More importantly, it should also be noted that the Arabic word "Allah" contains a deep religious message due to its root meaning and origin. This is because it stems from the Arabic verb ta'Allaha (or alaha), which means "to be worshipped". Thus in Arabic, the word "Allah" means "The One who deserves all worship". This, in a nutshell, is the Pure Monotheistic message of Islam

WOAH!!!
that just hit me like a gunshot!

The Aramaic word for God is 'ALAHA'

and we all know who spoke aramaic!

Bump!

Conservative Muslims have generally advocated strict adherence to the traditions of Islam. However, the analysis of the history of Satan shows that the religious narratives of Islam, such as that of Satan, were themselves the result of many changes.

Everyone is familiar with the story of Satan as the rebellious angel and tempter of humanity who caused Adam and Eve to commit the first sin. Interestingly, examination of the Bible show that this was not the original view of Satan; rather it was the result of gradual theological developments.

The common Muslim perception of Satan is that his primary role began with disobeying God by refusing to bow to Adam, and then being responsible for Adam's eating of the forbidden fruit and expulsion from paradise. However, the original Biblical account is quite different; there it is the serpent, not Satan, which tricks Adam and Eve into eating the forbidden fruit. Satan is nowhere to be seen in the Biblical book of Genesis.

Satan's function was apparently something like the divine equivalent of a legal prosecutor, who points out people's wrongdoing (and hence "accuses" them of sin). This role is explicitly mentioned in the Biblical book of Zechariah.

The figure of Satan as the primary tempter, responsible for the sin of Adam as well as the subsequent tempting of mankind, is nowhere visible in the Bible. It does not occur until an intentional rewriting of the Biblical narrative occurs in order to answer a specific theological question; namely, who is responsible for sin?

This occurs in the book of Samuel, which provides a religious history of the earliest days of the Israelites after they followed Moses out of Egypt up to the establishment of their own kingdom, and includes the following passage:

[Again the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, and he incited David against them, saying, "Go, count the people of Israel and Judah." (2 Samuel 24:1)]

In the Bible, a counting or census is generally for the purposes of raising an army for war. The act of raising an army for war and bloodbath is included in the prophet's Samuel's warnings of the sins that will be committed by a king if one is appointed over the Israelites:

[So Samuel reported all the words of the Lord to the people who were asking him for a king. He said, "These will be the ways of the king who will reign over you; he will take your sons and appoint them to his chariots and to be his horsemen, and to run before his chariots" (1 Samuel 8:10-11)]

But a later Biblical author who retold the above historical account in the book of Chronicles realized a theological problem here: how could God be responsible for the sin of David? If the census was truly sinful, then responsibility for the sin must lie with David, not with God. This is the old problem of free will and sinfulness, which forever pops up in a monotheist context; God must ultimately will everything to happen (or it would not), but man must be responsible for his own sin.

Modern monotheists generally accept that no satisfactory resolution to this problem exists; it is one of the places where they generally give up on pure rationalism by simply asserting that humanity has sufficient free will to be responsible for its own actions. But this very theological difficulty ultimately led to the development of Satan as a tempter who leads men (including David) into evil, thus avoiding the difficulty of always having to ascribe evil to God's will. Hence, the same history of David's census is later retold in the book of Chronicles as follows, and this is the only place in the Hebrew Bible where Satan is really given responsibility for human sin:

[Satan stood up against Israel, and incited David to count the people of Israel. (1 Chronicles 21:1)]

The gradual development of Satan into the perpetual tempter of mankind brings up an interesting point. Conservative Muslims have generally advocated strict adherence to the traditions of Islam, believing religion to be a static truth with little room for change. However, the above analysis of the history of Satan shows that the religious narratives of Islam, such as that of Satan, were themselves the result of many changes over time. This would tend to support a more dynamic view of religion as a truth which evolves over time, just as the figure of Satan has evolved over time.

Examination of the brief appearances of Satan in the Hebrew Bible show that his full role as the rebellious angel who tempted Adam to sin developed only gradually. In the Jewish Bible, Satan is not identified as the snake of the Adam and Eve story, who is simply a snake.

