Contemporary Christian Evaluations of Muhammad's Prophethood
clearly, all the preceding scholars have tried to deal sincerely and honestly with the question of the status of muhammad as a prophet. they all have tried to give theological room for him within the christian theology of religion. thus, they included him within the rank of the old testament prophets by using the title 'prophet' when referring to him.
in our opinion, this is indeed a very positive development towards christian acknowledgement of muhammad's prophethood. but it also raises an interesting and important question about the understanding of the term 'prophet'. for, as is well known, christians and muslims understand different things from it.
the french catholic scholar, jacques jomier, states that according to christians, a prophet is someone who speaks on behalf of god by divine authority. for that reason, he says, when a christian considers someone a prophet, he or she should obey what that prophet said. in this sense, jomier argues that christians cannot use the title 'prophet' for muhammad because "they cannot obey him without reserve".
furthermore, jomier clarifies that when christians use the title 'prophet' for someone, they do not mean that they accept all that he says, but admit some of it, while rejecting other aspects (146–147). the dutch protestant theologian, hendrik vroom, also says that when the title 'prophet' is used, it means someone who devotes himself to god as a 'man of god', or is understood to refer to someone who bears witness to others of the one god, creator, and ruler. christians can use that title for muhammad.
but when it is used and understood within the context of the biblical tradition, then they cannot use it for muhammad (vroom, 116).
on this point, we remind our readers that although today there are those who are in favor of a new and positive christian assessment of prophet muhammad, they do not want to use the title 'prophet' for muhammad because of these differences. for example, the catholic scholars j. jomier, r. arnaldez, and the british methodist scholar martin forward maintain the necessity of a more positive christian assessment of the prophet muhammad. in doing so, while jomier argues that unless christians re-examine the question of prophet muhammad's status positively, it is very difficult "to take a new step" in christian-muslim dialogue (140). forward stresses that "those who seek to cast luster upon their own religion by darkening another do themselves and their faith little honor and less justice" (119).
on the other hand, all of them state that because of the differences between christians and muslims in their respective understandings of the term 'prophet', it is better not to use this title for muhammad (jomier 146–147; forward 119–120; arnaldez 15). for, as forward remarks, "muslims and christians deceive themselves when they think that, by calling muhammad a prophet, they mean the same or even a comparable thing" (120).
for these reasons, both jomier and forward, unlike watt, küng, cragg, and kerr, regard prophet muhammad as a political and religious genius without assigning him the term 'prophet'. although these attempts by jomier and forward seem an honest christian response to the question of muhammad's status, they do not contribute to the understanding of muhammad's religious and spiritual vision (armstrong 14).
in his work "prophecy in ancient israel", j. lindblom elaborates the features of a prophet as follows:
a prophet is a person who experiences the divine in an original way to himself. he entirely belongs to god and receives revelation from him. his primary duty, first of all, is to listen to god and obey him and then proclaim his message to others. he develops his personal communion with god by prayer, devotion, and moral submission to his will. in this sense, he differs from a politician, a social reformer, a thinker or even a poet although he often puts his words in a poetical form. (1-2)
apart from these specialties of a prophet, the bible itself makes a distinction between true and false prophecy in deuteronomy 13:1–2 and 18:22, . in these passages, after expressing that those false prophets urge people to follow gods other than yahweh, and those whose prophecy is not fulfilled are false prophets (moyer 1041-1042), it follows that a true prophet is someone who proclaims all god reveals to him. in other words, a true prophet is someone through whose mouth god transmits his message to humanity. (vroom 117)new international version
in light of the above explanation, we can argue that it is very difficult for a sensible christian not to use the title 'prophet' for muhammad. for, when the features of false prophets are compared with the teachings of muhammad, it will be seen that he had nothing to do with false prophecy. by depending on these explanations of a prophet we can conclude that watt, cragg, küng, and kerr's acceptance of the title 'prophet' for muhammad can contribute more to christian-muslim understanding than rejection of it. christians who refuse to use the title 'prophet' for muhammad offend muslims, and make it difficult to establish better relations with them.
as for those whose views have been expressed in previous parts of this series, it is obvious that contemporary christian scholarship has generally attempted to go beyond the polemical tradition by accepting muhammad as a man of religious genius and the messenger of god who affected the course of human history under the sovereign rule of god. also, when these accounts of contemporary christian thinkers are compared with the accounts of those who maintained that any theological christian recognition of muhammad's prophethood would be impossible, it becomes obvious that more and more leading christian scholars regard this an issue which deserves serious discussion. (bijlefeld 20)
but as antonie wessels rightly remarks, not all christians are totally ready to shake off the remnants of the ill-informed medieval distorted images of muhammad. in this connection, he maintains that "the task of understanding anew what it means in modern times to say that god spoke to or through muhammad, as we find reflected in the quran, lies, in my opinion, still ahead." (105)
in short, our examination shows that the phenomenological approach to the question of muhammad's status can lead christians to understand the function of muhammad for muslims by observing the practical influence of his teachings on his followers, that is, muslims.
