William Montgomery Watt 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 discusses william montgomery watt's view.

montgomery watt, as a historian of islamic history and prolific modern biographer of the prophet muhammad (peace be upon him), has been regarded as one of the most accredited islamicists of the twentieth century by both christians and muslims.

by his works on islam, as khurshid ahmad remarks, he has changed the prejudiced attitude of christians to islam to a more objective and sympathetic one. (18)

he is also regarded by both christians and muslims as the most prolific scholar of this century in the field of seerah scholarship because of his acceptance of the quran and the early islamic works as reliable sources for determining the prophet muhammad's status. (welch 15–52)

as regards watt's significance in seerah scholarship, daniel indicates that watt's views on muhammad, although they "do not revolutionize the christian assessment of the prophet, do change the emphasis, so that the reader, through the historico-anthropological approach is drawn into and allowed to some extent to share the muslim awareness of the prophet." (daniel 330-331)

f.e. peters in his recent biography of the prophet notes that:

…undoubtedly montgomery watt's two-volume life of muhammad written at the mid-century has become the standard for students and scholars alike. works of such magnitude and conviction usually signal a pause, the reshaping of a new communis opinio, and such seems to have occurred here: no one has since attempted a like enterprise in english. (xi)

watt has written a great number of books and articles about islam and its phenomenon, namely the islamic revelation, the prophet muhammad, and recently, christian-muslim relations.

but his main views about the status and prophethood of muhammad can be found in his later writings such as islam and christianity today (1983); "muhammad as the founder of islam" (1984); "the nature of prophethood of muhammad" (1987); muhammad's mecca (1988); muslim-christian encounter (1991); "islamic attitude to other religions" (1993).


for this reason, we will mainly concentrate on accounts of these works by highlighting those passages which pertain to our questions. additionally, we will follow the historical order of his writings to see how his views developed in the course of time.

in doing so, we would like first to give his criticism of christians' distorted images of prophet muhammad in order to highlight the starting point of his own arguments concerning our investigation.

in his muhammadat medina (1956), he invites christians to develop an objective view about muhammad, the prophet of islam, because of the close contacts between christians and muslims.

he totally rejects the past allegations made against muhammad, and says that the advocates of those allegations regarded muhammad as an impostor or without thinking about "how god could have allowed a great religion like islam to develop from a basis of lies and deceit." ("at medina" 232)

in another place, he criticizes early christian scholars' views on the issue of muhammad's prophetic vocation by saying that:

in medieval europe there was elaborated the conception of muhammad as a false prophet who merely pretended to receive messages from god; and this and other falsifications of the medieval war propaganda are only slowly being expunged from the mind of europe and christendom. ("bell's introduction" 17)

watt points out that in the understanding of muhammad's prophetic experience,

western writers have mostly been prone to believe the worst of muhammad, and where an objectionable interpretation of an act seemed plausible have tended it as fact.

he argues that this plausibility in itself is not sufficient criteria to judge a particular case and, hence, it is important that solid, sound evidence needs to be presented as the basis for assessing muhammad's prophethood.

he adds:

thus, not merely must we credit muhammad with essential honesty and integrity of purpose, if we are to understand him at all; if we are to correct the errors we have inherited from the past, we must in every particular case hold firmly to the belief in his sincerity until the opposite is conclusively proved. ("at mecca" 233)

watt urges christians to try to understand some events surrounding the prophet muhammad within the context of his own circumstances, without judging them according to their own circumstances.

in this connection, he states that christians accused muhammad of treachery and lustfulness because of events such as the violation of the sacred month and his marriage to the divorced wife of his adopted son without thinking about the circumstances of his time.

he argues that if those christians carefully scrutinized early islamic sources, they would easily find out that they judge muhammad's actions without taking into consideration any moral criticism of his contemporaries. ("prophet and statesman" 233)

he also criticizes the theory that muhammad was a "pathological case" (archer 9ff). he states that none of the medical symptoms associated with this condition were present in muhammad.

