|
A review of:
Clinton Bennett, In Search of Muhammad and In Search of Jesus
By:
Dr. Ahmad Shafaat
(May, 2002)
Christian books
on Islam and its Prophet often have a negative view of both. At
least for me this by itself is no problem, and I suspect also for
many other Muslims. We can all expect that some non-Muslims would
have some negative views of Islam out of ignorance, prejudice or
some other better reason. What is problematic is that books by
Christian writers often apply different criteria for their own
traditions than they do to the Muslim traditions to arrive at their
views. For example, Muir rejected Muslim traditions about the
miracles of the Prophet of Islam as fabrications but accepts without
question the biblical stories of miracles as literally true records
of what actually happened (Life of Mahomet, p. 117). Had he
applied his logic consistently to both traditions he would have
either rejected miracles in both traditions or admitted the
possibility of their historicity in both traditions. Muir wrote his
book in 1894, but double standards of critical scrutiny continued
for a long time.
Now at last
there have started to appear books where Christian writers talk
about both Muhammad and Jesus and use some measure of consistent
methodology. An earlier attempt was by William E. Phipps,
Muhammad and Jesus: A Comparison of the Prophets and Their Teachings.
(See next chapter). Bennett?s two books In Search of Muhammad
(henceforth abbreviated as M) and In Search of Jesus
(henceforth abbreviated as J) taken together fall in the same
category.
There are many
positive things to say about Bennett?s two books. Thus in both books
Bennett repeatedly shows concern about how our conclusions are
influenced by our assumptions and backgrounds and gives some thought
to the ways of avoiding that influence. He guides himself by the
concept of reflexivity introduced by Meadows. ?Reflexivity is
?continued self-reflection and analyses? which aims to make
?explicit those subjective structures which implicitly condition all
our understandings of the world? [Meadows]. When such reflection is
included in an account, readers can follow and evaluate the writer?s
interpretive process for themselves. This is the style which I have
chosen for this book. My world-view is Christian ?? (M, 11). Bennett
tries to maintain throughout his two books the transparency that he
promises here.
In his book on
the Prophet Muhammad, Bennett defines his approach in terms of
Edward Said?s criticism of Orientalism and Cantwell Smith?s way of
avoiding that type of criticism. This leads to the principle that
one should understand religions and their founding figures in the
light of how their followers view them. ?I first encountered Smith?s
dictum, that the aim of an outside scholar writing about Islam is to
elicit Muslim approval,best replica watches towards the very beginning of my study of
Islam, and have tried ever since to make it my motto.
All in all,
Bennett?s approach allows him to treat Islamic traditions and their
Muslim interpretations with sensitivity and respect, not often found
among Christian writings on Islam. Even when he describes at length
some very hostile views of Christian writers on Islam and its
Prophet he either counters them by Muslim understanding or his own
more favorable view.
This, however,
should not prevent us from a critical look at his work, especially
since he himself invites the readers to ?follow and evaluate the
writer?s interpretive process for themselves?. In what follows I
present my evaluation of Bennett?s ?interpretive process?.
SEARCH HAMPERED BY
THEOLOGICAL CONCERNS
A distinction
has often been made between Jesus of history and Jesus of faith.
Christian authors carry this distinction also to Muhammad. This is
quite justified, since for every person and even every object a
distinction needs to be made between what people say or believe
about the person/object and the real person/object. This means that
figures like Muhammad and Jesus are to be examined at three levels:
-
What did they
say and do? This requires examination of the sources and
development of sound criteria to identify any reliable information
found in those sources.
-
What do their
words and actions reveal about them, about their character, about
their religious claims, and about the validity of those claims?
-
What do
people believe about them and about their religious role? This is
important because the role that they will play in history depends
on what people think about them.
Bennett would
have succeeded much better in his search for Muhammad and Jesus if
he had limited himself to examining the two religious figures at one
or more of the above-mentioned three levels as objectively as he
could. But instead, in case of the Prophet Muhammad, he
consciously chose to combine his search with a need to fit Islam
into his Christian outlook. ?Because I am a Christian (and
theologically trained), I have also tried to understand how Islam
can fit into my Christian world-view.? (p. 11-12). Elsewhere Bennett
speaks of the tension he feels between his Christian faith and his
encounter with Islam.
?I hope that
this book, which wrestles with the tension between my Christian
faith and my encounter with Islam, will be read as an open-ended
search for theological possibilities ? I fear that I may sometimes
have fallen into a gulf ? between my personal faith on one side, and
my desire to respond to Islam on the other! However, if God's nature
is made known to us through the biblical record, then it is right
for us to inquire whether God is speaking to us through what we
encounter in other world-views ? as long as this does not
contradict what we know of God in Christ, who is the touchstone for
all Christians" (M, p. viii; my emphasis). ?Similarly, while I
regard God?s disclosure of God?s self through Christ as definitive,
this does not mean that no other definitive revelations exist
elsewhere. What it does mean is that any truth that is of God or
from God will match the revelation of God that has come to us in
Jesus? (J, p. conclusion 4, again my emphasis). In my view, this
has hampered Bennett?s ability to properly assess evidence about the
Prophet Muhammad when it calls into question what ?we know of God in
Christ, who is the touchstone for all Christians? or when it does
not ?match the revelation of God that has come to us in Jesus?. It
is to Bennett?s credit that he is aware that his attempt to fit
Islam into his world-view ?is not unproblematical? (M, p. 12),
although ?not unproblematical? probably underestimates the
consequences of his choice.
As in case of
Muhammad, so also in case of Jesus Bennett?s search is seriously
hampered by theology. His Christian view of Jesus seems to come
before he has actually done the search. The reader does not get the
impression that the author searched for Jesus and then found what he
believes about him. Rather, his view of Jesus is accepted as a given
while the search is going on as a separate activity. He himself says
that much: ?Have I found Jesus? In one sense, as a professing
Christian I could claim to have ?found? him before I started my
quest.? (J, p.18, of conclusion my numbering). It is interesting
that Bennett does not see this as problematic but states this as a
claim to be almost proud of. Yet from a scholarly point of view
there is nothing worse than finding the object of one?s search
before the search is even begun.
Bennett?s Jesus
is recognizable as the traditional Jesus professed in his church,
although he has somewhat different emphases. For example, the
emphasis that he puts on Jesus as a ?liberator? (J, ) is not so
strong in traditional Christianity. Also, Bennett sees in the cross
not an instrument of salvation but a symbol of liberation. Finally,
although he accepts Jesus as one of three divine persons in a
Trinity, he often dilutes the traditional understanding of Jesus?
divinity. Thus he says: ?For me, there was a merging of the human
with the divine, and vice versa, in Christ, which means that it
makes sense for me to call him ?God?; whether Jesus was always God,
or was ?adopted?, or became God through his own God-consciousness,
or exactly how his identification with God happened, I do not know.?
(M, 234). This departs from the traditional Christian view, which
sees Jesus, following the fourth gospel, as a pre-existent being and
an incarnation of the logos (word) that was from the
beginning divine.