through this approach, christians can find the opportunity to compare muhammad with the old testament prophets, in order to observe their similarities before arriving at a decision concerning prophet muhammad's status as seen in the arguments of watt and küng.
by recognizing muhammad's prophethood, the following conclusion can be arrived at naturally: christians concede that muhammad is not a false prophet as has been claimed by the majority of non-muslims from the advent of islam to our modern age. rather, they admit that he was a genuine prophet who brought god's message to humanity.
although there are shortcomings in contemporary christian evaluations of prophet muhammad's status, we may easily conclude that whatever watt, cragg, küng, and kerr mean by the title 'prophet', their acknowledgement of muhammad as a prophet contributes to the development of contemporary christian-muslim dialogue.
David Kerr on Prophet Muhammad
the question of the status and prophethood of the prophet muhammad has been one of the most crucial and controversial issues in the history of christian-muslim relations.
can christians acknowledge the prophethood of muhammad? how have christian orientalists been reviewing their ideas about prophet muhammad?
the articles will discuss those scholars whose views have generated lively debate within christianity and who have contributed substantially and positively to the developments of christian-muslim dialogue. they are montgomery watt, kenneth cragg, hans küng, and david kerr.
david kerr, as a former director of two highly significant christian-muslim study centers, namely, the center for the study of islam and christian muslim relations in birmingham, england, and the d.b. macdonald center in hartford, usa, and a pioneer of christian-muslim dialogue, has produced three significant essays on prophet muhammad's status from the christian perspective.
in his first essay, "the prophet muhammad: toward a christian assessment", kerr examines the prophethood of muhammad in the light of quranic accounts by putting aside the question of whether christians can acknowledge the quran as the word of god or not. for, according to him, the answer to this question does not change the following facts.
first, he says that prophet muhammad sincerely believed that the quran came to him from god. second, the quran provides us with "an accurate guide to his understanding of his ministry" (25).
in the light of this clarification about his source, kerr explains his approach as follows: "ethically the paper starts from the premise that muhammad was a man of utter spiritual and moral seriousness and sincerity, as muslims themselves believe..." (24).
after this methodological explanation, kerr tries to outline the ministry of the prophet muhammad in the light of quranic accounts and seerah literature. after drawing the similarities between biblical and quranic teachings on ethical issues and peace, he argues that they offer christians "a firm basis for christian interest in muhammad's ministry as part of their dialogue with them" (28).
at the end of the essay, he strongly maintains that he did not want to be involved in making a theological evaluation of muhammad's prophethood in the light of the christian criterion, namely jesus christ. in doing so, it seems he wanted to stay outside "the long tradition of christian polemical writings which have portrayed muhammad as a 'false prophet'" (34). instead, he sought to understand muhammad as he had understood himself in the quran.
in his second essay "the prophet muhammad in christian theological perspective", kerr attempts to make a theological evaluation of muhammad's prophethood. first of all, he repeats the quranic accounts concerning the ministry of muhammad as he did in his previous essay, and highlights the quranic approach to inter-religious dialogue.
he then summarizes the past and present main christian approaches as represented by protestant, catholic, and orthodox scholars to muhammad's prophethood. since we have already discussed most of these above, we will turn to the conclusion where kerr makes his own evaluation in the light of these approaches.
here, kerr argues that as a result of recent developments in christians' relation with people of other faiths in general, and christian-muslim dialogue in particular, the following points become obvious for christians:
(1) god has universally revealed his will to all humankind in order to establish his own kingdom in the world.
(2) this divine revelation has been universally witnessed by various communities and individuals.
(3) in the judeo-christian tradition, the bible provides the interpretation of this revelation through the old testament prophets in the history of israel, and through jesus and the apostolic church in the new testament.
(4) in the gospel of christ, the divine revelation is universally available for humankind.
