THE DAUGHTERS OF ALLAH
Muslims have often been quick to tell others that God allowed the Bible to be corrupted. What they imply is that the Qur’an today is a trustworthy word of God while the Bible is not. The Bible indeed has many textual variants with minor differences, but evidence of doctrinal corruption is extremely weak. The Qur’an, however, contains far stronger evidence of corruption—according to Ubai, abrogated verses, ‘Uthman’s recension, and other Qur’anic problems. Yet the greatest doctrinal corruption in the Qur’an, introduced by Muslims themselves, is “the daughters of Allah.”
Summary
The Christian website answering-islam.org says:
“One of the most embarrassing incidents in Muhammad’s life occurred when Satan put his words into Muhammad’s mouth. Muhammad spoke Satan’s words as if they were God’s words. This event is documented in writing by several early Muslim authors and is mentioned in both the Hadith and the Qur’an. Later Muslims, ashamed that their self-proclaimed prophet had uttered the words of Satan, denied that this ever happened. Countless excuses and denials were offered by later Muslims to cover over Muhammad’s sinful error.”
It is important to understand that the incident of the “Satanic Verses” was not invented by non-Muslims. It is recorded in the earliest Islamic sources that existed during Muhammad’s lifetime. No one should think this story was fabricated by opponents of Islam. It is an account found directly in the earliest Islamic records.
This remains one of the most controversial subjects in Islam: Satan caused Muhammad to speak his (Satan’s) words as if they were God’s.
What Did the Qur’an Originally Say?
Surah al-Najm (Chapter 53), verses 19–20 says:
“Have you considered al-Lat and al-‘Uzza, and the third one, Manat?”
Allah was already known in Arabia before Islam as a god with three daughters: al-Lat, al-‘Uzza, and Manat. (Note: “al-” means “the.”)
Four early biographers of Muhammad wrote that originally these verses were followed by:
“These are the exalted cranes (intercessors) whose prayers are to be hoped for.”
Meaning: The daughters of Allah were thought to be heavenly beings who could intercede on behalf of others. The “lofty cranes” were their metaphor. The alternative wording for “to be hoped for” (turtaja) is “approved and confirmed” (turtada). (From Alfred Guillaume’s translation of The Life of Muhammad by Ibn Ishaq, p. 166.)
Later, this passage was removed and replaced with what we read today:
“What! For you the male, and for Him the female? That, then, is an unfair division.” (Qur’an 53:21–22)
Meaning: Those who believed Allah had three daughters were treating Allah unjustly, since they preferred sons for themselves yet ascribed only daughters to Him.
These are what came to be known as the “Satanic Verses.” In modern times, Salman Rushdie used the phrase only as the title of his fictional novel, but the Qur’an itself refers to the original event. The historical question remains: how can anyone, Muslim or non-Muslim, know what the original verses were? The rest of this document presents both direct and indirect evidence that the Satanic Verses were original, alongside nine major Islamic objections and replies.
Evidence that the Satanic Verses Were Original
1. From the Qur’an Itself
Surah al-Hajj (22:52) says:
“We never sent a messenger or prophet before you, but when he desired, Satan threw (words) into his recitation. But Allah abolishes what Satan throws in, then Allah establishes His verses; Allah is All-Knowing, All-Wise.”
This verse openly admits that Satan influenced prophets, including Muhammad, by inserting words into their recitation. The verse then claims Allah cancels Satan’s additions. But if Satan could truly inspire Muhammad’s speech, it raises the question: how can one be sure which verses in the Qur’an are from Allah and which were not?
2. From the Hadith
Several Hadith collections, though not included in the later “canonical six,” preserve the incident. Early narrators did not shy away from reporting it. The embarrassment only arose later when Muslims wanted to defend Muhammad’s infallibility (ismah).
3. From Early Biographers
The earliest Islamic historians confirm it:
-
Ibn Ishaq (d. 768 CE), author of Sirat Rasul Allah, the earliest biography of Muhammad, includes it.
-
al-Waqidi (d. 822 CE) and his student Ibn Sa’d (d. 844 CE) both mention it.
-
al-Tabari (d. 923 CE) in his Tarikh al-Rusul wa al-Muluk (“History of the Prophets and Kings”) also records it.
