THE DISMANTLING OF THE SATANIC VERSES

نصب المجانيق لنسف قصة الغرانيق

MUHAMMAD NAASIRUD-DEEN AL-ALBAANI

Copyright © August 2026 by TheAlbaani.Site

But feel free to print or use the book as you like as long as you link back to the site so that others can benefit.

The PDF version of this translation along with the Arabic in the margins can be found here.

The Shaikh’s Arabic original PDF of the book can be found here.

CONTENTS

The Meaning of the Satanic Verses

The Lie Against the Prophet ﷺ

Introduction

1. A Word on the Narrations

2. The Narrations Mentioning the Story and Their Defects

3. An Account of The Invalidity of The Story From a Textual Standpoint

4. Al-Ḥāfiẓ’s Statements and Their Refutation

5. The Principle of Strengthening a Ḥadīth By Means of Multiple Chains of Narration is Not Without Exception

6. The Weakness of Mursal Ḥadīth

7. Ibn al-ʿArabī’s Statements on the Invalidity of the Story

8. Qāḍī ʿIyāḍ’s Stance

9. Al-Ḥāfiẓ’s Rebuttal of Ibn al-ʿArabī and al-Qāḍī ʿIyāḍ and My Response to That

10. Ash-Shawkānī’s Statement

11. Al-Ālūsī’s Statements about the Story’s Falsehood

12. The Reason the Polytheists Prostrated Along with the Prophet ﷺ

Glossary of Ḥadīth Terms

About the Author

THE MEANING OF THE SATANIC VERSES

The Satanic Verses are:

وإنهن لَهن الغرانيق العلى

وإن شفاعتهن لَهِي التي تُرتَجى

“And indeed they are the exalted cranes, and verily their intercession—it is the one that is hoped for.”

The meaning of, “The exalted [or high flying] cranes:”

“Ibn al-Aʿrābī said, ‘Al-Gharānīq: the male species of the bird, its singular form is Gharnūq or Gharnīq. The polytheists used to claim that the idols would intercede for them and likened them to birds which go up towards the sky.’” Gharībul-Ḥadīth, vol. 2, p. 155.

“‘The cranes’ [mentioned in the narration] mean, ‘the idols.’ The word’s origin refers to the male species of an aquatic bird, its singular form is Gharnūq or Gharnīq and it is said that it is named as such due to its whiteness, and it is said that it is the Numidian crane [‘remarkable in the East for its superlatively-high flight,’ cf. Lane], … the polytheists used to think that their idols brought them closer to Allaah and would intercede on their behalf and so they were likened to these birds which fly up high in the sky.’” An-Nihāyah fī Gharībil-Ḥadīth wal-Athar, vol. 3, p. 364.

THE LIE AGAINST THE PROPHET ﷺ

“In the evening Jibrīl came to the Prophet ﷺ and the Prophet ﷺ recited [the sūrah] to him. When he reached the two sentences [i.e., the Satanic Verses] which the Devil had interjected, Jibrīl said, ‘I did not bring these two to you!’ So Allaah’s Messenger ﷺ said, ‘I have lied about Allaah and have said that which He did not say!’”

INTRODUCTION

In the Name of Allaah,

Most Beneficent, Most Merciful

All praise is due to Allaah Who chose our Prophet over all of mankind and protected him from the Devil ever inspiring evil to him. Addressing the accursed Iblīs, the Most High said, “You will certainly have no authority over My servants, except the deviant who follow you.” 15:42

In fact, the Most High, gave him ﷺ control over his devil-companion [Al-Qarīn], so how will those who are distant from Him be? As the saying of His noble Messenger ﷺ indicated, “There is not one among you except that Allaah has appointed a companion for him from the Jinn.”  They said, “Even you, O Messenger of Allaah?” He said, “Even me, but Allaah helped me with him, and he became a Muslim, so he only tells me to do good.”

And may Allaah praise Muḥammad with attributes of perfection before the Highest Assembly of angels, [Muḥammad] who He gave power to over Iblīs such that he ﷺ was almost about to strangle him to death and intended to tie him to one of the pillars of Medina’s Mosque⁠¹, and [may He also], right up until the Day of Judgement and before the Highest Assembly of angels praise his family, Companions and all those who seek to be led aright by following his guidance.

A scholar from our dear brothers who was sent to Pakistan for some academic purpose wrote to me on 14/7/1952 asking for my opinion concerning the ḥadīth of ‘the cranes’ [Gharānīq] about which two great Ḥāfiẓs, Ibn Kathīr the Damascene and Ibn Ḥajar the Egyptian, differed, the first rejected it and the second said it was a strong ḥadīth, and he requested that I not refrain from giving him an answer. So I spent some months waiting for an opportunity to be able to respond.

After the ʿĪd al-ʾAḍḥā prayer this year, 1952, a dear brother met me and he too asked me about the ḥadīth of the Gharānīq, so I responded telling him that it was not authentic but rather false and fabricated. He then mentioned a young man to me, someone in whose heart is a disease, who used that ḥadīth to show that the Prophet ﷺ used to—and far be it from him—say things to please the polytheists to draw them to himself, based upon this young man’s false claim that he was not a true Prophet but only pretending to be one in order to take a position of authority over them, a point some of the infidels of times past and present used to praise excessively without reason.

So that led me to make good the opportunity of the aforementioned ʿĪd and I began, whilst trusting in Allaah the Most Forgiving, to gather the paths of narration of that story from the books of Quranic exegesis [tafsīr] and ḥadīth, clarifying the hidden defects both in their text and chains of narration. I then made mention of al-Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar’s statement strengthening those ḥadīths and followed that up with a clarification of the invalidity of the result he came to, expounding on that with research and quotes from some of the eminent Imāms, those of great scrutiny in subsidiary issues and the fundamentals, which support the conclusion I came to concerning the dubiousness of this story and its futility and the obligation of rejecting it and not accepting it, believing in the Most High’s Statement, “So that you ˹believers˺ may have faith in Allaah and His Messenger, support and honour him, and glorify Allaah morning and evening.” 15:4

And so came about a book unique in its field and strong in its subject matter, removing the confusion of the believing brother and destroying the doubt of that hare-brained atheist, and I have called it, “Erecting the Ballista to Decimate the Story of the Cranes.”⁠²

I ask Allaah the Most High to make it sincerely for Him and to accept it from me as a defence of His Prophet ﷺ, and that He stores its reward for me for the Day when we will be in the utmost need of his intercession:

“The Day when neither wealth nor children will be of any benefit. Only those who come before Allaah with a pure heart ˹will be saved˺.” 26:88-89

Indeed He is the All-Hearing, the All-Knowing, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful.

Damascus, on 2/1/1372 ah, Sunday, 21st September, 1952.

Muḥammad Nāṣirud-Dīn al-Albaani.

1 This has been reported in Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī, 3/62 in Ibn Ḥajar’s Sharḥ, Muslim 2/72 and others.

2 Transl. note: the title makes more sense in Arabic, for the English I changed it to, “The Dismantling of the Satanic Verses,” to make it more accessible for the reader.

1

A WORD ON THE NARRATIONS

Before I begin listing the story’s narrations, I feel I must make some brief comments in order to make whole the benefit to be gained from this book.

This story has been mentioned by the scholars of tafsīr in relation to the Most High’s Statement:

“Whenever We sent a messenger or a prophet before you ˹O Prophet˺ and he recited [tamannā] ˹Our revelations˺, Satan would influence ˹people’s understanding of˺ his recitation [umniyyatihi]. But ˹eventually˺ Allaah would eliminate Satan’s influence. Then Allaah would ˹firmly˺ establish His revelations. And Allaah is All-Knowing, All-Wise. All that so He may make Satan’s influence a trial for those ˹hypocrites˺ whose hearts are sick and those ˹disbelievers˺ whose hearts are hardened. Surely the wrongdoers are totally engrossed in opposition. ˹This is˺ also so that those gifted with knowledge would know that this ˹revelation˺ is the truth from your Lord, so they have faith in it, and so their hearts would submit humbly to it. And Allaah surely guides the believers to the Straight Path.” 22:52-54

They differed concerning the explanation of, “tamannā” and “umniyyatihi” with the best explanation being that “tamannā” is from [the word] “al-umniyah” which means recitation, as the poet said about ʿUthmān, may Allaah be pleased with him, when he was killed:

He recited [tamannā] the Book of Allaah at the beginning of the night

And at its end did meet the appointed fate of death

Most of the scholars of Quranic exegesis [tafsīr] and verifiers are of this opinion, with Ibn Kathīr reporting it from most of the scholars of tafsīr. In fact, Ibn al-Qayyim attributed it to the Salaf without exception saying in Ighāthatul-Lahfān⁠¹ (1/93), “And the Salaf, all of them, hold that the meaning is: when he recited, the Devil threw [some misunderstanding or falsehood] into [في] his recitation.” And al-Qurṭubī explained it in his tafsīr (12/83), saying, “And Sulaimān ibn Ḥarb said, ‘Indeed [the preposition] ‘in/في’ means ‘at the time of/when,’ i.e.: the Devil threw [some misunderstanding/falsehood] into the hearts of the disbelievers at the time of the Prophet’s recitation ﷺ. This is similar to [the use of the preposition ‘in/في’] in His Statement: ‘… and you stayed in our care …’ 26:18 i.e., [the preposition ‘in/في in the above verse means] ‘among us,’ and this is the meaning of what Ibn ʿAṭiyyah reported from his father from the scholars of the East and al-Qāḍī Abū Bakr ibn al-ʿArabī indicated it too.’”

Qāḍī Abū Bakr’s statements shall be mentioned in due course, if Allaah the Most High wills, and what we have stated in terms of the explanation of the verse is what Imām Ibn Jarīr chose [as the correct opinion], and who, after quoting a group of the Salaf, (17/121), said, “And this statement is the most correct explanation of the verse, shown by the Most High’s Saying, ‘But Allaah abolishes that which Satan throws in. Then Allah would ˹firmly˺ establish His revelations …’ 22:52 because there is no doubt that the verses which Allaah makes precise are those of His Revelation, thus we come to know that what Shaiṭān threw in among them is what He said He abolished and nullified, and by annulling them He made His verses precise. So the meaning is:

‘And We did not send any messenger or prophet before you except that when he recited and read the Book of Allaah or made a Prophetic statement and spoke, the Devil interjected things in amongst the Book of Allaah which the Prophet was [then] reciting and reading or into his speech which he was making, [but] then Allaah would, through His Speech, abolish whatever the Devil threw in among it: i.e., Allaah would, through His Prophet, eliminate and nullify whatever it was the Devil interjected.’

This is the noble verse’s intended meaning and it contains, as you can see, nothing except the fact that at the time of the Prophet’s recital ﷺ the Devil interjected things which caused those in whose hearts a disease was to be put to trial.

But nothing satisfies the enemies of the religion who sit in wait at every path and lurk in the shadows at each and every point of ambush against it, except to thrust into it things not from it and which His Messenger did not say. And as you will soon see in the coming narrations, they mentioned things not becoming of the rank of Prophethood and Messengerhood—and that is their habit of old.

Just as they did with more than one verse about Prophets apart from Muhammad ﷺ like Dāwūd, Sulaimān and Yūsuf, alaihimuṣ-ṣalātu was-salām, such that, when explaining the verses about them, they reported Isrāʾīliyāt narrations [containing abominations] which it is not even permissible to attribute to a regular Muslim let alone a revered Prophet, and this can be seen in the relevant parts in the books of tafsīr and stories.

So beware, Muslim, of being deceived by any of that and as a result ending up amongst those destroyed, and, “Leave that which causes you to doubt for that which doesn’t,” as your Prophet ﷺ said. “And Allaah surely guides the believers to the Straight Path.” 22:54

1 See the Al-Maktab al-Islāmī and Dār al-Khānī prints, checked by Dr. Muḥammad Afīfī, 2nd edition, 1/150.

2

THE NARRATIONS MENTIONING THE STORY AND THEIR DEFECTS

After having mentioned the comments that I promised I would, I turn now to citing the narrations of the story I have come across so that we can list them one by one, and after each one, state its defect.

1) “From Saʿīd ibn Jubair, who said, ‘When this āyah was sent down: ‘So have you considered al-Lāt and al-ʿUzzā?’ 53:19 Allaah’s Messenger ﷺ recited it and said, ‘They are the exalted ‘cranes’ and indeed their intercession is hoped for,’ and Allaah’s Messenger ﷺ prostrated and thus the polytheists said, ‘He has not mentioned your gods positively before today.’ And so they prostrated along with him, and so Allaah sent down [the verse], ‘Whenever We sent a messenger or a prophet before you …’ up until, ‘ … the punishment of a barren Day.’” 22:52-55

Reported by Ibn Jarīr, 17/120, through two paths from Shuʿbah, Abū Bishr narrating it from him, and its chain of narration is authentic up to Ibn Jubair as al-Ḥāfiẓ said and as will be mentioned, and as-Suyūṭī agreed with him in that in Ad-Durr al-Manṯūr, 4/366, and he attributed it to Ibn al-Munḏir too and Ibn Mardawaih after citing something similar to it with the wording, “The Devil threw onto his tongue, ‘They are the exalted idols [cranes],’” and in it there occurs, “Then Jibrīl came to him after that and said, ‘Recite to me what I came to you with.’ So when he reached, ‘They are the exalted idols, and indeed their intercession is hoped for,’ Jibrīl said, ‘I did not come to you with this! This is from Shaiṭān!’ So Allaah revealed, ‘Whenever We sent a messenger or a prophet before you …’” 22:52

Al-Wāḥidī also reported it like that in Asbāb an-Nuzūl from a different path from Saʿīd ibn Ḥasan, as will follow. And it has been transmitted in an uninterrupted form [mowṣūl] from Abu Saʿīd but is not authentic, reported by al-Bazzār⁠¹ in his Musnad:

“… from Yūsuf bin Ḥammād from ʾUmayyah bin Khālid from Shuʿbah from Abū Bishr from Saʿīd ibn Jubair from Ibn ʿAbbās—as far as I know, the doubt is in the ḥadīth—that the Prophet ﷺ recited Sūrah an-Najam in Makkah until he came to His Saying, ‘Now, have you considered ˹the idols of˺ al-Lāt and al-ʿUzzā?’” 53:19

And then he mentioned the remainder [of the ḥadīth]. Then al-Bazzār said, “We do not know it to have been narrated with a connected chain of narration [muttaṣil] except this one, ʾUmayyah ibn Khālid was alone in reporting it in a connected form, and he is trustworthy and well-known, otherwise this has only been reported through al-Kalbī from Abū Ṣāliḥ from Ibn ʿAbbās,” such is the quote in Tafsīr Ibn Kathīr 3/129.