Nor is Satan explicitly listed among the lustful angels who impregnated human women before the Flood, which is the only Biblical narrative which could constitute angelic rebellion. For centuries, he was apparently regarded as one of God's loyal servants, fulfilling the role of a prosecutor who pointed out the sins of humanity; hence his title of accuser. It is only later he evolves from an accusing people of sinfulness to tempting them to sin, a change which clearly happens to exempt God of responsibility for the sinfulness of the Israelite king in the Biblical book of Chronicles.

The Qur'an, in agreement with the Gospels and post-Biblical Jewish traditions, has a fully developed role for Satan as a rebellious tempter. In it, Satan is referred to by two proper names; Shaytan, an Arabic rendering of the Hebrew word "satan", and Iblis, which is most likely an Arabic contraction of the Greek word for Devil (diabolos), which may have been brought into Arabia by Jews and Christians who used Greek translations of the Bible. We can now look at the verses, which portray the Qur'anic view of Satan:

[Surely we created man of a clay of mud molded, and the jinn created We before of fire flaming. And when thy Lord said to the angels, 'See, I am creating a mortal of clay of mud molded. When I have shaped him, and breathed My spirit in him, fall you down, bowing before him!' Then the angels bowed themselves all together, save Iblis; he refused to be among those bowing. Said He, 'What ails thee, Iblis, that thou art not among those bowing?' Said he, 'I would neve bow myself before a mortal whom thou hast created of a clay of mud molded.' Said He, 'Then go thou forth hence; thou art accursed. Upon thee shall rest this curse, till the Day of Doom.'... Said he, 'My Lord, for Thy perverting me I shall deck all fair to them in the earth, and I shall pervert them, all together, excepting those Thy servants among them that are devoted.' (Qur'an 15:26-40)]

[And We said, 'Adam, inherit thou, and thy wife, in the Garden, and eat of where you will, but come not nigh this tree, lest you be of the evildoers.' Then Satan whispered to them, to reveal to them that which was hidden from them of their shameful parts. He said, 'Your Lord has only prohibited you from this tree lest you become angels, or lest you become immortals.' And he swore to them, 'Truly, I am for you a sincere advisor.' So he led them on by delusion; and when they tasted the tree, their shameful parts revealed to them, so they took to stitching upon themselves leaves of the Garden. And their Lord called to them, 'Did I not prohibit you from this tree, and say to you, "Verily Satan is for you a manifest foe"?' (Quran 7:18-23)]

When we look at the above historical evolution of Satan, the true motive behind it is clear; Satan developed his current role because sins needed to be explained without blaming God. The mythological figure of Satan was expanded over the centuries until it could take responsibility of sinfulness away from God, and the Qur'an continued this theological approach. The details of this mythological language is the result of a centuries-long development of Jewish traditions which the Qur'an adopts as its own history.

Whereas the story of Adam, Eve and the serpent is from the earliest Biblical narrative source document (called "J" as it uses the ancient Israelite tribal name for God, "JHWH" or Yahweh in Hebrew) and is possibly as old as the emergence of the Israelites as a nation around 1200-1000 BC, the fuller post-Biblical development of Satan occurs in the context of apocalypticism, a religious movement which emerged amongst the Jews around the 2nd century BC. Although a complex movement, apocalypticism can be viewed as the Jewish means of explaining the failure of the Biblical contract between God and Abraham and Moses. The original Israelite covenant with God was a worldly, tribal understanding of religion which asserted that if the Israelites worshipped Yahweh, as a reward he would make them a populous and powerful nation.

However, after the conquest of Israel and Judah by the Assyrian and Babylonian empires in the 8th and 6th centuries BC, Israelite independence was never regained, and it was obvious that a new understanding of their relationship with God was required. Apocalypticism proposed a solution; the struggle between the Israelites on the earth against worldly powers was a reflection of a struggle in heaven between God and the rebellious angels, and one could not expect the worldly struggle to be resolved until the angelic one was. Apocalypticism had a need for a rebellious figure who would oppose God, and found it in Satan, who was then made responsible for sins throughout the history of mankind from Adam down.

Apocalypticism also brings about other major changes in Judaism, in particular belief in a "day of judgement" which would mark the end of both the angelic and worldly struggle; as well as afterlife, which is required to reward virtuous Jews if they were not to be rewarded with an independent and prosperous Israelitenation in their lifetimes; but these are different matters.