(5) but, in light of the biblical account that "god has left no people without a witness to his divine revelation", christians, through the universal activity of the holy spirit, can witness the availability of signs of divine revelation.
within the context of these points, kerr arrives at the following conclusion:
mohammad is manifestly such a sign "in the way of the prophets", the quran witnessing the universality of divine revelation, reiterating many of the fundamental perceptions of the bible, and providing as it were a critical commentary on the more dogmatic aspects of particularly new testament belief, and mohammad exemplifying the application of the quranic vision in society. (130)
what kerr indicates by this evaluation is that christians can regard muhammad as a witness to god's universal revelation, which was revealed in jesus christ for all humankind, no more than that. within this context, it can be argued that according to kerr, muhammad could be a prophet who was inspired by the trinitarian god and he is a 'prophetic corrective' for christians as küng stresses (6-21).
in his second essay, "he walked in the path of the prophets: toward christian theological recognition of the prophethood of muhammad", kerr observes some renowned twentieth century christian scholars whose views "create theological space for muhammad as a 'post-christian' prophet within their... theological understanding of the christian tradition".
by following the footsteps of his first essay, he says that his intention was not to develop a proper christian answer to the question of muhammad's prophethood as cragg did, but rather to "confuse christian confessional and ecumenical statements about the theological importance" of it (428).
after highlighting some important aspects of their views, kerr rightly points out that those who use theological christian criteria in their evaluations of muhammad's prophethood "largely fail to address islamic understanding of prophecy and prophethood".
but as has been stated above, he assesses prophet muhammad in light of the christian revelation which was attested to in christ. lastly, he argues that the solution to the question of muhammad's prophethood very much depends on the understanding of islamic revelation anew in the light of modern scientific developments (441).
by this argument, kerr indicates that if muslims re-read the quran whilst taking into account modern scientific methods, as some muslim scholars such as fazlur rahman did, then christians and muslims will be able to reach a mutual understanding about thestatus ofprophet muhammad.
as has been observed so far, kerr outlines his main ideas about whether christians can accept muhammad as a prophet or not at the end of his second essay. here, he follows the main principles of the inclusive christian theology of religions. in doing so, he first took the universality of god's revelation of his word as his starting point.
second, he emphasized the particularity of this divine revelation in jesus christ.
third, he argues that this should not be understood that there will be no sign of this divine revelation after jesus christ.
lastly, he maintains that if christians look for the signs of god's revelation through the power of the holy spirit, they can conclude that "muhammad is manifestly such a sign 'in the way of the prophets'". this theological explanation explicitly indicates that according to kerr, muhammad was not a prophet, but just a sign to the prophets. this clearly contradicts his intention, whereby he wants to understand muhammad as he understood himself.
implications for christian-muslim dialogue
when we think of christian accounts of the status and prophethood of muhammad as a whole, theologically speaking, we may argue that the following points can contribute to the development of christian-muslim understanding.
first, all of them emphasize the necessity for a christian reassessment of the status of prophet muhammad. this whereby a theological space is created for him in the history of prophecy and by rejecting all past distorted images of him.
second, by accepting the quran as the primary source, and early islamic sourcesas reliable and trustworthy for the assessment ofthe life and teachings of prophet muhammad, christians can deal with the question of prophet muhammad more positively as is seen in watt's efforts.
furthermore, our examination shows that a phenomenological approach to the question can lead christians to observe the practical influence of muhammad and his teachings on his followers (muslims). by doing so, they find the opportunity to compare muhammad with the other prophets, especially those of the old testament, who were recognized as prophets by the christians in order to observe their similarities before arriving at a decision concerning the status of prophet muhammad as seen in the works of watt and küng.
third, by taking into account the similarities between muhammad and the old testament prophets, christians are given the opportunity to acknowledge muhammad as a prophet just as they acknowledge the old testament prophets without downgrading their own religious beliefs, that is, by doing this, they are not comparing him with jesus christ.
recognizing the prophethood of muhammad in this way naturally leads to the following conclusion: christians concede that muhammad was not a false prophet as has been claimed by the majority of non-muslims from the advent of islam to our modern age, but rather, a genuine prophet who brought god's message to humanity.
fourth, as küng rightly remarks, christian re-assessments of the status and prophethood of muhammad in the process of christian-muslim dialogue can lead muslims to deal with those quranic verses that concern jesus (111). this by taking into account christian sources, namely the gospels, as is seen in the case of the muslim scholar, muhammad ayoub ("islamic christology" 91–121; "miracle" 221–227; "son" 65–81). this, too, then can create a more positive environment for a better christian-muslim understanding.
fifth, as we have pointed out earlier, those who defend the positive appreciation of the prophethood of muhammad have stimulated official church authorities to break their silence (as is seen in the documents of the second vatican council) by referring to prophet muhammad positively in their official statements such as "guidelines for dialogue between christian and muslims" and the european church statement "witness to god in secular europe".