In Takhrīj al-Kashhāf, 4/11, al-Ḥāfiẓ attributed this narration to al-Bazzār, aṭ-Ṭabarī and Ibn Mardawaih, but his attribution of it to aṭ-Ṭabarī is an oversight on his part for it is not in his tafsīr, as far as I know, except if he means that it is reported in his other books apart from his tafsīr, and I do not think he means that, what supports me in this [assumption] is that in Ad-Durr, as-Suyūṭī attributed it to all of them except aṭ-Ṭabarī.

However as-Suyūṭī too was mistaken when he said in addition to what has just been mentioned, “And aḍ-Ḍiyāʾ [also reported it] in Al-Mukhtārah with a chain of narration whose men are all trustworthy through Saʿīd ibn Jubair from Ibn ʿAbbās who said that Allaah’s Messenger ﷺ recited …” then he mentioned a ḥadīth like the mursal one we just quoted from ad-Durr itself.

The misleading point in what he said is his statement, “…with a chain of narration whose men are all trustworthy …” [this statement] in addition to the fact that aḍ-Ḍiyāʾ reported it in Al-Mukhtārah gives the false impression that it does not have a hidden defect which is not the case, for it is defective due to the uncertainty of the narrator about it being connected as we quoted from Tafsīr Ibn Kathīr, Takhrīj al-Kashhāf and others, and this [Transl. note: i.e., the uncertainty of the narrator that the Shaikh is talking about is where the narrator in the isnād said, “—as far as I know, the doubt is in the ḥadīth—”] is something which was not mentioned in the wording as-Suyūṭī listed. I do not know whether that was due to him summarising the ḥadīth or some of the collectors of the ḥadīth summarising it?⁠²

Whatever the case, it was not becoming of as-Suyūṭī to be unaware of this defect, especially when he openly stated that which gives the impression that the chain of narration is authentic, which is misleading as is not hidden—for doubt [by its very nature] is something that cannot be relied on and is something that has no truth to it—as al-Qāḍī ʿIyāḍ said in ash-Shifā, 2/118.

Al-Ḥāfiẓ agreed with him in at-Takhrīj but at the end of it he said, “Aṭ-Ṭabarī reported it through Saʿīd ibn Jubair in mursal form, and Ibn Mardawaih reported it through Abū ʿĀṣim an-Nabīl from ʿUthmān ibn al-ʾAswad from Saʿīd ibn Jubair from Ibn ʿAbbās and others, and he did not doubt about it being continuously uninterrupted [muttaṣil], and this is the most authentic of the paths of narration of the ḥadīth. Al-Bazzār said …”

I say: we have already quoted al-Bazzār’s statement just now [so there is no need to repeat it here]. Al-Ḥāfiẓ then mentioned some mursal narrations and said, “So these mursal narrations strengthen one another.”

I say: there is some discrepancy in al-Ḥāfiẓ’s expression, and I do not know whether that is from him or from the transcribers, which is the likely case, because if we were to take his statement, “… and this is the most authentic of the paths of narration of the ḥadīth,” to be referring back to the last thing he mentioned—which is the path of Ibn Mardawaih and which is mowṣūl as is evident—[then] a number of things would [actually] prevent us from doing that:

The first: Al-Ḥāfiẓ’s statement after that, “So these mursal narrations strengthen one another,” indicating that there is no authentic mowṣūl chain of narration upon which to rely for otherwise he would have stopped at it and made it the foundation [upon which to rely] and would have made the mursal path a supporting witness for it and something which strengthened it, this is supported by the following point:

The second: Is that when al-Ḥāfiẓ rejected al-Qāḍī ʿIyāḍ’s declaration of al-Bazzār’s isnād to be weak due to that doubt, he said, “As for its weakness, then there is no weakness in it to begin with, (I say: i.e., referring to weakness in its narrators), for all of them are trustworthy. And as for the doubt, then that would have had an affect [on the authenticity of the ḥadīth] if it were a single narrator [on his own, and even then] that, at most, would have made it a mursal narration, and ʿIyāḍ and others hold such narrations to be valid proof because they accept the mursal narrations of a trustworthy narrator. And when such narrations are strengthened by the presence of lots of supporting narrations, they are [then even] regarded as proof by those who reject mursal narrations.”

So al-Ḥāfiẓ has accepted that the ḥadīth is mursal but he went on to declare it to be strengthened due to its many paths of narration, and a clarification of [what] that [assumption contains] will come in our rebuttal of him, if Allaah the Most High wills.

So if the mowṣūl chain of narration of Ibn Mardawaih was authentic in the eyes of al-Ḥāfiẓ he would have used it to answer al-Qāḍī ʿIyāḍ, and he would not have made the many chains of narration his basis in answering him, and this is something plain and evident.

The third: is that in his book Fatḥul-Bārī, al-Ḥāfiẓ did not [even] allude to this path of narration in the slightest, so if it were the most authentic of the paths of narration of the ḥadīth he would have expressed it unreservedly and would have made it his main foundation in this issue.

The fourth: That those who came after him, like as-Suyūṭī and others, did not mention this narration.

Thus, all of these issues prevent us from taking the demonstrative pronoun ‘that’ to refer back to the last thing he mentioned [which is the mowṣūl path of Ibn Mardawaih], and compel us to take it to refer to what was mentioned prior to it, which is the path of narration before this one, i.e., the mursal path of Saʿīd ibn Jubair, which is the one al-Ḥāfiẓ relied on in Al-Fatḥ and which he held to be the lead narration, with the others being supporting ones. We followed his lead in that by mentioning this narration of Ibn Jubair first, even though we disagree with him concerning the point about these paths of narration strengthening each other.

This is bearing in mind that the narrators mentioned in the mowṣūl part of Ibn Mardawaih’s isnād are trustworthy, men who the two Shaikhs [i.e., Bukhārī and Muslim] reported from—but there must be a defect in those below Abū ʿĀṣim an-Nabīl in the chain, and what gives strength to this, and I am referring to the fact that the chain of narration has a defect, is that I saw this narration reported by al-Wāḥidī in Asbāb an-Nuzūl, p. 233, by way of Sahl al-ʿAskarī who said:

“Yaḥyā (I say: he is referring to al-Qaṭṭān) informed me from ʿUthmān ibn al-ʾAswad from Saʿīd ibn Jubair that, ‘Allaah’s Messenger ﷺ recited: ‘Now, have you considered ˹the idols of˺ al-Lāt and al-ʿUzzā?’ 53:19 Then the Devil threw on his tongue, ‘They are the exalted cranes, and their intercession is hoped for,’ and thus the polytheists were pleased and said, ‘He has mentioned our gods.’ So Jibrīl came to Allaah’s Messenger ﷺ and said, ‘Read Allaah’s Speech [back] to me.’ So when he recited it he said, ‘As for this, then I did not bring it to you. This is from the Devil.’ And so Allaah the Most High revealed, ‘Whenever We sent a messenger or a prophet before you …’’” 22:52

So the ḥadīth from ʿUthmān ibn al-ʾAswad from Saʿīd went back to being mursal, which is what is correct, due to this narration of ʿUthmān conforming to the narration of Abū Bishr from Saʿīd.

Later I came across the chain of narration of Ibn Mardawaih and his wording of the ḥadīth through ad-Ḍiyāʾ al-Maqdisī in Al-Mukhtārah, 1/230/60, with his [i.e., al-Maqdisī’s] chain of narration going back to him, he said:

“Ibrāhīm ibn Muḥammad reported to me [that] Abū Bakr Muḥammad ibn ʿAlī al-Muqriʾ al-Baghdādī reported to me [that] Jaʿfar ibn Muḥammad aṭ-Ṭayālisī reported to me [that] Ibrāhīm ibn Muḥammad ibn ʿArʿarah reported to me [that] Abū ʿĀṣim an-Nabīl reported to me [that] ʿUthmān ibn al-ʾAswad reported to me from Saʿīd ibn Jubair from Ibn ʿAbbās that Allaah’s Messenger ﷺ recited: ‘Now, have you considered ˹the idols of˺ al-Lāt and al-ʿUzzā?’ 53:19 They are the exalted cranes, and their intercession is hoped for.’ And so the polytheists were pleased at that and said, ‘He has mentioned our gods.’ So Jibrīl came to him and said, ‘Recite to me what I brought to you.’ So he recited: ‘Now, have you considered ˹the idols of˺ al-Lāt and al-ʿUzzā? 53:19 They are the exalted cranes, and their intercession is hoped for.’ So he said, ‘I did not bring this to you. This is from the Devil! or he said, ‘This is from the Devil, I did not bring it to you!’ So Allaah sent down: ‘Whenever We sent a messenger or a prophet before you ˹O Prophet˺ and he recited ˹Our revelations˺, Satan would throw into it [some misunderstanding] …’ 22:52 to the end of the āyah.”

I say: and this is a chain of narration whose men are all trustworthy, all of them are narrators listed in at-Tahdhīb—except the ones before Ibn ʿArʿarah, there is no one in it that needs to be looked at [since they are all weak narrators] apart from Abū Bakr Muḥammad ibn ʿAlī al-Muqriʾ al-Baghdādī. Al-Khaṭīb mentioned him in Tārīkh Baghdād, 3/68-69, saying, “Muḥammad ibn ʿAlī ibn Ḥasan Abū Bakr al-Muqriʾ reported from Maḥmūd ibn Khaddāsh and Muḥammad ibn ʿAmr and Ibn Abī Maḏʿūr. Aḥmad ibn Kāmil al-Qāḍī and Muḥammad ibn Aḥmad ibn Yaḥyā al-ʿAṭashī reported from him.” He then quoted one ḥadīth of his in which he had the kunya, ‘Abū Ḥarb,’ so I do not know whether that was another kunya of his or whether the scribe or copyist made a mistake. Then al-Khaṭīb said that al-ʿAṭashī, “… passed away in 300,” not mentioning any criticism or praise of him, so his condition as a narrator is unknown—and this is the hidden defect [ʿillah] of this mowṣūl isnād. He is not Abū Bakr Muḥammad ibn Ibrāhīm ibn ʿAlī ibn ʿĀṣim al-Aṣbahānī, well-known as Ibn al-Muqriʾ, the trustworthy Ḥāfiẓ, for he came after him by about a century and was one of Ibn Mardawaih’s Shaikhs, he died in 381ah, in At-Tadhkirah, 3/172, it says 281ah, which is a mistake.

So from what has preceded the correctness of what I had asserted before looking at the chain of narration of Ibn Mardawaih has been established, “That the defect is in someone before Abū ʿĀṣim an-Nabīl,” and we also established with greater certainty the fact that what is correct is that ʿUthmān ibn al-Aswad reported it from Saʿīd ibn Jubair in mursal form only, as al-Wāḥidī reported, in opposition to Ibn Mardawaih’s narration from him.

So in conclusion, the ḥadīth is mursal and is not authentic from Saʿīd ibn Jubair in mowṣūl form whatsoever.

2) “From Ibn Shihāb [who said], ‘Abū Bakr ibn ʿAbdur-Raḥmān ibn al-Ḥārith reported to me, ‘That when Allaah’s Messenger ﷺ was in Makkah he recited: ‘By the stars when they fade away!’ 53:1 until when he got to: ‘Now, have you considered ˹the idols of˺ al-Lāt and al-ʿUzzā?’ 53:19 He said, ‘Indeed their intercession is hoped for,’ Allaah’s Messenger ﷺ got distracted and so the polytheists in whose hearts was a disease met him and gave salām to him and were pleased with that, so he said to them, ‘That was only from the Devil,’ and so Allaah sent down: ‘And We did not send before you any messenger or prophet …’ up until, ‘But Allaah abolishes that which Satan throws in …’” 22:52

Reported by Ibn Jarīr, 17/121, and its chain of narration to Abū Bakr ibn ʿAbdur-Raḥmān is authentic as as-Suyūṭī said following al-Ḥāfiẓ in that, but its defect is that it is mursal⁠³ and as-Suyūṭī also attributed it to ʿAbd ibn Ḥumaid, and Ibn Abī Ḥātim reported it through Muḥammad ibn Fulaiḥ, from Mūsā ibn ʿUqbah, from Ibn Shihāb who mentioned it in a longer version, and he did not mention Abū Bakr ibn ʿAbdur-Raḥmān in its chain of narration so it is mursal, in fact muʿḍal, and its wording as is mentioned in Ibn Kathīr and Ad-Durr is:

“When Sūrah Najam was revealed the polytheists used to say, ‘If this man mentioned our gods favourably we would acknowledge him and his companions—he does not mention those Jews and Christians who oppose his religion with the same revilement and evil that he mentions about our gods,’ and their harm and lies against Allaah’s Messenger ﷺ and his Companions had become most severe, their misguidance grieved him and so he wanted their harm to stop (and in Ibn Kathīr there occurs, ‘their guidance.’) so when Allaah sent down Sūrah Najam and said: ‘Now, have you considered ˹the idols of˺ al-Lāt and al-ʿUzzā? And the third one, Manāt, as well?’ 53:19-20 When the ṭāghūts were mentioned the Devil threw some words [forth] and said, ‘And indeed they are the cranes, most exalted, and verily their intercession—it is the one that is hoped for.’ So that was from the Devil’s rhymed prose and his fitnah. These two sentences found a place in the heart of every polytheist in Makkah and were flowing from their mouths and they rejoiced in them with one another, saying, ‘Indeed Muḥammad has returned to his original religion, that of his people.’ So when Allaah’s Messenger reached the end of Sūrah Najam, he prostrated and everyone who was present, Muslim and polytheist, prostrated along with him. And that sentence spread amongst the people and the Devil made it known until it spread to Abyssinia and so Allaah revealed: ‘Whenever We sent a messenger or a prophet before you .…’ 22:52 And so when Allaah made His Divine Decree clear and absolved it from the Devil’s rhyming prose, the polytheists turned in their misguidance and enmity against the Muslims and became severe against him ﷺ.”

Reported by al-Baihaqī in Dalāʾilul-Nubuwwah from Mūsā ibn ʿUqbah who reported it in his [book] al-Maghāzī with a wording similar to it but he did not mention Ibn Shihāb, as occurs in Ad-Durr, 4/367, and others.

