https://theislamissue.wordpress.com/2020/10/27/ibn-abbas-and-the-satanic-verses/?fbclid=IwAR2TeyQo7lwenQ61oF7WmxYljfaI-1YzC3cuIgn0j233_DdSfz90tG9AK-8

 

The Islam Issue

Revealing the truth about Islam

• Home

•  

• Contact

Ibn Abbas and the Satanic verses

 theislamissue  Uncategorized  October 27, 2020 32 Minutes

The Satanic verses incident is one of the most controversial issues in the discussion of Islam today, especially between Christians and Muslims. Christians especially bring it up because it proves in their eyes that Muhammad could be influenced by Satan.

Muslims however generally reject the incident as a fabrication by Islams enemies, citing the fact that the chains of narration are weak and that all are mursal. However this is not the case. There are marfu reports from one companion; those of Abdullah Ibn Abbas through his students Sayd Jubayr, Abu Salih, Atta Rabah, Ikrimah Barbari, Attiyah Al-Awfi Mujahid .

Abdullah Ibn Abbas, whom according to the hadith books was given the knowledge, understanding and interpretation of the Quran by God after Muhammad prayed for him to have such knowledge. For instance, see here, here and here. This was narrated by the students of Ibn Abbas such as Ikrimah, Sayd Jubayr, Tawus and Ata as well as Kurayb (Fath Al-Bari 1/385-386, Translated by Khalid Williams) and appears in almost every hadith collection such as Bukhari, Ahmad, Tabarani, Nasa’i, Majah, Tirmhidi, Ibn Sa’d, Muslim and Hibban.

Jabir Abdullah said: “The most knowledgeable and most forbearing of the people”. Talhah ibn ‘Ubaydullah said: “Ibn ‘Abbas was granted understanding, smartness and knowledge, and I never saw ‘Umar ibn al-Khattaab give anyone precedence over him”. Ubai Bin Kab said: “This man will be the leading scholar of this ummah; he has been given maturity and deep understanding”. Umar Khattab said: “He is the young man who spends time with mature men; he keeps asking questions in order to learn and he is smart”. Mujahid Jabr said: “Ibn ‘Abbas was called al-bahr (the ocean) because of his vast knowledge”. Ibn Umar said: “he is the most knowledgeable among those who are left of what Allah, may He be exalted, revealed to Muhammad”. Sa’id bin Warqas said: “I never saw anyone who was more quick-witted or smarter or more knowledgeable or more patient in dealing with people than Ibn ‘Abbas”. Ibn Masud said: When Ibn Abbas reaches our age, no man will have one tenth of his knowledge.’ Al-Aʻmash said: I heard them saying that Abdullah said, “Ibn Abbas, may Allah have mercy on him, what an excellent interpreter of the Qur’an he is.

The first set of narrations regarding the satanic verses incident come from the great kufan scholar Sayd Bin Jubayr, whom was one of the most prominent of the students of Ibn Abbas, cited multiple times in the two Sahihs. The reputation of Sayd can be gouged from what Ibn Hajar said of him in Tahdhib al-Tahdhib Volume 4 No. 14:

.

He narrated hadiths from Ibn Abbas, Ibn Al-Zubayr, Ibn Umar, Ibn Maqal, Udayy Ibn Hatim, Abu Mas`uod al-Ansari, Abu Sa`id al-Khudri, Abu Hurayra, Abu Musa al-Ash`ari, al-Dahhak ibn Qays al-Fihri, Anas, `Amr ibn Maymun, Abu `Abdulrahman al-Sulami and lady `A’isha….. Ibn Abi Mughira said that when people of Kufa visit Ibn `Abbas they used to ask him for Fatwa, he used to say them: “Isn’t Sa’id Ibn Jubayr among you?”…. `Amr ibn Maymun said that his father said that Sa’id ibn Jubayr passed away and every one on the earth attained his knowledge… Abu al-Qasim al-Tabari said: “He is a reliable Imam and hujjah on Muslims”…..Ibn Hibban said: “He was jurist, worshiper, righteous and pious”.

.

9 reports of the satanic verses exist to Sayd Bin Jubayr. Of these reports 2 have the chain Uthman Al-Aswad <— Sayd Jubayr <– Ibn Abbas. The first is from the mukhtarah of Al-Diya Al-Maqdisi, who in turn is citing it from the now lost Tafsir of Ibn Mardawayh. Suyuti also cites it in his Tafsir Manthur from Mardawayh and from Maqdisi’s citation.

Commenting on the mukhtarah of Al-Diya Al-Maqdisi, Shahab Ahmed notes:

.

By Al-Diya Al-Maqdisi’s own account, the work consists in the main of reports with sound isnads that do not appear in the respective Sahihs of Al-Bukhari and Muslim, but also contains some reports carried by apparently sound isnads that, in fact, contain weaknesses that Al-Diya Al-Maqdisi undertakes to identify. 511 […] 511 “These are the Hadith that i have selected from among those which are not in Al-Bukhari and Muslim. However…. We sometimes cite ahadith with good isnads that have a weakness, and identity the weakness of the isnad in order that it be known”
Before orthodoxy by Shahab Ahmed, page 224

.

Maqdisis work, or rather the narrations in it were generally regarded as sound:

.

Al-Dhahabi observed, “They are hadiths that may be used as authorities, except over that which is in Bukhari and Muslim”…. Al-Qasim Al-Birzali (d. 739/1339) called the work the “Sahih of Al-Diya“. For these, and the similar opinions of other hadith scholars, see al-hafiz, al-Tanwih wa-al-Tabyin, 315-316
Before orthodoxy by Shahab Ahmed, page 225

.

Here is the chain of the narration:

.

Ahmad b. Musa Ibn Mardawayh al-Isbahani <– [his father, Musa b. Mardawayh al-Isbahani] <–Ibrahim b. Muhammad b. Mattuwayh al-Isbahani <– Muhammad b. ‘All al-Muqri’ al-Baghdadi <– Ja’far b. Muhammad al-Tayalisi al-Baghdadi <– Ibrahim b. Muhammad b. ‘Ar’arah Al-Bari al-Baghdadi <– Abu ‘Asim al-Nabil al-Dahhak b. Makhlad al-Makki al-Basri <– ‘Uthman b. al-Aswad al-Makki <– Sa‘id b. Jubayr <– Ibn ‘Abbas
Before orthodoxy by Shahab Ahmed, page 224

.

