Charles Ramsey, Adjunct of History, History Faculty, Baylor University USA
Abstract:
Sayyid Ahmad Khan described the authors of the Christian New Testament as recipients of revelation (ṣāḥib al-waḥy) and their writings as worthy of obedience (wājib al-‘amal). As incongruous as this may sound to some, Sayyid Ahmad also affirmed ‘St. Paul’, the ‘apostles’, and the ‘sacred historians’ responsible for penning the texts, with great reverence as being imbibed with light from the same ‘Holy Spirit’ that brought revelation to the Prophet of Islam. In this essay, we explore the logic and precedent applied by Sayyid Ahmad to categorize the writings of the New Testament. We will examine the distinction made between revelation (waḥy) and divine word (kalām ilāhi), and between the prophets found in every generation and the select legislative prophet who are authorized to institute doctrinal ordinances (sharī’ah). As we shall see, Sayyid Ahmad argued that like Muhammad and Moses, Jesus was a legislative prophet, and his followers proceeded (taḥdīs) under this dispensation to carry forward the spiritual revolution (ruḥānī inqelāb) whereby all have access through faith to the same spiritual light.
Throughout the history of Muslim-Christian relations, there has been a noted gap in Muslim engagement with the Christian New Testament. This is a difficulty to grapple not only with the authenticity, but also the authority of the text sacred to Christians, which contains at least some of the Gospel spoken of so reverently in the Qur’ān. This is partially due to the challenges posed by the difficulty in discussing the human-divine partnership displayed in revelation. Unlike the Qur’ān which is believed to be the direct speech of God, the writings in the Bible appear in various forms, and in various voices. Sayyid Ahmad Khan is distinguished by his focused study of the Bible and of his deliberation on the issue of both the authorial history of the New Testament and its present authority in the life of a Muslim.
Thank you, Charles, for an engaging paper on Sayyid Ahmad Khan's approach to the New Testament. As I've been reading it, I've been wrestling with the significance of his taxonomy of matlu and ghayr matlu, and the difference between authentic revelation and authoritative revelation. SAK's affirmation of the Gospels (and New Testament more generally) as being authentic revelation is indeed remarkable and offers a way forward for finding common ground. But if we read the Gospels through the lens of SAK's taxonomy, what does it mean for our reading and interpretation of the New Testament that the words of Jesus have authority but that the words of his 'heirs' do not, or even that the narrative of the Gospels (which describes the actions of Jesus) does not carry the same authority as the sayings of Jesus in them?
I also wonder if this paper could not benefit from some reflection on the role of law in the Gospels vis-a-vis the Qur'an. The qualifier legislative authority is important, but that is a concept that is Islamic, relating to (as you point out) that each great prophet brings a kitab, and I am not sure that it is a concept that easily obtains in the reading of the Gospels. Jesus said that he came to fulfill the law, yes, but to legislate it? Does SAK at any point grapple with differences in approach to law between the Qur'an and the Gospels? I'd like to suggest that we can't separate out our discussion of revelation in the Gospels and the Qur'an from that of law, especially given the way that SAK framed authoritative revelation as being legislative in nature.
This is just as interesting on the form and content of revelation as I'd hoped. Thanks, Charles!
I'd like to know how far SAK's thinking is 'in conversation with' western critical biblical scholarship. From his work on the OT, it seems to me that he thoroughly understood that critical undermining of the Bible would soon lead to critical understanding of the Qur'an. Thus he is effectively defending both the Bible and the Qur'an against such undermining.
Have I got that right? If so, how might that have affected his application of his 'taxonomy'?
Steven, thank you for this thoughtful response. Just to clarify, SAK holds that the words of Jesus' 'heirs', that is the disciples who proceeded in his authority and who 'authored' the Gospels, Epistles, and all of the writings in the present NT are authoritative and worthy of obedience. The difference he identifies, and it is one that many Christians hold to as well, though in different terms -- is that nothing brought forth in New Testament and church tradition should contradict the words/way of Jesus. Everything must be traced back to -- or at least not contradict -- that which Jesus authorized.
Ida, also thank you for your note, Yes, SAK was actively engaged with NT scholarship. He also composed his Tafsir al-Qur'an with the intent of engaging a multi-faith audience. He was the first south asian to include a numbering system for the ayat and he did this to facilitate correspondence. Urdu of course was the difficulty -- Goldziher, for example, lamented his lack of access. Throughout his long career as a writer, SAK insisted on applying the same criterion to both the Bible and Qur'an. He was less interested in the Hadith and Sira -- he sort of gave up on these it seems, but he made use of the tools and taxonomy applied to these in delineating his list of interpretive principles.