3) “From Abul-ʿĀliyah who said, ‘Quraish said to Allaah’s Messenger ﷺ, ‘The people who sit with you are merely the slaves of Banū so and so, and the freed-slaves of so and so. Would that you would mention our gods with something [good, then] we would sit with you, for the nobles amongst the Arabs come to you and if they were to see that your people’s noblemen were sitting with you that would make them more desirous of you.’ He said, ‘So the Devil threw [some misunderstanding] into it and so this āyah was sent down: ‘Now, have you considered ˹the idols of˺ al-Lāt and al-ʿUzzā? And the third one, Manāt, as well?’  53:19-20 He said, ‘So the Devil caused [the following] to flow on his tongue, ‘They are the exalted cranes, and their intercession is hoped for, the likes of them are not forgotten.’ He said, ‘So the Prophet ﷺ prostrated when he recited them and the Muslims and the polytheists prostrated along with him. And so when he came to know what had been brought about on his tongue it was difficult upon him and so Allaah sent down: ‘Whenever We sent a messenger or a prophet before you .…’  up until: ‘… and Allaah is All-Knowing, All-Wise.’ ” 22:52

Reported by aṭ-Ṭabarī, 17/120, through two paths of narration from Dāwūd ibn Abī Hind from Abul-ʿĀliyah, and its chain of narration is authentic up to him but its defect is that the tābiʿī did not name who he heard it from [irsāl]. It was also reported by Ibn al-Mundhir and Ibn Abī Ḥātim.

4) “From Muḥammad ibn Kaʿb al-Quraẓī and Muḥammad ibn Qais who both said, ‘Allaah’s Messenger ﷺ sat down in one of the gatherings of Quraish where there were a lot of people. So that day he wished that nothing from Allaah would be revealed to him so that they would not turn away from him. Then Allaah sent down to him: ‘By the stars when they fade away! Your fellow man [i.e., Muhammad] is neither misguided nor astray.’ 53:1-2 So Allaah’s Messenger ﷺ recited it until when he got to: ‘Now, have you considered ˹the idols of˺ al-Lāt and al-ʿUzzā? And the third one, Manāt, as well?’  53:19-20 the Devil threw two sentences at him, ‘They are the exalted cranes, and verily their intercession is hoped for,’ he uttered them and carried on and recited the entire chapter and then prostrated at its end and the people all prostrated along with him. Al-Walīd ibn al-Mughīrah raised some dust to his forehead and prostrated on it, he was an old man and was not able to prostrate [normally]. And so they were pleased with what he had said and said, ‘We know that Allaah gives life and death and that He is the One who creates and provides but these gods of ours intercede with Him, if you give them a portion then we are with you.’ They both [the two narrators of this ḥadīth] said, ‘In the evening Jibrīl came to him and he ﷺ recited [the sūrah] to him, when he reached the two sentences which the Devil had interjected, he [i.e., Jibrīl] said, ‘I did not bring these two to you!’ So Allaah’s Messenger ﷺ said, ‘I have lied about Allaah and have said that which He did not say!’ So Allaah revealed to him: ‘They definitely ˹thought they˺ were about to lure you away from what We have revealed to you ˹O Prophet˺, hoping that you would attribute something else to Us falsely... ’ 17:73 up to: ‘... and you would have found no helper against Us.’⁠⁴ 17:75 And so he remained grief-stricken and distressed until the following was sent down to him: ‘Whenever We sent a messenger or a prophet before you ˹O Prophet˺ and he recited ˹Our revelations˺ …’ 22:52 He said, ‘So those Muhājirs who were in Abyssinia heard that all the people of Makkah had embraced Islaam and so they went back to their kinsfolk saying, ‘That is more beloved to us.’ Then they found that the people had relapsed when Allaah had invalidated what the Devil had thrown forth.’”

Reported by Ibn Jarīr, 17/119, through Abū Maʿshar from them both, and Abu Maʿshar is weak as al-Ḥāfiẓ said in At-Taqrīb, his name is Najīḥ ibn ʿAbdur-Raḥmān as-Sindī. Ibn Jarīr reported it by way of Ibn Isḥāq from Yazīd ibn Ziyād al-Madanī from Muḥammad ibn Kaʿb al-Quraẓī alone in a more complete version, and in it [there occurs]:

“‘So when Quraish heard that, they were joyous, and what he mentioned about their gods pleased and delighted them and so they hearkened to him. And the believers believe what their Prophet brought to them from their Lord and do not accuse him of making a mistake or imagining [something] or slipping up,’ the ḥadīth.”

Yazīd is trustworthy but the one narrating from him, Ibn Isḥāq, conceals defects in traditions that he reports, [he is a mudallis], and [also in addition to that] in this chain he has reported it using the method of “ʿanʿan.”

5) “From Qatādah that the Prophet ﷺ used to wish that Allaah would not criticise the gods of the polytheists, so the Devil threw [the following] into his recitation saying, ‘Indeed the gods that are called upon, verily their intercession is hoped for, and indeed they are the exalted cranes,’ so Allaah abolished that and made precise His verses: ‘Now, have you considered ˹the idols of˺ al-Lāt and al-ʿUzzā? And the third one, Manāt, as well?’  53:19-20 up until: ‘… no authority.’”⁠⁵ 53:19-23 Qatādah said, ‘When the Devil threw forth what he threw, the polytheists said, ‘Allaah has mentioned your gods favourably,’ and they were pleased at that, so he mentioned His Saying: ‘All that so He may make Satan’s influence a trial for those ˹hypocrites˺ whose hearts are sick ...’” 22:53

Reported by Ibn Jarīr, 17/122, from two paths of narration from Muʿammar from Qatādah, and it is authentic up to Qatādah but it is mursal or muʿḍal. Ibn Abi Ḥātim has reported a more complete version as occurs in Ad-Durr:

“He said, ‘Allaah’s Messenger ﷺ was praying by the Maqām, [then] he felt drowsy, so the Devil threw a statement onto his tongue and so he uttered it, and the polytheists latched on to it using it against him, so he said: ‘Now, have you considered ˹the idols of˺ al-Lāt and al-ʿUzzā? And the third one, Manāt, as well?’  53:19-20 So the Devil threw [the following] onto his tongue and falsely said, ‘And indeed their intercession is hoped for, and verily it [i.e., the intercession] is with the exalted cranes.’ And so the polytheists memorised it and the Devil informed them that Allaah’s Prophet ﷺ had recited it, and so it began to flow easily on their tongues, and so Allaah sent down: ‘Whenever We sent a messenger or a prophet before you ˹O Prophet˺ and he recited ˹Our revelations˺ …’ 22:52 So Allaah defeated the Devil and taught His Prophet His decisive argument.”

6) “From ʿUrwah, i.e., Ibn az-Zubair, when listing the names of the people who migrated to Abyssinia. (I [i.e., al-Albaani] say: and in it there occurs:), ‘… and so the polytheists said, ‘If this man would mention our gods favourably, we would acknowledge him and his Companions, for he does not mention any of the Jews and Christians who have opposed his religion with the revilement or evil he mentions our gods with. So when Allaah, the Mighty and Majestic, sent down the Sūrah in which wan-Najam is mentioned and he recited: ‘Now, have you considered ˹the idols of˺ al-Lāt and al-ʿUzzā? And the third one, Manāt, as well?’  53:19-20 The Devil threw in amongst that a mention of the ṭāghūts, saying, ‘And indeed they are the exalted cranes! And verily their intercession is surely hoped for,’—and that is from the Devil’s rhyme and his fitnah. And thus these two sentences took hold in the heart of every polytheist and it began to flow easily on their tongues, and they rejoiced at it, saying, ‘Indeed Muhammad has come back to his first religion, to the religion of his people.’ So when Allaah’s Messenger ﷺ reached the end of the Sūrah in which the star [Najam] is mentioned he prostrated and everyone present, Muslim and polytheist, prostrated along with him, except for al-Walīd ibn al-Mughīrah, he was an aged man so he raised his palm, full of dust, and prostrated on it. And both parties were astonished at their unison in prostrating at the prostration of Allaah’s Messenger ﷺ. The Muslims were amazed at the prostration of the polytheists, [done] without faith and certainty, the Muslims had not heard what the Devil had thrown forth on the tongue of the polytheists. And as for the polytheists, they felt at peace with the Prophet ﷺ (and his Companions due to what they had heard the Devil throw forth at the time of the Prophet’s recitation ﷺ) and the Devil told them that the Prophet ﷺ had recited it in the prostration [that occurs at the end of Sūrah Najam], and so they prostrated in veneration of their gods, and so that statement spread amongst the people and the Devil made it known until it spread to Abyssinia … and that was difficult on Allaah’s Messenger ﷺ and so in the evening Jibrīl came to him (ﷺ and he complained to him and so he ordered him to recite and he did, and when he ﷺ reached it Jibrīl dissociated himself from it)⁠⁶ and said, ‘[I seek] refuge with Allaah from these two [sentences], my Lord did not send them down, and nor did your Lord order me with them! [i.e., order me to recite them].’ And so when Allaah’s Messenger ﷺ saw that [reaction from Jibrīl] it became unbearable for him, and he said, ‘I have obeyed the Devil and have spoken his words and he has become a partner with me in Allaah’s Command.’ And so Allaah (the Mighty and Majestic) abolished what the Devil had thrown forth, and sent down to the Prophet ﷺ: ‘Whenever We sent a messenger or a prophet before you …’  up to: ‘… are totally engrossed in opposition.’ 22:52-53 And so when Allaah, the Mighty and Majestic, exonerated him from the Devil’s rhyme and his trial, the polytheists turned against him with their misguidance and enmity.”

Reported by aṭ-Ṭabarānī in this mursal form, as occurs in Al-Majmaʿ, 6/32-34 and 7/70-72⁠⁷ and he said, “Ibn Lahīʿah is in it and narrations that Ibn Lahīʿah is alone in reporting are unacceptable.”

7) “From Abū Ṣāliḥ who said, ‘Allaah’s Messenger ﷺ stood up and so the polytheists said, ‘If he mentions our gods favourably we will mention his god favourably.’ And so upon his recitation of: ‘Now, have you considered ˹the idols of˺ al-Lāt and al-ʿUzzā? And the third one, Manāt, as well?’ 53:19-20 [The Devil] threw in amongst it, ‘Indeed they are amongst the exalted cranes and verily their intercession is hoped for.’ He said, ‘So Allaah sent down: ‘Whenever We sent a messenger or a prophet before you …’’’”

Reported by ʿAbd ibn Ḥumaid as occurs in Ad-Durr, 4/366, where as-Suddī reported it from him. Ibn Abī Ḥātim reported it from as-Suddī, stopping at as-Suddī [and not mentioning anyone else], with the wording:

“He said, ‘The Prophet ﷺ went out to the mosque to pray, while he was reciting he [got to the part where] he said: ‘Now, have you considered ˹the idols of˺ al-Lāt and al-ʿUzzā? And the third one, Manāt, as well?’ 53:19-20 And so the Devil threw on to his tongue [the following] saying, ‘They are the exalted cranes, and indeed their intercession is hoped for.’ Until when he got to the end of the chapter he prostrated and his Companions prostrated, and the polytheists prostrated due to their gods having been mentioned and so when he raised his head they quickly dispersed with it to the ends of Makkah, saying, ‘The Prophet of Banī ʿAbd-Manāf!’ Until when Jibrīl came he recited to him and read those two sentences and so Jibrīl said, ‘[I seek] refuge with Allaah from ever having taught you to recite this!’ So that became difficult for him and so Allaah, consoling him, sent the verse down: ‘Whenever We sent a messenger or a prophet before you …’’” 22:52

I say: And it has been reported in an uninterrupted form from Ibn ʿAbbās which Ibn Mardawaih reported through al-Kalbī from Abū Ṣāliḥ from Ibn ʿAbbās. This chain of narration is very weak, fabricated in fact, for Sufyān said, ‘Al-Kalbī said to me, ‘Everything I related to you from Abū Ṣāliḥ is a lie.’ Al-Kalbī’s name is Muḥammad ibn as-Sāʾib and he was a mufassir, a genealogist and a historian. And Ibn Ḥibbān said, ‘Al-Kalbī was one of the followers of ʿAbdullah bin Sabaʾ, those who say, ‘ʿAlī has not died and he is going to come back to this world and fill it with justice just as it had been filled with oppression,’ and if they saw a cloud they would say, ‘The Chief of the Believers is in it.’’ He said: and his madhhab in the religion and the obviousness of his lies concerning it are more plain to see than to require a deep description of it. He reports tafsīr from Abū Ṣāliḥ from Ibn ʿAbbās, but Abū Ṣāliḥ did not meet Ibn ʿAbbās and nor did al-Kalbī hear from Abū Ṣāliḥ except here and there. It is not allowed to [even] make mention of al-Kalbī [himself] in books, let alone rely on what he reports as proof⁠⁸ or support.’

And it has been reported from other paths from Ibn ʿAbbās whose mention will follow, and none of them are authentic.

8) “From aḍ-Ḍaḥḥāk who said concerning His Statement: ‘Whenever We sent a messenger or a prophet before you …,’ 22:52 ‘So verily when Allaah’s Prophet ﷺ was in Makkah Allaah sent down [some verses] to him regarding the gods of the Arabs, and so he started to recite [the verses about] al-Lāt and al-ʿUzzā, repeating them amply, and so the people of Makkah heard the Prophet ﷺ mentioning their gods and became pleased at that and came close, listening, and so the Devil threw forth [the following] in amongst the recitation of the Prophet ﷺ, ‘They are the exalted cranes, and from them is intercession hoped for.’ And so the Prophet ﷺ recited it like that, and so Allaah sent down to him: ‘Whenever We sent a messenger or a prophet before you …’  up until: ‘… and Allaah is All-Knowing, All-Wise.’’” 22:52

Reported by Ibn Jarīr, 17/121, who said: “I was narrated to from al-Ḥussain who said: I heard Abū Muʿādh saying: ʿUbaid informed us [and] said, ‘I heard aḍ-Ḍaḥḥāk saying …’”

I say: This is a weak [ḍaʿīf], disconnected [munqaṭiʿ] and loose [mursal] chain of narration. It appears that the aḍ-Ḍaḥḥāk referred to is Ibn Muzāḥim al-Hilālī al-Khurasānī, and he is someone who performs irsāl abundantly as al-Ḥāfiẓ said, such that it was said, “It has not been established that he heard from a single Companion.” And the person reporting from him is ʿUbaid who I do not recognise⁠⁹. And it seems that Abū Muʿādh is Sulaimān ibn ʾArqam al-Baṣrī, who is weak, as is mentioned in At-Taqrīb. The narrator from him is al-Ḥussain who is Ibn al-Faraj Abū ʿAlī and it was also said that his kunyā is Abū Ṣāliḥ, he is known as Ibn al-Khayyāṭ and also as al-Baghdādī, he is weak and abandoned as a narrator, there is a biography of him in Tārīkh Baghdād, Al-Mīzān and Al-Lisān. And the Shaikh of Ibn Jarīr in the isnād is unknown as a narrator and has not been named.

