The following is a response to ShiaSunni.info’s article “Satan put his Words in the Prophet’s Mouth.” The article was published in the 24th of December, 2013, and can be found here.
The author of the article makes the strangest connection between Saheeh Al-Bukhari and the forged narration known as Hadith Al-Gharaneeq (a.k.a the Satanic Verses).
Al-Bukhari narrates that Ibn Mas’ud said: The first verse that has a prostration that was revealed was Al-Najm. He said: The Messenger then prostrated and those behind him prostrated, except for one man that took a fistful of sand and prostrated upon it. I saw him being killed as a kaffir later, and he was Umayyah bin Khalaf.
The narration does not contain anything to do with the so-called Satanic Verses. However, ShiaSunni.info suggest that:
The story mentioned in Bukhari is not detailed enough as mentioned in Tabri and other books. But it testifies the particular incident when the Pagans of Mecca performed prostration along with the Muslims except one person (Ummayya) who put rocks on his forehead and pretended the sajdah. If we believe on the story of Bukhari that the pagans performed Sajdah along with the Muslims. It clearly means that something big happened. We all know that the pagans of Mecca were very strong from the Muslims They always use to give hard time to Muslims. If the pagans performed sajdah along with the Muslims, it is very unusual. The story of Bukhari and Tabri testify each other.
We want to say here that the story mentioned in Bukhari and Tabri is not true, satan cannot put his words in the Holy Prophet’s mouth.
ShiaSunni.info’s conclusion is not academic. A detailed narration is not necessarily complementary to short narrations. Al-Bukhari, who was one of the greatest hadith scholars of all time, was most definitely aware of the hadith of the Satanic Verses, and yet, did not include it in his book due to his condition that the narration must be authentic. Instead, he included a short narration that was authentic. In other words, the explanation and the details found in Al-Tabari’s book are not reliable according to the standards of the hadith scholars, and are therefore rejected. It is silly to think that Al-Bukhari endorses a detailed narration, especially when he knowingly chooses to not include it.
Furthermore, according to ShiaSunni.info, Al-Tabari’s narration contains Walid bin Mughera as the man that did not prostrate. Al-Bukhari’s narration contains Umayyah bin Khalaf. Is this not enough for one to accept that Al-Bukhari’s narration is different from Al-Tabaris and that they do not complement one another?!
Once again, a detailed narration doesn’t complement shorter narrations, unless the chain of the detailed narration is authentic. Observe the following example:
The Prophet (salalahu alaihi wa salam) hated a tall man. – Authentic narration.
The Prophet (salalahu alaihi wa salam) hated Omar, who was a tall man. – Fabricated Shia narration.
No sensible hadithist would accept the second narration, simply due to it being more detailed, as an explanation for the first narration, if the chain is weak. That is the objective methodology of the hadith scholars.