Regarding the authentication of the chain, it appears to be somewhat mixed. The reason being that the narrator Muhammad b. ‘All al-Muqri’ al-Baghdadi is obscure and relatively unknown with only one biography on him in tarikh baghdad, although Ibn Hajar, Suyuti and Maqdisi seemed to see no problem with the Isnad:

.

His presence in the isnad was sufficient reason for Nasir al-Din Al-Albani to reject the riwayah. While Al-Albanis standards of isnad criticism are unusually severe, in the present instance his assessment seems justified. Nonetheless, it is noteworthy not only that al-Diya Al-Maqdisi does not identify any deficiency in the insad but also that Ibn Hajar Asqalani deemed this the most reliable of the isnads that transmit the satanic verses incident.
Before orthodoxy by Shahab Ahmed, page 226

 

Suyuti also said in his citation that all the narrators were trustworthy. Here is the text of the narration:

.

The Messenger of God recited: “Have you seen al-Lat, al-‘Uzza and Manat, the third, the other?” and Satan cast onto his tongue: “Those high gharaniq: their intercession is to be hoped for! And the Mushrikun were greatly pleased by this and said: “He has mentioned our gods.” So Jibril came to him and said: “Recite to me what I brought you!” And he recited: “Have you seen al-Lat, al-‘Uzza and Manat, the third, the other? Those high gharaniq: their intercession is hoped for!” He (Jibril) said: “I did not bring you this! This is from Satan!, or he said: “This is from Satan! I did not bring you these”
Before orthodoxy by Shahab Ahmed, page 226-227

.

Note that As-Suyutis citation omits the “or he said” section. We shall see in the following two narrations also from Uthman Aswad whether or not this narration is actually an accurate transmission. First, we go to the narration found in the Tafsir of Abu Layth Al-Samarqandi with an almost identical chain of narration:

.

Al-Khalil b. Ahmad Al-Sijzi al-Samarqandi <– Ibrahim b. Muhammad b. Mattuwayh Al-Ishabani <– Ja’far b. Muhammad al-Tayalisi al-baghdadi <– Ibrahim b. Muhammad Ar’arah al-Basri al-baghdadi <– Abu ‘Asim al-Nabil al-Dahhak b.Makhlad al-Makki al-Basri <– Uthman b. Al-Aswad al-Makki <– Sa‘id b. Jubayr <– Ibn Abbas
Before orthodoxy by Shahab Ahmed, page 227

.

The main difference from this chain compared to the previous one is that Muhammad Al-Muqri is not present. In fact, it is curious that the isnad functions perfectly well without his presence:

.

Ibrahim b. Muhammad b. Mattuwayh al-Isbahani transmits directly from Ja’far al-Tayalisi al-Baghdadi, without the mediation of Muhammad b. Muqri’; a scenario that is entirely reasonable given their death dates, and the fact that ibn Mattuwayh is recorded as having studied in Iraq. 527 […] 527 Al-Dhahabi, Siyar, 14:142. The fact that Riwayah 42 (the samarqandi narration. Note that Shahab is actually referring to Riwayah 41 in his book, the citation here of 42 is an error) Muhammad b. Mattuwayh transmits directly from Ja’far al-Tayalisi without the mediation of the offending Muhammad b. Muqri’ makes the presence of Muhammad b. Muqri in Riwayah 41 (he means 40) somewhat curious as the isnad, to which he is effectively superfluous, functions perfectly well without him. Indeed, the fact that Muhammad b. Al-Muqri’ serves no function other than to undermine the isnad in Riwayah 41 (he means 40) reminds one of the phenomenon by which opponents of a given Hadith would undermine that Hadith by adding a weak link to an otherwise sound isnad; see Norman Calder, studies in early Muslim jurisprudence (Oxford: Clarendon, 1993) ,235-241, on what he calls “invention in order to impugn”.

Before orthodoxy by Shahab Ahmed, page 227-228.

 

Ultimately, this report is authentic according to the standards of the Hadith scholars and would certainly be acceptable to Ibn Hajar, As-Suyuti, Al-Diya, Qasim Birzali and Dhahabi as well as Al-Albani, if it were not for the reports contents which is as follows:

.

The messenger of God recited: “And Manāt, the third, the other.” Then he said: Those high Gharāniq: indeed, intercession from them is to be hoped for!” So the Mushrikūn said, “He has mentioned our Gods.” Then the verse (22:52) was sent down.

Before orthodoxy by Shahab Ahmed, page 228

.

So now the question is from these two reports is this: is the Samarqandi narration simply an abbreviation of the report from Al-Diya Al-Maqdisi, or is the Maqdisi report purposely corrupted in its text as well as its isnad by the hadith scholars in order to render the narration blasphemous and shameful?

The answer to that question lies in the final narration from Uthman Aswad, found in the Asbab Al-Nuzul by Al-Wahidi, most likely found originally in the Tafsir of Sahl b. Uthman Al-Razi before being spread to Rayy by Abu Yahya Abd Al-Rahman Al-Razi. The isnad and text is as follows:

.

Abu Bakr al-Harithi [Al-Isbahani] <– Abu Bakr b. Hayyan [Abu al-Shaykh Al-Isbahani] <– Abu Yahya Abd Al-Rahman b. Muhammad b. Salm al-Razi Al-Isbahani <– Sahl b. Uthman al-‘Askari Al-Razi <– Yahya b. Zakarriya b. Abi Za’idah al-Kufi/ Yahya b. Sa’id b. Qattan al-Basri <– Uthman ibn al-Aswad al-makki <– Sa’id ibn Jubayr al-kufi: The messenger of God recited: “have you seen Al-lat, al-Uzza and manat, the third, the other? Those high gharaniq: their intercession is to be hoped for!” And the mushrikun were greatly pleased by this and said: “He has mentioned our Gods.” Jibril came to the messenger of God and said: “Go over the word of God with me!” When he went over (it) with him, he (jibril) said: “As for this, i did not bring it to you! This is from Satan!” So God sent down “we have not sent before you a messenger or a prophet but that when he tamanna, satan cast into his umniyyah”.