9) “From Muḥammad ibn Faḍālah aẓ-Ẓafarī and al-Muṭṭalib ibn ʿAbdullah ibn Ḥanṭab who both said, ‘Allaah’s Messenger ﷺ saw that his people had distanced themselves from him, so he sat down in isolation and hoped [for something] and so said, ‘Would that nothing which will drive them away from me is revealed to me.’ And Allaah’s Messenger ﷺ approached his people and came close to them and they to him. And so one day he sat down in one of the public gatherings around the Ka’bah, and he recited to them: ‘By the stars when they fade away! Your fellow man is neither misguided nor astray,’ 53:1-2 until when he got to: ‘Now, have you considered ˹the idols of˺ al-Lāt and al-ʿUzzā? And the third one, Manāt, as well?’  53:19-20 the Devil threw forth two sentences on his tongue, ‘They are the exalted cranes, and indeed their intercession is hoped for.’ And so Allaah’s Messenger ﷺ said them and then continued reciting until he finished the whole sūrah, and he prostrated and all of the people prostrated with him. Al-Walīd ibn al-Mughīrah raised up some dirt to his forehead and prostrated on it, he was an old man who was not able to prostrate [normally], and it has been said that Abū Uḥaiḥah Saʿīd ibn al-ʿĀṣ took some dust and prostrated on it, raising it to his forehead, he [too] was an old man. So some people say that the one who raised the dust up was al-Walīd and others that it was Abū Uḥaiḥah, and some say that both of them did it. And so they were pleased at what Allaah’s Messenger ﷺ said and they said, ‘We know that Allaah gives life and takes it, creates and provides, but these gods of ours intercede for us before Him. And if you give them a share, we are with you.’ And so that statement of theirs bore heavily upon Allaah’s Messenger ﷺ and he withdrew to his home. When evening came, Jibrīl came to him and he recited the chapter to him and so Jibrīl said, ‘I brought these two sentences to you⁠¹⁰!?’ So Allaah’s Messenger ﷺ said, ‘I have attributed to Allaah that which He did not say.’ So Allaah revealed to him: ‘They definitely ˹thought they˺ were about to lure you away from what We have revealed to you ˹O Prophet˺, hoping that you would attribute something else to Us falsely—and then they would have certainly taken you as a close friend. Had We not made you steadfast, you probably would have inclined to them a little, and then We truly would have made you taste double ˹punishment˺ both in this life and after death, and you would have found no helper against Us.’” 17:73-75

Reported by Ibn Saʿd in Aṭ-Ṭabaqāt, vol. 1, paper 1, page 137⁠¹¹: “Muḥammad ibn ʿUmar reported to us, saying: Yūnus ibn Muḥammad ibn Faḍālah aẓ-Ẓafarī reported to me from his father, saying: and Kathīr ibn Zaid reported to me from al-Muṭṭalib ibn ’Abdullah ibn Ḥanṭab who both said: …”

I say: and this chain of narration is very weak because in At-Taqrīb, al-Ḥāfiẓ said about Muḥammad ibn ʿUmar, who is al-Wāqidī, “Abandoned [as a narrator] despite his vast knowledge,” and I could not find a biography of his Shaikh in the first chain of narration, Yūnus ibn Muḥammad, and nor his father Muḥammad ibn Faḍālah, then I saw that Ibn Abī Ḥātim mentioned them both, 4/1/55 and 4/2/236, but he did not mention any criticism or praise concerning them. And in the second chain of narration there is Kathīr ibn Zaid, who is al-Aslamī al-Madanī, there is a difference of opinion about him, with al-Ḥāfiẓ saying, “He is truthful but makes mistakes.”

In addition to this it is mursal because al-Muṭṭalib ibn ʿAbdullah ibn Ḥanṭab conceals defects in ḥadīths [tadlīs] and also drops narrators [irsāl] abundantly as mentioned in At-Taqrīb. For this reason, after mentioning the second narration and relating that an-Naḥḥās had declared both of them to be weak, al-Qurṭubī said, “An-Naḥḥās said, ‘This ḥadīth is rejected [munkar] and disconnected, especially when it is one of al-Wāqidī’s.’”

10) “From Ibn ʿAbbās that Allaah’s Messenger ﷺ recited Surah an-Najam in Makkah, and so he came to this verse: ‘Now, have you considered ˹the idols of˺ al-Lāt and al-ʿUzzā? And the third one, Manāt, as well?’ 53:19-20 and the Devil threw on to his tongue [the following], ‘Indeed they are the exalted cranes,’ so Allaah sent down the verse: ‘Whenever We sent a messenger or a prophet before you … .’”  22:52

As-Suyūṭī reported it as such in Ad-Durr al-Manthūr, 4/267, and said, “[1] Ibn Mardawaih related it by way of al-Kalbī from Abū Ṣāliḥ from Ibn ʿAbbās, [2] and by way of Abū Bakr al-Hudhalī and Ayyūb from ʿIkrimah from Ibn ʿAbbās, [3] and by way of Sulaimān at-Taimī from someone who reported it to him from Ibn ʿAbbās.” I say: so these are three chains of narration from Ibn ʿAbbās and they are all weak.

The first path has al-Kalbī in it who is a liar as was mentioned previously. The second has an unnamed narrator, and the third contains Abū Bakr al-Hudhalī, about whom al-Ḥāfiẓ said in At-Taqrīb, “A historian, someone whose ḥadīth are abandoned,” but Ayyūb was also mentioned in it, and it appears that it is [Ayyūb] as-Sakhtiyānī, so there has to be someone in the path who is not accepted as a reliable narrator because al-Ḥāfiẓ said in Al-Fatḥ, 8/355, after relating it from the three lines of transmission, “And all of them are weak or disconnected.”

And he mentioned that which shows that Ibn Mardawaih reported it through ʿAbbād ibn Suhaib and he is abandoned as a narrator, as al-Ḥāfiẓ adh-Dhahabī said in his biography in Al-Mīzān.

It also has a fourth chain of narration, reported by Ibn Jarīr, 17/120:

“Muḥammad ibn Saʿd reported to me, saying: My father reported to me, saying: My uncle reported to me, saying: My father reported to me from his father from Ibn ’Abbās, ‘That while Allaah’s Prophet ﷺ was praying, the story of the gods of the Arabs was sent down to him, and so he started to recite it, and the polytheists heard him, so they said, ‘Verily, we can hear him mentioning our gods favourably.’ So they came closer to him, then whilst he was saying: ‘Now, have you considered ˹the idols of˺ al-Lāt and al-ʿUzzā? And the third one, Manāt, as well?’ 53:19-20 The Devil threw forth, ‘Indeed they are the exalted cranes, from them is intercession hoped for,’ and so he began to recite it, and Jibrīl ﷺ descended and abrogated it, and then said to him: ‘Whenever We sent a messenger or a prophet before you …’” 22:52

Reported by Ibn Mardawaih also as occurs in Ad-Durr, 4/366. I say: this chain of narration is very weak, having a series of weak narrators [one after another]: Muḥammad ibn Saʿd who is Ibn Muḥammad ibn al-Ḥasan ibn ʿAtiyyah ibn Junādah Abu Jaʿfar al-ʿAwfī, al-Khaṭīb wrote a biography about him in Tārīkh Baghdād, 5/322-323, and said, “He was layyin in ḥadīth.”

Al-Khaṭīb also wrote a biography of his father Saʿd ibn Muḥammad, 9/126-127, and he reported that Aḥmad said, “He was not someone who deserved to be written from, nor fit for that.”

His uncle is al-Ḥusain ibn al-Ḥusain ibn ʿAtiyyah ibn Saʿd and his weakness as a narrator is agreed upon, al-Khaṭīb wrote a biography of him and others, 8/29-32, and his father, al-Ḥasan ibn ʿAtiyyah is also unanimously regarded as a weak narrator, Ibn Ḥibbān mentioned him in Aḍ-Ḍuʿafā [“The Weak Narrators”] and said, “His ḥadīths are rejected, and I do not know whether he is the problem or his son or both of them together?” His biography is in Tahdhīb at-Tahdhīb. ʿAtiyyah, his father, is also well-known as a weak narrator.⁠¹²

1 I say: and at-Ṭabarānī reported it in Al-Muʿjam al-Kabīr, leaf 162, page 2, from a handwritten copy in Al-Maktabah aẓ-Ẓāhiriyyah under ḥadīth number 283 [and it has been printed with the checking of Ḥamdī ʿAbdul-Majīd as-Salafī, see number 12/12450], he said, “Ḥusain ibn Isḥāq at-Tustarī and ʿAbdān ibn Aḥmad said that Yūsuf ibn Ḥammād al-Maʿnī reported it to us, and in it there occurs, ‘The Devil threw on his tongue, ‘They are the exalted cranes, their intercession is hoped for,’” reported by aḍ-Ḍiyāʾ al-Maqdisī in Al-Mukhtāraah, page 120/1/2, by way of aṭ-Ṭabarānī and Ibn Mardawaih from a number of paths from Yusuf.

2 Then I saw that as-Suyūṭī did mention the doubt about it being a marfūʿ narration in his book Asbāb an-Nuzūl, and so he was correct [in that judgement], and so it became clear that no one else is responsible for it being narrated in the form that did not convey that doubt. [see p. 50 for the definition of a marfūʿ narration]

3 And an-Naḥḥās said, “This is a disconnected ḥadīth in which this grave matter is mentioned,” quoted in al-Qurṭubī, 12/81.

4 The complete āyahs are: “They definitely ˹thought they˺ were about to lure you away from what We have revealed to you ˹O Prophet˺, hoping that you would attribute something else to Us falsely—and then they would have certainly taken you as a close friend. Had We not made you steadfast, you probably would have inclined to them a little, and then We truly would have made you taste double ˹punishment˺ both in this life and after death, and you would have found no helper against Us.” 17:73-75

5 The complete verses are: “So have you considered al-Lāt and al-ʿUzzā? And Manāt, the third—the other one? Is the male for you and for Him the female? That, then, is an unjust division. They are not but [mere] names you have named them—you and your forefathers—for which Allaah has sent down no authority.” 53:19-23

6 That which is between the two brackets is an addition taken from Al-Muʿjam al-Kabīr and was not in our previous edition [of this book], see the one printed in 9/8316.

7 Later I came across it in his Al-Muʿjam al-Kabīr, vol. 3, page 2, second side, from a Ẓāhiriyyah [library] handwritten copy under number 283, and its chain of narration is as follows: Muḥammad ibn ʿUmar ibn Khālid al-Ḥarrānī reported to us [that]: Ibn Lahīʿah reported to us from Abul-ʾAswad from ʿUrwah.

8 I quoted this from Mīzānul-Iʿtidāl fī Naqdir-Rijāl of Imām adh-Dhahabī.

9 Later it became clear to me that he is Ibn Sulaimān al-Bāhilī and he narrated from aḍ-Ḍaḥḥāk ibn Muzāḥim, and from him a number of people, among them Abū Muʿādh al-Faḍl ibn Khālid an-Naḥwī. In At-Taqrīb he [i.e., al-Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar] said, “There is no harm in him [as a narrator].” And from what we have mentioned it also becomes clear that Abū Muʿādh, the one narrating from ʿUbaid is not Sulaimān ibn ʾArqam but rather al-Faḍl ibn Khālid an-Naḥwī, Ibn Abī Ḥātim mentioned him in Al-Jarḥ wat-Taʿdīl, 3/2/61, but he didn’t mention any criticism or praise of him.

10 This is how it is written in the original and it is permitted as istifhām inkārī [Trans. note, an exclamatory statement expressing disapproval or the inveracity of something], and in al-Qurṭubī reporting it from al-Wāḥidī it says, “I did not come to you …”

11 Refer to the Dar Ṣādir print, 1/205.

12 The invalidity of attributing this story to Ibn ʿAbbās, especially through the narration of Ayyūb from ʿIkrimah from him, is further proven by the fact that aṭ-Ṭabarānī reported it in an abridged form in Al-Muʿjam al-Kabīr, paper 138, first side, and 11/11866 of the printed edition, through two paths of narration from ʿAbdul-Wārith [who said]: “Ayyūb reported to us from ʿIkrimah from Ibn ʿAbbās that the Prophet ﷺ prostrated while he was in Makkah due to [the prostration that occurs at the end of Surah] an-Najam and the Muslims and the polytheists prostrated along with him,” this chain of narration is authentic according to the standard of Bukhārī, so it is this portion of the story which is authentic from Ibn ʿAbbās and other Companions, whose mention will follow.

3

AN ACCOUNT OF THE INVALIDITY OF THE STORY FROM A TEXTUAL STANDPOINT

Those then are the story’s narrations, all of them are defective as you have seen, due to the absence of the mention of the narrator between the successor [tābiʿī] and the Prophet [irsāl], and due to being weak, and the fact that some of the narrators in the chains are unknown. Nothing in them is suitable to be used as proof—especially in a matter as grave as this one.

Additionally, the story’s weakness, invalidity rather, is confirmed by the contradictions and strange and reprehensible things it contains which do not befit the station of Prophethood and Messengerhood, a point which is elucidated by the following.

Firstly: in all of the narrations, or most of them, it is mentioned that the Devil uttered that absurd sentence, “Those are the exalted cranes and indeed their intercession is hoped for,” which praises the idols of the polytheists on the tongue of the Prophet ﷺ.

Secondly: in some of them, like the fourth narration, there occurs, “And the believers believe in what their Prophet brought to them from their Lord and do not accuse him of making a mistake or imagining something or slipping up,” so this mentions that the believers heard that from him ﷺ and did not realise that it was an interjection from the Devil but that in fact they believed that it was from The Most Merciful’s Revelation! Whereas the sixth narration says, “… and the Muslims had not heard what the Devil had thrown forth …,” so this contradicts that.

Thirdly: some of the narrations, like nos. one, four, seven and nine, mention that the Prophet ﷺ remained for some time not knowing that it was from the Devil until Jibrīl said to him, “[I seek] refuge in Allaah! I did not bring this to you! This is from the Devil!”

Fourthly: in the second narration, it is mentioned that the Prophet ﷺ became forgetful to the extent that he said that! If that were the case, would he not have caught on and realised what had happened?

Fifthly: in the fourth path of transmission of the tenth narration it says it was interjected while he was praying!

Sixthly: in narrations four, five and nine there occurs that he ﷺ wished that no revelation finding fault with the gods of the polytheists would be revealed to him so that they would not flee from him! Refer to the fourth point of Ibn al-ʿArabī’s forthcoming statements in chapter 7.

Seventhly: narrations four, six and nine say that when Jibrīl disapproved of it, he ﷺ said, “I have lied against Allaah and have said that which He did not say! And the Devil has become a partner with me in Allaah’s affair!!”

