibn Fulayh from Musa Ibn Uqba, from Ibn Shihab who said…

This chain narrates the story slightly different to the two versions I have presented above. The story is the same except for the fact that the Muslims did not hear Shaytan (Satan) adding the extra verses and only the polytheists heard it whilst the Prophet ﷺ was reciting (so the polytheists assumed that the Prophet ﷺ said it).

Imam Ibn Kathir states that this chain of narration is مرسل (the source of information is missing), as Ibn Shihab Az-Zuhri never have met the Prophet ﷺ but narrates that ‘so and so happened’. He was not present during the alleged incident and we cannot verify who he (Sa’eed) narrated the story from making the chain of narration weak and unreliable.[[8]]  

It is evidently clear that the scholars have stated that the reports that mention the incident that the Prophet ﷺ confused the words of Satan with revelation is unreliable and cannot be trusted. Many reports include Mara’seel (where the narrator drops his source of information) and these cannot be used to legislate rulings in Islamic law, so it cannot be used to establish history

What have orientalists said regarding the story?

Orientalists are well known for their outlandish claims against Islam and the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ in order to portray him negatively, so I will mention some famous scholars and their opinions on the matter.

Those who stated that the incident did take place include William Montgomery Watt, Alfred Guillaume and Maxime Rodinson. They stated that a Muslim would not forge such an incriminating event regarding their prophet.[[9]]  

I would respond to this by stating that the early historians lacked the vast amounts of information available today, so they gather as much information without fact checking it and the reader takes what he believes is true (as these history books were usually accessed by scholars who could distinguish between authentic and inauthentic incidents).

This is proven in the introduction to the Tarikh of Imam At-Tabari (where the alleged incident is reported), as he 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”[[10]]

This refutes the notion that ‘it is narrated by a Muslim so it must be true’, as the author himself stated that he is only reporting what information was narrated to him, it is up to the scholars to derive the veracity of the reports.

Those who stated that the incident did not take place include Trude Ehlert, Alford T Welch, John Burton, Leone Caetani.

Ehlert refutes Watt and Guillaume and states that their reasoning cannot be used to prove the historicity of the event, as it is based on faith.

Welch argued that the incident did not take place and that it was an exegetical fabrication to show the divine connection between Muhammad and God.[[11]]

Burton stated that the story is fiction and that At-Tabari mentions this story in his exegesis of the verse (52) in Surah Hajj but not in the Surah where the alleged incident took place.

He further concluded that the strongest chains all come down to one narrator, Muhammad Ibn Ka’b (who as mentioned before did not witness the incident nor did he meet the prophet) so cannot be trusted.[[12]]

Leone Caetani writes that the story must be rejected based on the lack of authentic chains of narration, but more importantly because:

“If these narrations were true and had a historical basis then Muhammad’s conduct (his actions) at this event would have made him seem like a liar and refute his entire message (and make him seem like a confused maniac)”[[13]]

And no one would have accepted his message, but that obviously did not happen so the incident must not have happened.

Some orientalists saw no issue with the incident at all, as Fred Halliday stated that the incident is not problematic at all and only portrays the power of Satan.

He stated that regardless of who you are, Satan can sway you away from God but at the end of the day God overrules Satan and Satan is defeated.[[14]]

Uri Rubin rejected the story as he thought that the story was concocted by Muslims ‘to prove the prophethood of Muhammad’.

He argued that Muslim theologians tried to show that ‘Muhammad’s life resembled the lives of the previous prophets’ and that ‘he (Muhammad) was a prophet of God who suffered and faced many challenges caused by Satan’.

So the following verses which speak about punishment, satanic temptation and God’s forgiveness were concocted to convince people he was a prophet of God:

•         Chapter 22:51

•         Chapter 53:17-19

•         Chapter 24:22

From what has been related to me regarding Rubin, is that he was a staunch Christian who was referencing the ‘Temptations of Christ’.

The Gospel of Matthew mentions that:

“Jesus was led by the spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil…”[[15]]

The Gospel of Mark mentions that:

“At once the spirit drove Jesus into the wilderness and he was there for forty days, being tempted by Satan…”[[16]]

These stories narrate the struggle of Jesus [عليه السلام] who was tempted by the devil, and Rubin stated that Muslims fabricated the ‘Satanic Verses’ to ‘mimic the temptations of Jesus [عليه السلام] and give the impression that Muhammad is an actual prophet of God’.[[17]]

The Verdict

Based on my analysis above, I can conclude that the incident known as the ‘Satanic Verses’ did not take place and that the evidence to say otherwise is insufficient.