further, he argues that even if it were the case "the argument would be completely unsound and based on mere ignorance and prejudice; such physical concomitants neither validate or invalidate religious experience". ("at mecca" 57)

we may conclude watt's criticism by pointing out that those past negative views of western christians depend very much on certain traditions which might not enjoy any certainty at all, instead of on the quran and the early islamic sources. on this issue, watt declares that:

it is incredible that a person subject to epilepsy, or hysteria, or even ungovernable fits of emotion, could have been the active leader of military expeditions, or the cool far-seeing guide of city-state and a growing religious community; but all this we know muhammad to have been. in such questions the principle of the historian should be to depend mainly on the qur'an and accept tradition only in so far as it is in harmony with the results of qur'anic study. ("bell's introduction" 18)

thereafter, watt begins his own assessment of the status and prophethood of muhammad by pointing out the necessity of making a theological evaluation of his prophetic vocation. he insists that "so far muhammad has been described from the point of view of the historian. yet as the founder of a world religion he also demands a theological judgement." ("prophet and statesman" 237-238)

then, he starts his theological appreciation by defining prophethood as follows:

prophets... share in (what may be called) 'creative imagination'. they proclaim ideas connected with what is deepest and most central in human experience, with special reference to the particular needs of their day and generation. the mark of the great prophet is the profound attraction of his ideas for those to whom they are addressed. ("prophet and statesman" 238)

in another work, truth in religions, watt depicts a prophet "as a religious leader who brings truth in a form suited to the needs of his society and age" (149). as we will see, his evaluation of the muhammad's prophethood appears to conform with this definition.

furthermore, in his essay "thoughts on muslim-christian dialogue", he notes the differences between christian and muslim understanding of the term 'prophet'. here, watt indicates that the main specialties of the old testament prophets were to be involved in their contemporary public events, and to foretell the future.

according to modern, historically-minded christians, he argues, the main duty of the prophet is not to foretell the future but to transmit and proclaim god's message to his own people. (34-35)

within the context of these understandings of the term 'prophet', watt, towards the end of his muhammad, prophet and statesman,  asks "was muhammad a prophet?", and answers it by pointing out that:

he was a man in whom creative imagination worked at deep levels and produced ideas relevant to the central questions of human existence, so that his religion has had a widespread appeal, not only in his own age but in succeeding centuries. not all the ideas he proclaimed are true and sound but god's grace has been enabled to provide millions of men with a better religion than they had before they testified that there is no god but god and that muhammad is his messenger. (240)

in his essay "thoughts on muslim-christian dialogue", watt argues that it would be very difficult for christians to regard muhammad as a prophet. for, according to him, if christians did, perhaps muslims would draw the conclusion that christians considered muhammad as a prophet in the islamic sense whereby muhammad is understood as "a mere instrument for transmitting to his fellow-men the actual speech of god without his personality entering into the transaction in any way." (36)

in his islam and christianity today, he develops his views about the status of the prophet muhammad in the light of the observable fruits of muhammad's teaching on his followers. in this connection, he argues that christians should accept the fact that on the basis of the revelation which came to muhammad:

a religious community developed, claiming to serve god, numbering some thousands in muhammad's lifetime, and now having several hundred million members. the quality of life in this community has been on the whole satisfactory for the saintliness of life, and countless ordinary people have been enabled to live decent and moderately happy lives in difficult circumstances. these points lead to the conclusion that the view of reality presented in the quran is true and from god, and that therefore muhammad is a genuine prophet. (60-61)

in his essay "muhammad as the founder of islam", watt explains what he means by the phase "genuine prophet" as follows:

muhammad was a genuine prophet in the sense that god used him to communicate truth about himself to human beings; but this assertion has to be qualified by holding also that prophets can make mistakes of a sort, as the old testament prophets haggai and zechariah did when they thought that prince zerubbabel was the messiah. (249)

he also describes prophet muhammad as one used by god to found a religion, part of his duty being "to challenge christians to more profound reflection on some of their basic beliefs." (249)

following on from such positive statements about prophet muhammad, watt announces his own understanding of muhammad's status and prophethood at the beginning of his muhammad's mecca — history in the qur'an as follows:

personally i am convinced that muhammad was sincere in believing that what came to him as revelation (al-wahy ) was not the product of conscious thought on his part. i consider that muhammad was truly a prophet, and think that we christians should admit this on the basis of the christian principle that ''by their fruits you will know them'', since through the centuries islam has produced many upright and saintly people. if he is a prophet, too, then in accordance with the christian doctrine that the holy spirit spoke by the prophets, the qur'an may be accepted as of divine origin. (1)

in his essay "islamic attitude to other religions", he attempts to make this personal statement as a general christian account not to offend muslims in the process of interreligious dialogue. he says christians "must accept muhammad as a prophet who was similar to the old testament prophets." (245)

in another recent work, muslim-christian encounter: perceptions and misconceptions, watt emphasizes that in the process of christian-muslim dialogue it is very important that christians should reject the distortions of the medieval image of islam and should develop a positive appreciation of its values.