The important realization is that the story of Satan in the Qur'an is the final result of a complex theological development. The story of Adam and Satan and the expulsion from the Garden has a central place in the Qur'anic picture of the world; the fact that this story itself has evolved over time would tend to support the idea of a revelation that changes over time rather than remaining static.

Salman Rushdie's publication of "The Satanic Verses" was one of the biggest Islam-related headlines of the last two decades. But the mass outpouring of anti-Rushdie sentiment that took place was remarkable in that it completely overlooked the most important fact of Rushdie's book; namely, that the tale of the "Satanic verses" (ie. Qur'anic verses which temporarily accepted some of the pagan goddesses of Mecca, but which were later denied as having been inspired by Satan), was completely based on the work of al-Tabari, a Muslim biographer of the Prophet. Analysis of the historical account of al-Tabari makes possible a fuller understanding of both Satan and prophecy in Islam.

Firstly, we should look at the historical account itself, narrated by the famous Muslim historian, al-Tabari:

[When the Messenger of God saw how his tribe turned their backs on him and was grieved to see them shunning the message he had brought to them from God, he longed in his soul that something would come to him from God which would reconcile him with his tribe. With his love for his tribe and his eagerness for their welfare it would have delighted him if some of the difficulties which they made for him could have been smoothed out, and he debated with himself and fervently desired such an outcome. Then God revealed: "By the Star when it sets...", and when he came to the words: "Have you considered El-Lat and El-'Uzza and Manat the third, the other?", Satan cast onto his tongue, because of his inner debates, and what he desired to bring to his people, the words, "Those are the high-flying cranes; verily their intercession is accepted with approval"... Then Gabriel came to the Messenger of God and said, "Muhammad, what have you done? You have recited to the people that which I did not bring you from God, and you have said that which was not said to you." Then the Messenger of God was much greived and feared God greatly, but God sent down a revelation to him (Qur'an 22:52), for He was merciful to him... (The History of al-Tabari, translated by W. M. Watt and M. V. McDonald, vol. 6, page 108, 109)]

The accuracy of this account is difficult to judge from historical accounts alone. The earliest biography of the Prophet was that of Ibn Ishaq, but it has not survived as an independent manuscript. However, two of the main biographies of the Prophet which do survive, those of Ibn Hisham and al-Tabari, both claim to be based upon copies of Ibn Ishaq's work which the authors had in their posesssion. But while al-Tabari's biography includes the above "Satanic verses" episode, Ibn Hisham's does not. Western scholars have all sided with al-Tabari, believing that it would have been impossible for him to insert such a controversial episode had it not been commonly accepted knowledge at the time; Muslims have sided with Ibn Hisham and denied the whole event, with the notable exception of the famous Pakistani scholar, Fazlur Rahman, whose views will be considered shortly. Now let us look at the verses which al-Tabari cites as having replaced the "Satanic verses":

[Have you considered El-Lat and El-'Uzza and Manat the third, the other?... They are naught but names yourselves have named, and your fathers; God has sent down no authority touching them... How many an angel is there in the heavens whose intercession avails not anything, save after that God gives leave to whomsoever He wills, and is well-pleased. Those who do not believe in the world to come name the angels with the names of females. (Qur'an 53:20-29)]

So there is no trace left in the Qur'an of any compromise on the three Meccan goddesses. The real issue of this incident is that the Prophet gave in to temptation and altered the original verses himself to arrive at a version acceptable to the Meccans. The episode is fundamentally about the Prophet's moral failure, and Satan enters the picture only later, by way of a Qur'anic revelation which seems to be tailored to address the "Satanic verses" episode, and which thus provides more evidence for the truth of Tabari's account:

We sent not ever any Messenger or Prophet before thee, but that Satan cast into his fancy, when he was fancying; but God annuls what Satan casts, then God confirms His signs - surely, God is All-knowing, All-wise - that He may make what Satan casts a trial for those in whose hearts is sickness... (Qur'an 22:52)

The Qur'an provides even more evidence to back up al-Tabari's narrative if we consider that verses dealing with "abrogation" of verses by others may in fact be dealing with the "Satanic verses" episode.