So these are catastrophes which it is obligatory to declare the Messenger ﷺ free from, especially this last one, for if it were an authentic narration then the [following] Saying of Allaah would apply to him, may the praise and peace of Allaah be upon him—and far be it from him [to ever fall into such a thing]: “Had the Messenger made up something in Our Name, We would have certainly seized him by his right hand—then severed his aorta.” 69:44-46

Thus from what has preceded the falsehood of the story both in its chains of narration and the [actual wording and] text of the narrations has been established.

And all praise is due to Allaah for the success He granted and His Guidance.

4

AL-ḤĀFIẒ’S STATEMENTS AND THEIR REFUTATION

It may be said that what you have concluded regarding the weakness of the story’s chains of narration and the invalidity of its text contradicts the conclusion that al-Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Hajar came to in saying that it is a strengthened narration, as was previously mentioned.

The answer is that this does not harm us in any way. If we have disagreed with him then at the same time we have still agreed with a group of the Imāms of Ḥadīth and knowledge who will be mentioned later, following them is more deserving—and not because they are greater in number—but because the correct, scholarly critique is with them, and may Allaah have mercy on the one who said, “The truth is not known by men, know the Truth—ye shall know its men.”

To clarify this I have to quote al-Ḥāfiẓ’s words in full, and then follow them up with an explanation of my own view on the matter and the correct position I advocate.

So I say:

In Al-Fatḥ, 8/354-355, after he presented and checked the first narration along with some of the others previously mentioned, al-Ḥāfiẓ said, “All of them except for the narration from the path of Saʿīd ibn Jubair are either weak or disconnected, however, the abundance of the paths of narration indicates that the story has a basis, moreover it has two other mursal lines of transmission whose narrators meet the criteria of the narrators included in the two Ṣaḥīḥs,” (he then mentions narrations numbers two and three and says), “… and Abū Bakr ibn al-ʿArabī was audacious as is his habit, and [went and] said, ‘Aṭ-Ṭabarī mentioned many narrations about it which are false and baseless,’ but this is a generalisation that is rejected from him. The same goes for the statement of ʿIyāḍ [where he said], ‘None of the Ahluṣ-Ṣiḥḥah [scholars who collected authentic ḥadīths] have reported this ḥadīth. Nor has a trustworthy narrator reported it with a sound, connected chain of narration. This is in addition to the weakness of its transmitters, the inconsistencies in the narrations and the disconnectedness of its chain of narration.’ And likewise his statement, ‘Not one of the Tābiʿīn and scholars of tafsīr who this story has been reported from did so with a chain of narration.’ And then he refuted it from a rational perspective, saying that had this actually occurred, many of those who had accepted Islam would have apostatised, and he said, ‘And that was not reported [to have happened],’ end quote. [Ibn Ḥajar continues] And all of that does not conform with the established principles [of ḥadīth science] for when the paths of narration are numerous and their sources vary, it indicates that they have an origin, and I have mentioned three of those chains of narration which meet the condition of the Ṣaḥīḥ, and they are mursal narrations, which, because of their supporting one another, are accepted by both those scholars who do use mursal narrations as proof and also those who do not use them as proof.”

5

THE PRINCIPLE OF STRENGTHENING A ḤADĪTH BY MEANS OF MULTIPLE CHAINS OF NARRATION IS NOT WITHOUT EXCEPTION

The answer to what al-Ḥāfiẓ said is from several angles.

Firstly: the principle he referred to, that a ḥadīth is strengthened due to the abundance of its paths of narrations, is not universal or absolute. Several leading ḥadīth verification experts from the scholars of ḥadīth have pointed this out, amongst them is al-Ḥāfiẓ Abu ’Umar ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ, who, may Allaah have mercy on him, said in his Muqaddimah ʿUlūm al-Ḥadīth, pp. 36-37:

“And perchance an astute researcher will say, ‘We find ḥadīths judged as weak, despite having been reported with many isnāds through numerous lines of transmission, such as the ḥadīth, ‘The ears are part of the head,’⁠¹ and similar ones. Why do you not include that ḥadīth and others like it in the category of ḥasan [“fair”] ḥadīth, because the various versions reinforce one another, in the fashion you previously described regarding the ḥasan category of ḥadīth?’

The answer to that is that not every weakness found in a ḥadīth is eliminated due to it being reported from several paths of transmission, rather, the situation varies. So in some narrations it being reported through several lines of transmission does eliminate the weakness, when the weakness is of the type that emanates from some deficiency in the narrator’s retention but where his accuracy in that narration has not been compromised. Similarly if his weakness is on account of irsāl [looseness] then it disappears because of something along those lines—as is the case with the loose [mursal] ḥadīth which an expert authority, an Imām-Ḥāfiẓ, transmits as mursal—since it contains just a small weakness which disappears through its narration from another line of transmission.⁠²

[On the other hand] there are also types of weakness that are not eliminated in this way on account of the severity of the weakness, and the failure of these other isnāds to mend or fend it off. An example of this is the weakness that arises due to the narrator being accused of lying or on account of the ḥadīth being anomalous [shādh]. This is an outline whose particulars can be acquired through practice and study. So be aware of that, for it is a fine and precious point.”

I [Al-Albaani] say: he has spoken the truth, may the Most High have mercy on him, for heedlessness of this fine point has led many scholars, especially those engaged in fiqh, to fall into a flagrant error: namely, declaring many weak ḥadīths to be authentic due to their being deceived by the abundance of their lines of transmission, while neglecting the fact that a ḥadīth with that type of weakness cannot be remedied [by the multiplicity of chains], in fact, it only adds weakness upon weakness. Among such cases is the ḥadīth of Ibn ʿAbbās about this story: all of its chains of narration are severely weak [ḍaʿīf jiddan] so it cannot be strengthened with them to begin with.

However, the question remains regarding the other chains of narration of the hadith: do they strengthen it or not?

Know, then, that they are all loose traditions [mursal], and in addition to being mursal they also have the hidden defects of being weak and having unknown narrators, as previously detailed—except for the first four chains, nos. one, two, three and five. These are the ones worthy of examination, because al-Ḥāfiẓ, may Allaah have mercy on him, made them the foundation on which he based his authentication of the story, and on whose account he said the story was strengthened.

This is something I disagree with him on, I do not concur with him on this point.

Explaining this requires a concise, beneficial introduction, if Allaah the Most High wills.

1 I regard this ḥadīth as being Ṣaḥīḥ li-Ghairihī, for it has been reported from seven Companions from different paths of narration. Al-Mundhirī, Ibn Daqīq al-ʿĪd, Ibn at-Turkamānī and az-Zailaʿī declared one of them to be strengthened, and because of that I mentioned it in my book, Ṣaḥīḥ Sunan Abī Dāwūd, no. 123, and spoke about it there. Then I printed it in Silsilah al-Aḥādīth aṣ-Ṣaḥīḥah, no. 36, and mentioned its paths of narration, some of which are Ṣaḥīḥ li-Dhātihī, so refer back to it, if you so wish.

2 And this is not without restriction [or open ended] as will be mentioned from Sharḥ an-Nukhbah of Ibn al-Ḥajar, p. 23.

6

THE WEAKNESS OF MURSAL ḤADĪTH

The second aspect: and it consists of establishing two fundamental points.

Firstly, that a mursal ḥadīth—even if the one performing the loosening [irsāl] is trustworthy—is not accepted as evidence by the Imāms of ḥadīth, as Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāh explained and was resolute about in his ʿUlūmul-Ḥadīth, on page 58, saying:

“Know that the ruling on a mursal ḥadīth is that it is treated as weak, except if it is authentically reported through another chain as clarified earlier … and what I have mentioned about the invalidity of using the mursal ḥadīth as proof and judging it to be weak is the doctrine that the majority of ḥadīth masters [ḥuffāẓ] and critics [nuqqād] settled on, and it is what they reiterated often in their works.”

The second: is to know the reason why the scholars of ḥadīth do not use the mursal ḥadīth as valid proof. Be aware, then, that the reason is because the intermediary who is being reported from is unknown.

Al-Khaṭīb al-Baghdādī clarified this in Al-Kāfiyah fī ʿIlmir-Riwāyah, where after giving an account of the disagreement about acting upon a mursal ḥadīth, he said on page 287, “And the view that I choose is that the obligation of acting upon mursal narrations is null and void, that the mursal narration is unacceptable. What shows this is that the loosening of a ḥadīth means not knowing the very person who narrated it, it being impossible to know whether he was upright when you don’t know who you are referring to. And we have previously clarified that it is only allowed to accept narrations from someone whose integrity is known, and so it is for this reason that the mursal report must not be accepted. Additionally, if a trustworthy narrator is asked who he performed the irsāl from but he doesn’t say that it is someone with integrity [ʿadl], then acting upon his narrations is not an obligation, unless the reliability of that person is established from another source. The same goes for when he is the one who starts off by not mentioning the unknown narrator and by not saying he was someone of integrity, since by virtue of him not naming him he has, [as a result,] not declared him to be an upright narrator, and thus narrations must not be accepted from him.”

And in Sharḥ Nukhbatil-Fikr, p. 17, after mentioning the mursal ḥadīth amongst, “The Types of Ḥadīth Which Are Rejected,” al-Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar said, “And it has only been mentioned in the section of rejected ḥadīths due to the unfamiliarity of the state of the missing narrator. This is because it is possible that it is a Companion, or it is possible that it is a Successor [Tābiʿī]. In the latter case, it is possible that he is weak and it is possible that he [might be] trustworthy. And if he is trustworthy, then it is possible that he may be narrating it from a Companion but at the same time it is also possible that he may be narrating it from another Tābiʿī. If it is the second scenario [i.e., from another Tābiʿī and not a Companion] then the previous uncertainty [i.e., that the Tābiʿī can be either weak or trustworthy] applies again and multiplies.

Theoretically, it could go on like this infinitely. In practice, it extends to six or seven [links], which is the most that has been found in the narrations of the Tābiʿīn from each other.

If it is known that a Tābiʿī’s practice is only to drop mention of someone trustworthy, then the majority of ḥadīth scholars are of the opinion that one should withhold judgement [tawaqquf] because the possibility still remains, this is one of the two opinions of [Imām] Aḥmad, the other is that it is accepted unreservedly.

Ash-Shāfiʿī, may Allaah be pleased with him, said it is accepted if it is supported by a ḥadīth coming from another path distinct from the first, whether this path is musnad or mursal, due to this favouring the possibility that the omitted narrator is, in fact, trustworthy.”

I say: so the mursal ḥadīth is not accepted due to the missing narrator’s anonymity—thus the response to him is that the opinion of it being supported through another mursal narration is not strong, because it is possible that all those who transmitted it as mursal only took it from a single narrator, and that if that is the case the possibilities that al-Ḥāfiẓ mentioned apply.

It is as though Imām ash-Shāfiʿī, may Allaah have mercy on him, noticed this possibility and how strong [a doubt in the chain] it was and so stipulated that the tābiʿī performing the irsāl in the second mursal narration must be reporting it from narrators the first tābiʿī did not use, as Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ mentioned. This is as if to make it more likely that the omitted person in one of the mursal narrations is different from the one omitted in the other mursal narration.

This is a fine point which I have not seen anyone apart from ash-Shāfiʿī mention, may Allaah have mercy on him, so memorise it and bear it in mind when you come across mursal ḥadīths which some people strengthen—without having considered this important condition—merely due to the fact that they have been reported from two mursal paths.

Then I saw that the Shaikh of Islam Ibn Taymiyyah had also mentioned a beneficial statement about this condition when writing about the principles of tafsīr, al-Ḥāfiẓ Muḥammad ibn ʿAbdul-Hādī quoted it from him in a book of his which is in manuscript form on the topic of weak and fabricated ḥadīths, under ḥadīth number 221/405. Ibn Taymiyyah, may Allaah the Most High have mercy on him, said, “Most of the narrations about the reasons for the revelation of the Qurʾān [Asbāb an-Nuzūl] are mursal and don’t have a continuous chain of authorities that can be traced all the way back to the Prophet ﷺ [musnad], which is why Imām Aḥmad said, ‘Three fields of knowledge have no chain of transmission …’ and in another wording, ‘… have no basis: tafsīr, maghāzī [military campaigns], and malāḥim [apocalyptic events],’ i.e., meaning their ḥadīths are mursal, not having an isnād.”’

The scholars have differed as to whether to accept or reject mursal ḥadīths. The soundest opinion is that some of them are accepted, some rejected, and some suspended. The mursal narrations of a person who only does irsāl from a trustworthy narrator are accepted.

The mursal narrations of someone known to do irsāl from both trustworthy and non-trustworthy narrators are counted as being narrations from a person whose condition is unknown, and as a result are suspended.

Mursal reports which contradict what trustworthy narrators [thiqāt] report are rejected. And if a mursal narration comes to us from two paths, each of the two narrators reporting it from a different Shaikh, then this indicates its truthfulness, for it is not usually conceivable that such a coincidence in error or deliberate fabrication would occur.”

I [al-Albaani] say: even though verifying the presence of this condition in every mursal ḥadīth of this type is not an easy matter—even if it were met—another problem would arise: it is possible that each of the two intermediary narrators or more are weak, and it is possible that their weakness is of the first type, which can be compensated for [by it being reported from another route, see chapter 5] as previously mentioned from Ibn al-Salah, and it is also possible that it is of the other type, which is not strengthened by multiplicity of routes.

So with these possibilities, using a mursal ḥadīth as proof becomes invalid even if its paths of narration are numerous.

This detailed point is something I have not found anyone before me mentioning—if I am correct, then it is from Allaah and the thanks are for Him. If I am mistaken, it is from myself and I seek Allaah’s Forgiveness for my sin.

In summary, what stops a mursal ḥadīth, which has multiple narrators performing irsāl, from being used as evidence is one of two possibilities:

(i) the source [i.e., Shaikh] of both the mursal narrators is the same.

(ii) that the source is a group of people but all are severely weak.

After this preface we can say that if we look at the narrations of this story we find that all of them are mursal, except for the ḥadīth of Ibn ʿAbbās, but all of its paths of narration, are weak, severely weak and cannot be used to strengthen those other seven mursal narrations. Of those seven, the chains of four of them are authentic, i.e., the mursal of Saʿīd ibn Jubair, Abū Bakr ibn ʿAbdur-Raḥmān ibn al-Ḥārith and Abul-ʿĀliyah, nos. 1-3 and Qatādah’s, no. 5. But the two aforementioned possibilities apply to all of them, because the narrators are all of the same generation [ṭabaqah]: Saʿīd ibn Jubair passed away in 99ah, Abū Bakr ibn ʿAbdur-Raḥmān in 94ah, Abul-ʿĀliyah, whose name is Rufaiʿ, in 90ah, and Qatādah in approximately 110ah. The first was from Kūfah, the second from Madīnah and the last two from Baṣrah. So it is possible that their source who they all took and narrated this story from is one person, and he is an unknown narrator. It is also possible that it is narrated by a group of people but that all of them are weak.

