The Fabricated Tale of the ‘Satanic Verses’: A Scholarly Rebuttal from the Muslim Intellect
Introduction
Muslim Rebutal of The Fabricated Tale of the ‘Satanic Verses the controversy surrounding Salman Rushdie’s The Satanic Verses not only stirred global outrage but also reignited debates around the alleged “Satanic verses” incident—an orientalist narrative that claims Prophet Muhammadرسول اللہ صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم (peace be upon him) once mistakenly recited verses in praise of pagan goddesses. While this narrative has been decisively rejected by classical and contemporary Muslim scholars, its repeated invocation by Islamophobes demands a robust, evidence-based response rooted in Islamic tradition, intellect, and scholarship.
https://mrpo.pk/rise-of-atheism-islamic-response/
The Satanic Verses controversy, also known as the Rushdie Affair, was a controversy sparked by the 1988 publication of Indian author, Salman Rushdie‘s novel The Satanic Verses. It centered on the novel’s references to the Satanic Verses (apocryphal verses of the Quran), and came to include a larger debate about censorship and religious violence. It included numerous killings, attempted killings (including against Rushdie himself), and bombings by perpetrators who supported Islam.[1]
This article explores the historical fabrication of the “Satanic verses” claim, its misuse in orientalist and secular literature, and presents a comprehensive refutation—highlighting the authoritative insights of Sayyid Abul A’la Maududi, one of the most respected Islamic scholars of the 20th century.
The Origins of the Fabrication
The story of the so-called “Satanic verses” is attributed to some early biographers and historians, notably al-Tabari and al-Waqidi. According to the tale, Prophet Muhammad رسول اللہ صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم (peace be upon him) allegedly recited verses that appeared to praise the pagan goddesses Lāt, ‘Uzzā, and Manāt. This, the story claims, was later retracted as a satanic influence.
However, the isnād (chain of transmission) for all such narrations is universally regarded as weak, disconnected, or fabricated. The supposed content contradicts the fundamental principles of Islamic theology, which emphasize the Prophet’s protection (ismah) from error in delivering revelation.
Even in early Islamic history, renowned scholars like Ibn Kathir, Imam Nawawi, and Qadi ‘Iyad categorically rejected the story as false and harmful to the credibility of revelation.
Orientalist and Secular Exploitation
In the 19th and 20th centuries, Western orientalists revived the tale to portray Islam as politically motivated and morally inconsistent. Salman Rushdie’s 1988 novel radicalized this approach by weaving the story into a narrative that mocked the Prophet Muhammad رسول اللہ صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم (peace be upon him), the Qur’an, and Islamic civilization. Framing the incident as a moment of weakness or compromise, the novel sought to delegitimize divine revelation and insult Muslim sanctities under the guise of fiction and free speech.
This approach not only misrepresents history but also disregards Islamic scholarly consensus. Worse still, it weaponizes a discarded legend to sow doubt among Muslims and vilify their beliefs in global discourse.
Freedom of Speech vs. Cultural Imperialism
The West often frames its defense of Rushdie in terms of “freedom of expression.” However, this discourse frequently masks a deeper issue: cultural imperialism. When speech that mocks sacred Islamic values is celebrated, while criticism of Western dogmas (such as secularism or Zionism) is penalized, freedom becomes selective and hypocritical.
Rushdie’s novel was not a scholarly critique nor a good-faith exploration of historical material—it was a literary assault drenched in vulgarity, mockery, and malice. The outrage in the Muslim world was not against fiction per se, but against the dehumanizing double standard: blasphemy against Islam is permitted under “freedom,” but critique of Western policies is often silenced.
This imbalance reveals the broader dynamics of power and narrative control in the postcolonial world. Muslims are expected to tolerate slanders against their Prophet Muhammad رسول اللہ صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم and scripture while being denied the same space to defend their identity and values. The controversy, therefore, is not only about literature—it is about dignity, agency, and the limits of imposed narratives.
Maududi’s Refutation in Context
Sayyid Abul A‘la Maududi, in his celebrated Tafhim al-Qur’an, provides a decisive refutation of the “Satanic verses” legend in his commentary on Surah An-Najm (53) and Surah Al-Hajj (22). His explanation predates Rushdie’s novel by decades and demonstrates the thoroughness of Islamic scholarship on the matter.
