WATT & THE SATANIC VERSES
The late William Montgomery Watt was considered one of the greatest scholars of Islam of the 20th century. Watt wasn’t only a professor but a prolific author who wrote some outstanding books on Muhammad and Islam. Moreover, Watt wasn’t a polemicist that sought to discredit Muhammad, but was a sympathetic writer who adopted an irenic approach to his analysis of the Islamic faith. This is what makes his assessment of the so-called ‘Satanic Verses’ all the more credible.
In this post I will be citing what this renowned scholar wrote in respect to Muhammad being inspired by Satan to praise the three pagan goddesses, known as the daughters of Allah. All emphasis will be mine.
(b) The satanic verses; the facts
The most notable mention of idols in the Meccan part of the Qur’an is in Surat an-Najm (53), and thereby hangs a tale. The account which al-Tabari places first1 is as follows. When Muhammad saw that the Meccans were turning from his message, he had a great desire to make it easier for them to accept it. At this juncture Surat an-Najm was revealed; but when Muhammad came to the verses, ‘Have ye considered al-Lat and al-‘Uzza, And Manat, the third, the other? ‘ then, the tradition continues, ‘as he was saying it to himself, eager to bring it to his people, Satan threw upon his tongue (the verses), “These are the swans exalted, Whose intercession is to be hoped for”’. On hearing this the Meccans were delighted, and at the end when Muhammad prostrated himself, they all did likewise. The news of this even reached the Muslims in Abyssinia. Then Gabriel came to Muhammad and showed him his error; for his comfort God revealed 22.51, and abrogated the satanic verses by revealing the true continuation of the surah. Quraysh naturally said that Muhammad had changed his mind about the position of the goddesses. but meanwhile the satanic verses had been eagerly seized by the idolators.
In his Commentary on 22.512 at-Tabari gives a number of other versions of the tradition on this matter. Two attributed to a certain Abu’l-‘Aliyah are important since they contain details not in the commoner versions and have the appearance of being more primitive. The first runs as follows:
Quraysh said to the Messenger of God, Those who sit beside you are merely the slave of so-and-so and the client of so-and-so. If you made some mention of our goddesses, we would sit beside you; for the nobles of the Arabs (sc. the nomads) come to you, and when they see that tl1ose who sit beside you are the nobles of your tribe, they will have more liking for you. So Satan threw (something) into his formulation, and these verses were revealed, ‘Have ye considered al-Lat and al-‘Uzza, And Manat, the third, the other?’ and Satan caused to come upon his tongue, ‘These are the swans exalted, Whose intercession is to be hoped for, Such as they do not forget (or ”are not forgotten”)’. Then, when he had recited them, the Prophet prostrated himself, and the Muslims and the idolators prostrated themselves along with him. When he knew what Satan had caused to come upon his tongue, that weighed upon him; and God revealed, ‘And We have not sent before thee any messenger or prophet but when he formed his desire Satan threw (something) into his formulation…’ to the words ‘… and God is knowing) wise’.
The second version from Abu’l-‘Aliyah is similar but does not have the third interpolated verse. It records, however, as do some of the other versions, how some of the grandees of Quraysh on account of age did not prostrate themselves but instead raised some earth to their foreheads, but, unlike the other versions, adds that Abu Uhayhah Sa’id b. al-‘As remarked, ‘At last Ibn Abi Kabshah has spoken good of our goddesses’. The remark may very well be genuine, since the same, possibly rude, way of referring to Muhammad is found in another remark attributed to this man.1
If we compare the different versions and try to distinguish between the external facts in which they agree and the motives which the various historians ascribe in order to explain the facts, we find at least two facts about which we may be certain. Firstly, at one time Muhammad must have publicly recited the satanic verses as part of the Qur’an; it is unthinkable that the story could have been invented later by Muslims or foisted upon them by non-Muslims. Secondly, at some later time Muhammad announced that these verses were not really part of the Qur’an and should be replaced by others of a vastly different import. The earliest versions do not specify how long afterwards this happened; the probability is that it was weeks or even months.