Thus with the presence of such possibilities one is not at peace accepting this ḥadīth of theirs, especially when it is about an event as great as this which touches on the noble station [of the Prophet ﷺ].

It is not surprising then as to why scholars have successively rejected it, indeed utterly condemning its validity, and the only way to do so in terms of its line of transmission is through what I have mentioned, even though I did not come across anyone who explicitly stated that, as I said earlier.

Al-Fakhr ar-Rāzī said in his tafsīr, (6/193), “It has been reported that Muḥammad ibn Isḥāq ibn Khuzaimah⁠¹ was asked about this story, so he replied, ‘It is something the heretics [zanādiqah] fabricated,’ and he wrote a book about it.”

Imām Abū Bakr Aḥmad ibn al-Ḥusain al-Baihaqī said, “This story is not established by transmission,” and then he went on to discuss the fact the narrators of this story have been criticised.

Also, in his Ṣaḥīḥ, Bukhārī narrated that the Prophet ﷺ recited Surah an-Najam and prostrated, and the Muslims, the polytheists, the people and the Jinn [all] prostrated with him, but there is no mention of the ḥadīth of the false idols [cranes/Gharānīq] in it. He reported this ḥadīth from many paths of narration and they [all] contain absolutely no mention of this ḥadīth of the false idols [cranes/Gharānīq].

A group of other Imāms and scholars followed these scholars too, and here are their names in order of their deaths:

1) Abū Bakr Muḥammad ʿAbdullah ibn Muḥammad, well-known as Ibn al-ʿArabī, d. 542ah, in his tafsīr, ‘Aḥkāmul-Qurʾān.’

2) Al-Qāḍī ʿIyāḍ ibn Mūsā ibn ʿIyāḍ, d. 544ah, in his book, ‘Ash-Shifā fī Ḥuqūq al-Muṣtafā.’

3) Fakhar ad-Dīn Muḥammad ibn ʿUmar ibn al-Ḥasan ar-Rāzī, d. 606ah, in his tafsīr, ‘Mafātīḥul-Ghaib,’ 6/193-197, some of what he said has been mentioned earlier.

4) Muḥammad ibn Aḥmad al-Anṣārī Abū ʿAbdullah al-Qurtubī in ‘Aḥkāmul-Qurʾān,’ 12/80-84.

5) Muḥammad ibn Yūsuf ibn ʿAlī al-Kirmānī who was one of the commentators on Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī, d. 786ah, and al-Ḥāfiẓ quoted what he said concerning this issue in al-Fatḥ, 8/498.

6) Maḥmūd ibn Aḥmad Badrud-Dīn al-ʿAinī, d. 855ah, in ʿUmdatul-Qārī, 9/47.

7) Muḥammad ibn ʿAlī ibn Muḥammad al-Yamānī, ash-Shawkānī, d. 1250ah, in Al-Fatḥ al-Qadīr, 3/247-248.

8) As-Sayyid Maḥmūd Abul-Faḍl Shihābud-Dīn al-Ālūsī, d. 1270ah, in ‘Rūḥul-Maʿānī,’ 17/160-169.

9) Ṣiddīq Ḥasan Khān Abuṭ-Ṭayyib, d. 1307ah, in his tafsīr, ‘Fatḥul-Bayān.’

10) Muḥammad ʿAbduh al-Miṣrī, the Ustādh and Imām, d. 1323ah, in a book he wrote specifically about this story.

Now that you are aware of this, there is no harm in mentioning what some of these scholars said due to the benefit and detailed research it contains which increase the reader’s certainty in the invalidity of this story, and which makes it clear that sound scholarly critique always agrees with sound ḥadīth criticism, because both of them are established on precise scientific principles which do not accept alteration or change.

I will suffice here with the statements of four of them, whoever wants more can refer to the other sources I just listed. The four are: Ibn al-ʿArabī, al-Qāḍī ʿIyāḍ, ash-Shawkānī and al-ʾĀlūsī.

1 He is Imām Ibn Khuzaimah, well-known through his work Aṣ-Ṣaḥīḥ. Ash-Shawkānī followed al-Fakhr in attributing this quote to Ibn Khuzaimah in Fatḥul-Qadīr (3/447). Ibn Ḥayyān in his tafsīr, al-Baḥr, attributed it to Muḥammad ibn Isḥāq, author of As-Sīrah an-Nabawiyyah, al-Ālūsī followed him in that in his tafsīr (17/161). The first attribution is more correct in my opinion because in al-Fatḥ (8/354), al-Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar, following Ibn Kathīr, mentioned that Ibn Isḥāq reported this story in As-Sīrah at length, so that makes it unlikely that he said this sentence, if he did al-Ḥāfiẓ would have pointed it out, and Allaah knows best.

7

IBN AL-ʿARABĪ’S STATEMENTS ON THE INVALIDITY OF THE STORY

After stating the reason for the revelation of the verse from Surah al-Ḥajj, which we mentioned at the start of this book, he, may the Most High have mercy on him, said:

“Know—may Allaah illuminate your hearts with the light of His Guidance, and make the purpose and meaning of tawḥīd easy for you—that guidance is the Guidance of Allaah. So glory to the One who bestows it on whoever He wants and turns it away from whoever He wishes.

I have already explained the meaning of this verse in the chapter, ‘Faḍl Tanbīh al-Ghabī ʿalā Miqdārin-Nabī,’ hoping thereby for the fullest reward from Allaah at a station of nearness to Him.

We will now throw light on what is unclear and through it cause you to rise from the depths of the common folk to the heights of the scholars, [achieving that] through ten points.

THE FIRST

When Allaah sends an Angel to the Prophet ﷺ with His Revelation, He creates knowledge for the Prophet about that angel, so that the Prophet is certain that the angel is indeed a messenger from Him. If it were not for that the message would not be valid and nor would prophethood be clear. So when Allaah created knowledge for the Prophet about the angel he was able to distinguish the angel from anyone else, thus certainty was established, and the way of the religion became sound and proper.

For if, when the angel spoke words of revelation to the Prophet, the Prophet did not know whether it was an angel or a devil, or a person, or a different form to these which conveyed some speech and statements to him, then it could not be said that, ‘It is from Allaah,’ nor would it be established that it is Allaah’s edict.

So this is a definite path and a confirmed state which must exist, neither revelation nor reason differ on it.

And if it were possible for the Devil to imitate it or assume its form we could not trust a single āyah from him, nor would we able to distinguish falsehood from truth. So through this distinction confusion is removed and certainty firmly established in the soul.

THE SECOND POINT

That Allaah has protected his Prophet from disbelief, and protected him from ever committing shirk, a point firmly established in the religion of the Muslims through their consensus and unanimous agreement on it. So whoever claims that it is possible for the Prophet to disbelieve in Allaah or to doubt Him even for the blink of an eye has removed the yolk of Islaam from his neck. In fact, it is not even possible for him ﷺ to commit an act of sin let alone that disbelief in belief be ascribed to him. Rather, he is entirely pure, both in action and belief, from such things. And I have firmly laid that out in the books of Uṣūl with the clearest proofs.

THE THIRD POINT

That Allaah acquainted His Prophet with Himself and made him perceive His Proofs, and showed him the dominion of His Heavens and the Earth, and made him aware of the ways of his Brothers before him. So what we—and we are the scum of his nation—know of Allaah’s command today would not be something that was obscure to him ﷺ, and whoever imagines otherwise is someone walking around crawling on his face, not acquainted with his Prophet nor his Lord.

THE FOURTH POINT

Carefully reflect, may Allaah grant you insight, [lit: may Allaah unlock the barriers to reflection for you,] on the statements of the narrators who, through their ignorance became the enemies of Islaam, [and] who openly declared their hostility for it by claiming that when the Prophet ﷺ sat with Quraish he hoped that no revelation would descend on him from Allaah⁠¹.

How could anyone possessing even a shred of reason think that the Prophet ﷺ would prefer to maintain ties with his people over his connection with his Lord? Or that he would wish not to sever his companionship with them on account of the revelation that comes down to him from his Lord—revelation which was the very life of his body and heart, the solace for his loneliness and the crown of his aspirations?

Allaah’s Messenger ﷺ was the most generous of people, and when Jibrīl would come he would be more generous than a fast wind—how then could he possibly favour sitting with his enemies over this [divine revelation]?

THE FIFTH POINT

That the Prophet ﷺ accepted the statement made by the Devil to him, i.e., ‘They are the exalted cranes, and their intercession is hoped for,’ so he mistook the Devil for an angel, and became confused about tawḥīd and shirk such that he could not distinguish between the two—and I, someone who is the lowest ranking of the believers, and the least knowledgeable among them in terms of what Allaah has granted me, and in terms of the knowledge He has given me—it is not [even] hidden from [someone like] me or you that this is disbelief which cannot possibly come from Allaah.

And that if someone had said it to you everyone would rush to renounce, inhibit, condemn, and revile him without giving it a second thought—let alone [imagine] the Prophet ﷺ being unaware of the nature of the statement, unaware that he had said it, not understanding the description of the idols as elevated cranes, and that their intercession is hoped for, when he knew as a matter of necessary knowledge that they were inanimate objects that do not hear or see, speak or cause harm, help or aid or intercede. Jibrīl used to bring this [knowledge] to him day and night, it is what tawḥīd is built on, you cannot abrogate this tawḥīd with intellectual reasoning—so how could all this be hidden from the Prophet? Yet [even] this was not enough for them, they further claimed that when Jibrīl came back to him afterwards to review the revelation that had been given to him, the Prophet repeated it again, ignorant of it—exalted is Allaah above such a thing!—and that it was then that Jibrīl answered him saying, ‘I did not bring this to you!’ and so the Prophet ﷺ was grieved and the verse was sent down, ‘They definitely ˹thought they˺ were about to lure you away from what We have revealed to you ˹O Prophet˺, hoping that you would attribute something else to Us falsely.’ 17:73

So O Allaah save the students and teachers from corrupt, worn-out, delusional Shaikhs who do not know that this verse negates what they think and nullifies what they reported and invented, which is:

THE SIXTH POINT

That the meaning of Ibn al-ʿArabī’s statement, ‘It almost happened …’ is that it was close to happening but did not, so in this verse Allaah informed us that they were on the verge of tempting him away from what was revealed to him, but that the fitnah did not take place, then He said: ‘… hoping that you would attribute something else to Us falsely …’ 17:73 which is:

THE SEVENTH POINT

That he did not invent anything, and that if they had tempted you and you had invented a lie they would have taken you as a friend, but you were not tempted and you did not invent a lie and nor did they take you as a friend: ‘Had We not made you steadfast, ...’ 17:74, which is:

THE EIGHT POINT

‘… You probably would have inclined to them a little ...’ 17:74

So Allaah informed us that He strengthened him, and firmly established tawḥīd and knowing Allaah in his heart, and enveloped him in the canopy of infallibility, and sheltered him in the embrace of mercy, and if He had left him to himself, and removed the shade of infallibility from him for a moment, he might have inclined toward what they desired—but We commanded that you be protected, and with the light of guidance We illuminated your heart, and so it saw clearly and We removed falsehood from you and vanquished it. So this verse is explicit proof of his infallibility against everything that has been [falsely] attributed to him.

THE NINTH POINT

His statement, ‘And so he remained grief-stricken and distressed until the following was sent down to him: ‘Whenever We sent a messenger or a prophet before you ˹O Prophet˺ and he recited ˹Our revelations˺ …’ 22:52⁠² …’ And that his grief and distress were because of what the Devil was able to do, which shall be expounded upon later, and the Prophet ﷺ used to find it very difficult that the Devil influenced him in anything even if its effect were only minor.

THE TENTH POINT

This verse is a clear proof in our favour, evidence for the correctness of our madhhab, foundational proof absolving the Prophet ﷺ of what was falsely attributed to him, and that is because He, the Most High, said: ‘Whenever We sent a messenger or a prophet before you ˹O Prophet˺ and he recited ˹Our revelations˺, Satan would influence ˹people’s understanding of˺ his recitation …’ 22:52

So the Most High informed us that His way with His Prophets and His practice with His Messengers is that when they convey a message from Allaah, Shaiṭān adds something to it of his own accord, just as he does with all other sins, like when you say, ‘I threw such and such into the house … I threw such and such into the bundle … I put such and such into the bag,’ [i.e., to put something into it which wasn’t there before]—this is explicit in showing that it was the Devil who added to what the Prophet ﷺ said and not that the Prophet ﷺ said it, because the Prophet ﷺ would recite the Quran in measured intervals, pausing clearly at the breaks between verses. Likewise, his speech was deliberate and unhurried and so Satan exploited those pauses between the [Prophet’s ﷺ recitation of] His Saying: ‘... and the third one, Manāt, as well?’ 53:20 and: ‘Do you ˹prefer to˺ have sons while ˹you attribute˺ to Him daughters?’ 53:21 And so the Devil, imitating the voice of the Prophet ﷺ, said: ‘They are the exalted cranes, and indeed their intercession is hoped for.’

So as for the polytheists and those who had diseased hearts, and due to their lack of insight and corrupt inner state they recited those words as if from the Prophet ﷺ, ignorantly attributing them to him such that they even prostrated along with him believing that he was in agreement with them, but those who had been given knowledge and faith knew that the Qurʾān was the Truth from Allaah and believe in it and refuse anything else besides it and their hearts respond to the truth and recoil from falsehood—and all of that was a trial and test from Allaah.

So how far is this from what they claim?!

There is nothing in the Qurʾān except the utmost clarity about the Prophet ﷺ being safeguarded, both in private and public, from shirk and disbelief.

And I have indeed entrusted you with the advice to make the Qurʾān your Imām, to keep its words before you, so do not give them a meaning they do not have, and do not attach to them that which does not belong to them.

No one was guided to this [understanding] except aṭ-Ṭabarī due to his immense stature, his pure mind, profuse learning, and his robust critical insight. And it is as if he alluded to this purpose, aimed at this target and, after mentioning lots of false narrations about it that have no basis, he hit the mark.

And had your Lord so willed no-one would have reported or written these false narrations down, but He does whatever He wills.

May Allaah protect us and you by granting us success and guidance, and may He, through His Grace and Mercy, make us people of Tawḥīd.”

1 Refer to the sixth reason showing the invalidity of the text [matn] of the story in chapter 3.

2 See narrations 3, 4 and 6.

8

QĀḌĪ ʿIYĀḌ’S STANCE

And Qāḍī ʿIyāḍ said, “So know, may Allaah honour you, that we have two approaches to the problems posed by this ḥadīth: the first is to weaken their foundation and the second is to accept them [for the sake of argument].