Again Bennett says: ?Was Jesus God, as Paul believed? Or was Paul
wrong, as Muslims and Jews argue, to present Jesus as mediating God
rather than as merely pointing to God like a prophet?? Notice the
confusion here: the original question is ?was Jesus God?? and then
the question becomes whether Jesus was mediator between God and
humanity. Elsewhere Bennett speaks of Jesus as ?a link between
humanity and God?. Clearly being God is not the same as being a
mediator or link between God and human beings. The religious
traditions of the world are full of minor deities mediating between
humanity and a higher God without being identical with that higher
God. But Bennett has reinterpreted the traditional Christian dogma
about the divinity of Jesus as saying that Jesus was a mediator
between God and human beings. To be sure, the role of Jesus as a
mediator is a traditional element in Christianity but Jesus?
identification with God is not understood in the doctrine of Trinity
only in terms of that mediating role. Incidentally, unless one
interprets ?Jesus was God? to mean ? in my view wrongly ? that
?Jesus was a mediator between God and humanity?, it is wrong to say
that Paul held this belief. Paul clearly regards Jesus subordinate
to God. His highest estimation of Jesus is probably reflected
in 1 Cor 28:5-6, 15:24-28, where he says that unlike the pagans who
have many gods and many lords, Christians have only ?one God, the
Father, and one Lord Jesus Christ?. God is the creator and Lord is
only his instrument of creation. Jesus is also only an instrument of
God when in the end of times of he subjugates everything to him and
brings his enemies under his feet. For, after performing this role,
which is assigned to him by God, Jesus will also be totally subject
to God so that ?God may be all in all?. In 1 Cor 3:23 Paul says:
?all belong to you, and you belong to Christ, and Christ belongs to
God?. This puts Christ in the same relationship with God, as
Christians with Christ. This is stated again in 1 Cor 11:3: ?Christ
is the head of every man, man is the head of the woman, and God is
the head of Christ?. Thus, in the view of Paul, Jesus Christ is
distinguished from the one and only God and is subordinate and
inferior to him.
FAILURE TO GIVE
PROPER WEIGHT TO VARIOUS VOICES
Another factor
that hampers Bennett?s search is his failure to properly assess the
various voices that he heard. Every voice is no doubt important but
clearly everything that 1.4 billion Muslims and an equal number of
Christians say does not make an equal contribution to the definition
of Islam or Christianity. Some voices within each tradition may even
represent what the tradition is not. A searcher who wants to
understand a tradition or a historical or religious personality
needs, like a good detective, not only to pay attention to
everything he sees or hears but also to have an ear and an eye for
those facts that bring him closer to the object of his search
instead of leading him away from it. It is true that it is not
always possible to determine what defines a tradition, but one thing
is clear: if in a tradition there are some ideas and practices that
can be traced back with continuity to the original founding
source, they must be respected. In case of Islam there are such
ideas and practices. These must be made an essential part of our
definition of Islam, especially since an overwhelming majority of
Muslims in every generation have accepted the principle that what
can be traced back to the Prophet with continuity is an integral
part of Islam.
I will discuss
below two examples to illustrate Bennett?s failure to properly
assess the weight of various voices. First example is provided by
the following statement:
?Muslims have
sometimes come very close to speaking of Muhammad in similar
terms, although they criticize Christians for turning Jesus the
prophet into Christ the God. Yet when Muslims reflect on
Muhammad?s indispensability within Islam, might they not gain an
appreciation of what Christians really mean when they speak about
Jesus as their link with God? Muhammad remains [for Muslims] the
best interpreter of the Qur`an; the shahada (declaration of
faith) links Muhammad with God so intimately that it is difficult
for many Muslims to think of God without also thinking of God?s
messenger. The God language that Christians use of Jesus expresses
faith in him as the one who links humanity and God? (J, p 7
conclusion).
Here Bennett
fails to make the important and necessary distinction between, on
the one hand, tendencies found among some Muslim individuals and
sects representing a minority and, on the other hand, the teaching
of the Qur`an and Hadith and the continuous opinion of creditable
scholars of Islam throughout the centuries down to the present
times. In these latter sources there is nothing that can justify
Bennett?s claim that ?Muslims have sometimes come close to speaking
of Muhammad? comparable to the Christian identification of Christ
with God. His statement is apparently based, on the one hand, on his
diluting of the traditional Christian belief in the divinity of
Jesus, to which a reference has already been made, and on the other
hand, on his conversations with some members of a Sufi sect in
Islam, e.g. the conversation in which: ?Another student expressed
the view that Muhammad is ?slightly below Allah? and can more or
less do what Allah, who said to him, ?You are my equal?, can do.?
(M, 202) Nothing in the Qur`an and authentic Hadith and the
continuous Muslim scholarly opinion justifies the view expressed
here. Bennett himself adds that ?I cannot locate this hadith? where
God allegedly says to Muhammad ?You are my equal?. Also, note that
despite the words ?you are my equal?, Muhammad is described as
?below Allah? even if with the qualification ?slightly?. Even so, a
majority of Muslims, especially those well informed about the Qur`an
and authentic Hadith will regard the sort of glorification of
Muhammad found here as an error. Bennett seems to think that if some
Muslims commit an error, then all Muslims loose the right to
criticize similar error in other religious groups.
It seems that a
theological concern ? to support his belief in Trinity ? has
interfered with Bennett?s search to such an extent that he ignores
some of the principles that he has himself set out for the study of
Islam. One such principle is provided by Smith, who stated that
anything said by a non-Muslim scholar about Islam is only ?valid? if
?it can be acknowledged by that religion?s believers? (M, 6). A vast
majority of Muslims will not acknowledge as Islam the views that
Bennett has attributed to Muslims in the above quotation.
For example, his statement, ?it is difficult for many Muslims to
think of God without also thinking of God?s messenger? is not quite
true unless ?many? excludes all those who credibly speak for Islam
including the Prophet himself and his companions. The Qur`an clearly
prepares the Muslims to think of God without thinking of the
Prophet. Thus it says:
?And Muhammad is but a messenger. Other messengers have already
passed away before him. If then he dies or he is killed, will you
turn back upon your heals (from the way of God)? And whoever turns
back upon his heels, he will not do any harm to God whatsoever.
But (know that) God will reward the grateful? (3:144).
Indeed, according to a tradition very widely quoted among Muslims,
when the Prophet died, some people felt completely lost. At that
time Abu Bakr, who later became the first khalifah, stood up and
said: ?If anyone worships Muhammad, then Muhammad is dead; but if
anyone worships God, then God is alive and ever living?. Then he
recited the above verse from the Qur`an. (Ibn Ishaq as quoted by Ibn
Hisham). At a practical level living a life of relationship with God
does mean to follow the Messenger. But there is a clear distinction
between the guide and him to whom he guides.
It is also important to note that in case of Christianity the
position that Jesus is God, although not continuously traceable back
to the original source (Jesus and his eyewitness disciples), at one
point became an official and mainstream position. This must be
compared with similar mainstream position in Islam and not with
fringe individual positions.
The fact that
some Muslims exaggerate in the glorification of Muhammad is only
proof that the tendency for such exaggeration is very widespread, so
much so that even when the founding figure is saying repeatedly and
in the clearest terms that he is no more than human, some of his
followers still attempt to raise him almost to the level of God.