There is also a third fact or group of facts about which we can be tolerably certain, namely, that for Muhammad and his Meccan contemporaries the primary reference of the verses would be to the goddess al-Lat worshipped at at-Ta’if, the goddess al-‘Uzza worshipped at Nakhlah near Mecca, and the goddess Manat, whose shrine lay between Mecca and Medina, and who was worshipped primarily by the Arabs of Medina. Al-‘Uzza was worshipped in the first place by Quraysh, but the priestly family was from B. Sulaym, and Kinanah, Khuza’ah, Thaqif, and some of Hawazin are also mentioned as participating in her worship. We hear of Medinan nobles having wooden representations of Manat in their houses,2 but on the whole the Arabs of that period probably hardly ever thought of the worship of any deity apart from the ceremonies that took place at particular shrines. It was unlike, for example, the Catholic Christian veneration of the Blessed Virgin Mary; the ‘Hail Mary’ can be said in any place. Manat, on the other hand, according to the predominant view among the Arabs, could only be worshipped at her shrine.3 Thus the implication of the Satanic verses is that the ceremonies at three important shrines in the neighbourhood of Mecca is acceptable. Further, the implication of the abrogating verses that the worship at these shrines is unacceptable is not a condemnation of the worship of the Ka’bah. Unless there were also some other verses condemning that which were later abrogated and removed from the Qur’an–and we have no real grounds for assuming this–then the abrogating verses in Surat an-Najm exalt the Ka’bah at the expense of the other shrines. It is worth remembering in this connexion that with the growth of Muhammad’s power, these shrines were all destroyed.1
(c) The satanic verses: motives and, explanations
The Muslim scholars, not possessing the modem Western concept of gradual development considered Muhammad from the very first to have been explicitly aware of the full range of orthodox dogma. Consequently it was difficult for them to explain how he failed to notice the heterodoxy of the satanic verses. The truth rather is that his monotheism was originally, like that of his more enlightened contemporaries, somewhat vague, and in particular was not so strict that the recognition of inferior divine beings was felt to be incompatible with it. He probably regarded al-Lat, al’-Uzza, and Manat as celestial beings of a lower grade than God, in much the same way as Judaism and Christianity have recognized the existence of angels. The Qur’an in the (? later) Meccan period speaks of them as jinn,2 although in the Medinan period they are said to be merely names.3 This being so, it is perhaps hardly necessary to find any special occasion for the satanic verses. They would not mark any conscious retreat from monotheism, but would simply be an expression of views which Muhammad had always held.
Even so, the political implications of the verses are interesting. Did Muhammad accept them as genuine because he was interested in gaining adherents at Medina and at-Ta’if and among the surrounding tribes? Was he trying to counterbalance the influence of the leaders of Quraysh, who were opposed to him, by having large numbers of supporters? At the very least the mention of these shrines is a sign that his vision is expanding.
The tradition from Abu’l-Aliyah quoted above indicates that Quraysh made an offer to Muhammad to admit him into their inner circle, if he would mention their goddesses. There are also other similar traditions. Sometimes he is said to have been offered wealth, a good marriage, and a position of importance; sometimes the offer was in more general terms that the leaders of Quraysh would associate with him in worship and business.1 Quite apart from the question of details, on which one may justifiably have some hesitation, there is the question whether these stories are not for the most part inventions designed to magnify the importance of Muhammad at this period. Was he already sufficiently important to be treated almost as an equal by the leading men of Mecca? On the whole the picture of Muhammad’s position given by the stories is probably near the truth. We must remember that the original success of Muhammad tends to be minimized, probably because the descendants of those who followed him for a time and then fell away did not wish to recall such things. In Abu’l-Aliyah’s version, Muhammad is prominent among visitors to Mecca, even though no leading Meccans joined him; and this contrast would hardly have been expressed so bluntly, if it had been a mere invention. Let us take it, then, that the leading Quraysh made some sort of offer to Muhammad; he was to receive certain worldly advantages, and in return make some acknowledgement of their deities. The Qur’an, as we shall see presently, supports this. Of the details we cannot be certain. The promulgation of the satanic verses is doubtless to be linked up with this bargain.