And for whatever verse We abrogate or cast into oblivion, We bring a better or the like of it; knowest thou not that God is powerful over everything? (Qur'an 2:100)

An interesting thing about al-Tabari's account is his assertion that Satan cast the false verses into the Prophet's mind "because of his inner debates". Such an interpretation of the event is in agreement with an understanding of Satan as a personification of tendencies to sinfulness. The Qur'an provides a further justification for a psychological rather than literal interpretation of Satan by identifying him as a "jinn":

And when We said to the angels, 'Bow yourselves to Adam'; so they bowed themselves, save Iblis; he was one of the jinn, and committed ungodliness against his Lord's command. (Qur'an 18:50).

"Jinn" is in fact a pre-Islamic word for an unseen being which can speak to people and even make them irrational (hence the Arabic word for madness is majnoon, literally "acted upon by jinn"). Satan/Iblis is then the irrational urge which arose out of the Prophet's human weakness and his desperation to compromise with the Meccans, and drove him to insert the "Satanic verses" into the revelation. One of the most eminent of Muslim scholars of the 20th century, Fazlur Rahman, found no difficulty in accepting the truth of the "Satanic verses" incident in the light of the Qur'an's repeated assertion that Messengers were only human, and hence fallible.

["But whatever fears or thoughts - or even gestures - of compromise the Prophet might make, they were soon "abrogated" or "erased" by God, as verse 22:52 makes clear. The well-known story that after mentioning the pagan goddesses once (53:19-20), the Prophet described them as "exalted swans whose intercession [with God] is to be hoped for"... only to abrogate these words in 53:21-23, is perfectly intelligible, for this incident occurred at a time of great trial and persecution of his followers, whom he had ordered to emigrate temporarily to Abyssinia. There are other indications that certain verses were replaced by others: 2:106, 13:39, 16:101... For the Qur'an, it is neither strange nor out of tune nor blameworthy for a prophet that he is not always consistent as a human. It is nevertheless as a human that he becomes an example for mankind, for his average level of conduct is still so high that is is a worthy model for mankind...there is abundant evidence in the Qur'an that while the Prophet did at times wish that developments would take a certain turn, God's Revelation went a different way: "Do not move your tongue with [ie., ahead of] the Revelation, hastily anticipating it. It is upon Us to bring it together and to recite it - so that when We recite it, let you follow its recitation." (75:16-19) (Fazlur Rahman, Major Themes in the Qur'an, pages 88-90). "]

Why have conservative Muslims largely refused to discuss al-Tabari's account of the "Satanic verses"? The simple reason seems to be that it presents a messy picture of the Prophet as fallible, and a Qur'an capable of being temporarily distorted by his human inclinations to win over his tribe. More importantly, the immense body of Islamic Law is based upon the reports (Hadith) of the Prophet's life and teachings. However, if even the Qur'an, which is held to be pure divine revelation, was subject to the fallibility of the Prophet, then the Hadith are even more so, since they are explicitly his words and not God's.

The Qur'anic verses regarding abrogation can in fact be seen as a divine guarantee of the revelation; in spite of the fallibility of the prophet, God ensures the correctness of the Qur'an by replacing incorrect verses. However, there is no such guarantee of abrogation for the Hadith. Conservatives find such questioning of the Hadith and Islamic Law to be unacceptable.

So why all the fuss about Rushdie's book? Would al-Tabari himself be eligible for a death sentence if he were alive today, even though in his own time the question never arose? The answer possibly has less to do with al-Tabari and more to do with the injured pride of Ayatollah Khomeini, who proclaimed the death sentence upon Rushdie.

Unfortunately, Rushdie's book was banned in most Muslim countries, so most Muslims never got a chance to read his vicious satire of Khomeini as a mullah who literally rides to power seated on the back of the angel Gabriel. If in fact it was simply Khomeini's annoyance at Rushdie's parody that brought on the death sentence, Muslims around the world have been pawns in an unfortunate contest of egos.

Above is an article from an Islamic publication

Really KANOBI i didnt even read that, i may later. the fact is that it came from this site http://www.naseeb.com/naseebvibes/pr...l.php?aid=1179 which is irrelavant when i have an article from http://www.islamonline.net/English/I...rticle04.shtml
which is answered by scholars and is a reknowned site on islam.

While it is good that you have searched for a reply, the fact remains that it is about the RIGHT knowledge, not ANY knowledge.

