Genesis Of A Holy Book

Appendix 5: The “Satanic Verses”

There is a rather embarrassing event often referred to as the “Qissat al-Gharaniq” [“Account of the [divine] Cranes”], as the three goddesses were referred to as “cranes” in the original version of these verses in Surah 53.

This led to the alteration of the following two ayat (53:21-22) from the original, “These are the exalted gharaniq whose intercession is to be hoped for” followed by a sort of hedge (a statement that comports better with monotheism): “They are not but names you have given them–you and your forefathers–for which god has sent down no authority” (53:23).

If the Koran so adamantly declares that god cannot have a SON (because it makes no sense if we’re to be genuine monotheists), then it is a huge mistake to suppose he may have had DAUGHTERS.  Consequently, a re-write of this passage was crucial.  And so a re-write was eventually done.

Wherefore the gaff?  Blame it on Satan.

The origins of these “cranes” lay in ancient Canaanite religion–as is attested in cuneiform inscriptions at Ugarit, which refer to three great goddesses: “Attart”, “Atirat”, and “Anat”.  Later incarnations of this triad were roughly as follows:

• “Allat” [variously rendered “Athtar(t)”, “Alilat”, and “al-Lat”, per Hismaic / Safaitic and Syriac / Nabataean inscriptions].  These were different facets of the feminine counterpart of the Semitic god, “El”; and effectively the Arabian rendering of the Assyrian goddess, Ishtar.  There were major temples to her at Petra, Palmyra, Hatra, Emesa, and Hawran (ref. Jan Retso’s “The Arabs In Antiquity”).  An Arabian shrine existed for her at Ta’if (primarily for the Banu Thaqif).  It was destroyed in a raid by Abu Sufyan ibn Harb c. 630.
• “Uzza” was the Arabian rendering of the Greek goddess, Aphrodite (Roman: Venus), who was alternately referred to as “Ourania”.  The etymology is from the Syriac, “Uzzay” (ref. commentary on the Syriac Bible by Theodorus bar Koni).  An Arabian shrine existed for her at Nakhla (primarily for the Banu Shaiban).  It was destroyed in a raid by Khalid ibn al-Walid c. 630.
• “Manat” was originally considered the consort of the Assyrian moon-god, Hubal.  She was worshipped by the pagans of Yathrib until the Mohammedan take-over c. 622 (when the municipality was re-christened “Madina-tu al-Munawara”).  She may well have also been a derivative of the goddess “Ishtar”; and perhaps inspired by the legendary demi-goddess, Semi-ramis.  An Arabian shrine existed for her at Al-Mushallal [Al-Qudayd] (primarily for the Banu Aws and Banu Khazraj).  It was destroyed in a raid by Sa’d ibn Zaid al-Ashhali c. 630.

For more on the three “cranes”, see the 8th-century “Book of Idols” by Hisham ibn al-Kalbi of Kufa.

Tellingly, pre-Islamic Meccans referred to their godhead (alternately considered “Allah” and “Hubal”) as “Lord of the Kaaba”.  And here’s the kicker: An appellation for him was “Lord of Manat, al-Lat, and al-Uzza”. (!)  These female deities were alternately portrayed as the “daughters of god” (as in Koran 53:49).

Predictably, the relevant Koranic passage for this infamous gaff has been a source of controversy; and for relatively straight-forward reasons.  Being as it was a purported MIS-reporting of a (non-)revelation, the episode brings into question EVERYTHING ELSE that MoM said; and thus everything else in the Koran. (!)  For it demonstrates that it was possible for MoM to have been under the impression that something was a revelation when it was, in fact, NOT.  

This is precisely why Islamic apologists tie themselves in knots trying to obfuscate the fact that it occurred.  Not only is it embarrassing; it undermines the theology on which traditional Islamic theology is predicated.

To the chagrin of Islamic apologists, the episode is recorded by many of the earliest Islamic sources.  Indeed, four early writers of Mohammedan hagiography document it:

• Ibn Ishaq’s “Sirat Rasul Allah” (early 8th century)
• Al-Waqidi’s writings (late 8th century)
• Ibn Sa’d’s “Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir” (early 9th century)
• Al-Tabari’s “History” (c. 915)

Over the intervening centuries, other major Islamic commentators corroborated the account–notably: Musa ibn Uqba, Abu Ma’shar, Ibn Abi Hatim, Ibn al-Mundhir, Ibn Mardauyah, and Ibn Hajar.