On this view the abrogation of the verses would similarly be linked up with the failure of the compromise. There is no suggestion that Muhammad was double-crossed by the Meccans. But he came to realize that acknowledgement of the Banat Allah, as the three idols (and others) were called, meant reducing God to their level. His worship at the Ka’bah was outwardly not very different from theirs at Nakhlah, at-Ta’if and Qudayd. And that would mean that God’s messenger was not greatly different from their priests and not likely to have much more influence; hence the reform on which Muhammad had set his heart would not come about. Thus it was not for any worldly motive that Muhammad eventually turned down the offer of the Meccans, but for a genuinely religious reason; not, for example, because he could not trust these men nor because any personal ambition would remain unsatisfied, but because acknowledgement of the goddesses would lead to the failure of the cause, of the mission he had been given by God. A revelation may first have made this clear to him, but the matter can be thought out on the lines suggested, and he may have felt uneasy even before the revelation came.
If one takes an abstract view of the situation there would seem to be little objection to the recognition of al-Lat and the others as inferior celestial beings. The recognition of angels is held to be quite compatible with monotheism not only in Judaism and Christianity, but also in orthodox Islam. Two factors in the Meccan situation,however, made such a recognition impossible at this juncture. Firstly, the worship at the Ka’bah, which had previously been polytheistic, was being purified and for the Muslims at least being made monotheistic. If similar worship was carried on at several shrines, the people of the Hijaz would inevitably suppose that several roughly equal deities were being worshipped. Secondly, the phrase Banat Allah, ‘daughters of God’ or ‘daughters of the god’, had serious implications, even though in general it was not taken literally.1 Banat and similar words are often used metaphorically in Arabic; cf. bint ash-shafah (daughter of the lip), a word; bint al-‘ayn (daughter of the eye), a tear; banat ad-dahr (daughters of fate or time), calamities. Probably, then, the phrase originally meant no more than ‘celestial or supernatural beings’, al-Lah here being simply ‘the god’, ‘the supernatural’, and not the unique or supreme god, that is, God. But as Allah or al-Lah came to be used almost exclusively for God, the phrase could be interpreted to mean that these were beings roughly equal with God; and that could not be reconciled with monotheism.
The view that Muhammad’s break with the leading men of Mecca is linked up with the abrogation of the satanic verses (and his rejection of an offer they made to him) is in accordance with the second of the points noted above in the letter of ‘Urwah, namely, that some Quraysh with property in at-‘Ta’if took the lead in actively opposing Muhammad. Various explanations of this fact are possible, but the most likely is that these were some of the leading members of Quraysh who were specially interested in the commerce of at- Ta’if and had brought the mercantile activities connected with that centre within the orbit of Meccan finance. The removal of recognition from the shrine of al-Lat must somehow or other have threatened their enterprises and stirred their anger against Muhammad.
The view contained in the letter of ‘Urwah, that the ‘mention of the goddesses’ marked the critical stage in the relation of Muhammad to the leaders of Quraysh is further confirmed by the Qur’an. Two passages, traditionally connected with the incidents under consideration, speak of a temptation to which Muhammad almost succumbed. In one of these (17.75-77) the nature of the temptation is unspecified; in the other (39.64-66) it is definitely to acknowledge ‘partners’ to God. These passages also state that for Muhammad the consequences of compromise would have been serious, eternally as well as temporally. These passages are possibly ‘early Medinan’.1 but, whatever the date of revelation, there seem to be no strong reasons for denying that they are connected with the satanic verses and their abrogation. Another verse (6.137) may also be connected with these events; it states that though ‘they’ (sc. the idolators) acknowledge God formally, in practice He is not so fully acknowledged as are the idols. That is the sort of fact which may have shown Muhammad that the compromise would not work.
Surat al-Kafirin (109) is traditionally what Muhammad was told to give by way of answer to the suggestion that he should compromise: ‘Say: 0 ye unbelievers, I serve not what ye serve, And ye are not servers of what I serve …. Ye have your religion and I have mine.’ This is a complete break with polytheism, and makes compromise impossible for the future. Two other passages are somewhat similar, though not so strong (6.56 and 70), and the latter also speaks of the worship of idols as ‘going back upon our steps’. The fact that there are three separate passages suggests that the temptation to compromise was present to Muhammad for a considerable time. (Watt, Muhammad at Mecca [Oxford University Press, 1960 reprint], 101-107)
And:
THE INCIDENT OF THE ‘SATANIC VERSES’
The accounts of this incident vary somewhat in details, so that it will be best to begin with the points that are certain and then go on to those that are dubious rather than select one complete account of the incident and then criticize parts of it.