The Satanic Verses?

The "Satanic verses" need to mentioned only because of the notoriety they have gained recently because of the Salman Rushdie affair. It was alleged that Muhammad (S), in a spirit of compromise, implicitly accepted the worship of old pagan idols, Lat, 'Uzza and Manat. According to some accounts he used the word "Gharaniq" to describe the Qurayshi idols. The term Gharaniq means, "Numidian cranes" which fly at great heights, and is a laudatory term. It is inconceivable that Muhammad (S) would compromise on the issue of monotheism. In fact some of his followers had already died rather than admit to Shirk (associating anything else with Allah). Tawhid, described best as pure Monotheism without any associates or even subsidiary deities, is at the core of Islam. Every Qur'anic verse is suffused and illuminated with the concept of Tawhid, which is at once both intimidating and liberating. Some of the scholars who chronicled the words and deeds of Muhammad (S) (Hadith and Sirah), notably at-Tabari and Ibn Ishaq, considered it plausible and recorded this incident while most others, including Bukhari and Muslim believed that the narrators (rawis) were not trustworthy and rejected it. Still others provide an alternative explanation. The Quraysh would frequently crowd around Muhammad (S) and speak noisily to try to interfere with the public recitation of the Qur'an near the Ka'bah. When Muhammad (S) recited, "Have you ever given a thought to Lat and 'Uzza, and Manat, the third (idol)" someone may have shouted, "Lat and 'Uzza and the third Manat, they are the exalted Gharaniq, whose intercession is approved". The Quraysh commonly used this invocation during the circumambulation of the Ka'bah while performing the pre-Islamic pilgrimage.
The Qur'an itself records the following verses which follows the previous verses more naturally:

"What! Shall ye assign to yourselves the males and to Him the females." (Qur'an 53:21)

These three verses are a pointed comment on the hypocrisy in the Qurayshi society that treated women as chattel and yet had female deities as it's major idols and has nothing to do with any Satanic interdiction in the revelatory process. Muslim outrage at Rushdie was the result of the knowledge that the statements in his book were maliciously slanderous and their only discernible intent in distorting the account was to cause deliberate provocation and blasphemy.

In terms of your "allegation" of Muhammad (pbuh) supporting paganism

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 Quraishite 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 Quraishite 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 Quraishite 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 Quraishite 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.

http://www.islamonline.net/English/I...rticle04.shtml

Furthermore KANOBI, you do not actually read what you post.

Most intrestingly, regarding the "satanic verses" hadith account, the article you posted states:

"The accuracy of this account is difficult to judge from historical accounts alone."

Then it continues to argue:

Why have conservative Muslims largely refused to discuss al-Tabari's account of the "Satanic verses"

Obviously the author of your article had no knowledge of my article posted above from here...

http://www.islamonline.net/English/I...rticle04.shtml

...that refutes all accounts as a whole.

Lastly it reads:

The Qur'anic verses regarding abrogation can in fact be seen as a divine guarantee of the revelation; in spite of the fallibility of the prophet, God ensures the correctness of the Qur'an by replacing incorrect verses.

To this I say ..What abrogation??

2:106. None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar: Knowest thou not that Allah Hath power over all things?

16:101. When We substitute one revelation for another,- and Allah knows best what He reveals (in stages),- they say, "Thou art but a forger": but most of them understand not.

13:39. Allah doth blot out or confirm what He pleaseth: with Him is the Mother of the Book.

The reason i refer to these verses is to explain what is meant by abrogation. Some believe that verses of the Quran were replaced by later verses. In actual fact, some verses
were substituted by later verses as they were more relavant to a later period. This in no way implies that the initial verses were a mistake or corrected. The Qur’an was revealed over a period of 22½ years. Many reforms that were brought about in the society were gradual. This was to facilitate the adoption of new laws by the people. An abrupt change in society always leads to rebellion and anarchy.

Two different interpretations

The Glorious Qur’an says in the following verse:

"None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar: knowest thou not that Allah hath power over all things?"
(Al-Qur’an 2:106)

A reference to this is also made in chapter 16 verse 101 of Surah Nahl. The Arabic word mentioned is ayat which means ‘signs’ or ‘verses’ and which can also mean ‘revelations’. This verse of the Qur’an can be interpreted in two different ways:

a. The revelations that are abrogated are those revelations that were revealed before the Qur’an, for example the Torah, the Zaboor and the Injeel.