Before orthodoxy, pages 229-230

.

To highlight the similarities with this narration and the one from Maqdisi, here are sections sude by side:

.

The Messenger of God recited: “Have you seen al-Lat, al-‘Uzza and Manat, the third, the other?” and Satan cast onto his tongue: “Those high gharaniq: their intercession is to be hoped for!

The messenger of God recited: “have you seen Al-lat, al-Uzza and manat, the third, the other? Those high gharaniq: their intercession is to be hoped for!”

.

Only difference between the two here that the line “and Satan cast onto his tongue” has dropped from Wahidis Hadith.

.

And the Mushrikun were greatly pleased by this and said: “He has mentioned our Gods.”

And the Mushrikun were greatly pleased by this and said: “He has mentioned our Gods.”

.

Identical

.

So Jibril came to him and said: “Recite to me what I brought you!”

Jibril came to the messenger of God and said: “Go over the word of God with me!”

.

Whilst the wording is slightly different, the narrative structure is identical.

.

And he recited: “Have you seen al-Lat, al-‘Uzza and Manat, the third, the other? Those high gharaniq: their intercession is hoped for!” He (Jibril) said: “I did not bring you this! This is from Satan!

When he went over (it) with him, he (jibril) said: “As for this, i did not bring it to you! This is from Satan!”

.

Again, it is the exact same narrative structure with slightly differing wording, as well as an abbreviation of the recitation of the satanic verses.

.

So God sent down “we have not sent before you a messenger or a prophet but that when he tamanna, satan cast into his umniyyah”.

So God sent down “we have not sent before you a messenger or a prophet but that when he tamanna, satan cast into his umniyyah”.

.

Exactly the same

So this means with great certainty that the report from Maqdisi constitutes a genuine transmission from Ibn Abbas while the Samarqandi narration is just an abbreviation of the report, likely done by Samarqandi or his teacher who transmitted the report to him. Shahab Ahmed after reviewing these 3 hadith concludes:

.

Riwayah 40, which ibn Mardawayhs isnad attributes to Ibn Abbas, is the same Riwayah bi-al-ma’na as Riwayah 42, the isnad which stops at Sayd b. Al-Jubayr. Not only does this suggest that the interpretation of the incident in Riwayahs 40 and 42 was, indeed, transmitted by Uthman b. Al-Aswad from Sa’id b. Jubayr at the end of the first century Islam, but also, at the level of ma’na, it becomes reasonable to attribute the report to Ibn Abbas.

Before orthodoxy, page 230

.

The evidence grows even more strong when we look at the next set of hadith. These are the narrations carried once again from Sayd Bin Jubayr, but instead of Uthman Aswad; Sayd transmitted the incident to Abu Bishr Ja‘far b. Abi Wahshiyyah al-Basri al-Wasiti, known as “the most reliable person transmitting from Sayd b. Jubayr”. There are 6 reports of the incident with Abu Bishr with completely immaculate isnads. However for 3 of the reports there appear multiple statements in the isnad and the matn that attempt to weaken the reports. The first report appears in the musnad of Al-bazaar with an isnad as follows:

.

Yusuf b. Hammad [al-Basri] related to us: Umayyah b. Khalid [al-Basri] related to us: Shu’bah [b. Hajjaj Al-Basri] related to us from Abu Bishr [Ja‘far b. Abi Wahshiyyah al-Basri al-Wasiti] from Sa‘id b. Jubayr [al-Kufi] from Ibn ‘Abbas — in my estimation the Hadith is doubtful.

Before orthodoxy, page 232

.

That Isnad is perfectly normal with the exception of the words “in my estimation the hadith is doubtful”. It should be no surprise that the scholars of hadith jumped on this opportunity to try and render the hadith as weak, with Al-Albani claiming that it means that the isnad is defective because of a narrators uncertainty that it reaches Ibn Abbas and Al-Haythami saying that the statement is Sayd bin Jubayrs questioning of the report. However this claim is quite frankly ridiculous and illogical:

.

does it, in fact, make sense for Sa’id to cast doubt on his own transmission from his great teacher Ibn Abbas, or to question the doctrinal content of the report? […] For Sa’id b. Jubayr to be the speaker, the interjected remark should come between the mention of his name and that of Ibn Abbas […] Secondly, such a remark would be incongruous and anachronistic coming from Sa’id b. Jubayr. Why should Sa’id b. Jubayr, who is first and foremost a Quran scholar and whose reputation derived considerably from his having been a student of Ibn Abbas, relate a report from the greatest of all Quran scholars only to pronounce the report as unreliable in the same breath?

Before orthodoxy, page 235

.

Ultimately it seems highly likely that either: this comment was made by Al-Bazaar himself as he was known to make critical comments in the musnad,  it could possibly be a margin comment by another scholar later on or it could be inserted by one of the transmitters after Sa’id b. Jubayr. Bazzar continues his attack on the narration with this comment on it:

.

We do not know of this hadith being related from the Prophet by a complete isnad which may validly be cited with the exception of this isnad; and we do not know of anyone who has provided a sanad for this Hadith from Shu’bah from Abu Bishr from Sa‘id from Ibn ‘Abbas except for Umayyah; and we have heard it only from Yusuf b. Hammad—and he [Yusuf] was trustworthy. Those other than Umayyah related it as a mursal from Abu Bishr from Sa‘id b. Jubayr; albeit that this Hadith is also known from al-Kalbi from Abu Salih from Ibn ‘Abbas. Umayyah was trustworthy and well-known.

Before orthodoxy, page 233

.

First, it is beneficial to note the purpose of this comment:

.

“By declaring that this is the only sound Isnad by which he knows the hadith, Al-Bazzar is pointing out that this is a report transmitted on the authority of a single individual. While the fact of a hadith being solitary does not necessarily nullify its authority in hadith methodology, it removes it from the status of a categorical proof to that of a possibility subject to confirmation: according to the fifth century hadith authority Al-Khatib al-Baghdadi, “we follow and act upon what it (a solitary report) says when we think that the probability is that it is true”. Al-Khatib Al-Baghdadi goes on to state that a Khabar Al-Wahid may be rejected on the basis that its matn contradicts “reason, the firmly established ruling of the Quran or known Sunnah”. In the present case, the contents of the matn are objectionable to the orthodox concept of the ismah of the prophet, and thus appear to contradict all three”.