At some time Muhammad must have recited as part of the Qur’an certain verses which apparently permitted intercession to idols. One version of these is:
Did you consider al-Lat and al-‘Uzza And al-Manat, the third, the other? Those are the swans exalted Their intercession is expected Their likes are not neglected.1
Then, some time later, he received another revelation cancelling them the last three verses here and substituting others for them:
Did you consider al-Lat and al-‘Uzza And al-Manat, the third, the other? For you males and for Him females? That would be unfair sharing. God revealed no authority for them;2 they follow only opinion and their souls’ fancies, though from their Lord there has come to them guidance. (53.19-23)
Both the first version and the second version were proclaimed publicly, and the explanation given for the change was that Satan had managed to slip in the false verses of the version without Muhammad noticing it.
This is a strange and surprising story. The prophet of the most uncompromisingly monotheistic religion seems to be authorizing polytheism. Indeed the story is so strange that it must be true in essentials. It Is unthinkable that anyone should have invented such a story and persuaded the vast body of Muslims to accept it. Moreover there is a passage in the Qur’an which describes something of this kind.
Before thee God sent no messenger nor prophet but, while he desired, Satan interposed (something) towards his desire; but God abrogates what Satan interposes; then God perfects His verses; God is knowing, wise. (22.51)
This verse has been variously interpreted, but the above translation accords with one of the traditional interpretations. Muhammad, it is said, had been greatly desiring to find some way of making it easier for the rich merchants to accept Islam, and, when Satan made the interpolation, he failed to notice it for what it was. Whether we accept this story or not–and there may be some truth in it–it seems certain that Muhammad recited the ‘satanic verses’ as part of the Qur’an and later recited another revelation abrogating them.
One of most interesting the aspects of the incident is the lights it throws on Muhammad’s outlook at the time. Even though he sincerely believed that these verses came to him from outside himself, yet he cannot at first have found anything in them that he regarded as contrary to the religion he was preaching. Does this mean that he was a polytheist at this time? There are several reasons for thinking that the answer to this ought to be, No.
To begin with, it is to be noticed that the three goddesses were specially connected with three shrines within a day or two’s journey of Mecca. Al-Lat was the goddess of the neighbouring town of at-Ta’if, al-‘Uzza had a shrine between that town and Mecca, and there was a shrine of Manat between Mecca and Medina. It seems likely, then, that for Muhammad’s hearers the primary effect of the ‘satanic verses’ would be to legitimize worship at these three shrines. Similarly the primary effect of abrogation would be to stop such worship. In accordance with this the three shrines were destroyed when Islam became dominant in the region.
How did Muhammad justify this from a monotheistic standpoint? It must be remembered that the outlook of Muhammad’s more enlightened contemporaries has been described as a vague monotheism. The word ‘goddesses’ should not be allowed to suggest deities of the kind met in Greek mythology. Semitic religion does not produce such stories about its divinities. It has a less personal conception of the divine. A deity is a power specially connected with certain places and certain objects. The names in point mean respectively the Goddess, the Almighty and the Disposer (who allots men their several fates). Perhaps the enlightened Arabs of the day regarded these as various manifestations of a single divine power, just as in later times the Muslims spoke of the ninety-nine names of God. The phrase ‘daughters of God’ would not be incompatible with this, for the Arabs used the ideas of daughterhood, fatherhood and sonship to express abstract relations. In this way Muhammad and his followers could have regarded the ‘satanic verses’ as authorizing the worship of the divine at the three shrines indicated, and yet not have felt that they were compromising their monotheism.
There is also a simpler explanation of the Muslims’ failure to recognize the contradiction immediately. The Christians and Jews believed in the existence of a secondary and subordinate kind of supernatural being, angels, and the belief in angels, jinn and other supernatural beings was still a living part of the traditional Arab outlook. Muhammad and his followers may have looked on the ‘goddesses’ as beings of this kind. Indeed there are passages in the Qur’an which must have regarded the matter in this light, at least for a time; this was after the attack on their worship had begun.