Kenneth Cragg on Muhammad's Prophethood
the question of the status and prophethood of the prophet muhammad has been one of the most crucial and controversial issues in the history of christian-muslim relations.
readingislam.com presents a series of articles investigating the answers to the following questions: can christians acknowledge the prophethood of muhammad? are they ready to regard muhammad as a prophet of god?
the articles will discuss those scholars whose views have generated lively debate within christianity and who have contributed substantially and positively to the developments of christian-muslim dialogue. they are montgomery watt, kenneth cragg, hans küng and david kerr.
in this part, the author discusses kenneth cragg's view.
kenneth cragg, as an anglican bishop and missionary to islam, is regarded as one of the key figures in the twentieth-century christian thinking about islam and christian-muslim relations.
his books and essays cover many areas in the broad fields of islamic studies, christian-muslim relations, and inter-faith dialogue. within this context, he has published a great number of books and essays on the christian understanding of islam and its basic phenomenon, such as the quran and prophet muhammad (peace be upon him).
although his first major treatment of prophet muhammad is recorded in his book, the call of the minaret, his muhammad and the christian has particular significance for our concern here because it was published as a christian response to the muslim question: "why do christians not acknowledge the prophethood of muhammad when muslims show such great respect to jesus?"
due to this specific purpose behind cragg's work, we will concentrate mainly on its account of the same while also examining cragg's own views on prophet muhammad's status.
the significance of cragg's views is that, as a committed christian and an islamicist, he takes the muslim demand seriously and tries to answer it sincerely within the context of his own religious tradition. in this connection, his book, muhammad and the christian, can be regarded by muslims as "judicious, gentle, and positive in its use of information. its criticism of islam is honest, and ostensibly caring in tone." (khan 189)
before starting to analyze muhammad and the christian, we would like to observe briefly, how he treats the phenomenon ofmuhammad in the call of the minaret.
here, cragg portrays prophet muhammad as a man of "a sure monotheism and a prophetic mission," in which a divine relationship of revelation, through a scripture, created a community of faith (75).
then, after asking by which criteria the prophethood of muhammad is to be evaluated by christians, cragg enumerates the following:
is it by those of arabian paganism which would show mohammad to be a great reformer? or by those of early islamic development which would show mohammad to be one of the rarest potentialities in human history? or by those of the classical hebrew prophets which would show in mohammad a strange and yet unmistakable shift in the whole concept and expression of prophethood? or by those of the hills of the galilee and judea where there are criteria of almost insupportable contrast. (91)
he himself subscribed to the last criterion in answering the question "how should prophethood proceed?", and made the following contrast:
the mohammedan decision here is formative of all else in islam. it was a decision for community, for resistance, for external victory, for pacification and rule. the decision of the cross — no less conscious, no less formative, no less inclusive — was the contrary decision. (93)
here, cragg's main criterion for the assessment of the phenomenon of muhammad is a christian one, and is in the direct comparison with christ as portrayed in the gospels.
one of the most interesting points in cragg's treatment of the phenomenon of muhammad in the call of minaret is that he used the title 'prophet' almost synonymously with the name of muhammad.
our examination of related passages, however, demonstrates that he did not use this title to give official status to muhammad as a prophet. instead, he might have used it because he was accustomed to calling him prophet while living among muslims in the middle-east. (69ff)
when we turn to muhammad and the christian, we realize cragg changes the approach we observed above. at the outset of this work, he explains his new thinking by indicating that the elements of other religions should be evaluated within their own historical context and not from one's own religious tradition and standpoint.
he says:
religions, they will say are specifics best left to their differing histories and their segregated faith systems, hopefully practicing tolerance but never venturing to translate their own ethos into the idiom of another. on this view, it will be either naive or hopeless to think that muhammad is assessable in terms proper to the buddha or that the prophet of the quran can rightly be aligned with jesus of the gospels...therefore it is wisdom to leave the several faiths to their own world-views, their historical matrix and their characteristic mood and mind. one should not look to their contemporary societies for any common reaction to the present world. their futures must be conceded to be as separate as their pasts. (2)
by such a statement, cragg seems to move away from assessing the phenomenon of muhammad in the light of christian teaching to an assessment in the light of the quran's own teaching. one of the reasons behind this shift could be that some of his christian colleagues charged him with christianizing islam.
after this methodological statement, cragg begins to respond to the muslim question by considering western historical studies relating to muhammad. he gives an analysis of him and his role as a prophet as it is presented in the quran. he also considers muslim thought on muhammad and his prophethood in the muslim tradition from the time of the prophet to our own day. it is not possible to discuss the significant points of this long survey here but we will limit our focus to the status and prophethood of muhammad.