Before orthodoxy, page 234

.

Second, the main argument that he makes here is that the narrations of Shu’bah <– Abu Bishr <– Sa‘id are all mursal except for the one with Umayyah, and that because Umayyahs is the only one to Abbas while the others with this isnad stop at Sayd then this attribution to Abbas is wrong. Bazzar however is simply wrong to state this. As we have seen there are two narrations from a variant pathway that go back to Ibn Abbas from Uthman Al-Aswad, the one from Samarqandi especially with an unimpeachable and immaculate isnad. It is simply the case that Bazzar most likely was unaware of this pathway as the narrations were circulating in Baghdad only for 100 years between the years 200 and 300, while Bazzar was a scholar from Basra living in this period. We shall come to his citation of the hadith of Abu Salih a bit later.

Here is the text of this report from Al-Bazaar:

.

When the Prophet was in Mecca, he recited, “Have you seen al-Lat, al-‘Uzza and Manat, the third, the other?” And there ran upon his tongue “Those high gharaniq: intercession from them is to be hoped for! The Mushrikun of Mecca heard this and were pleased by it. This greatly distressed the Messenger of God. So God sent down: “We have not sent before you a Messenger or a Prophet but that when he tamanna, Satan cast something into his umniyyah’, then God removes that which Satan casts and establishes His Signs clearly.”

before orthodoxy, pages 232-233

.

While the wording of the report is slightly different to the ones from Uthman Al-Aswad, they all present the same interpretation. Muhammad recited the satanic verses that satan put on his tongue, the meccans were pleased by it, and their later abrogation by Quran 22:52. The only noticeable difference being whether Muhammad discovered his mistake on his own, or whether Gabriel had to tell him. This report in Bazzars musnad is also found in two later works with extended Chains of narration.

The first in Tabaranis Mu’jam Al-Kabir:

.

Al-Husayn b. Ishaq al-Tustari and ‘Abdan [‘Abd Allah] b. Ahmad [al-Ahwazi al-Jawallqi] said: Yusuf b. Hammad transmitted to us the meaning from Umayyah b. Khalid from Shu’bah from Abu Bishr from Sa‘id b. Jubayr: I know it only from Ibn ‘Abbas.

Before orthodoxy, page 236

.

And the tafsir of ibn Mardawayh that is cited by Al-Maqdisi’s Mukhtarah

.

Ahmad b. Musa Ibn Mardawayh Al isbahani <– [his father, Musa b. Mardawayh Al isbahani] <– Ibrahim b. Muhammad b. Mattuwayh al-isbahani <– ‘Ali b. al-Husayn b. Junayd al-Razi AND Ahmad b. Muhammad b. ‘Asim al-Razi <– Yusuf b. Hammad al-Basri <– Umayyah b. Khalid al-Basri <– Shu’bah b. Hajjaj al-Basri <– Abu Bishr al-Basri <– Said b. Jubayr al-Kufi: I know it only from Ibn ‘Abbas.

Before orthodoxy, page 237

.

These two chains are made up of the same narrators as the one from Bazzar but it is extended after Yusuf Hammad Al-Basri to 4 informants. As with the previous Hadith also, there is also a remark seeks to affect the authenticity of the report; “i know it only from Ibn Abbas”. So who wrote this statement? The primary suspect is Sayd bin Jubayr himself, as was believed by Ibn Hajar Asqalani. However this would cause problems for the Hadith scholars if true. As Shahab Ahmed explains:

.

“While Sa’ids reply had the effect in Hadith methodology, of detracting from an otherwise excellent isnad by declaring the report Khabar Al-Wahid, the meaning of the statement changes dramatically when we remember that Sa’id b. Jubayr was not a muhaddith concerned with the rules of transmission – he was, in fact, expressly criticised by the Hadith scholars for failing to transmit Hadiths with complete isnads – but rather a first century Quran scholar whose stature derived from his having studied with the greatest of all Quran authorities, ibn Abbas. When seen in this light, the same statement, “i know it only from Ibn Abbas”, instead of detracting from the report, has the effect of investing it with highest authority. For Sa’id B. Jubayr to say of a report, “i know it only from Ibn Abbas”, is for him to make the strongest possible statement validating the report, even though the self-same statement undermines the report in the methodology of the muhaddith.

Before orthodoxy, pages 238-239.

.

However there are reasons to suggest that rather than a statement of validation from Sayd, it is in fact a statement of dissatisfaction from the muhaddith. First: this statement does not appear in the 3 Hadith from Uthman Al-Aswad, nor does it appear in the following 4 Hadith that we have yet to analyse from Sayd. Second: it is not proven to my knowledge that Sayd in other instances used a statement like this in other reports he heard from Ibn Abbas.

I say, that the statement is not from Abu Bishr al-Basri either as he also appears in the other narrations from Sayd we have not analysed. Nor is it possible in my view to come from any of the narrators after Yusuf b. Hammad Al-Basri because of how the isnads split into multiple parts and carry the same statement. It would seem more likely in that case to be a commentary by Shu’bah b. Hajjaj, Umayyah b. Khalid or Yusuf b. Hammad. Seeing as the statement appears to be an answer to a question it is possible to have been asked by Umayyah to Shu’bah b. Hajjaj or by Yusuf b. Hammad to Umayyah. Though this also raises the question as to why this answer does not appear in the Narration of Musnad Bazzar. Unfortunately it is unlikely we will ever get a definitive answer to the quandary, but in my view, the idea that this is a statement of disparagement by a Hadith scholar at an authentic Narration to Ibn Abbas is the most logical explanation. This will be revisited in full at the conclusion of the Narrations of Sayd Bin Jubayr.

Regarding minor differences in the Hadith of Uthman Aswad and Abu Bishr, Shahab states:

.

