M6:1529 — خواندش در سورهٔ والنجم زود / لیک آن فتنه بد از سوره نبود

Translation: He recited it quickly in Sura al-Najm; / But that was a mischief, not from the Sura. Meaning: This verse refers to the incident of the 'Satanic Verses' (Gharānīq), stating that the Prophet uttered certain words in Sura al-Najm that appeared to praise idols, but these words were a satanic mischief and not truly part of the Divine Sura.

This verse alludes to the famous and highly controversial event known in Islamic history as the 'Satanic Verses' (Gharānīq) incident. The narrative suggests that Satan inspired verses in the Prophet's mouth that praised idols, leading the Meccan polytheists to prostrate, believing them to be divine revelation. Mowlana, despite declaring his work a 'shop of Oneness' where 'whatever you see other than the One is an idol,' does not deny the occurrence of this event. However, he clearly separates it from the essence of the Sura and true divine revelation.

I have previously mentioned how Allamah Tabataba'i, in his exegesis of the verse 'And We sent not before you any messenger or prophet but that when he desired, Satan interjected into his desire,' interpreted 'desire' (tamanna) as referring to the aspirations of the prophets, rather than direct interference with the revealed verses themselves. Mowlana, however, addresses the event more directly here, yet he emphasizes that these satanic instigations were not merely 'not part of the Sura,' but were purely 'mischief' (fitna) — a mischief that the Prophet, upon realizing its true nature, immediately ordered to be removed.

What matters in Mowlana's perspective is not the anomalous occurrence itself, but its reason and the lesson embedded within it. He accepts that 'Praising idols for the sake of the common folk / Consider it like the exalted Gharānīq'; meaning, perhaps, for the sake of attracting the common polytheists, such an event transpired. But this was a short-term expediency, not the truth of revelation. The fact that all the disbelievers prostrated at that time, and that there was a 'secret' (sirr) in it, indicates that even behind this satanic mischief, a divine wisdom was at play. God sometimes permits Satan to play a role in the path of guidance, not as a guide, but as a 'mischief-maker' whose actions ultimately lead to a greater good.

Mowlana explicitly states: 'After this, the talk is intricate and far-reaching.' This means the discussion is difficult and misleading. He offers a way out of these mental temptations by advocating adherence to Solomon, that is, the Prophet himself: 'Be with Solomon and consult not the demons.' This is his call to abandon theological and historical anxieties and to return to the root and foundation of guidance. If the Prophet himself removed those words, we should not dwell on their 'why.' This is precisely the wisdom seen in the story of the judge and the Sufi: 'The Law is for the living and the wealthy,' meaning laws apply to living and present phenomena, not to what is deemed dead or false. This historical incident is, in Mowlana's view, nullified and removed, and should not be treated as a revelatory truth.

I concur that since the seventh century AH, nearly all major Shi'a and Sunni narrators and exegetes have deemed the historical authenticity of this incident unreliable. Dr. Sayyed Ja'far Shahidi, a prominent historian and Masnavi scholar, in his book Janāyāt-e Tārīkh (Crimes of History), severely criticized and invalidated this hadith from a historical perspective. Therefore, Mowlana's stance—accepting the apparent occurrence but separating it from the essence of revelation—offers a balanced and profound approach to this difficulty, both historically and theologically.

Key takeaways

• The verse refers to the famous 'Satanic Verses' (Gharānīq) incident said to have occurred in Sura al-Najm.
• Mowlana interprets these words as a satanic mischief, distinct from the essence of divine revelation or the Sura itself.
• He suggests that even within this mischief, there was a hidden 'secret and expediency,' perhaps to initially draw in polytheists.
• Mowlana advises against becoming entangled in complex theological debates surrounding the event, urging adherence to the Prophet's ultimate instruction (to remove the verses).
• Modern scholars (like Dr. Shahidi) consider the historical authenticity of this incident unreliable, yet Mowlana approaches it as a historical event requiring an interpretive lens.