as regards the muslim demand for acknowledgement of muhammad's prophethood by christians in the process of christian-muslim dialogue, cragg states that a vital part of the christian's response to this demand concerns muhammad's inner experience. he points out that:
the ultimate area of christian response, given an honest reckoning with all the foregoing, will be the content of the quran itself. indeed, the question of a christian acknowledgement of muhammad resolves itself into that, a christian response to the islamic scripture. it is safe to say that muhammad himself would not have it otherwise. nor could any faithful muslim. (6)
then he maintains that within this context a christian can consider muhammad as "the prophet of the quran" (91). as abrahim h. khan remarks, cragg's strategy in assessing the prophethood of muhammad within the context of the quran can imply that his study of the significance of muhammad for christians is "intellectually respectable", because by doing so he may mean that "muhammad's role in the quran is authentic prophet" (khan 190).
in this connection, cragg points out that:
the christian conscience must develop a faithful appreciation of the quran and thereby participate with muslims in muhammad within that community of truth as to god and man, creation and nature, law and mercy, which they afford. (140-141)
further, it seems that considering muhammad as 'the prophet of the
quran' allows cragg and other like-minded christians to affirm that in his role as the human channel through whom the quran was revealed muhammad was a genuine prophet of god.
after acknowledging muhammad as 'the prophet of the quran', cragg tries to tie this recognition with the christian tradition by arguing that this "must entail a christian concern for a larger, more loving, comprehension of divine transcendence and, as its sphere, a deeper estimate of human nature and its answer in that which is 'more than prophecy'." he then adds that acknowledgement should not mean that:
the holy trinity, the divinity of jesus, the meaning of the cross, the mystery of the eucharist, the integrity of the four gospels, the doctrine of the holy spirit, and many contingent matters, are not vital. but it means that they are better left latent here, within the positive and often common themes of islamic faith and devotion. (139)
as has been observed so far, cragg insists that a christian acknowledgement of the muhammad's prophethood must hinge on biblical grounds. and within this, he evaluates the teaching of the prophet muhammad as follows:
in the broadest terms it means the rule of god, the reality of divine power, wisdom, mercy and justice. it means the strong permeation of the human scene with a consciousness of god, his claim, his creating, his sustaining, his ordaining. that awareness by which islam lives is sure enough to contain all those issues which the christian must be minded to join when he studies the predicates of his new testament theology. (145)
from this passage, we may conclude that cragg is extremely careful and cautious in his assessment of the muhammad's prophethood within the context of quranic teaching, this presumably so as not to underestimate, theologically, his own dogmatic position. for example,
while he acknowledges muhammad as "the prophet of the quran", he interprets the finality of muhammad not in time but with respect to place and locale so as not to compromise the christian belief of the finality of christ. (92)
he reflects this position in a number of places throughout his book. the following passages can be given as examples:
for the christian the pattern of muhammad's sirah will always be in conflict with the power and perspective of the cross. (52)
one cannot assess the latter only in terms of the preferability of monotheist faith to pagan idolatry, without regard to questions about jesus and the cross. (93)
the gospel presents what we must call a divine 'indicative', an initiative of self-disclosure on god's part by which his relation to our human situation is not only in law and education, but in grace and suffering. christians therefore believe that they have to 'let god be god' in just those initiatives which islam excludes... (158)
by these statements, cragg explicitly argues that god's sovereignty is fully vindicated not in terms of an islamic understanding of prophecy but in the sonship of christ which is designated by "those measures of grace and love, of sin and redemption, which are distinctive to the gospel" (141).
he also makes the connection between the quranic statement about the blessing of the prophet with new testament statements about the divine sonship of jesus christ (54-65).
it seems that he uses this connection to demonstrate that the prophet muhammad in one sense 'incarnated' the reality of god's message to humankind whereby he asks: "are we not then warranted in saying that the prophet of islam's very stature argues the sort of divine commitment to the human situation and its righting which the christian sees implemented in jesus as the christ." (127)
in our opinion, cragg's attempt is repugnant to islam, since "it runs against the grain of basic quranic teaching, which is that only a being who is completely human can provide effective guidance to humankind." (khan 196)
further, khan maintains that an understanding of the prophet muhammad's position "from the perspective of a theology that implies that incarnation, atonement and redemption, and that endorses jesus christ as the standard of faith" distorts his image in the eyes of muslims.