This can help us understand how in Christianity Jesus became God.
Much of New Testament was written in pagan environment outside
Palestine for Gentile churches whose members were of pagan
background. The natural tendency to glorify the founder therefore
must have been very strong, considering that in paganism men and
women with any kind of extraordinary qualities such as beauty or
intelligence or physical strength could be regarded as gods and
goddesses. The reason that in case of Jesus the tendency to deify
the founder succeeded to the point of becoming a mainstream position
while this did not happen in case of Muhammad is that Jesus? own
teachings, that were strictly monotheistic, did not exert as much
influence in Christianity as Muhammad?s did in Islam. Moreover,
Jesus addressed people who were already monotheists and therefore
did not explicitly stress monotheism. In contrast, a major part of
Muhammad?s preaching was addressed to the Arab pagans and therefore
he gave a clear and forceful expression to the monotheistic
position.
Second example showing that Bennett does not properly assess the
weight of every voice that he has heard is provided by the central
place he gives to Salman Rushdie?s voice. The conclusion of any book
is one of its most important parts. Bennett devotes 20 of 40 pages
of the conclusion of his book on Muhammad to Salman Rushdie?s
fiction, not to talk of other references to him throughout the book.
Salman Rushdie who has declared himself as non-Muslim has hardly
said anything that is not found in the hostile Christian literature
on Islam and its Prophet. As Minou Reeves writes in
Muhammad in Europe: A Thousand Years of Western Myth-Making:
"The whole amalgam of myths that had been conjured up in Europe from
the Middle Ages by bellicose crusaders, by generations of churchmen
fearful of a threatening and all-powerful Islam, by reforming men of
the Christian Church, by flamboyant writers of the Renaissance, by
champions of Reason in the Enlightenment, by writers, poets and
painters intoxicated by the imagined charms of the exotic Orient, by
serious biographers unable to shake off their own Christian view of
the world, all flash by, all are echoed in this provocative work:
the Venerable Bede, John of Damascus, Paul Alvarus, William Langland,
William Dunbar, Higden, Mandeville, Dante, Lydgate, Rabelais,
Marlowe, Luther, Prideaux, Pitts, Abbe de Vertot, Voltaire, Hugo,
Diderot, Gibbon, Muir, Byron, Shelley, Southey, Delacroix,
Thackeray, the spirit of their words is revived in Rushdie's pages.
It is truly Mahound re-born.? Bennett has already reviewed some of
the hostile Christian writers in this list in Part Two of his book
on Muhammad. In view of this, it is hard to understand how he can
bring us closer to finding Muhammad by giving an extensive place to
Rushdie?s voice in the conclusion of the book.
A RELATIVISTIC AND
INDIVIDUALISTIC/CORPORATE CONCEPT OF TRUTH
One of the
important determinants of how a writer handles his material is how
he or she views truth. Bennett?s concept of truth is relativistic
and somewhat corporate. In his view there is no objective basis to
assess the correctness of a position. Referring to a statement by a
Muslim that the important thing for a scholar is to be led by his
expertise to ?a fairer assessment of the Prophet? Bennett objects:
?The problem I have with this statement, however, is this: what
objective, neutral criterion is there with which to judge the
fairness of any assessment if, as I suspect, all our assumptions
(insider and outsider) involve interpretations based on the
theoretical stances we adopt?? (M, 133). In the absence of any
objective basis to assess a position, truth becomes what an
individual accepts (individualist concept) or a group accepts
(corporate concept). Also, what various individuals or groups say
may be equally valid (relativistic concept). Bennett is inclined
towards an individualistic concept of truth but because of his
background as churchman and missionary, he has not completely freed
himself from a corporate concept of truth. Hence he sticks to
traditional beliefs of his church albeit in a modified form.
In his book on
Jesus he presents the reader with a bewildering variety of
conflicting views of Jesus by serious scholars and by ordinary
people. Any one who believes in the possibility of objectively
arriving at some sound judgments would have given up his traditional
views in the face of this evidence or at least would have been much
more reserved in expressing them. But such is not the case with
Bennett. His relativistic concept of truth allows him to
triumphantly trumpet his own Jesus image in the face of a variety of
other challenging images without even feeling the need to support
his image. For example, he claims: ?ultimately, I see the Trinity as
the key to decoding the universe? (M, p. 11). He does not provide
any support for this statement, something that is needed in view of
the fact that throughout the centuries Christians and non-Christians
have argued whether this doctrine does justice to the evidence of
the Gospels, much less decodes the whole universe.
The view that
there is no objective basis to judge the validity of a position is
often expressed but is rarely maintained with consistency. It is
therefore not surprising that in his book on Jesus Bennett does
establish a criterion to adjudicate between conflicting images of
Jesus. ?I think a modicum of resemblance between a Jesus image and
what can be said with some confidence about the Jesus of the Gospels
ought to be expected. None the less, in offering even the following
minimalist image of Jesus, I am aware that there is nothing like a
consensus on what the first-century Jew called Jesus was really
like? (J, conclusion 8). Bennett then proceeds to give this
?historically sustainable, minimalist Jesus image?: ?Jesus opposed
all forms of oppression. Jesus opposed the elitism of his day. Jesus
affirmed the value, worth and dignity of all people. Jesus turned
many social norms upside-down. He had little regard for wealth, for
power, for privilege. He was above all for the ?amme ha-arets,
the common people. Any follower of Jesus who has wealth, power or a
position of privilege stands on shaky ground. ? Jesus, I believe,
was ?liberated? from social conventions, from conforming to the
expectations of the world, from what it expected him to do. ? The
above checklist can, I believe, be used to test the legitimacy of
any Jesus image.? He later actually applies the criterion, for
example, to the ?black Jesus? promoted by, e.g., James H. Cone in
A Black Theology of Liberation. ?Does Cone?s black Jesus pass my
test? Yes, a Jesus who liberates the oppressed, who is ?for the poor
against the rich, for the weak against the strong? is my type of
Jesus? if it is also inclusive. (J, 9 conclusion). Since even on his
minimalist Jesus image Bennett cannot expect anything like a
consensus, therefore ?in the end, though, since the texts we possess
are open to a multiplicity of interpretations, I must concede
everyone?s freedom to construct their own Jesus image. At the same
time, I claim a right to offer my critique of any Jesus image, based
on my reading of Jesus? life? (J, 10 conclusion).
Bennett?s
relativistic concept of truth may well have been as much a response
to his experience with Christianity as with other religions. In the
face of extreme uncertainty about who Jesus was and the resulting
equally extreme multiplicity of images about him, a Christian has
four choices:
-
Not to
profess validity of any Jesus image, which amounts to abandoning
Christianity.
-
Choose one
image and declare it as the only valid one.
-
Give validity
to all Jesus images that conform to a very minimalist criterion.
-
Give validity
to all Jesus images.
Bennett, like
many modern well-informed Christians, has chosen the third option.
But since even a minimalist criterion is uncertain and subject to
disagreement a Christian who chooses the third option will tend to
move to a very thoroughgoing relativism and pluralism (fourth
option). The only thing that seems to be preventing Bennett from
moving to the fourth option is that as a churchman and a missionary
he cannot completely ignore the traditional views professed in his
church.