As for the first approach, then it is sufficient for you to know that this ḥadīth has not been reported by any of the authors of the authentic collections [Ahluṣ-Ṣiḥḥah], and nor has any trustworthy narrator reported it with a sound, connected chain of narration. In fact, the only ones who are attached to it are the commentators on the Qurʾān and historians who are infatuated by all strange reports, those who snap up all things whether authentic or weak.

Al-Qāḍī Bakr ibn al-ʿAlā al-Mālikī spoke the truth when he said that, ‘People have been afflicted by some of the people of desires and exegesis [tafsīr]—and the heretics clung to the story despite its weak chains of transmission, the inconsistency of its various versions, the disconnection of its isnād and the contradictions in its wording. So you have one person saying it happened during the prayer while another says he said it in a gathering of his people when the Sūrah was being revealed to him. Yet another claims it was when he was overcome with drowsiness, someone else says he was speaking to himself and forgot, another claims that the Devil said it on his tongue and that when the Prophet ﷺ then recited it back to Jibrīl, he said, ‘This is not how I recited it to you!’ Another says that the devil informed the people that the Prophet ﷺ recited it like that and that when the Prophet ﷺ learned of that he said, ‘By Allaah, it was not revealed like that,’ along with other contradictions from the narrators.

None of the mufassirs or Tābiʿūn who this story was conveyed from gave a chain of narration for it or traced it back to a Companion. Most of the chains of narrations about it from them are weak and unfounded. The [only] marfuʿ narration is from Shuʿbah from Abī Bishr from Saʿīd ibn Jubair from Ibn ʿAbbās who says, ‘I imagine—the doubt is in the ḥadīth—that the Prophet ﷺ was at Makkah,’ and then he mentioned the story.

Abū Bakr al-Bazzār said, ‘We do not know of this ḥadīth being reported from the Prophet ﷺ with a connected chain of narration which is permitted to cite apart from this one. No one reported it from Shuʿbah except Umayyah ibn Khālid, other people report it in irsāl form [i.e., as a broken chain] from Saʿīd ibn Jubair. It is [otherwise] only known from al-Kalbi from Abū Ṣāliḥ from Ibn ʿAbbās.’

So Abū Bakr, may Allaah have mercy on him, has clarified for you that the story is not known through any path of narration which it is permissible to cite apart from this one, and that it itself contains weakness which he has pointed out along with the doubt narrated in it, as we mentioned, with whose presence it cannot be authenticated and there is no truth to it.

As for Al-Kalbi’s ḥadīth, then it is one which it is not allowed to report due to how weak he was and his lying as al-Bazzār pointed out. The part of it that is in the Ṣaḥīḥ, ‘That the Prophet ﷺ recited Sūrah an-Najam whilst in Makkah and the Muslims, the polytheists, the Jinn and mankind all prostrated along with him,’ then its baselessness is due to its path of transmission.

As for its weakness in terms of its meaning: then the proofs have been established and the Ummah has united on the fact that the Prophet ﷺ was infallible and free from ever falling into anything as base and as vile as this, whether it be him wishing that anything praising gods other than Allaah be revealed to him, which is disbelief, or that the Devil could interfere and confuse him about the Qurʾān such that he would, as a result, add something to it which was not a part of it, leading the Prophet to believe that something which is not part of the Qurʾān is actually a part of it until Jibrīl would have to inform him of the truth.

All of this is impossible for the Prophet ﷺ. It is impossible for him ﷺ to have said this intentionally of his own accord, which would be disbelief, or out of forgetfulness. He is protected [maʿṣūm] from all of that.

And we have established with clear proofs and the consensus [of the Ummah] his immunity ﷺ from disbelief entering his heart or being uttered on his tongue, intentionally or mistakenly, or that he would confuse what the Angel gives to him with what the Devil casts forth. Or that the Devil should have any power over him, or that he ﷺ would forge lies against Allaah saying that something had been revealed to him when it had not, whether intentionally or mistakenly. The Most High said, ‘Had the Messenger made up something in Our Name …’ 69:44 and He said, ‘And then We truly would have made you taste double ˹punishment˺ both in this life and after death, and you would have found no helper against Us.’ 17:75

The second point is the impossibility of this story to have occurred from a rational and customary [ʿurf] standpoint. If these statements had [truly] occurred as narrated, they would have been incoherent [and disjointed], self-contradictory, mixing praise and blame, poorly structured in composition and style. This would not have been hidden from the Prophet ﷺ nor the Muslims around him nor the chief idolaters—[in fact], it would not escape even the most superficial observer—so how then can it be concealed from someone of [such] profound wisdom, someone whose knowledge of eloquent speech and mastery of clarity of expression so vast ﷺ.

The third point is that it is a well-known habit of the hypocrites, and [well-known from] the obstinacy of the idolaters, and those weak of heart, and the ignorant Muslims that they recoil at the first hurdle, and that the enemy would cause confusion about the Prophet ﷺ at the slightest fitnah, and that they would scoff and gloat at the misfortune of the Muslims time after time, and for those in whose hearts is a disease and who outwardly professed Islaam to apostatise at the slightest doubt.

Yet despite this no one has related anything about this story except this one narration which in its very foundation is weak.

If the story had actually happened, Quraish would have used it to attack the Muslims, and the Jews would have used it as a proof against the Muslims as they arrogantly did about the Night Journey, which resulted in some of the weaker Muslims apostatising, and the same thing also happened in relation to the circumstances around the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah.

There would be no temptation or fitnah bigger than this calamity and no incitement greater than it that the enemy could use to plant dissension with than this story if it were true—yet not a word has been reported about it from any of those obstinate people nor any Muslims, which shows its falsehood and the eradication of its very roots.

There is no doubt that some of the Devils among mankind and the Jinn foisted this ḥadīth onto the heedless among the ḥadīth scholars to confuse the weak Muslims with it.

The fourth point is that the narrators say that these two verses were revealed about it: ‘They definitely ˹thought they˺ were about to lure you away from what We have revealed to you ˹O Prophet˺, hoping that you would attribute something else to Us falsely—and then they would have certainly taken you as a close friend. Had We not made you steadfast, you probably would have inclined to them a little …’ 17:73-74 But these two verses refute the very narration that they reported because Allaah the Most High mentioned that they were about to tempt him away so that he would lie and that if He had not strengthened him he would have almost inclined to them—so the contents of this and its meaning is that Allaah the Most High did indeed protect him from lying and strengthened him such that he did not even incline to them a little let alone a lot!

In their baseless reports they cite that in addition to inclining to them he added the fabrication of praising their idols, saying ﷺ, ‘I have lied against Allaah and said what He did not say,’—but this is the opposite of what the āyah means. This āyah would have rendered the very ḥadīth itself weak if it were authentic, so what, then, when it is not even authentic in the first place? This is similar to what He says in another verse: ‘Had it not been for Allaah’s Grace and Mercy, a group of them would have sought to deceive you ˹O Prophet˺. Yet they would deceive none but themselves, nor can they harm you in the least.’ 4:113 It has been reported that Ibn ʿAbbās said, ‘Everything in the Qurʾān which says, ‘almost/kāda’ means it did not happen at all.’

Al-Qāḍī al-Qushairī said that the tribes of Quraish and Thaqīf asked him to turn to face their idols when he passed by them, promising him that they would believe in him if he did, but he did not—and he was not even close to doing so ﷺ.

Other tafsīrs of this āyah have mentioned what we have stated about what Allaah said about His Messenger being protected which is enough to rebut their nonsense.

So all that remains to be learned from the āyah is: that Allaah the Most High favoured His Prophet with His Protection and by strengthening him against what the disbelievers were about to do when they wanted to beguile him. Our goal in this is to show his infallibility and how he was free from it all ﷺ.

This is the meaning of the verse.

The second approach is based on considering the ḥadīth to be sound—and Allaah has granted us refuge from it actually being authentic—but in any case the Imāms of the Muslims have responded to that with answers of varying strengths.”

I [al-Albaani] say: so he then went on to mention these various answers saying they were all weak except for the last one, which he supported and favoured, and it is the one that Ibn al-ʿArabī used as his answer as was mentioned earlier:

“It was the Devil who slipped that in to the Prophet’s ﷺ silence between his recital of the two verses, imitating his tone ﷺ and then the polytheists spread that about him ﷺ, but that did not affect the Muslims due to the Sūrah already having been memorised before that just as Allaah had revealed it, and their certainty about the Prophet’s stance in criticising and denouncing the idols as was known about him.

Mūsā ibn ʿUqbah reported something similar in his book Maghāzī saying, ‘The Muslims did not hear these words, the Devil cast them into the polytheist’s ears and their hearts.’⁠¹ And so what was reported about the Prophet’s ﷺ grief was because of this rumour and doubt and fitnah that was being spread.”

1 And like it in the narration of ʿUrwah, no. 6 in chapter 2, even though at the end of it there is something which differs from this, and I have relayed the narration of Mūsā ibn ʿUqbah from Ibn Kathīr in what has preceded, no. 2 in chapter 2.

9

AL-ḤĀFIẒ’S REBUTTAL OF IBN AL-ʿARABĪ AND AL-QĀḌĪ ʿIYĀḌ AND MY RESPONSE TO THAT

Al-Ḥāfiẓ summarised the defects and weakness the two Imāms mentioned about the story in al-Fatḥ, and then said, “And all of that does not conform to the principles [of the science of ḥadīth], because when there are lots of paths of narration [of a ḥadīth] and it has multiple sources it shows that it has a basis. I have mentioned that three of its chains of narration meet the conditions of the Ṣaḥīḥ, they are mursal narrations which scholars who accept mursal narrations use as proof, just as they are also accepted as proof by those scholars who do not consider mursal ḥadīths as proof, due to the narrations [of the story] supporting each other.”

So I say: this is not a strong answer in absolute terms since as I clarified earlier a ḥadīth being strengthened due to it being narrated from many different paths is not a consistently applicable rule [qāʿidah muḍṭaridah]. Yes, for those scholars who accept mursal narrations totally or who accept them if they are supported by other reports—this response is a strong refutation against them, such as al-Qāḍi ʿIyāḍ and others who accept the mursal narrations of a trustworthy narrator.⁠¹ But it does not apply to us, due to the possibilities that we mentioned that stop us using mursal ḥadīths as a proof even if they are reported from different paths. This might even be al-Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Kathīr’s madhhab since in his tafsīr of the verse in question, he said, “Many of the Qurʾanic exegetes mentioned the story of the cranes here, and how many of those who had gone to Ethiopia came back thinking that the polytheists of Quraish had embraced Islam. But all of these narrations are from mursal paths, and I have not seen any of them with an authentic chain of narration.”

Thus Ibn Kathīr knew that some of these mursal chains were authentic up to the tābiʿī, and so had he believed that they did support each other and gave strength to the story, he would not have called it weak merely on the basis that he found that none of them had been reported through an authentic path. This is clear and indisputable.

What is even more peculiar is that although al-Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar considered the [reports of the] story to be strong, he still felt that it had things which were objectionable and that had to be interpreted, so after the statement that I just quoted from him, he said, “If this is established, it becomes incumbent to interpret the parts in it which are objectionable, which is the phrase, ‘The devil cast on his tongue, ‘They are the exalted cranes, and indeed their intercession is hoped for,’’ because it is not allowed to take this at face value since, due to his infallibility, it is impossible for him ﷺ to add something to the Qurʾān of his own accord intentionally, just as it is impossible for him to do so mistakenly, when it is in opposition to the tawḥīd he brought.”

Then al-Ḥāfiẓ mentioned the scholars varying interpretations of it and approved the last one which is the one we quoted from al-Qāḍī ʿIyāḍ just before this section, the one we said al-Qāḍī ʿIyāḍ favoured. Al-Ḥāfiẓ then said, “This is the best interpretation, it is supported by what was previously mentioned from Ibn ʿAbbās’ explanation of ‘tamannā’ to mean, ‘recited.’”

So the result is that al-Ḥāfiẓ, may Allaah have mercy on him, conceded that the Devil did not utter that sentence on the tongue of the Prophet ﷺ, but rather that the Devil cast it forth with his own tongue during the gap in the Prophet’s ﷺ recitation—this does not at all agree with the claim that the story is authentic or that it has a true origin.

If by saying that he means that it has a basis in general, i.e., excluding that fabricated phrase, then this is not the point of disagreement between him and the scholars he refuted who said that the story is false, but rather the point of contention is in the statement which claim the Devil cast [this falsehood] onto the Prophet’s tongue ﷺ.

So if al-Ḥāfiẓ has openly stated his rejection of it and exonerated the Prophet ﷺ from it then we can say to the questioner: al-Ḥāfiẓ agrees with Ibn Kathīr and others [both] before and after him in denouncing the story as it was reported in the narrations, even the ones al-Ḥāfiẓ authenticated.

As for the things left in the story which do not conflict with the Prophet’s ﷺ infallibility then there is no disagreement about the possibility of them occurring. In fact it seems that those parts of the story are what did happen based on the apparent meaning of the verse of Sūrah al-Ḥajj, as explained at the start of this book.⁠²

Nonetheless, two objections may be raised against al-Ḥāfiẓ here:

The first is his softening his expression in rejecting the addition, because he only rejected it by way of interpretation [taʾwīl]! What he should have done was to reject it entirely from its very foundation, because the interpretation he offered does not fit the phrase itself. Because al-Ḥāfiẓ says, “The Devil is the one who uttered it with his own tongue during a gap in the Prophet’s ﷺ recitation of the two verses,” yet the narrations say, “The Devil cast the words on to the Prophet’s ﷺ tongue,” so how far apart are the two statements?!

The second: his strong criticism of Ibn al-ʿArabī and al-Qāḍī ʿIyāḍ for rejecting the story even though he knows they rejected it due to the many falsehoods it contains which are incompatible with the doctrine of the infallibility of the most noble Prophet ﷺ, such as that very addition which al-Ḥāfiẓ agreed in rejecting. The difference is that they were both explicit in their rejection of it from its very foundation, whereas al-Ḥāfiẓ only rejected it through his interpretation, as he claimed.

From this the weakness of his rebuttal of al-Qāḍī ʿIyāḍ in Takhrīj al-Kashāf will become clear to you [where he said]:

“As for his criticism of it due to the discrepancy in its wording then [it does not matter because] weak narrations have no effect on strong ones. So we rely on the authentic narration of the story—i.e., the one that has supporting narrations is relied upon—and there is no inconsistency or discrepancy [iḍṭirāb] in it or in the ones that support it—rather the discrepancy is in the other narrations. As for his criticising the [actual] meaning of the narration then there are many authentic ḥadīths whose apparent meanings are not accepted but which are rather interpreted in a way consistent with the principles of the religion.”