also, to see muhammad as a witness "to the human situation implemented in jesus christ" is to underestimate muhammad's being as rasul allah or messenger of god. (khan 196)
jane i. smith, stresses that by trying "to balance christology with the muslim sense of prophecy", cragg "moves onto potentially dangerous ground." (smith 75)
in his investigation of the status and prophethood of muhammad, cragg used jesus christ as a decisive criterion by which he indicated that the human condition needs more than prophethood to meet its deepest needs. he concludes his investigation by arguing that "if, restoring jesus' principle, we question or regret the caesar in muhammad, it will only be for the sake, in their quranic form, of those same 'things of god', which move us to acknowledge him."(159)
this conclusion leads him to argue that the "whole logic of muhammad's career is that the verbal deliverance of prophetic truth fails of satisfaction and must therefore pass to the post-hijrah invocation of power." (155)
by doing so, cragg acknowledges that muhammad might have been a prophet but jesus christ was more than a prophet. for, according to cragg, muhammad as a prophet testified to "the sort of divine commitment to the human situation and its righting which the christian sees implemented in jesus as the christ." (127)
as has been observed, cragg develops his views as a response to a consistent muslim call for christian acknowledgement of muhammad's prophethood in the process of christian-muslim encounters. he expresses this point in the preface to muhammad and the christian:
it is the aim of this study to offer at least one christian's view of a resolution of the problem, a resolution which, no more than tentative, remains loyal to christian criteria while outlining a positive response to muhammad. (ix)
within this context, it seems that all his thoughts on this issue can be regarded as guiding principles which show christians how they might respond to the muslim demand by holding christ as a decisive and normative criterion for the salvation of humankind.
in the light of our examination of cragg's views on the status and prophethood of muhammad, we may draw the following conclusions:
first, cragg regards muhammad as a prophet of god and the human channel through whom the quran was transmitted for those who had no scripture. however, while doing this, cragg places muhammad's significance into the pattern of an old testament prophet whose ultimate objective points beyond himself to the life and ministry of jesus christ.
chronologically speaking, we may ask how this is possible when muhammad came six centuries after jesus. this question is answered by cragg with an appeal to geography. thus, the arabian peninsula at the time of muhammad is considered by cragg to have been in an old testament state of affairs. he says: "for places can be 'contemporary' in time and in no way 'contemporary' in character." (92)
second, from the muslim point of view cragg's generous suggestion that christians should regard muhammad as 'the prophet of the quran' is not as generous as he thinks. for, muslims do not recognize muhammad only as 'the prophet of the quran' but as rasul allah, the messenger of god.
according to this belief, muhammad is not just a prophet for the arabs, but a prophet with a universal message for all human beings. hence, cragg's recognition of muhammad as 'the prophet of the quran' is for muslims nothing less than a betrayal of their faith.
third, although cragg examines the question of muhammad's prophethood in a scholarly way, in the light of quranic accounts, it seems that his final verdict is "no longer from a scholarly position but a theological-apologetic one, intended to safeguard the kerygmatic core of the christian faith, and simultaneously to appease muslims." (khan 192)
in short, we may conclude that, it is indeed a positive development towards christian-muslim dialogue for a committed christian scholar to respond so positively to the muslim demand that in the dialogue process the christian partner should respect muhammad as a prophet within the context of his own religious tradition.
by doing so, cragg has shown that the christian partner can acknowledge muhammad as 'a prophet of the quran' by safeguarding his/her own christian beliefs. cragg's views can also be regarded as extremely helpful for those who fear that to adopt a positive attitude toward prophet muhammad can cause problems for their own beliefs.
Hans Küng on Prophet Muhammad
the question of the status and prophethood of the prophet muhammad has been one of the most crucial and controversial issues in the history of christian-muslim relations.
readingislam.com presents a series of articles investigating the answers to the following questions: can christians acknowledge the prophethood of muhammad? are they ready to regard muhammad as a prophet of god?
the articles will discuss those scholars whose views have generated lively debate within christianity and who have contributed substantially and positively to the developments of christian-muslim dialogue. they are montgomery watt, kenneth cragg, hans küng and david kerr.
in this part, the author discusseshans küng's view.
hans küng, as an ecumenical catholic theologian, began his scholarly life by dealing with problematic issues within christianity. but in the courseof time, he became interested in contemporary common issues not only for christians, but also for people of other faiths.
according to w. g. jeanrond's classification of küng's theological development, his reflection on theological method and the discourse between christianity and world religions began in the early 1980' s in order to promote inter-religious dialogue (105).
in this context, he published his major work christianity and world religions: paths of dialogue with islam, hinduism, and buddhism in 1984.
in each part of this book, first of all, he pays attention to scholarly accounts of islam, hinduism, and buddhism, and then provides a detailed critical response to each one as a christian theologian.
as a scholar interested in world religions, küng has tried to understand them anew as a christian theologian and to create a positive environment for christians to relate to adherents of those religions. in so doing, he studies the status of prophet muhammad (peace be upon him) from the christian perspective in a number of his writings, namely: christianity and the world religions, christianity and world religions: the dialogue with islam, and muhammad: a prophet?.