INCLUSIVENESS
A relativistic concept of truth can lead either to pluralism or
inclusiveness in the following sense: we may either accept diverse
points of view and simply let them be (pluralism) or try
to include them under the umbrella of some very general and
minimalist ideas (inclusiveness). In Bennett?s books ?inclusiveness?
is a constant impulse. There is acceptance of other religions but
there is also a desire to bring them within a Christian point view.
In earlier times the Christian missions proceeded, as they still do
in many cases, from an exclusivist understanding and so their
attitude to followers of other religions was something like this:
you are in darkness and condemned to death or hell. We bring you
light and salvation. Bennett and some other Christian writers have
adopted a very inclusive approach. This, however, does not mean that
Bennett the Christian missionary has abandoned the hope to conquer
the world for Christ. It means that the concept of conquest is
changed. Conquest no longer means conversion of all people. Rather,
it means that followers of all religions continue to follow their
traditions while making some place for a divine Christ in their
religions. This is what Bennett means by ?reconciliation of all
things in Christ? and Christ being ?all things to all people? (J, ).
He tells us: ?Paul wrote, ?For, God was pleased to have God?s
fullness (pleroma) dwell in Christ Jesus and through Christ
to reconcile all things to God?s self, whether things on
earth or things on heaven, making peace (eirene) through the
blood of Christ? (Colossians 1:19-20). Of course, the blood language
here will not be my first choice, yet I share Paul?s hope, Paul?s
dream and his certainty.? (J,). From other parts of Paul?s
letters we see that his ?hope? and ?dream? includes subjugation of
all things to Christ (1 Cor 15:25; 2 Thess 1:5-12).
Compared to exclusiveness, inclusiveness is probably preferable. But
if exaggerated, inclusiveness can also lead to error. If
exclusiveness leads to making the distinction between truth and
falsehood too sharp or absolute, inclusiveness can lead to making
that distinction too blurred. Both exclusiveness and inclusiveness
can lead to distortion of one?s own tradition as well as those of
others. The ?exclusivist? will distort his tradition to fit it in
his own image of what absolute truth is and distort others?
traditions to show them to be false and evil, as many Christian
writers have done in case of Islam in the past and still do. The
?inclusivist? will also distort but for the opposite purpose of
showing the maximum compatibility of the two traditions.
Of course, ?inclusivists? could argue that they are not blurring the
distinction between truth and falsehood, because objectively there
is no such distinction. Truth is relative and everyone has his own
truth, which is as valid as the truth of some one else. The problem
is that this position is never really maintained in a consistent
way. Bennett not only sets, as mentioned above, some criteria to
adjudicate between various Jesus images held by people, but also
uses throughout his books rational and historical agreements to
favor some views over others. Such use of historical and rational
arguments implies that some distinction between truth and falsehood
can be made on objective grounds.
HISTORICAL
MUHAMMAD AND JESUS NOT GIVEN THEIR DUE
Bennett does
not give due weight to the voice of the historical Muhammad and
historical Jesus. This is how he seems to be able to maintain, on
the one hand, his traditional Christian views and, on the other
hand, an inclusive attitude towards Islam and other religions. Not
letting the historical Jesus duly speak for himself allows Bennett
to hold his traditional Christian views and not letting the
historical Muhammad duly speak for himself then allows him to find a
place for the Prophet of Islam in his Christian worldview.
Bennett is very
clear of his lack of interest in the historical Jesus: ?I am
interested in exploring who Jesus is for those people and
communities who possess images of him, both inside and outside the
Christian religions. What do Muslims believe about Jesus? Who is
Jesus for Hindus? ? I am interested in contemporary perceptions (in
the Jesus of faith) rather than in the quest of the historical
Jesus.? (J, 10). ?My book ? is not,? Bennett states, quoting
Charlotte Allen, ?an ?attempt to offer a theory of who the
historical Jesus was, or whether he actually said or did those
things attributed to him in the Gospels [but to explore] the way in
which the image of Jesus has functioned as a vehicle for some of the
best and worse ideas ..?? (J, p. 13).
This at least
partly proceeds from his personal faith ?as a Christian?: ?Jesus for
me is alive and well,swiss replica watches and continues to speak to me and to millions
of my brothers and sisters in today?s world. This means that, for
me, the locus of revelation is the living Christ, not texts that
purport to tell the story of his earthly life. Thus I believe it is
not scripture or texts that determine who Jesus is but Jesus who
determines my reading of the texts? (J, p.16). Bennett is partly
aware that this is problematic from a scientific point of view: ?Of
course, this claim is of a religious nature and cannot be
scientifically tested.? But what he seems not to realize is that it
is also problematic from a religious point of view. Suppose it is
the case that there never was an empty tomb and Jesus never rose
from the dead, as is suggested by many reputable scholars. That
would make the ?living Jesus? who determines the meaning of the
texts for Bennett no more than a figment of the imagination. Thus
the question whether Jesus ever rose from the dead is unavoidable
even from a religious point of view and this question forces us to
examine the historical evidence about Jesus. Of course, Jesus can be
justifiably viewed as living in the sense that he is present in the
memory and devotions of many millions, a sense in which every
religious teacher with a continuous following such as Buddha and
Muhammad are also living. But this is not what Bennett means.
Immediately after talking about living Jesus he talks of
encountering him. ?Incidentally, it is not only devout Christians
who speak of visions or dreams of Jesus or of encountering him, but
people whose faith is less than certain or even non-existent.? (J,
p. 17).
Another
illustration of why historical Jesus is of paramount importance is
provided by the belief in Jesus as God. Suppose that historical
research proved that Jesus never thought of himself anything other
than a human being. This must oblige Christians to abandon their
traditional belief in Jesus? divinity. Some Christians might say
that even Jesus would be wrong if he thought himself simply as a
man, that it is possible that Jesus himself was not aware of his
divine nature, and that the knowledge of this ?fact? was gradually
revealed to the world by the Holy Spirit after him. Most Christians,
however, will not go that far. They will either insist that Jesus
himself taught his divinity or they will be willing to abandon that
belief if they admitted that he imparted no such teaching.
That there is
religious need to ground beliefs about Jesus on what he and his
eyewitness disciples said and believed is taught even by Jesus,
according to the Gospels.Replica IWC Portuguese In Matthew 16:13-20 (and par.) Jesus asks
the disciples ?what do people say that I am?? After receiving an
answer, he asks ?What do you say that I am?? Jesus then approves
what the disciples thought about him as against what the people say
about him. Bennett?s book is about ?what people say that Jesus is?
He does not duly concern himself with what the disciples and Jesus
say.
In early
Christianity Paul similarly used the concept of living Jesus to
ignore or suppress the voices of historical Jesus and his eyewitness
disciples. In the briefest of terms Paul claimed that Jesus appeared
to him or that God revealed his son to him and then on that basis he
gave himself the liberty to ignore for the most part what the
historical Jesus said or what his eyewitness disciples were saying
just as he was preaching to the Gentiles outside Palestine.
