Montgomery Watt and His work

Professor William Montgomery Watt died in October, 2006 at the age of 97 in his native Scotland. It is ironic that the death of this greatest of Islamic scholar went unmarked in Muslim countries, including Pakistan. A tribute in the London newspaper, The Guardian , called him 'a Christian scholar in search of Islamic understanding,' a 'legendary figure' who 'dedicated his life to the promotion of dialogue between Christians and Muslims.'

Of his many scholarly works, his three books on the Prophet of Islam (pbuh) are considered classics in the field. His interest in Islam arose from his conversations with a Muslim student, Khwaja Abdul Mannan, who had come to Scotland in 1937 to study veterinary medicine. He belonged to the Ahmadiyya jamaat. Professor Montgomery Watt recalled, 'I began to learn something about Islam, of which I had been largely ignorant. But the dominant impression was that I was engaged not merely in arguing with this individual but in confronting a whole, century-old system of thought and life.'

In 1999, Alastair McIntosh and Bashir Maan, a well-respected British-Pakistani, recorded an interview with Professor Montgomery Watt, who was then in his 90th year. He answered the questions asked of him with the simplicity and clarity of a truly enlightened man. Professor Watt approved the final text, thus putting the stamp of authenticity to his last views on essential questions in the closing years of a life dedicated to the study of Islam.

To the observation that many Westerners would question the value of dialogue with Islam because they see the Sharia as being cruel, Professor Watt said, "Well, similar punishments are found in the Old Testament – including, for example, the cutting off of women's hands in Deuteronomy 25. In Islamic teaching, such penalties may have been suitable for the age in which Muhammad [pbuh] lived. However, as societies have since progressed and become more peaceful and ordered, they are not suitable any longer. If we demonise one another we cannot even debate such things. Dialogue is therefore imperative. It helps us to discern not just the meaning of the Holy Scriptures, but also the relevance that God wants them to have in our times."

Asked about the Prophet's(pbuh) attitude towards women, Professor Watt replied, "It is true that Islam is still, in many ways, a man's religion. But I think I've found evidence in some of the early sources that seems to show that Muhammad [pbuh] made things better for women. It appears that in some parts of Arabia, notably in Mecca, a matrilineal system was in the process of being replaced by a patrilineal one at the time of Muhammad [pbuh]. Growing prosperity caused by a shifting of trade routes was accompanied by a growth in individualism. Men were amassing considerable personal wealth and wanted to be sure that this would be inherited by their own actual sons, and not simply by an extended family of their sisters' sons. This led to a deterioration in the rights of women. At the time Islam began, the conditions of women were terrible. . . Muhammad [pbuh] improved things quite a lot. By instituting rights of property ownership, inheritance, education and divorce, he gave women certain basic safeguards. Set in such historical context, the Prophet [pbuh] can be seen as a figure who testified on behalf of women's rights . . . Many Westerners today think that Islam holds women in the heaviest oppression. That may be so in some cases, but only because they look at certain parts of the Islamic world. Pakistan, Bangladesh and Turkey have all had women heads of state."

To a question about jihad and what was and wasn't terrorism, Professor Watt said, "Well, I think fundamentalists of any religion go beyond what their religion is about . . . I don't think Islam is basically anti-Christian, but some extremists might take such a view. I therefore certainly don't think the West is locked into jihad with Islam, though I suppose if the fundamentalists go too far they'll have to be opposed. Iran's comments about the "Great Satan" were aimed mostly at the United States: they were not made because the West was Christian. I think the West should try to overcome these strains between different religious groups. I do, however, think that the US is following a very dangerous policy in relation to the Middle East. The root of this trouble is that the US gives too much support to Israel. They allow them to have nuclear weapons and to do all sorts of things, some of which are contrary even to Jewish law. Jewish families occupy Arab houses without payment. That is stealing. I think that the US should be much firmer with Israel and put a lot of pressure on them, though this is difficult because of the strong Jewish lobby. Unless something is done there'll be dangerous conflict in the Middle East. Such danger would be less likely to arise if people of all three Abrahamic faiths - Jews, Christians and Muslims - paid greater respect to what God teaches us about living together."

To a question about ijitihad, Professor Watt's answer was, "I would be inclined to say that the Quran is the word of God for a particular time and place and will not therefore necessarily suit other times and places. The prohibition on usury may have been good for a certain time and place but that doesn't mean it will always be good. You see, I think that Muslims need help in reaching a fresh understanding of the Quran as God's word, but comparison with the Bible does not help much. The Quran came to Muhammad [pbuh] in a period of less than 25 years, whereas from Moses to Paul is about 1,300 years. Christians could perhaps show from the Bible that there is a development in God's relation to the human race . . . Traditionally Muslims have argued from God's eternity that the commands he gives are unalterable, and they have not admitted that social forms can change. I therefore do not believe that either the Bible or the Quran are infallibly true in the sense that all their commands are valid for all time. The commands given in both books were true and valid for the societies to which the revelations were primarily addressed; but when the form of society changes in important respects, some commands cease to be appropriate, though many others continue to be valid. I do, however, believe that Muhammad [pbuh], like the earlier prophets, had genuine religious experiences. I believe that he really did receive something directly from God. As such, I believe that the Quran came from God, that it is divinely inspired. Muhammad [pbuh] could not have caused the great upsurge in religion that he did without God's blessing. The diagnosis of the Meccan situation by the Quran is that the troubles of the time were primarily religious, despite their economic, social and moral undercurrents, and as such capable of being remedied only by means that are primarily religious. In view of Muhammad's [pbuh] effectiveness in addressing this, he would be a bold man who would question the wisdom of the Quran."