These are among the most respected authorities in early Islam. Their inclusion shows the story was widely accepted before later Muslims tried to suppress it.
4. From Non-Muslim Sources
Christian and other writers living during Muhammad’s era and shortly after also referred to this event, showing that the story was not just an internal Islamic tradition but something known broadly at the time.
Islamic Objections and Replies
Over time, Muslims who were uncomfortable with the idea of Muhammad speaking Satan’s words raised objections. Here are the main ones, with replies:
-
Objection: The isnad (chain of narration) is weak.
Reply: Multiple early sources with different isnads preserve the same account. When numerous independent chains exist, weakness in one does not invalidate the whole. -
Objection: Allah promised to protect the Qur’an (15:9).
Reply: This verse was likely added later, after the scandal of the Satanic Verses, as a theological correction. Surah 22:52, by contrast, proves that Satan did interfere. -
Objection: Prophets are infallible.
Reply: Infallibility (ismah) was a later doctrine. Early Muslims had no problem recording Muhammad’s mistakes — even major ones like this. -
Objection: The verses are not in the Qur’an today.
Reply: Precisely because they were removed. The question is not whether they remain, but why early sources unanimously testify they were once there. -
Objection: The story insults Muhammad.
Reply: Historical truth is not judged by whether it flatters someone. If multiple early sources — Muslim and non-Muslim — attest to an event, historians must consider it seriously.
More Islamic Objections and Replies
-
Objection: The wording “exalted cranes” (gharaniq) is strange and un-Qur’anic.
Reply: The Qur’an itself has many unique words. “Gharaniq” was a common Arabic metaphor for high, noble beings like birds soaring in the heavens. It fits the poetic style of Surah 53. -
Objection: If Muhammad praised idols, why would Quraysh later persecute him?
Reply: The historical record shows that after Muhammad recited the Satanic Verses, the Quraysh were pleased and even joined him in worship. Only after he retracted and condemned the idols did hostility resume. This sequence explains the otherwise puzzling shift in Quraysh’s attitude. -
Objection: The verses contradict Islamic monotheism (tawhid).
Reply: Exactly. That is why they were later removed. But their presence in the earliest sources shows that Muhammad at one point allowed polytheistic compromise, then reversed course. -
Objection: Later Muslims unanimously rejected the story.
Reply: This proves the embarrassment, not the falsity. Early Muslims accepted it; later Muslims tried to erase it to protect Muhammad’s reputation. Suppression is not evidence of truth but of shame. -
Objection: Satan cannot overpower a prophet.
Reply: The Qur’an itself (22:52) says otherwise — Satan does put words into prophets’ mouths, which Allah then cancels. This verse would make little sense unless such an event had actually occurred.
Theological Significance of “The Daughters of Allah”
The Satanic Verses expose a major doctrinal problem: Muhammad once allowed the worship of Allah’s “daughters” — al-Lat, al-‘Uzza, and Manat — as legitimate intercessors. These were not just tribal goddesses; they were revered across Arabia. By affirming them, even briefly, Muhammad compromised the central doctrine of Islam: tawhid (absolute oneness of God).
Later Muslims tried to erase this by:
-
Removing the verses from the Qur’an.
-
Replacing them with condemnation of ascribing daughters to Allah.
-
Developing doctrines of prophetic infallibility.
-
Reinterpreting history to claim the event never happened.
But the earliest Islamic records remain stubborn evidence that the verses were real.
Conclusion
The story of “the daughters of Allah” — the Satanic Verses — is not a fabrication of Islam’s critics but an event preserved by the earliest Muslim historians, confirmed by the Qur’an (22:52), and remembered even outside Islamic circles. It reveals that Muhammad once spoke words inspired not by God but by Satan, then later reversed himself.
For Christians, this raises an unavoidable question: if Satan could inspire part of the Qur’an, how can any Muslim know which verses are truly from God? By contrast, the Bible has stood the test of history with integrity and transparency, despite minor textual variations, and it never compromises the nature of God.
The incident remains one of the most damaging proofs that the Qur’an is not the infallible word of God but a human book — subject to error, revision, and satanic influence.