But Christian
religion as a whole could not really ignore the traditions about the
historical Jesus and had to produce the gospels. Even Paul sometimes
felt that it is more advantageous to appeal to the authority of
received traditions, as in 1 Cor 15:1-3, than to the living Jesus.
Subsequent generations of Christians likewise have had an ambivalent
attitude towards the Gospel traditions. They fall back to the
concept of the living Jesus when the historical evidence about Jesus
does not fit with what they believe about him, but turn to the
Gospel traditions to substantiate some of their other beliefs.
Because of the same ambiguity Bennett is also concerned to establish
some continuity between the historical Jesus and the voice of the
living Jesus. He first establishes continuity between the historical
Jesus and the Gospel tradition: ?I am more inclined than many
contemporary scholars to see a high degree of resemblance between
the Jesus who really was and the Jesus of the four Gospels.? (J,
p.16). Then there is some continuity between the voice of the living
Jesus and the Gospels in that Bennett guides himself by what he
reads in the Gospel texts in the light of what he hears from the
living Jesus. But in reality these links are very weak. Paul and the
evangelists took considerable liberty in interpreting what they
received from the earliest Palestinian Jesus tradition and later
Christians, including Bennett, take considerable liberty in
interpreting Paul and the Gospels.
Thus Bennett
rejects the redemptive value of the cross, so forcefully taught by
the Pauline epistles in the New Testament. ?I do not feel bound by
Paul?s articulation of who Jesus was, though I honour it as the work
of a profound and inspired theological pioneer. For me, Jesus? death
is a meaningful symbol of his willingness to resist powers of
oppression, but I am not convinced that my salvation derives from
the cross. Nor am I convinced that God planned the crucifixion.? (J,
p. conclusion 6). His reasons for disregarding a major part of the
NT this time is not an appeal to the living Jesus, but to a
historical argument: ?However, what the primitive Church did, what
Paul did in his writing, was to reflect on what had happened in
Jesus, and to express this ?truth?, this ?experience?, in available
language, terms and metaphors. Paul especially was eager to share
with Gentiles what he had experienced. He therefore began the
business of translating Hebrew ideas into Greek. He was indeed
concerned with faith in Jesus Christ, through whom he enjoyed a new
being (a life of fellowship with God), rather than with details of
Jesus? public ministry. Others were more qualified to write the
Gospels than Paul; his task was theoretical reconstruction.? This
raises two questions that Bennett seems not to have examined: 1) How
could Paul ?experience what happened in Jesus? without proper
contact with the historical Jesus? 2) According to Bennett, Paul?s
?theoretical construction,? which is claimed by Paul to be based on
some kind of contact with the living Jesus (Gal 1:12), was wrong
in a very fundamental way in suggesting that a Christian?s salvation
is derived from the cross. How then can the voice of the living
Jesus as heard by any one be ever trusted?
In case of the
Prophet Muhammad also Bennett?s emphasis is on what people say that
he is and not on what Muhammad and his eyewitness companions say
that he is. ?This is exactly what this book aims to achieve - an
understanding of what Muhammad means to those for whom he is
Prophet, and of what he might, can or does not mean for those for
whom he is not a Prophet ... but my fundamental aim is to hear
Muslim voices. When I examine textual and historical material, my
aim is both to uncover voices which can be found within the texts,
and to listen to other Muslim voices which have commented on and
interpreted these texts." (p. 6). With Cantwell Smith?s dictum as
his motto, Bennett has attempted "1) to see what Muslims see in
Islam; 2) to understand why others have seen Islam differently, and
last but not least, 3) to ask whether what any body sees in Islam
can be justified, given the texts, voices and data which are
available to us." (p. 11). Here search for ?Muhammad? has become
search for ?Islam?. For Bennett ?Muhammad? seems to include all the
developments within Islam throughout the centuries. This would
explain why in Bennett?s book certain issues within Islam, not
directly relevant to a study of Muhammad, have been discussed at
length. In item 3) ?to ask whether what any body sees in Islam can
be justified, given the texts, voices and data which are available
to us? there is apparently some concern with the historical Muhammad
but as he himself says his ?fundamental aim? remains to hear Muslim
voices. Elsewhere he explicitly states that the ?application to
sacred history of historiographical tools of critical analysis may
treat the material in a manner which believers consider
disrespectful, inappropriate or ill-founded. ? However, recognizing
the theological nature of much of the material, I try to avoid using
interpretive tools drawn exclusively from secular historiography?
(M, 13). Here Bennett?s motives may be noble but they are misguided.
It is not disrespectful to write historiography and most Muslims
will not be offended by it if they knew that the writer is objective
and has made his or her best effort to arrive at the truth, even if
his or her version of the truth differs from theirs.
Bennett?s lack
of interest in the historical Muhammad is further clear from the
fact that Part One of his first book is seemingly about Muhammad of
History, but he does not really go too far beyond sources and their
criticism as is clear from the titles of the two chapters of this
part:
-
Muhammad of
History: the Primary Sources
-
The Sources:
a Critical Evaluation
In the remaining two parts of the book he turns his attention to
non-Muslim ?lives of Muhammad? and the significance of Muhammad for
Muslim ?life and thought?.
To search Muhammad or Jesus primarily in the views expressed by
later generations of believers and non-believers is like trying to
know the moon through the various pictures that people have
constructed in their minds about it. One would have hoped that after
about 5000 years of science humanity would have finally learnt that
the best way to know an object is to focus one?s observation on it.
The degree to which we are interested in the historical Muhammad and
the historical Jesus is directly related to the degree to which we
allow Muhammad and Jesus to speak for themselves. In my view it is
vitally important that we allow the two religious figures to speak
for themselves as far as possible. Let us put our trust in them.
For, they can unite humanity. This is why God sent them; to
reconcile human beings to God and to one another and to thus lead
them to their salvation.
DEVALUATION OF THE
QUR`AN AS A SOURCE OF INFORMATION ABOUT MUHAMMAD
Bennett more or
less excludes the Qur`an as a source of information about the
Prophet Muhammad. ?The Qur`an does not, as it were, tell Muhammad?s
story ? we cannot deduce from it when he was born or when he began
to preach.? (M, 19). But search for Muhammad, and by the same token,
for Jesus is much more than search for dates for some events. It is
primarily a search for his character, personality, achievements, and
role in history. How many of our friends and colleagues we know well
but we do not know their date of birth or the date when they started
their jobs.
Regardless of
whether one accepts the Qur`an as the word of God or not, it is the
most important and reliable source of information about Muhammad. If
the Qur`an is accepted as word of God, then we have in it God?s
witness to the character, achievements and function of the Prophet
Muhammad in history. And if the Qur`an is not accepted as the word
of God, it still demands careful examination, for what comes out of
the mouth of a man is often infinitely more revealing than
information about his date of birth.
If we cannot reconstruct the life and character of the Prophet from
the Qur`an, it is more because of a lack of our historical skills
than a lack of information in the Qur`an. Given proper skills a lot
can be recovered from a very small number of simple facts. What is
above all most important in historical reconstruction is not the
quantity of information but its reliability. Even if we know a
relatively few facts with certainty, we can construct a great deal
by logical deduction using other known facts. Only a few bones led
competent scientists to reconstruct dinosaurs and their
reconstruction was confirmed by many subsequent discoveries.
