Jesus and Muhammad: A Comparative Review

Comparative Critical Review Peters, F.E. (1996) The Muslim World. Vol. LXXXVI, No. 3-4. Jesus and Muhammad: A Historian‟s Reflections. Tim Winter (2009) The Muslim World. Vol. 99. Jesus and Muhammad: New Convergences. The articles „Jesus and Muhammad: A Historian‟s Reflections‟ by Francis Edwards Peters, and „Jesus and Muhammad: New Convergences‟ by Tim Winter, include two dissimilar perspectives undertaken in an effort to analyse the significance and impact of the lives of Jesus and Muhammad. Peters and Winter agree that the analytical study of Jesus‟ life and legacy is remarkably different from that of Muhammad. This review will present what is seemingly Peter‟s failure to produce any solutions to what he calls a „historical dilemma‟. It will also present Winter‟s attempt to provide solutions to the polarities of Christian-Muslim Interfaith relations. Peters and Winter seek to address the common theological concept of Jesus‟ veneration as well as that of Muhammad. Peters mainly touches upon this issue by mentioning that the gospels were written under the perception that Jesus is „the son of God‟. (Peters. 1996. P337) He briefly points out the Islamic perspective of Muhammad‟s „ismaimpeccability, which is the absence of sin. (Edersheim. 1953. P691) Although Muhammad, according to Peters, was a mere human being, his veneration grew into the concept of „isma-impeccability. Winter, on the other hand, seeks to explain the relation between „isma-impeccability and the notion of al-insän al-kämil, which means the perfect human being. He mentions Michot‟s reflections on the imago dei topos, “The Prophet is perfect human being…because he became, in his everyday life and in his prophetic leadership of his community, a kind of living Koran.” (Winter. 2009. P30) In the parallel field of Jesus, and in the context of impeccability and infallibility, Winter points out the Christian viewpoint of Jesus‟ status. Jesus is, according to Christians, the very Blid of God.

1

As a historian, Peters approaches the Jesus-Muhammad study through a historiographical perspective; whereby examining historical findings to support his convictions. According to Peters, a historian would generally be detached from religious convictions and would evidently examine the given arguments through a historian‟s eye. He states that, “The fact that the Christian churches have dubbed these four „canonical‟ does not, of course, make them any more (or less) authentic as historical documents.” (Peters. 1996. P334) Hence, from a historian‟s point of view Peters does not acknowledge the fact that four canonical gospels should be regarded as historical/factual documents even though they are deemed canonical-sacred by the church. Winter, alternatively, undertakes a different approach to the subject of Jesus and Muhammad. He relies upon theological scriptures in order to support his opinion. It can be argued that he disregarded the fundamental role of historiography in the field of Jesus and Muhammad. Winters states, “We need to begin with the fact that the lives of the two founders, as recalled by their respective chroniclers and gospel-writers undeniably differed in their politics.” (Winter. 2009. P22) Thus, he mainly depends on theological texts to shape his argument. It can be debated that both integral methodologies; the historical as well as the theological, should be implemented so that the conveyed accounts of the lives of Jesus and Muhammad would rest upon historical as well as theological objectivity (Bailey. 2012). The implementation of such a method would entail theologians to refrain from interpreting theological scriptures as historical texts, and vice versa. It can be argued that Peters takes a bias stance toward his subject by limiting his recourses. He refers to some Christian accounts, mainly the four „canonical‟ gospels so as to extract the life of historical Jesus. Whilst, in fact, disregarding the Coptic, Armenian, and Syriac accounts of Jesus, such as the Syriac scriptures; The Curetonian Gospels and the Syriac Sinaiticus. On the contrary, Winter tries to provide accounts of Jesus through various Christian resources. For instance, he often refers to the Anglican priest Kenneth Cragg, the Catholic priest Hans Küng, the Lutheran theologian Mark Swanson, as well as the Ordained Priest of the Church of England Keith Ward, hence providing a wider spectrum of theologians and scholars. Winter‟s article addresses the 2

topic of Jesus and Muhammad much more thoroughly compared to Peters. However it can be argued that Peters‟s perspective is more logical as it is based on historical facts as opposed theological accounts. Winter stresses upon the Christian-Muslim relations in efforts to minimize the polarities. However, Peters makes no mention of the interfaith relations between Christians and Muslims in his article. More significantly, Winter explores numerous Christian, as well as Islamic resources and accounts, of the lives of Jesus and Muhammad. This is primarily because such a controversial topic requires thorough study of both accounts. Whereas, it can be debated that Peters has used only Sunni resources when mentioning the perspective of Muslims, such as Urwa Ibn Al-Zuabyr, Ibn Hisham, and Tabari. He states, “Some Christians have made it a point in their relationships with Muslims to observe and listen to them with care and respect as they practice and explain their faith” (Winter. 2009. P21). Thus, he makes efforts to restore confidence in the interfaith relations by introducing what he calls „the full-spectrum prophetology‟. According to Winter, the fullspectrum prophetology should revive the mutual respect between Christian and Muslim theologians who interpret scriptural records and seek to portray the two founders. Therefore, in my opinion, Winter can be seen as a more balanced and unbiased author of the two. Even though both articles discuss the topic of Jesus and Muhammad from different viewpoints, however, it would seem that Winter has a much more analytical methodology than Peters. Winter seeks to investigate and address the key milestones that pertain to the Jesus-Muhammad research, which makes Winter‟s argument, in my opinion, more reliable. Although both authors establish credibility, Winter‟s argument brings forth a stronger academic appeal. Even though Winter‟s argument is from a theological perspective, he uses more sources to argue his point, whereas Peters‟s argument, whilst historical, uses limited resources to argue his perspective.

3

Works Cited Bailey, L.W. and Fisher, M.P. (2012) An Anthropology of Living Religions. Third Edition. Laurence King Publishing Ltd. Winter, T. (2009) The Muslim World. Vol. 99. Jesus and Muhammad: New Convergences. Edersheim, A. (1953) The Life and Times of Jesus The Messiah. Grand Rapids, MI: Christian Classics Ethereal Library. Peters, F.E. (1996) The Muslim World. Vol. LXXXVI, No. 3-4. Jesus and Muhammad: A Historian‟s Reflections.

4