Here Allah (swt) says that He does not cause the previous revelations to be forgotten but He substitutes them with something better or similar, indicating that the Torah, the Zaboor and the Injeel were substituted by the Qur’an.

b. If we consider that the Arabic word ayat in the above verse refers to the verses of the Qur’an, and not previous revelations, then it indicates that none of the verses of the Qur’an are abrogated by Allah but substituted with something better or similar. This means that certain verses of the Qur’an, that were revealed earlier were substituted by verses that were revealed later. I agree with both the interpretations.

Many Muslims and non-Muslims misunderstand the second interpretation to mean that some of the earlier verses of the Qur’an were abrogated and no longer hold true for us today, as they have been replaced by the later verses of the Qur’an or the abrogating verses. This group of people even wrongly believe that these verses contradict each other.

The Qur'an is complete.

The Qur'an is completed and what should be in it is in it, and what should not have been in it is not in it. Upon completion, the Qur'an was compiled and stored as it was meant to be, and has remained that was ever since.

5:3 This day have I perfected your religion for you, completed My favour upon you, and have chosen for you Islam as your religion. But if any is forced by hunger, with no inclination to transgression, Allah is indeed Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful

57:77-80. That this is indeed a qur'an Most Honourable,
In Book well-guarded, Which none shall touch but those who are clean: A Revelation from the Lord of the Worlds.

85:21-22. Nay, this is a Glorious Qur'an,
(Inscribed) in a Tablet Preserved!

15:9. We have, without doubt, sent down the Message; and We will assuredly guard it (from corruption).

http://www.irf.net/irf/faqonislam/index.htm

Not convinced Jamal the words of the whole Quran carry little weight to me also I think the satanic verse makes most sense of the evidence. How could this story just be drawn from the air?

Whether the Qur'an makes sense to you or not, READ the article and it will tell you in great detail how it (Satanic Verses) came about!

The Satanic Verses?

The "Satanic verses" need to mentioned only because of the notoriety they have gained recently because of the Salman Rushdie affair. It was alleged that Muhammad (S), in a spirit of compromise, implicitly accepted the worship of old pagan idols, Lat, 'Uzza and Manat. According to some accounts he used the word "Gharaniq" to describe the Qurayshi idols. The term Gharaniq means, "Numidian cranes" which fly at great heights, and is a laudatory term. It is inconceivable that Muhammad (S) would compromise on the issue of monotheism. In fact some of his followers had already died rather than admit to Shirk (associating anything else with Allah). Tawhid, described best as pure Monotheism without any associates or even subsidiary deities, is at the core of Islam. Every Qur'anic verse is suffused and illuminated with the concept of Tawhid, which is at once both intimidating and liberating. Some of the scholars who chronicled the words and deeds of Muhammad (S) (Hadith and Sirah), notably at-Tabari and Ibn Ishaq, considered it plausible and recorded this incident while most others, including Bukhari and Muslim believed that the narrators (rawis) were not trustworthy and rejected it. Still others provide an alternative explanation. The Quraysh would frequently crowd around Muhammad (S) and speak noisily to try to interfere with the public recitation of the Qur'an near the Ka'bah. When Muhammad (S) recited, "Have you ever given a thought to Lat and 'Uzza, and Manat, the third (idol)" someone may have shouted, "Lat and 'Uzza and the third Manat, they are the exalted Gharaniq, whose intercession is approved". The Quraysh commonly used this invocation during the circumambulation of the Ka'bah while performing the pre-Islamic pilgrimage.
The Qur'an itself records the following verses which follows the previous verses more naturally:

"What! Shall ye assign to yourselves the males and to Him the females." (Qur'an 53:21)

These three verses are a pointed comment on the hypocrisy in the Qurayshi society that treated women as chattel and yet had female deities as it's major idols and has nothing to do with any Satanic interdiction in the revelatory process. Muslim outrage at Rushdie was the result of the knowledge that the statements in his book were maliciously slanderous and their only discernible intent in distorting the account was to cause deliberate provocation and blasphemy.

In terms of your "allegation" of Muhammad (pbuh) supporting paganism

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.