Another remark in the isnad is significant. This is the statement by Al-Husayn al-Tustari and ‘Abdan al-Jawaliqi — “yusuf b. Hammad told us the meaning from Umayyah b. Khalid” — that occurs in Al-Tabarani isnad, signifying that what Yusuf b. Hammad transmitted here was not the words of the report he had received from Umayyah b. Khalid, but a paraphrase conveying its meaning. This explains the difference in wording, not only in Riwayahs 43 and 44 [the Bazzar narration and the Mardawayh/Tabarani narration]…. The main difference between Riwayahs 43 and 44,when taken as the same Riwayah in meaning, and Riwayahs 40 and 42 taken as a pair, is the absence of the correction scene in Riwayahs 43 and 44. However this does not affect the fundamental hermeneutical elaboration of the incident since Riwayahs 43 and 44 do not suggest that the prophet corrected himself. Ibn Hajar Al-Asqalani, quite correctly, did not distinguish between the Riwayahs from Uthman b. Aswad and those of abu Bishr as regards to meaning.

Before orthodoxy, pages 240-241

.

With this we move on to the next 2 narrations found in the tafsir of Al-Tabari with two isnads deemed Sahih Mursal by Al-Albani (Nasb Al-Majaniq, 5)

.

Bundar, Muhammad b. Bashshar Al-Basri <– Ghundar, Muhammad b. Ja’far Al-Basri <— Shu’bah b. Hajjaj al-Basri <– Abu Bishr al-Basri <– Said b. Jubayr al-Kufi

And

Muhammad b. Muthanna Al-Basri <– Abd Al-Samad b. Abd Al-Warith Al-Basri <– Shu’bah b. Hajjaj al-Basri <– Abu Bishr al-Basri <– Said b. Jubayr al-Kufi

Before orthodoxy, pages 244-245

 

The reports read:

..

When the verse: “have you seen Al-lat, Al-Uzza” came down, the messenger of God recited it; and he said: “Those high Gharaniq! Indeed, their intercession is to be hoped for!” Then the messenger of God made the Sajdah and the mushrikun said: “He has not spoken favourably of our Gods until today” and they made the Sajdah with him. So God sent down: “We have not sent before you a messenger or a prophet but that when he tamanna, Satan cast something into his umniyyah”, until his words “the suffering of a barren day.

Riwayah 45 strongly resembles Riwayahs 43 and 44 in its narrative construction, and presents the same interpretation of the incident.

Before orthodoxy, page 245

.

The next narration is recorded by As-Suyuti without an isnad in his asbab Al-Nuzul and is citing it from the tafsirs of ibn mardawayh, Ibn mundhir, as well as from Al-Tabari and the tafsir of Ibn Hatim Al-Razi, suyuti says the Hadith is Sahih. Similarly, ibn Kathir recorded it in his tafsir and gave Ibn Hatims Isnad, which certainly is Sahih.

.

Ibn Abi Hatim Al-Razi <– Yunus b. Habib al-Ishabani <– Abu Da’ud Sulayman b. Da’ud al-Tayalisi al-Basri <– Shu’bah b. Hajjaj al-Basri <– Abu Bishr al-Basri <– Said b. Jubayr al-Kufi: The messenger of God recited Surat Al-Najm in Mecca. When he reached this point: “have you seen Al-lat, Al-Uzza and Manat, the third, the other,” Satan cast onto his tongue: “those high Gharaniq: their intercession is to be hoped for”. They said: “He has not spoken favourably of our Gods before today”. Then he made the Sajdah and they made the Sajdah. So God sent down “We have not sent before you a messenger or a prophet but that when he tamanna, Satan cast something into his umniyyah, then God removes that which Satan casts and establishes his signs clearly – and God is all-knowing, All-wise”.

Before orthodoxy, pages 246-247

.

Summarising these narrations of Sayd Bin Jubayr, Shahab Ahmed says:

.

All [Riwayahs] present what is fundamentally the same interpretation of the Satanic verses incident: the prophet uttered the verses; and, given the absence of any reference to the prophets desire, tamanna would seem here to mean recitation. […]  One is strongly encouraged by this to take the Isnads at face value and recognise two distinct recensions of Sayd Bin Jubayrs teaching on the Satanic verses, both dating from the first half of the second century.

Before orthodoxy, page 248

.

The next point is the issue of heads of the Isnads. Some halt at Sayd Bin Jubayr and some go to Ibn Abbas. There are two possibilities here. The first is that the isnad did originally terminate at Sayd Bin Jubayr but since Ibn Abbas was widely known to be Sayds teacher, tafsir reports were automatically associated with him. Only to prove problematic later by the Hadith scholars.

The second, supported by Uri Rubin is that all the reports did go back to Ibn Abbas, but the Hadith scholars yet again corrupted the isnad and made it stop at Sayd.

I say, that it is more probable that this narration is a transmission from Ibn Abbas. The first reason that we shall come too is that Ibn Abbas appears in Isnads from a variety of other students of his such as Ata, Al-Awfi, Ikrimah, Mujahid, an anonymous source and Abu Salih (Salih is especially interesting and will be talked about shortly). Second, as Shahab Ahmed noted on page 249 of his book, Shu’bah Al-Hajjaj whom is the common link in all the Narrations of Abu Bishr <– Sayd Bin Jubayr was known for abbreviating isnads, a practice that was done out of convenience or forgetfulness. This in turn links back to the previous quandary of the statement “i know it only from Ibn Abbas”; as I said previously, it appears to be an answer to a question, thus making it likely to have been asked by Umayyah b. Khalid as a quandary to Shu’bah b. Hajjaj about the source of transmission and whether it is Khabar Al-Wahid. Umayyah then transmitted this information to Yusuf with the full Sahih Isnad as well as Shu’bah’s answer to his question. The fact that this is from Ibn Abbas is endorsed by the fact that his name appears in the isnads from Uthman Al-Aswad <— Sayd Jubayr in the tafsirs of Ibn Mardawayh and Abu Layth.

With this, we move on to the next of Ibn Abbas students: Mujahid ibn Jabr.

.

A student of Ibn Abbas whom Qatadah b. Di’amah is reported to have called “the most learned man alive in tafsir”, and Sufyan Al-Thawri said: “If you get Mujahids tafsir, it is enough for you”. Mujahid was also a Qass, and generally regarded as a reliable hadith transmitter cited in all four canonical sunan collections. He is reported to have said that he went through the entire Quran with Ibn Abbas three times, stopping to ask him about the occasion of revelation of each verse.

Before Orthodoxy by Shahab Ahmed, page 192

.

