How do Muhammad Abid al-Jābirī and Fazlur Rahman formulate prophecy within a modern hermeneutical framework, and do they succeed in preserving Islamic theological content?

This question lies at the heart of the tension between modernity and tradition in contemporary Islamic thought. The attempts by al-Jābirī and Fazlur Rahman to reread prophecy represent two different intellectual projects, united by their pursuit of presenting a "modern rational" understanding of prophecy, yet differing in methodology and results. The question of their success in "preserving theological content" raises a profound epistemological problem: What constitutes the "essence" of prophecy that must be preserved, and what constitutes "historical form" that can be transcended?

Inadequate Responses to Avoid

From some defenders of renewal:

"Al-Jābirī and Fazlur Rahman liberated the concept of prophecy from superstitions." A misleading oversimplification. Both presented complex readings, but describing them as "liberation from superstitions" assumes that traditional understanding is "superstitious," an assumption requiring justification. Moreover, their projects are more complex than merely "removing superstitions."

"Modern hermeneutics is necessary to save Islam in the modern era." A non-neutral assumption. It presupposes that Islam "needs saving" and that modernity is the savior. This is an ideological position, not academic analysis.

"Prophecy is a psycho-social phenomenon, and al-Jābirī and Fazlur Rahman revealed its reality." Reductionist. Even if they provided psycho-social analysis, reducing prophecy to this dimension exceeds what they actually said and assumes a metaphysical position (naturalism) without justification.

From some defenders of tradition:

"Al-Jābirī and Fazlur Rahman demolished faith in prophecy." An inaccurate generalization. Both affirmed their faith in Muhammad's prophecy, even if their interpretation differed from traditional interpretation. Disagreement in interpretation does not equal "demolishing faith."

"Any interpretation of prophecy other than the Ashʿarī-Māturīdī interpretation is innovation." Historical narrow-mindedness. The history of Islamic thought witnessed multiple interpretations of prophecy (philosophers, mystics, Muʿtazila), and the Ashʿarī-Māturīdī school is dominant but not the only one.

"Academic criticism of al-Jābirī and Fazlur Rahman is merely disguised secularism." Unhelpful character assassination. Even if their projects had secular tendencies (which is debatable), evaluation should focus on arguments, not presumed intentions.

Why These Responses Are Inadequate

They share a tendency to avoid careful analysis of al-Jābirī's and Fazlur Rahman's projects, settling for general judgments. Serious evaluation requires precise understanding of each one's methodology, followed by philosophical analysis of their results.

Al-Jābirī's Project: Bayānī Rationalism

Muhammad Abid al-Jābirī (1935-2010) in his "Critique of Arab Reason" project, especially in "The Structure of Arab Reason" (1986) and "Arab Political Reason" (1990), presents a reading of prophecy within the framework of "bayānī rationalism."

Al-Jābirī's methodology is based on:

1. Distinguishing between three epistemological systems: Bayān (Arab-Islamic), Burhān (Greek-Aristotelian), ʿIrfān (Gnostic-Sufi). Prophecy in Islamic tradition was influenced by all three, but al-Jābirī calls for "purifying" the bayānī understanding from the influences of burhān and ʿirfān.

2. Criticizing "resigned reason": Al-Jābirī criticizes what he calls "resignation of reason" in the theological tradition, where prophecy is understood as a "miracle" that transcends reason. He calls for a rational understanding of prophecy that doesn't eliminate its specificity.

3. Prophecy as "historical event": Al-Jābirī emphasizes the historicity of prophecy. Prophet Muhammad came in a specific historical context (seventh century, Arabian Peninsula), and his message responded to this context. This doesn't negate its universality, but emphasizes the necessity of understanding it historically.

4. Revelation as "higher rational inspiration": Al-Jābirī doesn't deny revelation, but understands it as a form of rational inspiration that transcends ordinary reason without contradicting it. Revelation is "supra-rational," not "anti-rational."

Strengths in al-Jābirī's project:
- Attempts to reconcile belief in prophecy with modern rationality.
- Provides historical reading that helps understand context.
- Avoids sharp dualism between "blind faith" and "rational rejection."

Weaknesses:
- The concept of "bayānī rationalism" is sometimes vague. What is the precise difference between it and modern rationality?
- The distinction between bayān/burhān/ʿirfān may be artificial. Islamic tradition witnessed organic interaction among the three.
- His emphasis on historicity may lead to relativism that threatens the universality of the message.

Fazlur Rahman's Project: Revelation as Psycho-Religious Experience

Fazlur Rahman (1919-1988) in "Islam" (1966), "Prophecy in Islam" (1958), and "Major Themes of the Qur'an" (1980), presents a different understanding of prophecy.