The only authentic narrations do not mention any deception or satanic influence and have plausible explanations for why everyone prostrated, so this can be accepted and established as being true but anything more cannot be accepted to establish history.

The Harvard University scholar Shahab Ahmed mentioned in his article titled ‘Ibn Taymiyyah and the Satanic Verses’ that:

“On the 3rd of May 1966 multiple scholars came forth and presented their findings regarding the satanic verses and its origins and after much deliberation, the conference concluded that the story was fabricated and one participant called for the revision of all printed medieval books (to ensure accuracy)”.[[18]]

To conclude, the ‘Incident of the Crane’ did not take place as propagated by polemicists but rather the reports are weak or fabricated and should not raise any concern for Muslims in regards to the reliability of the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ.

Bibliography:

[1] Imam Al-Bukhari. Sahih al-Bukhari Hadith 4862 - Prophetic Commentary on the Qur’an (Tafseer of the Prophet (pbuh)) - Sunnah.com - Sayings and Teachings of Prophet Muhammad (صلى الله عليه و سلم). [online] sunnah.com. Available at: https://sunnah.com/bukhari/65/383.

[2] Imam At-Tabari. The History of Al-Tabari Volume 6: Muhammad at Mecca. [online] www.muslim-library.com, pp.107–112. Available at: https://www.muslim-library.com/english/the-history-of-al-tabari-volume-6-muhammad-at-mecca/ [Accessed 24 Jan. 2021].

[3] The Holy Qur’an, Chapter 17, Verse 33 (Sahih International Translation)

[4] The Holy Qur’an, Chapter 22, Verse 52

[5] Gilliot, C., Watt, W.M. and McDonald, M.V. (1989b). The History of al-Tabari, VI, Muhammad at Mecca. Studia Islamica, (70), p.112.

[6] Imam Qurtubi. Al-Jami Li-Ahkam Al-Qur’an. [online] www.altafsir.com. Available at: https://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=0&tTafsirNo=5&tSoraNo=22&tAyahNo=52&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=1,Tafsir of Chapter 22, verse 52.

[7] Ibn Kathir. Tafsir Al-Qur’an Al-Adheem. [online] www.altafsir.com. Available at: https://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=0&tTafsirNo=7&tSoraNo=22&tAyahNo=52&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=1 [Accessed 24 Jan. 2021]. Tafsir of Chapter 22, Verse 52.

Note: A lot of these chains contain diction like ‘He narrated to us’ but for the sake of brevity I have shortened it to make it easier to understand

[8] Ibn Kathir. Tafsir Al-Qur’an Al-Adheem. [online] www.altafsir.com. Available at: https://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=0&tTafsirNo=7&tSoraNo=22&tAyahNo=52&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=1 [Accessed 24 Jan. 2021]. Tafsir of Chapter 22, Verse 52.

[9] Maxime Rodinson, Mohammed. Allen Lane the Penguin Press, 1961, page 106.

[10] Abu Ja`far Muhammad bin Jarir al-Tabari, Tarikh al-Tabari: Tarikh al-Umam wal-Muluk, 2014, Volume I, Dar Ibn Hazm, Beirut (Lebanon), p. 17.

[11] "Muḥammad." Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition. Edited by: P. Bearman, Th. Bianquis, C.E. Bosworth, E. van Donzel, W.P. Heinrichs. Brill Online, 2014

[12] John Burton, "Those are the high-flying cranes", Journal of Semitic Studies

[13] Quoted by I.R Netton in "Text and Trauma: An East-West Primer" (1996) p. 86, Routledge

[14] Halliday, Fred, 100 Myths about the Middle East,

[15] The Gospel of Matthew, Chapter 4, Verses 1-11

[16] The Gospel of Mark, Chapter 1, Verses 12-13

[17] Rubin, Uri (1997), The eye of the beholder: the life of Muḥammad as viewed by the early Muslims: a textual analysis, Princeton, NJ: Darwin Press (published 1995), Page 21

[18] Ahmed, S. (1998). Ibn Taymiyyah and the Satanic Verses. Studia Islamica, (87), p.72