I [al-Albaani] say: this is a weak response, because the authentic narration that he is referring to is the previously mentioned narration of Ibn Jubair and it, just like the other supporting narrations, includes this objectionable issue which he himself has admitted. In fact, some of the narrations from Saʿīd have things even more repugnant than that, like, “Then Jibrīl came to him after that and said, ‘Recite to me what I brought to you.’ So when he reached, ‘They are the exalted cranes, and indeed their intercession is hoped for,’ Jibrīl said to him, ‘I did not bring this to you, this is from the Devil!’”

And this also occurs in narrations apart from Saʿīd’s as has preceded, the implication here is that the Devil tricked the Prophet ﷺ into not being able to distinguish between the Devil’s revelation and The Most Merciful’s and that he ﷺ stayed in that condition for as long as he did until Jibrīl came to him from the sky! Glory be to You O Allaah! This is a most serious slander and most flagrant a lie!

So it has become clear that there is no correct, reliable, authentic narration, in the true scholarly sense—and that al-Ḥāfiẓ himself rejected part of that narration which he authenticated—so what is there to rely on?

As for his statement, “The ḥadīth of the cranes has many a precedent from authentic ḥadīths,” then that would have been correct if its chain of narration was [in fact] authentic and if it was [indeed] possible to interpret it—but we do not concede to either of these two points.

As for the first, then we have shown that it is mursal from all its routes apart from the connected [mawṣūl] chains that are extremely weak, and they, even though abundant, do not render it any support.

As for the other issue, then it is because the interpretation [taʾwīl] that al-Ḥāfiẓ did, may Allaah have mercy on him, is not in fact taʾwīl but rather a nullification [taʿṭīl] of the sentence, and it is similar to the interpretation, rather the negation or nullification [taʿṭīl], of the Qarāmiṭah and Rāfiḍah when dealing with Qurʾanic verses and prophetic ḥadīths which they do in order to support their destructive madhhab and their baseless opinions—in opposition to al-Ḥāfiẓ, may Allaah have mercy on him, for he did that in defense of the Prophetic station and Prophetic infallibility, so we thank him for that and he will be rewarded with good even though, in our opinion, he was mistaken in that taʾwīl and in authenticating the story.

1 Takhrīj al-Kashāf, 4/112.

2 After I had written the above I saw that the Shaikh of Islam Ibn Taymiyyah leaned towards confirming this part of the story and that the Prophet ﷺ didn’t say, “They are the exalted cranes …” but that it was the Devil who threw it into their ears, refer to what he said in al-Fatwāwā, 2/282.

10

ASH-SHAWKĀNĪ’S STATEMENT

Ash-Shawkānī, may Allaah the Most High have mercy on him, said, “None of it is authentic, nor established in any way whatsoever. And in addition to its lack of authenticity—its falsehood rather—the scholar-examiners [muhaqqiqūn] have refuted it with the Book of Allaah.” Then he mentioned some of the verses which prove its falsehood and said, “And the Imām of the Imāms, Ibn Khuzaimah, said, ‘Indeed this story is a fabrication of the heretics.’”

11

AL-ĀLŪSĪ’S STATEMENTS ABOUT THE STORY’S FALSEHOOD

In any case, al-Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar, may Allaah have mercy on him, is in agreement with those who rejected the story, exonerating the Prophet ﷺ from the possibility of the Devil speaking on his tongue ﷺ. So the difference of opinion between him and them is almost superficial or in [mere] wording.

The real disagreement is between those scholars [who reject the story] and a later figure⁠¹ who went and claimed the story to be authentic along with accepting it entirely without rejecting or interpreting any of it!

In fact, he permitted everything contained in the story concerning the Prophet ﷺ, claiming that none of it contradicts his infallibility and that it was rather a form of [divine] discipline for him!—writing about it at length. The obviousness of its falsehood is such that there is no need to pen down pages refuting it.

Al-Ālūsī quoted him in full and then answered him with a firm and strong response, and were it not for the fact that this brief work was not written for that purpose, I would have quoted his response in full, but I will suffice with his final words at the end of his piece where he said, “But establishing the authenticity of the story is harder than drawing blood from a stone. [Trans. note: literally, “… harder than stripping the leaves from the Qatād plant,” which is a thorny, tough desert plant. “Before one can attain it he has to strip the tragacanth [Qatād] of its leaves by grasping each branch and drawing his hand down it: i.e., he has to perform what will be extremely difficult, if not impossible,” Lane’s Lexicon, under the entry for خرط].

For those who criticise its transmission are eminent scholars, well-versed in distinguishing sound reports from weak ones who strove and exerted themselves in establishing the truth about the story and came to the conclusion that it is nothing but rejected. And those who said it is rejected outnumber those who accept it, among them are scholars who are more knowledgeable than him. It is likely that they examined the narrators found in all the paths of narration and held them to be unreliable, while it escaped the one who accepted it.⁠²

And by my life⁠³, saying that this story is something which the Devil threw onto the tongues of some of the narrators, and that Allaah then granted a group of His chosen servants the ability to refute it, is lighter than saying that the ḥadīth of the cranes is something the Devil cast upon the tongue of the Prophet ﷺ and that Allaah then abrogated it.

Especially since its authenticity is not necessary for any religious matter, nor for the meaning of any āyah—it brings nothing except the emergence of doubt in the hearts of many of the weak believers which can only be dispelled with great effort.”

This concludes what I have to say on establishing the invalidity of the story of the cranes.

There remains a point of benefit related to the prostration of the polytheists along with the Prophet ﷺ when he recited Surah an-Najam, a mention of the reason as to why they did so.

So I say:

1 He is Shaikh Ibrāhīm al-Kūrānī as al-Ālūsī said, his full name is Ibrāhīm ibn Ḥasan ibn Shihāb al-Kurdī, born in Shahrzūr in Shawāl in 1025, he went to Medinah and accompanied al-Qashāshī and met ash-Shihāb al-Khafājī when he passed through Egypt, he died in Medinah on the 28th of Jumādal-Ūlā in the year 1101, this is mentioned in al-Manāwī’s Tāj al-ʿArūs.

2 This is far-fetched especially in relation to al-Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar, for if there were any criticism [Jarḥ] it would not have been hidden from him, and the truth is that he followed some ḥadīth principles [in this issue] and so has more of an excuse than those who opposed it but who did not provide an answer to it, and I have addressed this earlier. The closest conclusion would be to say: that they came across the hidden defect or flaw— namely, the missing link in the chain [irsāl], whose presence I explained is found in all the paths of narration of this story—but that the ones who accepted it did not consider it a severe enough flaw to reject it.

3 Transl. note: Questioner: “The phrase, ‘Laʿamrī,’ ‘By my life’ and ‘Laʿamruka’ ‘By your life’ is frequently used by some preachers, poets, and others. Is this considered an oath or swearing by one’s life? And what does it mean?”

Shaikh Ibn Baaz: “The correct view is that there is no harm in it. It has appeared in some authentic ḥadīths of the Prophet ﷺ that he said, ‘By my life’ ‘Laʿamrī’. It has also been authentically reported from Ibn ʿAbbas and a group of the Salaf and later generations (the Khalaf). It is not considered an oath by other than Allaah, nor is it part of swearing by other than Allaah. Or it is something that is tolerated and intended for emphasis, such as saying, ‘By your life, such and such,’ or ‘By my life, such and such.’ It is used to emphasise and strengthen speech, and it is not intended as a formal act of swearing an oath.” Source.

12

THE REASON THE POLYTHEISTS PROSTRATED ALONG WITH THE PROPHET ﷺ

Maybe someone will say: when the falsehood of the Devil placing the sentence, “They are the exalted cranes, and indeed their intercession is hoped for,” on the tongue of the Prophet ﷺ has been established, why, then, did the polytheists prostrate along with him when it was not from their habit to do so?

The answer is what the meticulous scholar al-Ālūsī said a few lines into his answer which I just quoted above, “No one has the right to say, ‘The polytheists’ prostration shows that there was something in the Sūrah whose apparent meaning was a praise of their gods, for if that were not the case, they would not have prostrated,’ no one has the right to say that because [in answer to that] we say: it is possible that they prostrated due to being bewildered and due to fear seizing them when they heard the Sūrah due to the verses of the Most High it contains, like:

“And He destroyed the first ˹people of˺ ʿĀd. And ˹then˺ Thamūd, sparing no one. And before ˹that, He destroyed˺ the people of Noah, who were truly far worse in wrongdoing and transgression. And ˹it was˺ He ˹Who˺ turned the cities ˹of Sodom and Gomorrah˺ upside down. How overwhelming was what covered ˹them˺!” 53:50-54

to the end of the verses, so they may have felt a foreboding of something similar befalling them, and maybe they had not heard anything like it from the Prophet ﷺ before, [with him reciting it] while standing before his Lord in such a grave moment and before a large gathering.

And they might have assumed, due to the command to prostrate following those verses, that their prostration—even if not out of faith—would be sufficient to repel what they feared. And do not consider it unlikely that they became fearful at hearing such statements recited by the Prophet ﷺ for Sūrah Ḥā Mīm Sajdah was revealed after that as explicitly mentioned in the ḥadīth of Ibn ʿAbbās. As-Suyūṭī mentioned it at the start of al-Itqān [that] when ʿUtbah ibn Rabīʿah heard the Most High’s Statement:

“If they turn away, then say, ˹O Prophet,˺ ‘I warn you of a ˹mighty˺ blast, like the one that befell ʿĀd and Thamūd.’” 41:13 He placed his hand over the Prophet’s ﷺ mouth and appealed to the ties of kinship, and excused himself to his people when they thought that he had become a Muslim, and said, “You know that when Muḥammad says something he doesn’t lie!? And I feared that the punishment would descend upon you.” Al-Baihaqī reported it in ad-Dalāʾil, and Ibn ʿAsākir in a long ḥadīth from Jābir ibn ʿAbdullah, may Allaah be pleased with him.

It may also be said, albeit far-fetched, that their prostration was due to them feeling as though their gods had been praised, but that does not necessitate that the [false] story was true, it is possible that this feeling [of theirs] came upon hearing His Statement: “Now, have you considered ˹the idols of˺ Lāt and ʿUzzā? And the third one, Manāt, as well?” 53:19-20 basing that upon the fact that [in the grammatical structure of the sentence] the object is omitted and they [filled it in and] gave it a meaning according to their desires, or that they might have taken the object to be: ‘Do you ˹prefer to˺ have sons while ˹you attribute˺ to Him daughters?’ 53:21, and misunderstood the point of rebuke to be merely about calling the named idols, “females.”

And love for something blinds and deafens.

This [misunderstanding] is not more far-fetched than their interpretation of the fabricated line, “Those are the exalted cranes (al-Gharānīq al-ʿUlā), and their intercession is to be hoped for,” as praise—which led them to prostrate at the end of the sūrah. Despite the fact that the line appears between two [sentences] of clear condemnation, which makes it obviously impossible to take it as praise, to anyone whose heart’s eye is free from blindness.”

وسبحانك اللهم وبحمدك، أشهد أن لا إله إلا أنت، أستغفرك وأتوب إليك

Muḥammad Nāsirud-Dīn al-Albaani

The writing of this book was completed on Monday morning, 7/3/1372, corresponding to, 23/11/1952, I ask Allaah, the Most High, to allow the questioner and all Muslims to benefit from it, and that He makes it sincerely for Him.

GLOSSARY OF ḤADĪTH TERMS

ʿANʿAN

i.e., reporting it by saying, ‘So and so from [ʿan/عن] so and so from [ʿan] so and so,’ using the term ‘from’, without saying, “So and so narrated to me,” or “… informed me …” or “I heard from.

IRSĀL

The absence of the link between the successor and the Prophet ﷺ.

LAYYIN

A narrator who has transmitted little knowledge and there is no positive proof of his or her accuracy or reliability.

MARFUʿ ḤADĪTH

An elevated ḥadīth, what has been transmitted on the authority of the Prophet ﷺ, including his deeds, sayings, tacit approvals, or descriptions of his physical appearance. A report is proven as marfūʿ if the narrator quotes the Prophet ﷺ, or when the word marfūʿan follows the name of the Companion, through the chain of authorities, such as saying «عن أبي هريرة مرفوعا», “ʿAn Abī Hurairata marfūʿan,” “On the authority of Abū Hurairah, who narrated the ḥadīth as elevated to the Prophet ﷺ …” A Marfuʿ ḥadīth can be authentic, weak or ḥasan.

MOWṢŪL ḤADĪTH

An uninterrupted tradition of the Prophet ﷺ, a ḥadīth with a continuously uninterrupted chain of narration all the way back to the Messenger ﷺ, just because the chain is connected does not mean a mowṣūl ḥadīth is necessarily authentic, it can be weak.

MUʿḌAL ḤADĪTH

A perplexing tradition, a report with more than one consecutive missing link in the chain of narration, where two or more narrators are missing in a row in one place, whether at the beginning of the isnād, its middle or end.

MUDALLIS

A person who conceals a defect in the ḥadīth that he or she reports.

MUNKAR

A disclaimed ḥadīth, a narration reported by a weak narrator which goes against another authentic ḥadīth.

MUNQAṬIʿ ḤADĪTH

An interrupted or disconnected tradition, a hadith with an incoherent chain of narration at the level below the followers.

MURSAL ḤADĪTH

A loose tradition, a hadith with a broken link in its chain of narration at the level of a Companion, i.e., where the tābiʿī reports the ḥadīth from the Prophet ﷺ without mentioning the intermediary he took it from, that intermediary could be a Companion but it might not, it could be another tābiʿī.

MUSNAD ḤADĪTH

A supported tradition, a tradition of the Prophet ﷺ having a continuous, chain of authorities that can be traced back all the way to him ﷺ. Even though it has a connected chain of narrators that does not mean it is automatically authentic, it can be weak or ḥasan or authentic.

MUTTAṢIL ḤADĪTH

An uninterrupted tradition, a report with a continuous chain of narration in which every narrator has received the ḥadīth from the link immediately above him or her. Either it is elevated to the Prophet ﷺ or halted at a Companion.

TĀBIʿĪ

A successor or follower. Someone who knew or met any of the Companions and transmitted ḥadīth from them.

TADLĪS

Concealment of a defect in the tradition, either in the chain of narration or the text or in the source, that is, the teacher from whom the ḥadīth is learned. The one who does it is a mudallis.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

The Imaam, the Shaikh, the Reviver of the Century, the Defender of the Sunnah, Muhammad Naasirud-Deen Al-Albaani, Allaah have mercy on him, see here for his biography.

YouTube icon YouTube

TikTok icon TikTok

Facebook icon Facebook

Instagram icon Instagram

X (Twitter) icon X (Twitter)