Fazlur Rahman's methodology is based on:

1. Revelation as "real psychological experience": Fazlur Rahman describes revelation as a deep psychological experience the Prophet undergoes, where his consciousness connects with divine reality. This experience is real and objective, but passes through the Prophet's psyche.

2. The Qur'an as "God's word and Muhammad's word": In a formulation that sparked wide controversy, Fazlur Rahman says the Qur'an is "totally God's word and totally Muhammad's word." The meaning is from God, but the formulation passes through the Prophet's personality, language, and culture.

3. Prophecy as "religious genius": Fazlur Rahman sees the Prophet as a "religious genius" possessing superior spiritual sensitivity enabling him to receive revelation. This doesn't negate divine selection, but emphasizes the human dimension.

4. Distinguishing between "revelation" and "tanzīl": Revelation is the Prophet's spiritual experience, tanzīl is the formulation of this experience in words. This distinction allows understanding the Prophet's active role in formulating the Qur'an.

Strengths in Fazlur Rahman's project:
- Provides coherent explanation of the relationship between divine and human in prophecy.
- Avoids dualism between "mechanical revelation" and "human composition."
- Explains stylistic diversity in the Qur'an and connection to historical context.

Weaknesses:
- The concept of "God's word and Muhammad's word" raises deep theological problems. How can the text be both divine and human completely?
- Focus on "psychological experience" may lead to subjectivity that threatens revelation's objectivity.
- The concept of "religious genius" may reduce divine selection to natural talent.

Philosophical Criticism of Both Projects

Both projects face deep philosophical challenges:

First Challenge: The Problem of Reconciliation

Both attempt to reconcile:
- Belief in prophecy's reality and modern rationality.
- The divine character of revelation and historical-psychological understanding.
- The message's universality and its historicity.

The question: Is this reconciliation logically possible, or does it lead to contradictions? Critics see that the attempt ends either by emptying prophecy of its theological content, or with artificial rationality that doesn't convince modernists.

Second Challenge: The Criterion of "Essence" and "Accident"

Both projects assume the possibility of distinguishing between prophecy's "essence" (to be preserved) and "historical accidents" (to be transcended). But: who determines this distinction? By what criterion?

Al-Jābirī considers "bayānī rationality" essence and "mystical elements" accidents. Fazlur Rahman considers "spiritual experience" essence and "mechanical conception of revelation" accident. But these choices sometimes appear arbitrary.

Third Challenge: Sliding Toward Naturalism

Despite both affirming faith, their interpretations tend toward naturalistic explanation of prophecy:
- Al-Jābirī: Prophecy as "rational inspiration" (close to philosophical genius?).
- Fazlur Rahman: Prophecy as "psychological experience" (close to mystical experience?).

The question: If prophecy is amenable to psycho-rational explanation, what distinguishes it from poetic inspiration or philosophical intuition? The traditional answer is clear: divine intervention that transcends natural capacities.

Where We Stand in This Discussion Today

The tension remains ongoing and escalating. In the period 2020-2026, post-Jābirī studies (especially works by his followers and critics in the Maghreb) deepened the review of his epistemological trilogy, with growing recognition that the bayān/burhān/ʿirfān division is a useful analytical tool but unsuitable as a rigid historical framework. The Fazlur Rahman school extended through his students (Ibrahim Moosa, Ebru Patmanglioglu, and others) who attempted to transcend the problem of "God's word and Muhammad's word" toward a concept of "divine communicative act" inspired by contemporary philosophy of language. In contrast, more sophisticated Islamic theological responses emerged—not merely rejecting—that acknowledge the legitimacy of the question of "human mediation in revelation," but demand an ontological framework that doesn't reduce divine action to psychological phenomenon. The discussion thus shifted from "Do we accept modern interpretation?" to "What ontology of revelation accommodates both divine and human dimensions without reducing either?"

From the Perspective of Rational Probabilism (Website's Methodology)

Rational probabilism (rajḥān ʿaqlī) doesn't require wholesale acceptance or rejection of both projects. It asks instead: What is the most coherent reading when available evidence is assembled? On one hand, emphasizing contextual historicity and the prophetic soul's role in receiving revelation isn't a modern innovation; it has roots in al-Fārābī, Ibn Sīnā, and al-Ghazālī himself. On the other hand, sliding toward purely naturalistic explanation of prophecy strips the phenomenon of its most important explanatory feature: claiming a transcendent source not reducible to human subjectivity. The most probably correct position—not certain—is that revelation includes a real human dimension (context, language, and experience) and a transcendent dimension not adequately explained by psychological tools alone. Both projects contributed to maturing the question, but each pays an epistemological price: al-Jābirī pays the price of ambiguity in his alternative, and Fazlur Rahman pays the price of tension between subjectivity and objectivity. Acknowledging this price is precisely what distinguishes careful analysis from partisanship.