In devaluing
the Qur`an as a source of information about Muhammad Bennett is not
only influenced by non-Muslims such as Peters who says: ?The Qur`an
? is of no use whatsoever as an independent source of
constructing the life of Muhammad? (M, 18); but also by many Muslim
scholars such as Nasr who states: ?Without Hadith much of the Qur`an
would be a closed book? (M. 41). But the truth is that without the
Qur`an much of the Hadith will be useless. Take one of the examples
given by Bennett. Qur`an 9:40 states: ?If you will not aid him, God
did aid him when the disbelievers expelled him as one of the two,
when they were in the cave and he says to his companion, ?Do not
grieve, surely God is with us, ?? Bennett then quotes from Martin
Ling a report that is meant to ?explain? the incident referred to in
the verse cited. But when we go from Martin Ling to the original
sources we find that the incident is narrated in many different
ways, which could cast some doubt about the reliability of the
reports concerning it. The allusion in the Qur`an assures us that
behind these reports there is a historical event. And the Qur`an
even allows us to reconstruct its main outline, as follows:
The pagans
expelled the Prophet. This forced him to take refuge in a cave
with one of his followers. They faced there a situation of danger,
which grieved the Prophet?s companion. The Prophet assured him
that God was with them.
Given the
assurance that the incident is historical and the above outline
provided by the Qur`an, details given in the Sirah and Hadith become
useful. We can critically examine them and further enrich our
knowledge of the incident.
It is often the
case that the details provided by Sirah and Hadith become most
useful when the Qur`an provides some outline of the events
concerned. When the Qur`an is silent about an event Sirah and Hadith
usually leave us nowhere. This can be illustrated by the question of
dates of the Prophet?s birth and the start of his mission. As
already noted the Qur`an does not provide any information about
these dates, but Sirah and Hadith do. However, as Bennett notes,
quoting al-Biruni (d. 1048 CE), ?there was ?such a divergence of
opinion? about ?the time of the birth of the Prophet? and ?when he
was entrusted with his divine mission? that neither could become
?the basis of something which must be agreed upon universally?.?
That is, despite Sirah and Hadith we still do not know the date the
Prophet was born and the date he started his mission!!!
ON SIRAH AND
HADITH
After devaluing
the Qur`an, Bennett naturally makes the Sirah and Hadith as the
primary source of information about Muhammad. So how does he
evaluate these sources?
It is
universally agreed that many reports were fabricated deliberately or
distorted through unconscious errors. Early realization of this fact
led Muslims to develop a science to separate reliable material from
the unreliable. The question is to what extent the material that
gained wide acceptance after this screening process is reliable.
Bennett very rightly rejects the views of such writers as Crone,
Cook, Wansbrough, and Schacht who consider extant Sirah and Hadith
material largely the product of distortion and fabrication. But
Bennett is mistaken in his conservative position, which sees in the
extant Sirah and Hadith literature substantially reliable material.
?My personal view is that it is comparatively easy to subtract from
the collections hadith which extol or condemn certain groups or
individuals, without compromising the value of much of legal and
historical material, just as the subtraction of many miracle hadith
leaves the outline of Muhammad?s life similarly unimpaired.? (M,
63). The criterion given here for separating the reliable from the
unreliable is simplistic. If certain types of ahadith are declared
as flawed then we cannot be confident that other types of ahadith
were immune to the influence of those factors that produced those
flawed ahadith. In view of this, there is no short cut to looking at
ahadith individually and carefully and then assessing their
authenticity on a case-by-case basis. One cannot simply classify
ahadith on the basis of contents and declare some classes as
reliable and others as unreliable. Incidentally, Bennett?s
conservative position on Sirah and Hadith is consistent with his
conservative position on the Gospels, which he regards as
substantially historical.
SOME ESTABLISHED FACTS NOT FULLY FACED
There are some facts, established beyond any reasonable doubt by the
Qur`an, Sirah and Hadith, that are so significant that we cannot but
put a great deal of focus on them. One is that Muhammad stood up
among his people alone (or almost alone) and within a couple of
decades won their hearts and minds and launched a world religion and
civilization. The second is that he claimed to be the messenger of
God for all humanity and for all times.
Another most remarkable fact about Muhammad is that in the Qur`an we
are directly in touch with the result of what is claimed to be an
experience with the divine, sustained over more than two decades.
Moreover, the claim is made by the very person who is undergoing the
experience and not just by others who come later. This means that
those who want to learn more about experience with the divine have
in Muhammad and the Qur`an a solid basis for examination. The full
force of this observation can be appreciated by a comparison with
Christianity.
In the Christian tradition, with one exception, we cannot find any
event that was the result of a claimed experience with the divine or
the supernatural and for which the claim can be reliably taken back
to the person who is involved in the experience. Thus Jesus himself
is said to be the incarnation of the divine but this claim cannot be
reliably taken back to Jesus himself. The Holy Spirit is said to
inspire the Gospels but the Gospel writers themselves do not make
any such claim. Jesus is said to perform miracles but none of them
is established by the first-hand testimony of those who were
directly involved in them. The same is true about the crucifixion,
empty tomb, and resurrection of Jesus. In many cases eyewitnesses
are present but there is no claim that the reports are coming
directly from any of those eyewitnesses. In some cases, the reports
actually exclude the presence of witnesses. For example, none of the
disciples or evangelists is present during the trial of Jesus and
during Jesus? prayer in agony at Gethsemaine all the potential
eyewitnesses are fast asleep.
The one exception to the rule is Paul?s claim that Jesus appeared to
him. We can reliably take 1 Corinthians and Galatians to Paul and in
these letters we can read Paul claiming that Jesus appeared to him
or that God revealed his son to him. Such first hand testimonies are
extremely valuable. They challenge us to make a judgment about them.
Both Muslims and Christians have to decide whether they can accept
Muhammad?s claim that the Qur`anic words were formed in his heart by
God and Paul?s claim that Jesus appeared to him. And our decision
must be based on some consistent approach.
I think on the basis of Paul?s first hand testimony we can accept
that he did have a vision of Jesus. But how this vision provided
justification for what he started to preach a few years later is
hardly clear. Paul?s preaching is based on the vicarious death of
Jesus, his subsequent resurrection, and his messiahship. These
beliefs are not presented by him as in any way substantiated on the
basis of his vision of Jesus. What he says about the vision does not
lead in any way to this set of beliefs. Indeed, Paul says that these
beliefs were received by him from others and then delivered by him
to his own followers (1 Cor 15). Significantly, he does not tell us
from whom he received the traditions about Jesus? death and
resurrection and his messiahship. During his appearance to Paul,
Jesus does not reveal anything to Paul in his first-hand accounts.