we will examine küng's views on the status and prophethood of muhammad in light of these accounts.
as a leading catholic theologian, küng, with special reference to nostra aetate, openly and boldly invited the members of the catholic church to officially acknowledge muhammad's prophethood if they wanted to establish better relations with muslims. in this connection, küng underlines:
the same church must, in my opinion, also respect that the one whose name is absent from the same declaration out of embarrassment, although he and he alone led muslims to pray to this one god, so that once again through him, muhammad, the prophet, this god 'has spoken to mankind'. ("world religions" 129)
later on, too, he notes the necessity of acknowledging muhammad's prophethood by all christians in the process of christian-muslim dialogue by maintaining that:
the christian who wishes to engage in dialogue with the muslims acknowledges from the outset his or her own conviction of faith that for him or her jesus is the christ and so is normative and definitive, but he or she also takes very seriously the function of muhammad as an authentic prophet. ("ecumenical" 124)
in our opinion, because of these two bold statements, küng's views deserve to be taken seriously. not least because his remarks that in our pluralistic age in which more and more people from different religious traditions are living and working together, it is no longer possible for christians to accept the distorted medieval images of prophet muhammad such as false, lying pseudo prophet, a fortune teller, and a magician.
on the contrary, he stresses the need to develop a new and positive christian understanding of muhammad. to do this, he says it is necessary first of all to take into consideration the historical context of muhammad's prophethood and his message within the stream of the religious history of all humanity.
from this methodological perspective, he remarks:
muhammad is discontinuity in person, an ultimately irreducible figure, who cannot be simply derived from what preceded him, but stands radically apart from it as he, with the quran, established permanent new stands. ("world religions" 25)
from this passage, david kerrrightly concludes that küng takes the discontinuity as
küng draws attention to the similarities between muhammad's prophethood and the prophetsof israel in order to expose the significance of muhammad for christians
an essential element for his evaluation of the originality of muhammad's prophethood (kerr 437). by using this exposition, küng advocates that "muhammad and the quran represent a decisive break, a departure from the past, a shift toward a new future" ("world religions" 25).
also, küng argues that there is no one more worthy of being called a prophet than muhammad in the whole of religious history, and this is because of his claim that he was no more than a prophet, who came to warn people. he says "when the history of religions speaks of "the prophet" tout court , of a man who claimed to be that but absolutely nothing more, then there can be no doubt that this is muhammad" (25).
küng draws attention to the similarities between muhammad's prophethood and the prophets of israel in order to expose the significance of muhammad for christians. he says that like the old testament prophets, muhammad based his work not on any office given to him by the community (or its authorities) but on a special, personal relationship with god.
muhammad was a strong-willed character, who saw himself as wholly penetrated by his divine vocation, totally taken up by god's claim on him, exclusively absorbed by his mission. muhammad spoke out amid a religious and social crisis.
with his passionate piety and his revolutionary preaching, he stood up against the wealthy ruling class and the tradition of which it was the guardian. muhammad, who usually calls himself a 'warner', wished to be nothing but god's mouthpiece and to proclaim god's word, not his own.
muhammad tirelessly glorified the one god, who tolerates no other gods before him and who is, at the same time, the kindly creator and merciful judge.
muhammad insisted upon unconditional obedience, devotion, and 'submission' to this one god. he called for every kind of gratitude toward god and of generosity toward human beings. muhammad linked his monotheism to a humanism, connecting faith in the one god and his judgment to the demand for social justice; judgment and redemption, threats against the unjust, who go to hell, and promises to the just, who are gathered into god's paradise (25–26).
here, küng explains the status of prophet muhammad to christians by presenting three important steps for them to determine that self same status. first, it is necessary for them to take into account the specialties of muhammad's teaching. second, to compare them with the teachings of previous prophets i.e. old testament prophets, in order to observe their similarities. and lastly to make their decisions about his status by considering those similarities.
küng continues to draw attention to the similarities of the teachings of the biblical prophets and muhammad by urging christians to read the quran and the bible, especially the old testament, to find answers to the following questions:
do not these three semitic religions — judaism, christianity and islam — have the same origin? does not one and the same god speak loudly and clearly in these religions? does not the old testament's 'thus says the lord' correspond to the quran's 'say', as the old testament's 'go and tell' matches the quran's 'take you stand and warn'. (26)
he says that if christians do this, it is impossible for them to answer these questions negatively. thus, he concludes that "it is only dogmatic prejudice when we [christians] recognize amos and hosea, isaiah and jeremiah, as prophets, but not muhammad" (26).