this involves accepting muhammad as a religious leader through whom god has worked, and that is "tantamount to holding that he is in some sense a prophet." and he adds "such a view does not contradict any central christian belief", since "christians do not believe that all muhammad's revelations from god were infallible, even though they allow that much of divine truth was revealed to him." (148)

in one of his essays, "ultimate vision and ultimate reality", watt concedes that although in his academic life he always defends the view that the quran was not prophet muhammad's own product but something that came to him beyond himself, he nonetheless hesitates to speak of muhammad as a prophet from fear that "muslims would have taken this to mean that everything in the qur'an was finally and absolutely true" which he did not acknowledge as so.

but just prior to this, as we have observed above, he says he admitted muhammad as a prophet like the old testament prophets who came to ''bring the knowledge of god to people without such knowledge''. (280-288)

further, he clarifies what he means when he recognizes muhammad as a prophet like those of the old testament in his religious truth for our time as follows:

muhammad was a prophet comparable to the old testament prophets, though his function was somewhat different. the latter were primarily critics of deviations from an existing religion, whereas he had to bring knowledge of god and of his commands to a people without any such knowledge. in this respect muhammad's role and station more closely resembled that of moses in that through each of them a form of the divine law was communicated to their people. (80)

as has been observed so far, watt made a number of bold statements towards acknowledging the prophethood of muhammad. within this context, when we think of his views as a whole, we can draw two ambiguous and two significant points from them. first of all, we will highlight the ambiguous.

first, while he is making one of his bold statements about the prophethood of muhammad, watt underlines that he is "convinced that muhammad was sincere in believing that what came to him [was] revelation." in our opinion, this statement should be understood in the light of watt's understanding of the status of the quran.

though watt conceded that prophet muhammad did not produce the quran consciously, however, he argued that something of him entered into the process of revelation. so, from this understanding, we could argue that what watt is convinced of is not that muhammad actually received revelation from god, but that he sincerely believed that he received revelation.

this naturally leads us to draw the conclusion that although muhammad believed that he received revelation from god, in reality he might not have. in our opinion, this point needs more clarification from watt, himself, for the sake of better christian-muslim understanding.

second, as a corollary to this negative implication, watt, by taking the christian doctrine that the holy spirit spoke by the prophets, implies that prophet muhammad was inspired in the same way, and also by the trinitarian god. by doing this, it seems that watt downgrades the value of prophet muhammad, not only in the eyes of non-muslims but muslims as well. for it may reduce the status of muhammad to those people who are guided by the holy spirit such as gospel writers, christian saints or holy people of other religious traditions.

apart from these ambiguities, there are also two very significant points in watt's thoughts on the prophet muhammad. the first whereby watt urges christians to test the lives of those who follow prophet muhammad in the light of the christian criterion that "by their fruits you will know them" before deciding whether muhammad could be a prophet or not.

broadly speaking, although watt's criterion can contribute to positive christian appreciation of the prophethood of muhammad, it might also be used as a negative evaluation by christians. for, watt does not explain what those fruits are.

second, by comparing prophet muhammad to the old testament prophets watt, like küng as we will see later, arrives at the conclusion that he was a prophet similar to those of the old testament. although this is a good starting point for positive christian assessment of prophet muhammad, it seems that it reduces his value in the eyes of his followers.

in our opinion, watt makes the connection between muhammad and moses in order to avoid this implication. however, even after considering these ambiguities and significances, as muslims we must concede that, in western christian scholarship watt's position represents a great shift forward from the distorted medieval images of prophet muhammad to the positive evaluation of his status.

in doing so, watt has already paved the way through which christians can obtain a complimentary view about prophet muhammad and be able to evaluate his status as the prophet "in a more positive light than hitherto." (forward 107)

Prophet Muhammad from the Perspective of Christian Orientalists

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?


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.

the question of the status and prophethood of muhammad (peace be upon him) has been one of the most crucial and controversial issues of christian-muslim relations since the advent of islam.


so, in almost every christian-muslim encounter christian acknowledgement of the prophethood of muhammad has been and still is raised. muslims ask, "since we muslims accept jesus (peace be upon him) as a genuine prophet and messenger of god, can you christians not reciprocate by accepting the genuineness of muhammad's prophethood?" (kerr, "theological perspective" 119; "christian assessment" 24–36)

for example, in the eight and ninth centuries, the abbasid caliph, al-mahdi, asked this question to the assyrian patriarch timothy, and timothy answered by saying: "[muhammad] walked in the path of the prophets." (gaudeul 1; 34–36) 

many muslims strongly affirm that on almost every occasion the christian response to this muslim demand has been one of the most unsatisfactory encounters between the two faiths. this is because of "the reluctance of christians to recognize the prophethood of muhammad." (khan 188)

from the earliest periods, christian scholars who were in contact with islam and muslims almost totally directed their efforts to rejecting the prophethood of muhammad. they believed that if they could manage to prove that muhammad was not a prophet, but rather a heretic who was instructed by christian monks, and was himself the author of the quran, and if they would discredit his revelation by showing it to have a risen out of the social and political circumstances of a particular place and time, then the whole of islam would collapse.

to achieve this objective, in the medieval period, many western scholars claimed that "muhammad was a cardinal who had failed in the election process to become pontiff and, in revenge, seceded from the church". (daniel 88)

they depicted and described him in the vilest terms, using words such as heretic, impostor, or sensualist to disgrace muhammad in the eyes of christians and also in a sense, muslims too. (daniel 88ff; hourani 12ff; michel 3; drummond 777–801; benaboud 309–326)

this kind of distorted image of the prophet muhammad spread to such an extent that it was preserved and perpetuated in literature such as the divine comedy, where dante consigned him to one of the lowest levels of hell. (miguel 103)


annemaria schimmel comments that this consignation of muhammad to hell reflected the view of the majority of christians who "could not understand how after the rise of christianity another religion could appear in the world" ("veneration" 3–4; "muslim life and thought" 35–61). 

in short, during the medieval period, in which islam was regarded as the work of the devil and muhammad as inspired by him, almost every polemical work repeatedly expressed that muhammad was a wicked man who had founded islam with force and spread it with the sword. he was also regarded as an erotic man especially partial to women.

on every level, this image was expounded, and it helped to prove to europeans that muhammad could not be a real prophet, but rather, was a false one. the following observation by montgomery watt clearly shows how the image of muhammad was distorted by western writers. he notes:

none of the great figures of history is so poorly appreciated in the west as muhammad. western writers have mostly been prone to believe the worst of muhammad, and wherever an objectionable interpretation of an act seemed plausible, have tended to accept it as fact. ("mecca " 52)

norman daniel stresses that the hidden agenda behind these polemical works on muhammad was to prove that muhammad was a mere human with no divine intervention in his life and hence, he could not be a prophet. since the recipient of a divine message was considered to be someone totally different, aspects of his life which depicted him as ordinary were further pro ofs of his falsity. (245)

after the second half of the nineteenth century, these kinds of distorted images began to change to more objective and positive ones, with western christian scholars beginning to appreciate muhammad's prophethood and teachings. (kerr, 124)

for example, towards the middle of the nineteenth century, for the first time in the history of western christian accounts about muhammad, thomas carlyle in his famous lecture "the hero as prophet" (1840) openly expressed the sincerity of muhammad and the truthfulness of islam. (53)

despite this welcome development, norman daniel criticized carlyle for not establishing his appreciation of muhammad's sincerity "on any sound theoretical basis." (314)

montgomery watt, in his assessment of carlyle's essay on muhammad, highlights the fact that this was:

…the first strong affirmation in the whole of european literature, medieval and modern, of a belief in the sincerity of muhammad... it is an important step forward in the process of reversing the medieval world-picture of islam as the great enemy, and rehabilitating its founder, muhammad. ("carlyle" 247–255)

just before the opening session of the second vatican council, robin zaehner in his at sundry times (1958) did not hesitate to acknowledge muhammad's prophethood, maintaining that:

…there is no criterion by which the gift of prophecy can be withheld from him unless it is withheld from the hebrew prophets also. the quran is in fact the quintessence of prophecy. in it you have, as in no other book, the sense of an absolutely overwhelming being proclaiming himself to a people that had not known him. (zaehner 27)

however, carlyle's acceptance of muhammad's sincerity and zaehner's acknowledgement of his prophethood should not be understood to mean that western christian scholarship was ready to acknowledge muhammad as a prophet.

the influence of those orientalist scholars who tried to prove that muhammad could not be a prophet was still very effective in the first half of the twentieth century and even in our own times. (bennett 63ff; buaben, "image" 131–167; "scholarship" 30-52)

in the process of christian-muslim dialogue that was of ficially started by the second vatican council, it has been observed that both the roman catholic church and the world council of churches preferred to be silent about the status of the prophet muhammad in their of ficial statements. (aydin, chapters 1-3)

some theologians, however, have urged these of ficial bodies to break this silence for the sake of better and more fruitful relations with muslims. in this respect, the prolific catholic theologian, hans küng, in his comment on the catholic document "nostra aetate" stresses that if the catholic church and all other churches wish to establish a real and fruitful dialogue with muslims, they need to acknowledge the prophethood of muhammad of ficially. (27)

daniel, too, maintains that the way for christians to understand islam correctly can only proceed from their acknowledgement of muhammad's prophethood. he says: "it is essential for christians to see muhammad as a holy figure; to see him, that is, as muslims see him... if they do not do so, they must cut themselves off from muslims." (336)

many christian scholars and theologians have started to raise their voices to highlight the importance of positive appreciation of muhammad for an efficient dialogue with muslims in such christian-muslim meetings.

at the opening speech of the international muslim-christian congress of cordoba, 1977, the cardinal archbishop of madrid urged christians "to forget the past and show respect for the prophet of islam", since according to him, "to insult muhammad... is an offence not only against historical and religious truth, but also against the respect and charity due to muslims."

then he asked:

how it is possible to appreciate islam and muslims without showing appreciation for the prophet of islam and the values he has promoted? not to do this would not only be a lack of respect, to which the council exhorts christians, but also neglect of a religious factor of which account must be taken in theological reflection and religious awareness. (aguilar 165)

in another christian-muslim consultation, convened by the conference of european churches in salzburg , 1984, it was emphasized that "christians respect the prophetic tradition of the old testament. it calls people to repentance in the service of the one god. it is unjust to dismiss muhammad out of hand as a false prophet. christians may recognize muhammad as part of the same prophetic tradition, and in the past some have done so." (conference of european churches, 56)

apart from these positive statements in christian-muslim dialogue meetings, there is also an increasing number of christian thinkers who argue for a positive christian evaluation of the status of muhammad. karen armstrong, lamin sanneh, and martin forward urge non-muslims to see muhammad positively, to take into account how god used him "as a mercy for humankind" to bring peace and civilization to his people, rather than seeing him as the antithesis of religious spirit and as the enemy of decent civilization. (armstrong 44; sanneh, "piety" 48; "significance" 25–29; 36–38; forward 5)   

the renowned theologian john macquarrie, in his mediators (1995), includes him among the nine great mediators of "a new or renewed sense of holy being." (130)

william e. phipps too, in his recent work muhammad and jesus (1996), attempts to compare the teachings of jesus and muhammad by regarding them as prophets of the same family.

it is an undeniable fact for christians that the prophet muhammad "for his own part thought himself sincere, and was regarded as sincere" by his followers both in his own day as now. furthermore, we have seen that this kind of positive assessment of the prophet muhammad enabled the following theological questions to be placed on the agenda of christian-muslim dialogue:

can christians acknowledge the prophethood of muhammad?

are they ready to regard muhammad as the prophet of god?

is it possible for christians to consider muhammad as a prophet in the light of their own religious traditions?

in this series of articles, we will mainly concentrate on the answers to these questions using contemporary christian accounts. we will limit ourselves to those scholars whose views contribute to the development of christian-muslim dialogue. in so doing, we have chosen montgomery watt, kenneth cragg, hans küng and david kerr as our major thinkers.

at this point, we reiterate our emphasis that those whose views are examined here cannot be taken as a basis for generalization, but rather as concrete illustrations of the main points.