Paul?s very brief references to his vision of Jesus can be
understood in terms of visions of the dead or missing persons that
are frequently reported by many people. From such a vision it is
often not possible to derive any particular beliefs about the person
who is reported to appear, unless these beliefs already existed
prior to appearances. This is shown by the fact that different
persons who reportedly are experienced in visions have different
beliefs connected with them. Thus Mary the mother of Jesus also has
been reported to appear to believers, but from these appearances we
cannot deduce that she died for our sins and rose again on the third
day. Only in Acts the appearance of Jesus to Paul is accompanied
with some instruction and revelation. But this instruction or
revelation is still not about the crucial Christian beliefs.
Moreover, Acts? three accounts of this appearance not only do not
constitute first-hand testimony but also are contradictory and thus
subject to doubt.
Hence we can conclude that the most basic Christian beliefs are not
based on any experience with the divine that can be established by a
reliable first hand testimony of those directly involved in that
experience.
Now any search for Muhammad must attempt a satisfactory explanation
of the above mentioned, well established facts. We must explain
Muhammad?s sustained claim that he received the Qur`an from God. We
must also explain his almost superhuman strength and success.
Scholars of varied background have recognized almost universally
this much: Muhammad was moved by something extraordinary. Some
Christians recognize this by attributing his ministry to the devil,
that is, to a supernatural being; others such as Watt, by
recognizing in him a true prophet of God, a different type of
supernatural being. Muslims of course also believe that he was a
true Prophet of God in a sense much higher than the Christian
concept of a ?prophet?. Atheistic position finds expression by
Rodinson, a Marxist from a Jewish family. ?Rodinson recognizes what
he calls a ?power? in Muhammad, ?which, with help of circumstances
[made] him one of the rare men who have turned the world upside
down.? On the one hand, says Rodinson, the atheist must conclude
that the extra-human origin of such a power remains unproven; yet on
the other, he ?may be forced to admit that it may be rooted in
function of human mind that we do not yet understand?? (M, 39).
Although Bennett here and there mentions views of other scholars
concerning the power in Muhammad, he himself does not grapple with
the crucial questions that it raises. This is a weakness in a book
that attempts to search for Muhammad.
TWO VOICES
Commenting on Tor Andrae?s writings on Islam and the Prophet,
Muhammad Marmaduke Pickthal, a British Muslim who has also
translated the Qur`an, wrote that Andrae speaks with ?two voices?,
?one suave and juridical, the other harsh and fanatical? (M, 127).
The two voices are not unique to Andrae: we can find them in many
other Christian writers. They may also be identified as a scholarly
voice and a Christian voice. It is not simply that one voice usually
evaluates Muhammad positively while the other judges him harshly.
This is not inherently wrong: one can have a favorable view of some
aspects of a personality and a negative view of others. But what one
notices in Christian writings on Muhammad is that the positive and
negative statements do not seem to proceed from one coherent point
of view. One particularly clear example of this is provided by Le
Compte de Boulainvilliers who in book published in 1731 says that
Muhammad had ?the best of intentions in trying to render to God his
true glory? and yet at other places in the same book refers to the
Prophet of Islam as ?the impostor? (M, p. 95). As we approach the
present time, the second voice tends to become, in most authors,
less and less harsh and fanatical but the two voices remain.
In case of Bennett also the two voices are audible, especially in
the concluding chapter of his book on Muhammad where he searches for
a place for Muhammad within his Christian worldview. One voice
proceeds from scholarly study and reflection on Islam and other
religions and is very inclusive and pluralist. The second voice
expresses his Christian views and maintains certain exclusive claims
on behalf of Christ. Since these latter claims are never put on the
table for real scrutiny the two voices remain oddly disconnected in
that they do not proceed from any coherent point of view in an
understandable way. The only way one can give some coherence to the
two views is that since truth is relative the exclusive and
inclusive points of view can both be right!
THE PLACE OF MUHAMMAD IN CHRISTIANITY
Bennett?s first book is as much a search for a place for Muhammad
in the writer?s Christian worldview as it is a search for
Muhammad in his own right. So what place does Bennett give to
Muhammad in his Christianity?
Prior to the second half of the twentieth century the mainline
Christian position was that there is no salvation and divine
revelation outside the Church. This indeed is the natural position
to which most of the Bible itself leads. Apart from some isolated
passages here and there the main thrust of the Biblical tradition is
that revelation and salvation started by being available universally
but then became more and more narrowly channeled, first through the
Jews and then to a single individual ? Jesus. Thus anyone who wants
to be faithful to the Biblical and church tradition will maintain
this exclusivist position and indeed many Christians still do. But
contact with non-Christian religions and communities and critical
studies of the Biblical and church traditions have inclined many to
find ways to ?accommodate? other religions. At the same time the
older belief in the centrality of the Jewish people and Christ in
the process of revelation and salvation persists. This has led to
the idea of Christ acting anonymously through other religions: There
is light of revelation and possibility of salvation in other
religions but its source is Christ even though other religions did
not know this! In this way the supremacy of Christ and hence of
Christianity is maintained. One may say that other religions are in
this way spiritually colonized. Christ moves into the sacred space
of other religions and becomes their Lord and God. He is given the
credit for what is good in other religions, that is, what is in line
with Christianity. As for those elements in other religions that are
opposed to Christianity, they may be tolerated, since for many
Christians the specific teachings of Christianity are becoming less
and less important any way. What is most important for most
Christians is that the supremacy of Christ, whoever he is, may be
established over other religions. Moreover, it is hoped that once
other religions accept the supremacy of Christ they may also start
bringing their beliefs and practices more in line with Christianity
just as colonization of various countries by Europeans led those
countries to adopt many of the European ways.
The idea that whatever is good in other religions is the work of
Christ acting anonymously is also used to give some recognition to
Islam and its Prophet. Some scholars give this idea a more specific
form by regarding Muhammad as a prophet like one of the Old
Testament prophets. What makes this position acceptable to some
Christians is that in Christianity Old Testament prophets have also
been deprived of their independence in that their main function has
been reduced to prophesying and preparing for the advent of Christ.
Also, they are viewed as capable of all kinds of imperfections and
mistakes, even in their inspired words.
We may point out that granting the Prophet of Islam a status like
that of the Old Testament prophets, although it may appear to be
gracious, is highly problematic. Why would God send a lower form of
revelation after the ultimate form of revelation through Jesus
Christ? Which Old Testament prophet has been followed to the extent
that Muhammad is followed? And was not the main function of the Old
Testament prophets to look forward to the coming of the crucified
Son of God, considering that their writings are seen by Christian
writers, from the four canonical gospels to the present day
writings, as full of prophecies about him? Then how is it that God
sends a prophet after Christ, one of whose missions is to warn those
who say that God has taken a son (18:4), who teaches that Jesus
himself was no more than a prophet like other prophets sent to the
children of Israel (3:59, 5:72, 5:75 etc), rejects not only his
divinity but also a mediating role for him (39:3-4) and
categorically denies that Jesus was crucified (4:157)? One could
appeal here to the imperfections and errors that prophets could
allegedly make in their inspired words. But can we attribute error
to such categorical and repeated statements of someone who is saying
loud and clear that every word in the book he has brought is nothing
but the word of God and still believe him to be a prophet? Muhammad
in any case was instructed by God to condemn the practice of picking
and choosing from the book of God: ?Do you believe in part of the
book and disbelieve in part thereof? What then is the reward of
those who do this save ignominy in this world? And on the day of
resurrection they will be consigned to the severest punishment. For,
God is not unaware of what you do.? (2:85).