Commenting on Surah An-Najm (53:19–23), Maududi writes:
“At last, they had to invent a story in order to get rid of the people’s taunt and ridicule. They said ‘After he had recited afaraʾait-ul-Lāta wal-ʿUzzā wa Manāt ath-thālitha-al-ukhrā (“Have you seen al-Lāt and al-ʿUzzā and al-Manāt, the third (other) goddess…”), we heard from Muhammad the words: tilka al-ghurāniqa t-al-ʿulā, wa anna shafāʿatuhunna latarjā – “They are exalted goddesses: indeed, their intercession may be expected.” From this we understood that Muhammad had returned to our faith.’”
He then states emphatically:
“As a matter of fact, only a mad person could think that in the context of this Sūrah the sentences they claimed to have heard could have any place and relevance.”
This statement underscores Maududi’s logical dismissal of the fabricated tale. The Qur’an, far from compromising with polytheism, categorically condemns it. As such, no reconciliation between Islamic monotheism and polytheistic intercession is possible within its textual framework.
Further clarifying the context of Surah Al-Hajj (22:52), Maududi explains:
“It appears that the Quraish concocted the story to hide their ‘defeat.’ Probably someone or other of them explained away their defeat, saying, ‘We ourselves heard Muhammad praising our deities. Therefore we also fell down in prostration along with him.’ As regards the migrants to Habash, they returned to Makkah when they heard the concocted story that there had been a compromise between the Holy Prophet and the Quraish. … Naturally these three things – prostration by the Quraish, their explanation of it, and the return of the migrants from Habash – combined to evolve that story.”
Maududi concludes:
“So much so that some authentic people were also deluded by it, for to err is human … the error of the latter proves to be more harmful, because their credulous followers accept with closed eyes their misconceptions. On the other hand, mischief-mongers collect all such errors of the righteous people and exploit them to prove that all the collections of Traditions are false and should be rejected forthwith.”
Maududi’s method is deeply rooted in both theological consistency and Qur’anic coherence. He stresses that inserting the alleged satanic phrases into Surah An-Najm renders the passage contradictory and absurd—because the verses immediately after (53:22–23) condemn idolatry outright. Similarly, he reads 22:52–54 not as a confession of prophetic error but as a divine affirmation that satanic interference is always nullified by God. He reinforces the Islamic doctrine of prophetic infallibility (ismah) and highlights that no genuine revelation from God can ever include falsehood.
The Muslim World’s Cultural Crisis
The controversy also reveals a deeper crisis: the Muslim world’s intellectual and cultural fragmentation. While Western institutions mobilized to defend Rushdie under the banner of liberty, many Muslim governments reacted with either silence or ineffectiveness. This hesitancy reflects an identity vacuum—a postcolonial hangover in which Muslims are alienated from their theological roots and civilizational confidence.
Instead of generating strong scholarly, media, and legal responses rooted in Islamic principles and international norms, many Muslims were left reacting emotionally and sporadically. The absence of coordinated ideological resistance highlights the urgent need for cultural revival through education, critical thought, and unified narratives that represent Islamic values with clarity and strength.
Maududi’s legacy in this regard is instructive. His writings show how to marry tradition with modern challenges. Rather than apologizing or resorting to incoherent rage, Maududi’s approach was calm, reasoned, and firmly anchored in divine revelation. His methodology offers a template for how Muslims can confront distortions—not just with protest, but with intellectual clarity and civilizational confidence.
Conclusion: A Firm Stand on Revelation and Reason
The so-called “Satanic verses” incident is not part of authentic Islamic tradition. It is a concocted tale, refuted by early and modern scholars alike. Sayyid Abul A‘la Maududi’s thorough treatment of the matter in Tafhim al-Qur’an serves as a definitive Muslim intellectual response—rooted in theology, logic, and historical insight.
Rushdie’s use of this fabrication reflects not freedom of expression, but deliberate provocation rooted in colonial arrogance and orientalist distortion. The Muslim response must be firm but principled—grounded in scholarship, clarity, and commitment to truth.
In an age of information warfare and ideological manipulation, understanding the roots and refutations of such fabrications is not optional—it is an intellectual obligation for both Muslims and sincere seekers of truth.
References:
- Sayyid Abul A‘la Maududi, Tafhim al-Qur’an (English trans. The Meaning of the Qur’an), commentary on Surah An-Najm (53) and Surah Al-Hajj (22)
- Ibn Kathir, Tafsir al-Qur’an al-Azim
- Qadi Iyad, ash-Shifa