And what of the Hadith record?  Let’s look at the most vaunted: that of Bukhari.  That ALSO mentions the “mushrikun”–placated by MoM’s concessions to their pagan idolatry–bowing “to that which [the Prophet] declared” (vol. 6, no. 385).  It is clear from Bukhari’s account that MoM would NOT have been uttering what the Koranic passage later came to be (after it was corrected; and as it now stands); as the later version CONDEMNS their three pagan goddesses (instead of recognizing them).  In other words, the gambit to ingratiate himself with the pagan audience ACTUALLY WORKED.

What probably happened is rather straight-forward:

In the early days of his ministry (pre-Hijra), MoM sought to placate as many people as he could.  Such pandering was necessary so as not to court enmity in Mecca at a time when he was still vulnerable.  Naturally, the aspiring prophet was eager to bring as many Meccans as possible into the fold.  So he opted to include this conciliatory revelation.  That is to say: He likely produced the verses in question in order to placate–nay, to curry favor with–Qurayshi pagans; especially those who may have posed a threat to the movement in its earliest stages (were they to find it too disruptive to their traditional ways).

Thus: In deciding to announce these verses ad hoc, MoM was simply being pragmatic.  He was–understandably–seeking to appease skeptical Qurayshis (including his own foster father), many of whom held sway in the city; and therefore over the Kaaba).  They NEEDED to be placated; as the fealty of Mecca’s key players remained to the incumbent pagan traditions.

There may have also been a personal motive: MoM likely felt a need to extend a good-will gesture–an overture that would reconcile him with his old tribe (and, for that matter, with his highly influential uncle), creating the veneer of a seamless progression from the old ways to the new.

From available accounts, it seems this sop to Meccan revanchists actually worked quite well.

The “catch” was that this particular revelation was–ultimately–inconsistent with the overarching theme of the new-fangled religion–a Faith that was adamantly monotheistic.  Mohammedans were adamant about the sin of “shirk”; so could not abide any record of the shrewd theological feint.  Indeed, while useful IN THE BEGINNING, the strategically-tailored passage would serve as a liability LATER ON.  Recognition of these “cranes” would only serve to undermine the credence of the Mohammedan message, and thus MoM’s authority; being–as it was–a blatant instance of “shirk”.

Once MoM became sufficiently powerful, these verses lost their utility.  That is to say, they became more an inconvenience than an asset once pagans no longer had cloud; so no longer needed to be placated.

It would have eventually become impossible to not notice this particular revelation’s fundamental incongruity with the rest of Mohammedan theology.  So Mohammedans found the need to not only supersede them, but to eliminate them altogether.  (Merely abrogating them would have been insufficient; they needed to be erased from the record.)  Subsequently, the following narrative was contrived:

These pesky verses were fraudulent ALL ALONG; for Satan had TRICKED god’s messenger!  The newly-minted prophet didn’t make a mistake; he was HOODWINKED.  By whom?  Well, by Satan, of course.  (The “Satan made me do it” plea had been used since time immemorial; so there was nothing novel about this ploy.)

Today, Muslim apologists’ concern is as follows: If Satan was able to deceive MoM THERE (thus insinuating himself into the “Final Revelation”), then where else might this have happened?  In other words, the retro-active narrative devised by MoM and/or his early followers resolved one problem only to create another–more devastating–problem (to wit: bringing the credence of the ENTIRE KORAN into question).

Therefore, the thinking goes, the entire episode (not just the verses) had to be deleted from the account.  Deny it ever even happened; and quietly move on.

Alas, the ten sources listed above make that a rather difficult feat to pull off.  So all THEIR testimonies must ALSO be discounted, which–for obvious reasons–poses intractable problems.  After all, the accounts come from significant sources in the Islamic canon.  By jettisoning them, one risks throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Of course, there is a far more plausible explanation than “the devil duped me into saying it” excuse.  Namely: MoM was just making things up as he went along.  And this was just another unfortunate occasion when we was caught doing so.  Eventually, the gaffe had to be “fixed”.

In closing: I would be remiss if I did not mention Salman Rushdie’s (in)famous novel.  As it happens, the book was NOT about the actual “Satanic verses”.  The title was based on a dream sequence that occurs in the fictional tale.  The reverie only obliquely makes allusion to the “Satan made me do it” theme.  Otherwise, the story had nothing whatsoever to do with MoM; or even with Islam per se.

Behold yet another case of irate mobs getting bent out of shape over texts they have never themselves read; and the ACTUAL contents of which they are completely ignorant.  This did not prevent Iran’s Ayatollahs from issuing a “fatwa” (edict) calling for the assassination of the author for (implicitly) insulting their prophet.  Good grief!