Yet such problems are not likely to daunt most scholars. Christians
want to find a place for Muhammad in their worldview for one or more
of the following three reasons: 1) to address some troubling
questions that Christian theology raises about the nature of
revelation and salvation in the face of some undeniable truth and
goodness in other religious traditions; 2) to address questions
proceeding from universal and rational grounds; 3) to bring Muslims
and Christians closer together. For most Christian writers the first
two reasons apply. This means that they are not interested in how
the Prophet himself and his followers view his role and what his
actual position and function in the past history has been. The
discussion about the place of Muhammad from this perspective is not
about Muhammad but about Christianity.
As for Bennett, like many other sensitive traditional Christian
writers, he is also torn between a desire to grant validity to other
religions and a desire to maintain Christ?s unique position. This
gives rise to the two voices to which I alluded earlier. At times he
appears to give independent value to other religions. ?My view that
Jesus is paradigmatic, a definitive expression of God?s will to
humanity and a link between humanity and God, leaves open ? the
possibility that the same paradigm has been expressed elsewhere.?
(J, con6). But then he adds statements that subordinate other
religions to Jesus. ?Whatever names these other expressions are
known by, to adapt the Gita, are merely alternative names for
Jesus.? (J. 7). I doubt whether Bennett will accept that Jesus is an
alternative name for Rama or Krishna. Here we have the same idea of
the Anonymous Christ in a somewhat new form.
Bennett?s books show a similar tension between the two desires in
connection with Islam and Muhammad. Following Kung, he is willing to
accept Muhammad as a ?prophetic corrective? for Christians (M, 236),
e.g. through ?many safeguards against the misuse of power? that his
sunnah provided (M, 237). He is also willing to accept that ?the
Qur`an was communicated by God through Muhammad? (M, 236). More
importantly, at times he seems to concede that God was acting in
Muhammad independently of Christ. ?As I look at the life of
Muhammad, I see a life which, although Christians have contrasted
negatively with Christ?s, can be interpreted as complementary;
Christ said ?Render to Caesar? but did not give us instructions on
how Caesar ought to spend the tax to which he is entitled.
Muhammad?s sunnah can help to supply some detail here ?? (M, p.
236). ?My own view is that such a stark choice [Muhammad or Jesus]
may not be necessary. Rather, we may choose to see Muhammad as
?supreme exemplar and source of guidance? in some areas of human
life, Christ as supreme in others? (M, 229). But then we read him
say: ?To say that aspects of Muhammad?s sunnah have a
validity for me which equals Christ?s teaching is to say no more
than that these aspects are wholly consistent with what I know of
God in Christ; they do not contradict, but are consonant, with that
revelation. ? Saying that God speaks to us through other religions
is not the same as saying that he ?saves? through them. ?
Personally, I believe that all salvation is mediated through Christ
?? (M, 238; my emphasis). Bennett then concludes with a statement
about Muhammad that could be said about any leading figure in human
history: ?For me, Muhammad?s sunnah contains much that is
worth putting into practice? (M, 243).
There is some indication that Bennett felt some pressure from his
peers to downgrade his estimate of Muhammad. Thus he tells us that
when he described Muhammad and Jesus as two complementary figures:
?I was rebuked by some Christian friends: either I recognize Christ
as my absolute Master or I am guilty of compromise. I have thought
long and hard about this and disagree. However, I think that my
position needs clarification. What I want to argue is that, Christ
is indeed supreme exemplar ?? (p. 229).
Although Bennett did not want a stark choice between Muhammad and
Jesus, he finally could not avoid making a choice and, as one could
have easily expected, his choice was Jesus. The question is whether
the choice is based on criteria consistently applied to the two
figures. There is little doubt that in many ways Bennett is very
consistent in the treatment of the two religious figures. In both
books he brings together varied views from both insiders and
outsiders, including some negative views. Yet as noted above there
is a fundamental unevenness. In case of Jesus he holds certain
beliefs that he takes for granted and that he never puts on the
table for examination. These beliefs, which are based primarily
on what ?Jesus speaks? to him and not on any objective evidence ?
objectivity being a doubtful concept for Bennett any way -- are then
used as criteria for judging Muhammad. Given this mindset Muhammad?s
claims were bound to be ignored or rejected from the word go.
But there is another reason that Bennett could not find a proper
place in his Christian worldview: Muhammad really has no place in
traditional Christianity which stresses the cross and divinity of
Jesus, unless Christians first recreate Muhammad in their own image.
The Qur`anic rejection of these beliefs is so categorical that no
honest Muslim or honest Christian can accommodate both Muhammad as a
true prophet of God and Jesus as God and crucified Saviour, although
there are some Christians and Muslims who have tried to achieve this
impossible feat by exegetical gymnastics.
Muhammad was not only instructed by God to reject the
above-mentioned Christian dogmas but was also told to rise as the
divinely appointed leader of all humanity till the end of time,
although this leadership is not in rivalry to other religious
figures (2:285) but is inclusive of them (42:13, 10;37, 6:92 etc).
This role of leadership cannot be subordinated in any way to Christ.
At the same time, traditional Christianity will not be satisfied
with any role of Muhammad that is not subordinate to Christ. In the
face of this the best thing the Christians and Muslims can do is to
follow what they honestly believe are the teachings of Jesus and
Muhammad respectively and live in peace with each other in a
relationship that includes dialogue and discussion on some matters
and cooperation on others.
I conclude this review by this thought: As far as historical
Muhammad and Jesus are concerned, the real choice is not who among
them is the leader and guide of humanity, but between a life with
God and a life without God. Once the choice for a life with God has
been made, the various messengers of God are not seen as rivals but
as guides for the same path. Neither Jesus nor Muhammad would be
loath to accept the other as leader if such was God?s will. For,
both teach radical submission to the will of God. And both were, of
course, spiritually developed to the point that they had no ego
problems. In the Qur`an Muhammad and the community of followers
together declare: ?We discriminate not between any of his
Messengers? (2:285, 3:84). In another verse the Prophet is asked by
God to say: ?If the Most Gracious One had a son I would be the first
to worship? (48:81). Likewise, Jesus was a man of humility. It is
reported in the gospels that when addressed as ?Good Teacher?, he
reacted: ?Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone?
(Mark 10:17 and par.). He referred to himself as ?son of man,? not
as the title of the apocalyptic figure of the Book of Daniel to whom
the dominion of the world is given but as an expression to refer to
oneself in a self-effacing way. One of the few historically
established facts about Jesus is that he submitted himself to the
baptism of John the Baptist, which was for the forgiveness of sins.
He probably regarded John the Baptist as equal or superior to
himself. Consequently, he would have no problem accepting the
leadership of Muhammad, if God appointed Muhammad as the messenger
of God for all humanity. Muslim traditions, which state explicitly
that upon his return Jesus will operate under the shari?ah of
Muhammad and that he will pray behind the Muslim imam of the time,
may not be authentic but are not off the mark as far as the humble
attitude of the historical Jesus is concerned. |