like watt, küng urges christians to take into account the effect of muhammad's teaching on his followers in seventh-century arabia. he says by following that message, those people
were lifted to the heights of monotheism from the very worldly polytheism of the old arabian tribal religion. taken as a whole, they received from muhammad, or rather from the quran, a boundless supply of inspiration, courage, and strength to make a new departure in religion, toward greater truth and deeper knowledge, a breakthrough that vitalized and renewed their traditional religion. islam, in short, was a great help in their life. (27)
küng also reminds christians of the following facts when dealing with the questions
küng argues that like the old testament prophets, muhammad, too, deserves to be called 'prophet' by christians
about prophet muhammad. he says it is well known today that one fifth of the world's population "are all marked by the exacting power of a faith that, more than practically any other, has shaped its followers into a uniform type"; and those people, muslims, share a "feeling for the fundamental equality of all human beings before god, and international brotherhood that has managed to overcome barriers between the races" (26-27).
these quotations from küng imply that the right way for christian appreciation of prophet muhammad is to take into account the observable benefits of his message on his followers. in other words, according to küng, it is necessary to move away from theology to the practical effects of the message on the life of its followers in order to reach a right conclusion about that faith. by implying this, it seems that küng adopts a similar approach to both smith and montgomery watt.
finally, küng moves to outline the theological meaning of this recognition of prophet muhammad for christians. he begins by showing that in the new testament there are statements which indicate that after jesus there is the possibility of authentic future prophets. but, küng restricts their mission to witnessing jesus and his message by making it comprehensible for every age and every situation (27–28).
within this context, in the last stage of his examination of the status and prophethood of muhammad, küng regards muhammad "as a witness for jesus — a jesus who could have been understood not by hellenistic gentile christians, but by jesus' first disciples, who were jews, because, with this jesus tradition, muhammad reminds the jews that jesus fits into the continuity of jewish salvation history" (126).
and he emphasizes that "this muhammad" can be a "prophetic corrective" and
küng tries to reassess the status and prophethood of muhammad in the light of modern day developments in christian-muslim relations.
"prophetic warner" for christians in order to inform them that the one incomparable god has to stand in the absolute center of faith; that associating with him any other gods or goddesses is out of the question; that faith and life, orthodoxy and orthopraxy, belong together everywhere, including politics (129).
in one of his papers which was delivered at edinburgh theological club, küng maintains that "i can, as a christian be convinced that if i have chosen ... jesus as the christ for my life and death, then along with him i have chosen his follower muhammad, insofar as he appeals to one and the same god and to jesus" (watt 84).
as we have observed above, as an ecumenical catholic theologian and leading defender of inter-religious dialogue, küng tries to reassess the status and prophethood of muhammad in the light of modern day developments in christian-muslim relations. by doing this, he examines the issue from both practical and theological perspectives.
in view of our examination of his standpoint within the context of these two perspectives, we may draw the following conclusions. first, according to küng, all christians, both officially and individually, need to make some correction in their approaches to prophet muhammad's status in the process of christian-muslim dialogue so that their views will not offend muslims.
second, while doing this, it is necessary to take into account the similarities between prophet muhammad and the old testament prophets, and the observable fruits of his teaching on muslims. in this issue, küng argues that like the old testament prophets, muhammad, too, deserves to be called 'prophet' by christians.
from the muslim understanding of prophethood, there is no problem in küng's argument, since according to islamic teaching there is no difference between prophets (al-baqarah 2:285).
however, from the christian point of view his argument needs further clarification to avoid ambiguity. for, what muslims understand by this term differs from what christians understand.
third, from a theological perspective, according to küng, the new testament allows the continuation of prophecy after jesus christ as long as they witness to him in every age and in every situation.
therefore, küng acknowledges muhammad's prophethood by seeing him "as a witness for jesus" not as understood by hellenistic gentile christians but by his first disciples and also as a "prophetic corrective" for christians. in our opinion, there are two significant implications of these arguments.
the first is that christians may have an opportunity to revise their own understanding of jesus by taking into account jewish christians understanding of jesus, since according to küng there is a great similarity between the quranic and jewish christians approach to jesus ("religious situation" 105 (ff)).
the second is that being a "prophetic corrective" for christians seems to be compatible with the prophet's teaching as long as this is understood as just one of his duties among others.
for example, in the quran, christians are invited to give up their extreme views about jesus not his teaching. although these are positive implications, when muhammad and jesus are compared, küng always seems to make muhammad inferior to jesus.there is another negative implication here for the development of christian-muslim understanding. if the mission of prophet muhammad is restricted to witnessing to jesus in order to make him intelligible for every age and every situation, then there is no difference between prophet muhammad and the gospel authors and even church authorities and missionaries. this certainly reduces the value of prophet muhammad not only in the eyes of non-muslims but also muslims.