Mujahid has three reports that are attributed to him in the books of tafsir, the first is from the tafsir of Thalabi:

.

Mujahid said: He praised their Gods and mentioned them, and they were delighted

before orthodoxy, page 196

.

Ultimately, it is a very brief summary report from Mujahid about the Satanic verses, and makes him the second person to link Quran 17:73 to the Satanic verses incident. The other being Kab Al-Qurazi.

The second is from the tafsir of Aqilah:

.

Abd b. Humayd <– […] Mujahid: The messenger of God recited Surah Al-Najm, Satan cast those words into his mouth, and the Muslims prostrated themselves. Then God removed what Satan had cast onto his mouth and established his Ayat
Before orthodoxy page 193

.

Ibn Aqilahs tafsir is a tafsir that only records complete chains of narration, however this chain is not as Shahab Ahmed explains:

.

The Isnad suggests three things: first, that the riwayah was recorded in the now lost tafsir of Abd b. Humayd; second, that Ibn Aqilah is abbreviating the isnad by omitting the intermediary transmitters between Abd b. Humayd and Mujahid (else the report can hardly be considered marfu or Mahkum); and third, that for Ibn Aqilah, reports from Mujahid may assuredly be assumed to go back to a companion (in this case, most likely Ibn Abbas).
Before orthodoxy, by Shahab Ahmed page 193

.

The third comes from Al-Wahidis Asbab Al-Nuzul:

.

Lo, they rejoice!…. Mujahid and Muqatil said: meaning, when the Prophet recited Surat Al-Najm in mecca and said, “those high gharaniq”. The unbelievers of mecca were delighted by this when they heard that they have intercession.
Before orthodoxy page 195

.

The most interesting thing about this particular narration, is not the actual content of it but the sources. Mujahid and Muqatil. Muqatils reputation was certainly mixed:

.

No less a figure than Muhammad b. Idris Al-Shafi (d. 208) acknowledged that “compared to Muqatil, the rest were children in tafsir”, but Muqatil’s reputation among the Ahl al-hadith was close to uniformly appalling, with the outcome summed up by Dhahabi: “they rejected him by consensus”.
Before orthodoxy page 180

.

Here is the full quotation from Muqatils tafsir that was cited by Wahidi:

.

And when mention is made of those” who are worshipped “other than him” from among the Gods, “lo, they rejoice” at the mention of them. This is the day that the Prophet recited Surat Al-Najm in Mecca, and recited “al-lat Al-Uzza and Manat, the third, the other: those high Gharaniq! Intercession from them is to be sought”. The unbelievers of Mecca were delighted when they heard that they have intercession.
Before orthodoxy, by Shahab Ahmed page 190

.

The reason that the hadith scholars rejected Muqatil is primarily because he did not reveal his source material for the information in his tafsir. He provided no chains of narration to any of it. However we do know that Muqatil drew heavily on some of the early tafsirs such as that of Qatadah Diamah whose narrative on the Satanic verses also appears in Muqatils tafsir.

Another tafsir that Muqatil drew from is Mujahids:

.

It is interesting to note that Mujahid was one of Muqatil Sulaymans sources for tafsir. 392 See:Nawfal,Mujahid, 248-249. […] it may be that Mujahid is Muqatils source for this instance.
Before orthodoxy page 195

.

The narrations from Muqatil, Wahidi and Thalabi are all consistent in the delight of the Quraysh. However they do differ slightly from the narration from Aqilah. However this is likely because of the report being abbreviated:

.

There is no mention of the text of the Satanic verses themselves. However the phrase “satan cast those words onto his mouth” indicates that the words in question have been cited earlier in the discussion, and that the phrase is referring back to “those words”. It is highly likely that Ibn Aqilah is abbreviating the report
Before orthodoxy page 193

.

Some may point out that the second narration is not in the tafsir of Mujahid transmitted by Warqa Umar <– Abi Najih. However Shahab Ahmed explains:

.

Given that he was the leading student of Al-Thalabi, Al-Wahidis citation is almost certainly from one of the three alternate transmissions of Mujahids tafsir that are listed by Thalabi in the sources to his al-Kashf wa Al-Bayan.
Before orthodoxy page 196

.

As did Muqatil so it seems. Furthermore, it is interesting also to note a striking similarity between the narration and the warqa <– Najih tafsir:

.

(it) provide(s) a gloss for tamanna in Quran 22:52 as meaning “Qala – to say” which, it is worth noting, is entirely compatible with Riwayah 32 (wahidis narration). Similarly, Al-Suyuti cites each of Abd. B Humayd and Ibn Abi Hatim Al-Razi as giving Mujahids gloss for Tamanna to be takallama, “to speak” and for Umniyyati-hi as Kalami-hi, “his speech”.
Before orthodoxy page 196

.

So once again, tamanna is mentioned in this incident to mean speech, which is certainly compatible with the default gloss of “recitation” from Ibn Abbas making it likely that Ibn Abbas was Mujahids primary source, certainly in the Hadith cited by Aqilah.

The next student of Ibn Abbas’s students to transmit the Satanic verses is Abu Salih, who in no uncertain terms has a reputation viewed as appalling by the Hadith scholars, and is considered a liar by them.

He has 3 reports of the Satanic verses with him in the Isnad. The first is from the tafsir of Abd b. Humayd as cited in Suyutis tafsir Manthur with the Isnad: As-Suddi <– Abu Salih. It reads:

.

The messenger of God stood up and the mushrikun said: “if he mentions our God favourably, we will mention his God favourably”. And “Satan cast into his umniyyah”: Have you seen Al-Lat, Al-Uzza and Manat the third, the other? Indeed, they are among the high Gharaniq! And indeed their intercession is to be hoped for!”. So God sent down: “We have not sent before you a messenger or a prophet but that when he tamannna, Satan cast something into his umniyyah.

Before orthodoxy, pages 159-160

.

The second report is from the tafsir of Abu Layth Al-Samarqandi whose isnad is simply: Abu Salih <– Ibn Abbas.
.

