The expression "Satanic Verses" is not a Quranic term or a term established by a sahih prophetic report. It is a later English label for disputed reports known in Muslim discussions as the story of the gharaniq. These reports allege that Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), while reciting Surat al-Najm, uttered words praising al-Lat, al-Uzza, and Manat, three idols venerated by the pagan Arabs. The alleged sentence is absent from the Quran and from all canonical qiraat. Nor is it established by a sahih and unambiguous connected report that the Prophet (PBUH) uttered such words during his recitation. What is authentically established is that he recited Surat al-Najm and prostrated, and that those present prostrated with him, with one exception mentioned in an authentic narration.
What is the allegation?
The familiar version claims that, after reciting the verses mentioning al-Lat, al-Uzza, and Manat, the Prophet (PBUH) allegedly added words to the effect of: "These are the exalted gharaniq, and indeed their intercession is hoped for." A frequently quoted wording is:
تلك الغرانيق العلى وإن شفاعتهن لترتجى
Tilka al-gharaniq al-ula, wa inna shafaatuhunna la-turtaja.
The reports do not all preserve this exact wording. Classical Arabic dictionaries give gharaniq several meanings, including certain birds and a handsome young man. In the alleged sentence, those who accept the wording understand it as a term of praise. The reports also differ over the central details. Some versions suggest that these words were placed on the Prophet's (PBUH) tongue, while others describe Satan as casting something into the hearing of the idolaters or causing them to misunderstand what was recited. They also differ over how the matter was later removed or corrected.
None of these varying accounts establishes the alleged sentence as part of the Quran. More importantly, the precise claim that the Prophet (PBUH) uttered it during his Quranic recitation is not established by a sahih and unambiguous connected report.
What is authentically established?
Sahih al-Bukhari records the recitation of Surat al-Najm and the resulting prostration. The authentic reports that preserve this event do not mention any satanic addition, praise of idols, or later correction by Jibril of an idol-praising recitation.
Abdullah ibn Masud reported that the first surah in which a prostration was revealed was Surat al-Najm. The Messenger of Allah (PBUH) recited it in Makkah and prostrated, and those present prostrated with him, except one man who took a handful of dust or pebbles and raised it to his forehead.
Sahih al-Bukhari 4863
Ibn Abbas reported that the Prophet (PBUH) prostrated while reciting Surat al-Najm, and with him prostrated the Muslims, the polytheists, the jinn, and the humans.
Sahih al-Bukhari 4862
These sound hadiths establish the recitation and the prostration. Their omission of the alleged story is not, by itself, a decisive disproof of every detail, since a concise hadith does not report everything that may have occurred. But they provide no support for the alleged addition and cannot be used to authenticate a story they do not contain. The fact that some polytheists prostrated does not show that they heard or accepted praise of their idols. The reports simply do not establish why each person prostrated.
A necessary distinction must therefore be maintained:
- The recitation of Surat al-Najm and the prostration are authentically established.
- The alleged words praising the idols are not found in the Quran or in the authentic reports of the event.
- The precise historical claim that the Prophet (PBUH) uttered those words as part of his recitation is not established by a sahih and unambiguous connected report.
What does Surat al-Najm actually say?
The received Quranic text does the opposite of what the allegation claims. After naming al-Lat, al-Uzza, and Manat, it rejects them as powerless names invented without divine authority.
Have you considered al-Lat and al-Uzza, and Manat, the third - the other one? Is the male for you and for Him the female? That, then, is an unjust division. They are nothing but names you have named - you and your fathers - for which Allah has sent down no authority. They follow nothing but assumption and what their souls desire, although guidance has already come to them from their Lord.
Quran 53:19-23
Near the beginning of the same surah, Allah affirms the truthfulness of the revelation conveyed by the Prophet (PBUH):
Your companion has neither strayed nor erred, nor does he speak from his own inclination. It is only revelation revealed.
Quran 53:2-4
In context, these verses concern the divine guidance and revelation conveyed by the Prophet (PBUH). They should not be misused to claim that every ordinary statement he made was revelation. Nevertheless, they are plainly consistent with the Quran's presentation of his faithful conveyance of revelation and inconsistent with treating an alleged idol-praising sentence as part of that revelation. They do not, by themselves, settle every claim about a temporary incident; that question must also be examined through the Quranic text and the chains of transmission.
The surah also denies independent intercession, even for angels, except after Allah permits it:
And how many angels there are in the heavens whose intercession will not avail at all except after Allah permits for whom He wills and approves.
Quran 53:26
And it ends with the command to prostrate to Allah:
So prostrate to Allah and worship.
Quran 53:62
Thus, the authentic report of prostration is entirely consistent with the surah itself. The idols are condemned, independent intercession is denied, and the concluding command is to prostrate to Allah alone. It is not sound scholarship to take an authentic report of prostration and attach to it a weak or disputed story as its explanation.
The Quranic principle
The Muslim position does not rest on claiming that no temporary confusion could ever be alleged in a historical report. It rests on the Quran transmitted by tawatur, the absence of the alleged wording from all canonical qiraat, the principles of hadith criticism, and Allah's promise to preserve His revelation.
Indeed, it is We who sent down the Reminder, and indeed, We will surely preserve it.
Quran 15:9
And if he had made up about Us some sayings, We would have seized him by the right hand; then We would have cut from him the aorta; and there is no one of you who could shield him from Us.
Quran 69:44-47
The Quran also describes Allah making His Messenger (PBUH) firm when faced with pressure to alter the revelation:
And they were about to tempt you away from that which We revealed to you, that you would invent against Us something else; and then they would have taken you as a close friend. And if We had not made you firm, you might have inclined to them a little. Then We would have made you taste double in life and double after death; then you would not find for yourself against Us a helper.
Quran 17:73-75
These verses do not mean that Satan cannot whisper, create confusion, or attempt to obstruct a prophetic mission. They mean that Allah does not allow satanic falsehood to remain as Quran or to become established revelation. A disputed historical report cannot override the mutawatir Quran, nor can it establish that words of shirk became part of a prophetic recitation.
Nor is this properly described as established abrogation of recitation. Abrogation, where established, requires revelation and sound evidence. The claim that a passage was once part of the Quran and was then removed cannot be inferred from reports whose chains and wording are themselves disputed. Even those who see a possible historical basis for some aspect of the story must distinguish between a temporary satanic attempt that Allah nullified and the Quran that Allah established and preserved. The alleged words are not part of the Quran.
Why does the story appear in early books?
It is true that versions of the story appear in early works of tafsir, history, and sira, including works that preserve reports with isnads. This should be acknowledged honestly. Early compilers often recorded reports so that their chains and contents could be examined; the presence of a narration in an early book is not, by itself, a judgment that it is authentic.
Al-Tabari, for example, transmitted versions of the account in his tafsir, but his inclusion of a report does not mean that every report he records is sahih. Reports must be assessed individually according to their chains, wording, and consistency with stronger evidence.
Classical scholars did not assess the reports in exactly the same way. Al-Bayhaqi judged the story not to be established by the available transmission routes. Ibn Kathir noted that the versions cited by the commentators were largely mursal and stated that he had not found the story through a sound connected chain. Ibn Hajar discussed the matter more favorably, arguing that the multiplicity of routes might indicate an underlying historical basis despite defects in the individual chains.
That is an important distinction. A scholar may consider that a general incident circulated early without authenticating the exact sentence as Quran or establishing a sound and unambiguous report that the Prophet (PBUH) recited it. Ibn Hajar's assessment does not make the alleged sentence part of the Quran, and it does not remove the need to examine the individual chains and the wording of each report. A careful Sunni response therefore does not need to deny that the report appeared early or that some scholars saw a possible basis for a general event. The precise point is that circulation is not authentication, and the specific accusation remains unproven by sound evidence.
What is wrong with the chains of narration?
1. Many important routes are mursal
Several well-known versions come through Successors who describe an early Makkan event without naming the Companion from whom they received the information. Such a report is mursal: the link between the Successor and the Prophet (PBUH), normally through a Companion, is omitted.
Hadith scholars differed over the evidentiary value of mursal reports. Some gave particular mursal reports weight when supported by independent evidence and other conditions. But a mursal report, especially when its supporting routes are also disputed, cannot by itself establish an accusation of this magnitude. Here, the Quranic context is also in tension with the alleged idol-praising wording, and no sound, unambiguous connected report confirms it.
2. Attributions to Ibn Abbas do not settle the matter
Some versions are attributed to Ibn Abbas or transmitted through routes associated with him. An attribution to a Companion is not automatically invalid merely because the Companion was not an eyewitness; Companions could narrate what they learned from other Companions. But the attribution must still be established through a reliable chain.
In this case, the relevant routes and their forms are disputed. Some are disconnected, some contain additional material not found in other versions, and the connection of certain routes has been questioned by hadith scholars. A report ending with Ibn Abbas is also not automatically a marfu report from the Prophet (PBUH). The correct conclusion is that no sound and uncontested connected marfu report establishes that the Prophet (PBUH) uttered the alleged words as part of his Quranic recitation.
3. The versions differ over the central details
The reports and explanations attached to them differ over whether Satan placed words on the Prophet's (PBUH) tongue, cast something into the hearing of the idolaters, caused them to misunderstand, or caused a temporary confusion that was later removed. They also differ in wording and in the account of how the matter was corrected.
Variation in historical reports does not by itself prove that every element is false. But when the disputed details concern the exact words allegedly recited as Quran, such variation reinforces the need for a sound isnad and a coherent matn. Those requirements are not met by the reports as a body, and the reports do not establish an unequivocal prophetic recitation of the alleged sentence.
4. The authentic narration contains no such words
The authentic reports say that the Prophet (PBUH) recited Surat al-Najm and that the listeners prostrated. They do not say that he praised idols, that Satan inserted words into the Quran, or that Jibril later corrected the recitation. These hadiths cannot be used to authenticate an additional story that they do not contain.
Does Quran 22:52 prove the story?
Quran 22:52 is sometimes cited as proof of the allegation. On the interpretation that understands tamanna as recitation, the verse may be translated:
Never did We send before you any messenger or prophet except that, when he recited, Satan cast something into his recitation. But Allah abolishes what Satan casts, then Allah makes His verses firm. And Allah is Knowing and Wise.
Quran 22:52
The wording reflects a genuine interpretive issue. The Arabic verb tamanna ordinarily relates to wishing or desiring, while a number of early exegetical explanations understand it in the sense of reciting. Classical exegetes therefore discussed more than one interpretation of the verse.
On the recitation-based interpretation, the verse says that Allah abolishes what Satan casts and then makes His verses firm. It does not mention Surat al-Najm, al-Lat, al-Uzza, Manat, or the alleged sentence. It does not say that words of shirk became part of the Quran, and it cannot independently authenticate reports whose chains are disputed. Rather, its wording explicitly presents Allah's action as removing what Satan casts and establishing His verses.
Other exegetes understood the verse according to the meaning of wishing or desiring, with Satan casting doubts or obstacles into what a messenger wished to accomplish. Therefore, using Quran 22:52 as proof of the gharaniq story is circular if the interpretation of the verse itself depends on those same reports. At most, on the recitation-based interpretation, the verse establishes that Satan attempts to interfere with prophetic activity while Allah nullifies that interference and establishes His revelation. It does not identify the alleged incident or prove that the Prophet (PBUH) recited idolatrous words as revelation.
Conclusion
The so-called "Satanic Verses" are not verses of the Quran. The exact claim that Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) recited praise of pagan idols is not established by a sound and unambiguous marfu report. The reports generally relied upon for it include mursal or otherwise disputed routes, vary in wording and meaning, or are transmitted through chains whose reliability or connection is contested. Some classical scholars considered that the reports might preserve a general historical core, but that judgment does not authenticate the alleged sentence or make it part of the Quran.
The sound account is that the Prophet (PBUH) recited Surat al-Najm and that listeners prostrated. The surah itself rejects the idols, denies independent intercession, and concludes with the command to prostrate to Allah. The authentic event and the Quranic text therefore provide no support for the claim that the Prophet (PBUH) recited satanic verses.
For more detail on the chains of transmission, the different versions of the story, and the Quranic evidence, see the related topic page on the Satanic Verses claim.