Originally posted by AshleyD
Although Muir coined the term "Satanic verses" which was obviously done to assume negative connotations, I am under the impression other Muslim
scholars this event was believed to have occurred although they were not referred to by the term Muir used. Can you explain how such a rumor came
about, why some believe it is true, and how they come to their conclusions that this event never happened? I understand about the goddesses of the
pagans but where/why did this rumor surface?
Hey AshleyD, hope you don't mind me answering this question for you. The source of the story is from Al-Tabiri's book, some 300 years after Muhammad
died. We cannot, however, blame Al-Tabiri if there are any inaccuracies, because he stated pretty clearly in the introduction that none of it is from
himself, it is all from narrators.
As for why it is considered to be false, there are a number of reasons:
1) The chain of narrators: all versions of the story have the chain of narration something along the lines of (starting from al-Tabiri, some 300 years
after Muhammad's death) - "Ibn Humayd told me, from Salama, from Muhammad ibn Ishaq, from Yazīd ibn Ziyād al-Madanī, from Muhammad ibn Ka'b
al-Qurazī" (To Ibn Ka'b, who is still 2 generations removed from Muhammad). Because of this, it is taken as mursal, and is unreliable.
2) The date of revelation of the original verse, and the date of revelation of the "refutation" verse is 8 years apart. However, the account tells
us that when the muslims who had migrated to Abyssinia heard of this, they came rushing back, only to find out that it was false, and thus had to
migrate a second time to Abyssinia. How could they have found out it was false if the response came 8 years later? More importantly, for those 8
years, why is there no information on the worshiping of the false goddesses by muslims? Why isn't there any report of mass conversions and
acceptances by the Meccans (who in the story all were delighted and joined in the with the muslims in their prayer)?
3) The textual continuity of the surah doesn't match up if the original verses are used, and the refutation and the original verses don't match up
either.
reply to post by TheWalkingFox
Hey, TheWalkingFox, it seems you've been misinformed. The complete Quran, in physical book form was compiled and completed 18 years after Muhammad's
death. Also, there are many, many translations of the Quran, but 1 standardised arabic text.
reply to post by heliosprime
Hello again heliosprime. You seem to be contradicting yourself. First you say that the Quran is historically lacking, that it wasn't Muhammad it was
revealed to, using the new-found texts (although nothing of these texts has been revealed, so at this point, it is all conjecture). Then you say that
no, it WAS revealed to Muhammad, but he is a liar, and satanically inspired. You'll excuse me for not taking your word for it?
Since you bring up a comparison of the historicity of the Quran vs. the Bible, I hope you don't mind if I take you up on it?
The oldest copy of any biblical text is from 100AD (although some don't trust the Dead Sea Scrolls), with the oldest copy of any NT biblical text
(parts of the Gospel of John, I think), coming a bit later. None of the texts are in the language of Jesus, and none of the texts can be attributed to
Jesus.
The oldest copy of any Quranic text is from 622AD (which is during the life of the prophet). The oldest COMPLETE copy has been carbon dated and found
to be from 645-690AD (13 to 58 years after the death of Muhammad). The Quran is written in arabic, and can be attributed to Muhammad.
By the way, you STILL haven't responded to my original question.
[edit on 24-1-2008 by babloyi]
) 