Satan came to him in the form of Jibril while he was reciting the Surah “By the star when it sets!” at the Kaaba until, when he reached his words “Have you seen Al-Lat and Al-Uzza and Manat, the third, the other?” Satan cast upon his tongue, “those high gharaniq! From them intercession is to be sought!” When the Mushrikun heard that, it pleased them, and when he reached the end of it (the Surah), he made the Sajdah, and the Mushrikun and the Muslims made the Sajdah with him. Then Jibril came to the Prophet and said: “I did not bring you this!” So, “We have not sent before you a messenger or a prophet” came down.

Before orthodoxy page 211

.

This thus raises the question: why would Abu Salih, the so-called liar… Transmit one narration in his name, yet transmit another narration with different wording in the name of Ibn Abbas? Shahab Ahmed also says:

.

Why, if Ibn Abbas functioned in the early tafsir discourse as the mythic exemplar, should the same scholar, here Abu Salih, have attrubuted only some interpretations and reports to Ibn Abbas’ great authority, and kept other interpretations associated with his own, presumably lesser, authority? A reasonable explanation would be to take these attributions as real: certainly, they would suggest an indifference to the need to attribute reports to an authority figure.

Before orthodoxy, pages 211-212

.

On an even more interesting note, abu Layth Al-Samarqandi even followed up his citation of the Hadith of Salih <- Ibn Abbas by Saying that the Hadith of Uthman Aswad <– Sayd Jubayr <– ibn Abbas is similar, a clear reference to their hermeneutical position on the topic. (see pages 243-244)

The third report is not only from Ibn Abbas on Abu Salihs authority, it also comes from Ikrimah Barbari and an anonymous source from Ibn Abbas. From page 220:

.

Abbab b. Shuayb Al-Basri <– Yahya b. Kathir Al-Basri <– Al-Kalbi <– Abu Salih <— ibn Abbas

Abu Bakr Al-Hudhali Al-Basri and Ayyub b. Kaysan al-Sakhtiyani Al-Basri <— Ikrimah <– Ibn Abbas

Ibn Abbas Sulayman b. Bilal al-Tamini Al-Madini <– Anonymous source <– Ibn Abbas

.

These isnads appeared in the tafsir of Ibn Mardawayh and is cited from him by Suyuti in the tafsir Manthur. Ibn Hajar gave more of the isnads in Fath Al-Bari, but nonetheless still abbreviated versions. The isnad of Ikrimah is authentic as it is recorded, but Ibn Hajar said it is weak meaning their likely is a deficiency in the isnad.

Abu Salihs Isnad contains a plethora of weak narrators, and the final one is weak because of the anonymous source. It should be kept in mind however that it was normal at the time to not name an informant, but this became unacceptable when the Hadith movement emerged.

The report is as follows:

.

While the messenger of God was in Mecca, he recited Surat Al-Najm. And when he came upon this verse: “Have you seen Al-Lat, Al-Uzza and Manat, the third, the other”,? Satan cast onto his tongue “Indeed, they are the high Gharaniq.” So God sent down: “We have not sent before you…”

before orthodoxy, pages 222-223

.

A very summary report of the teachings of Ibn Abbas. The implication, like all the other narrations is that tamanna means recitation. Also, all of the narrations so far make clear that the prophet himself uttered the Satanic verses.

Another report comes from the tafsir of Musa b. Abd Al-Rahman al-San’ani with the following isnad. From page 213:

.

Bakr b. Sahl al-Dimyati <– ‘Abd al-Ghani b. Sa’id al-Thaqafi al-San’ani <– Musa b. ‘abd al-Rahman al-San’ani <— Abd al-Malik Ibn Jurayj al-Makki <– Ata b. Abi Rabah Al-Makki <— ibn Abbas

.

Commenting on the Isnad, Shahab Ahmed notes:

.

Abd al-Malik Ibn Jurayj <– Ata b. Abi Rabah Al-Makki – is an extremely distinguished chain of transmission whose extensive appearance in the elaboration of early Islamic law in the musannaf of Abd Al-Razzaq Al-San’ani has received detailed study from Harold Motzski […] Ibn ‘Adi, while generally suspicious of Musa b. ‘abd al-Rahman, conceded that “his reporting from ibn Jurayj, from Ata, from ibn Abbas might be acceptable”. […] Abd Al-Ghani Al-Thaqafi is an obscure figure primarily remembered for his transmission of this tafsir. […] There is a significant historical association of Isnad Bakr b. Sahl al-Dimyati <– ‘Abd al-Ghani b. Sa’id al-Thaqafi al-San’ani <– Musa b. ‘abd al-Rahman al-San’ani with the tafsir corpuses from Ibn Jurayj and Ata Ibn Rabah, and going back through these two to Ibn Abbas. Indeed, it is highly revealing that Bakr b. Sahls isnad was sufficiently famous in his own lifetime for him to be offered substantial sums of money to teach the tafsir when on tour.
Before orthodoxy, pages 214-216

.

The report reads:

.

His words: “We have not sent before you a messenger or a prophet but that when he tamanna, Satan cast something into his umniyah”, meaning: into his Recitation. That was because a satan called Al-Abyad had come to the Prophet in the form of jibril while the prophet was reciting Surat al-Najm. And when he reached, “have you seen Al-Lat and Al-Uzza?” he cast into the prophets recitation, “indeed, they are the high gharaniqah! And indeed, their intercession is to be hoped for! 

Before orthodoxy, pages 216-217

.

This Narration explicitly mentions tamanna as meaning recitation. Furthermore it also concurs with the Narration of Abu Salih which said “Satan came to him in the form of Jibril”. Compared to the version of Ata: “a satan called Al-Abyad had come to the Prophet in the form of jibril”

The next student of ibn Abbas that transmitted this incident is Attiyah Al-Awfi, whose transmission is recorded in the tafsirs of Tabari and Mardawayh:

.

Muhammad b. Sa’d Al-Awfi Al-Baghdadi <– his father: Sa’d b. Muhammad b. Al-Hasan al-Awfi Al-Baghdadi <– his uncle: Al-Husayn b. Al-Hasan al-Awfi al-Kufi Al-Baghdadi <– his father: Al-Hasan b. Attiyah Al-Awfi al-Kufi <– his father: Attiyah b. Sa’d al-Awfi al-Kufi <– Abd Allah b. Abbas.

Before orthodoxy page 205

.

Mardawayhs isnad is as follows:

.

