reduced and recycled

MENJ has recently posted a scathing reply to Joachen Katz’s own counter-arguments to a post here. One could question their polemical use of the article, of course, but that’s neither here nor there - to be fair, bismikaallahuma.org don’t seem to have a position on the Hans Küng article, except to note that it doesn’t share some of the views, though which views aren’t unspecified.

That’s all well and good. Joachen Katz, however, takes issue with the printing of the article because he does focus on it being used as cheap polemics. Right or wrong? You decide. I think it should be kept in mind that Joachen Katz has characterized the article in such a way when reading his objections. Anyway, to the meat of it:

According to Joachen Katz, the article is pure polemics, and as an argument in support for a plausible christian view on Muhammad as prophet, fails on committing two logical fallacies: a hasty generalization, and a false appeal to authority. On hasty generalizations, it appears the original bismikaallahuma.org article carried the words “the christian opinion on Prophet Muhammad”. Mr Katz’s concerns are valid for quite a number of reasons: there are a number of Christian denominations all of which have differences in doctrine, and there has been no fixed opinion on Muhammad as a biblical prophet. MENJ has made ammendments, of course, but not without rancour and ad hominems.

On the second problem, Joachen Katz points out something important: Hans Küng, while a Catholic priest, has had his teaching authority revoked by the Vatican. Now, this is because Hans Küng is strongly anti-papist, and has questioned Papal authority directly. Secondly, Hans Küng’s position on matters theological are not Canonical. Because bimikaallahuma.org have not specified in what way, shape or form christian Hans Küng’s position is, it is left to readers to assume - since Hans Küng is a Catholic priest - that the article above is the Catholic position. I’ll remind readers not to be mistaken, hor.

As far as I’m concerned, my opinion is that Hans Küng is merely a theologian in the Catholic tradition, but not holding canonical views. No one denies his contribution to theology or the philosophy of religion, I think, but we should take care in our reasons for quoting him, since his own views are highly contentious even in theological circles.

The rest of Joachen Katz’s article deals with the claims made in the Hans Küng article published by bismikaallahuma.org. Hans Küng’s position is that prophet Muhammad bears many similarities to biblical prophets, and thus should be acknowledged as a prophet not just in the Islamic tradition. Joachen Katz rightly points out that Hans Küng’s points are a matter of similarities claimed by both the Bible and the Quran, but does not provide sufficient and substantive arguments to declare Muhammad a prophet in the biblical tradition.

What Joachen Katz doesn’t point out, and which I should remind bismikaallahuma.org, is that if Hans Küng’s position is accepted, then anyone making claims to the qualities which define a prophet can be called or so deemed a prophet, after Muhammad’s death (except for one fundamental point). Isn’t this in complete contradiction to the Islamic position?

On the fundamental point in question:

Like the prophets of Israel, Muhammad did not function by reason of an office assigned to him by the community (or its authorities), but by reason of a special personal relationship with God.

I don’t mean to be offensive, but I would like to point out that in the Islamic tradition this is undisputed and unshakeably true. In the Catholic tradition, however, this special personal relationship with God has neither been proven nor shown to be true. If the truth of this has not been established in the Catholic tradition, then offering it as a quality possessed by Muhammad in the Catholic tradition is difficult to accept, to put it midly. If Hans Küng wished to make a case for Muhammad to be acknowledge as a prophet by the Catholic Church, then this fundamental point needs to be addressed, not not merely asserted.

Hans Küng quotes the Vatican II “Declaration on Non-Christian Religions”, and I think it’s useful to end this post with what document does say about the Church and Islam:

The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all- powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth,(5) who has spoken to men; they take pains to submit wholeheartedly to even His inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam takes pleasure in linking itself, submitted to God. Though they do not acknowledge Jesus as God, they revere Him as a prophet. They also honor Mary, His virgin Mother; at times they even call on her with devotion. In addition, they await the day of judgment when God will render their deserts to all those who have been raised up from the dead. Finally, they value the moral life and worship God especially through prayer, almsgiving and fasting.

Since in the course of centuries not a few quarrels and hostilities have arisen between Christians and Moslems, this sacred synod urges all to forget the past and to work sincerely for mutual understanding and to preserve as well as to promote together for the benefit of all mankind social justice and moral welfare, as well as peace and freedom.

Objections/contrasting views are welcome!