For a full understanding of the incidents the publication of the ‘satanic verses’ and their abrogation it is necessary to look at them in a wide context. For a time, even if Muhammad’s professed followers were not numerous, there was general approval of his mission. The ordinary people were sympathetic. Only the rich merchants were hesitant. Yet even they were not completely hostile. They saw the danger that through his contact with a supernatural source of wisdom Muhammad would become the man in Mecca whose views were most authoritative. They also thought that one of the roots of Muhammad’s activity was his dissatisfaction with his own position in Mecca. In particular they saw that he was excluded from the inner circle of rich merchants who monopolized the enterprises in which the big profits were to be made. It therefore occurred to them that they might reduce this dangerous activity of Muhammad’s by admitting him into this inner circle, letting him share in their profits and power, and intermarrying with his family. They were inveterate bargainers, however, and in return for these concessions to Muhammad they wanted him to compromise in some way with the older cults.
How was it that the intellectual struggle between Muhammad and the rich merchants of Mecca came to be focused on the question of idols? The history of religious polemics shows that the points on which controversy centres are not always the fundamental ones, but those where the issue is sufficiently dear for both sides to feel that ‘here is ground on which it worth while is doing battle ‘. The rich merchants had first been attacked in the Qur’an because of their ‘pride in wealth’ and selfish use of their position of privilege (though their mercantile activities doubtless raised the standard of living in Mecca as a whole). They could not defend their conduct, however, in any way that would clearly justify in the them eyes of the ordinary people. A few of them, however, were threatened with loss of trade at the shrines outside Mecca and the others probably realized that their chief hope of gaining the support of the ordinary people was to present themselves as defenders of the old religion. This was why they asked Muhammad to say something good of their goddesses or otherwise to acknowledge some validity in the old rites.
At first Muhammad was not prepared to make a stand on this issue. Whatever they had asked for, they received, in the of the ‘satanic verses’, an acknowledgement efficacy of worship at the three shrines. How long it was before the verses were abrogated we cannot tell. The earliest and best sources give no indication of the interval before the abrogation. It may have been weeks or months. It was presumably long enough for Muhammad to realize that the compromise was not going to work. Perhaps he felt that the priests of the goddesses were going to be regarded as his equals. Perhaps he felt that his new religious movement was going to be indistinguishable from paganism. He therefore accepted and proclaimed the new revelations which came to him. One was the abrogation of the ‘satanic verses’ and their replacement by others. Another, traditionally the reply he was to give to invitations to compromise, was the following:
O unbelievers, worship not what you worship, You are not worshipping what I worship, I am not worshipping what you worship, You are not worshipping what I worship; To you your religion, to me my religion. (109)
The abrogation of the ‘satanic verses’ meant that the cults at the three shrines were no longer recogni2ed in any way. This marked the beginning of vigorous opposition to Muhammad. It was begun by some Meccans with property at at-Ta’if, doubtless incensed by this disregard for the shrine and goddess there and by the consequent loss of trade. Others of the rich merchants joined in. Here was a suitable issue on which to press home the attack on Muhammad. Perhaps, too, changing circumstances made them feel insecure, and in their insecurity they naturally tended to look to the old religion, for which, while their success was unbroken, they had had little use.
For Muhammad also this seemed to be a good issue on which to join battle. Perhaps as time went on he learnt something more of the attitude of Jews and Christians to idols, and saw .that he would be in line with them in having no truck with idolatry. The passage just quoted emphasized the distinct character of his religion and its difference from paganism. Other passages made use of the phrase ‘daughters of God’ in an argumentum ad hominen the Arabs set great store by sons and prided themselves on having them; was it fair that God should have only daughters? It was insisted that idols are powerless to benefit or harm a man, and cannot intercede for him on the Last Day; indeed, on the Last Day the idols would disown their worshippers.
So the struggle went on. In the intellectual sphere the issue between Muhammad and the rich merchants of Mecca became that of many gods or God (who is one). Islam came to regard ‘the giving of partners to God’ as one of the greatest sins. This attitude is crystallized in the first half of the confession of faith which runs: There is no god but God. (Muhammad: Prophet and Statesman [Oxford University Press], pp. 60-66)
FURTHER READING
How the Incident of the “Satanic Verses” Exposes Muhammad as an Accursed False Prophet Pt. 1, Pt. 2
THE FRAUD THAT IS ALI ATAIE: THE SATANIC VERSES PT. 1, PT. 2, PT. 3, ADDENDUM