Ahmad b. Kamil Al-Baghdadi <–Muhammad b. Sa’d Al-Awfi Al-Baghdadi <– his father: Sa’d b. Muhammad b. Al-Hasan al-Awfi Al-Baghdadi <– his uncle: Al-Husayn b. Al-Hasan al-Awfi al-Kufi Al-Baghdadi <– his father: Al-Hasan b. Attiyah Al-Awfi al-Kufi <– his father: Attiyah b. Sa’d al-Awfi al-Kufi <– Abd Allah b. Abbas.

.

Shahab Ahmed notes in his discussion of the Narration that the biographical material makes no mention of an Awfi family tafsir, suggesting that the narrators from Attiyah Al-Awfi did not actually teach the tafsir, instead the manuscript was simply passed down until it reached Muhammad b. Sa’d Al-Awfi who was a scholar of Hadith, and thus transmitted it to Al-Tabari and Ahmad b. Kamil. Here is the text of the report:

.

His words: “We have not sent before you a messenger or a prophet but that when he tamanna, Satan cast something into his umniyyah,” to his words,” and God is All-knowing, All wise”: That was because, while the prophet was praying, the story of the Gods of the Arabs was sent down upon him and he began to recite it. The mushrikun heard him and said, “we hear him speaking favourably if our Gods”; so they drew near him.
And while he was reciting it, when he was saying: “have you seen Al-Lat, Al-Uzza and Manat, the third, the other?” Satan cast: “those high Gharaniq! Intercession from them is to be hoped for!”, and the Prophet began to recite it.
So jibril came down and removed them and said to him: “we have not sent before you a messenger or a prophet but that when he tamanna, Satan cast something into his umniyyah” to his words, “and God is all-knowing, All-Wise.”

Before orthodoxy, pages 208-209

.

Once again, tamanna is taken to mean recite and the prophet himself uttered the Satanic verses. This is all the Narrations that there are from ibn Abbas, however there one more that does deserve a mention. This particular narration is from the tafsir of Al-Tabari and Ibn Hatim, who are citing Ad-Dhahaaks tafsir:

.

Al-Husayn b. Al-Faraj Al-Baghdadi al-Ishabani <– Abu Mu’adh al-Fadl b. Khalid al-Marwazi <– Ubayd b. Sulayman al-bahili al-Marwazi <– Al-Dhahaak: In regard to Gods words: “we have not sent before you a messenger or a prophet”: While the prophet was in Mecca, God sent down upon him (something) about the Gods of the Arabs. So he began to recite “al-Lat and Al-Uzza”, and to repeat it over and over. The people of Mecca heard the prophet mentioning their Gods, and were delighted by this and drew near him, listening. And Satan cast into the prophets recitation: “Those high Gharaniq! Intercession from them is to be hoped for!”. And the prophet recited it like this. So God sent down upon him: “And we have not sent before you a messenger or a prophet….,” to “God is all-knowing, all wise.”

Before orthodoxy, pages 198-199

.

Dhahaak further elaborates on the meaning of Tamanna, from the following page:

.

By Tamanna, is meant: recitation. Into the recitation of the prophet

.

The clear identical meaning of the word Tamanna aside, there are other striking similarities to Al-Dhahaaks tafsir and the narration of Al-Awfi:

.

Although it is not stated explicitly (as it is in Riwayah 34 [the Narration of Dhahaak]), the logic of the narrative in Riwayah 35 [the Narration of Ibn Abbas by Al-Awfi] would seem to pre-suppose that here, too, the prophet is repeating the verse “have you seen Al-Lat, Al-Uzza and Manat, the third, the other?” We are told that the prophet is reciting Surat Al-Najm and that when Quraysh hesr him mentioning their Gods, they gather round him to listen to what he has to say. There is, of course, only one mention of the Gods of Quraysh in Surat Al-Najm, so for Quraysh to hear the prophet mentioning their Gods and to then have the time to gather round him to listen, the prophet must, by implication, be repeating the verse in question. The similarly between the narratives is underlined by the presence in both Riwayahs of the distinctive phrase “the God of the Arabs”, which does not occur in any other Riwayah. […] (This) raises the question of whether the two reports are somehow linked as regards transmission. The most obvious candidate a link is Abd Allah Ibn Abbas, whose tafsir tradition al-Dahhak is also known to have transmitted; one wonders if both Riwayahs 34 and 35 stem from an interpretation of the incident taught by ibn Abbas.

Before orthodoxy, pages 209-210

.

So here we have at least 20 Hadith transmitted from ibn Abbas through his students: Sayd Jubayr, Mujahid, Ikrimah, Abu Salih, Al-Awfi, Dhahaak, Ata, and an anonymous source. And even on top of this there is another tafsir report from Ibn Abbas which also has the word tamanna having a gloss of Muhammads utterances. This from the very famous tafsir transmission from another of his students, Ali b. Talhah:

.

“his words ‘when he tamanna, Satan cast into his umniyyah’: when he spoke, Satan cast into his speech”.

Before orthodoxy page 242

.

In his closing remarks on all the narrations of Ibn Abbas, Shahab Ahmed concludes:

.

On two fundamental points, they all present the same interpretation of the incident: they agree that the prophet uttered the satanic verses; and none of them makes any mention of the prophets desire, the default gloss for tamanna within the wording of the narratives being “recitation” – which is expressly stated in riwayah 37 [the narration transmitted to Ata. This gloss of it being Muhammads utterance is also expressly stated in the narration of Dhahaak “recitation” and Mujahid “to say” or “to speak” or “his speech”]. […] (They) all present what is essentially the same hermeneutical elaboration of the Satanic verses incident. […] The idea that the prophet uttered the satanic verses was seen by the late first- and early second-century Quran scholars who associated themselves with Ibn Abbas as constituting a standard element of his teachings.

Before orthodoxy, pages 241-244.

 

Shahab also notes on page 243 how the minor differences; Satan appearing in the form of jibril in the narrations of Ata and Salih, and the repetition motif of Dhahaak and Al-Awfi do “not contradict the fundamental two points stated above that constitute the common hermeneutical position of the reports attributed to Ibn Abbas”.

Here is a chart of the teachings of the Satanic verses incident Ibn Abbas through the centuries. Note that an orange line means there is a disconnection in the isnad: