The author is from the Department of Islamic Studies in English, Al-Azhar University, and he is Currently doing MA in Islamic Studies at Leiden University, the Netherlands

Introduction

The translation of the Qur’an was a very controversial issue that raised many debates both in the past and present. The debate was not restricted to the discussion of whether the Qur’an is translatable or not. Yet the debate embraced a number of relevant issues. For example, the first appearance of the debate in the classical books of Fiqh was related to the permissibility or otherwise of reciting the translated Qur’an in prayer. The present study will not deal with the issue of translating the Qur’an directly. However, it will try to discuss the Muslim legal discourse on a number of relevant issues, namely, reciting the Qur’anic translation in prayer, writing the Qur’an in non-Arabic characters, and delivering the Friday khutba in a language other than Arabic.
 

1. Recitation of the Qur’anic Translation in Prayer

One of the issues to which the attention of Muslim jurists was paid is the recitation of translated Qur’an in the prayer. We have two main attitudes concerning this problem. The first is that of the Hanafi School. Abu Hanifah declared that it was permissible to recite the Qur’an in Persian in prayer, whether the reader knew Arabic or not. Abu Yusuf and Muhammad al-Shaybani did not go as far as their master, whose license was unconditional. They both made the permission to recite the translated Qur’an in prayer conditional on the inability to recite it in Arabic. Abu Hanifah based his argument on a report which reads, “The people of Persia wrote to Salman al-Farisi to write to them the Fatihah in Persian, which he did; and they used to recite it in prayer until their tongues became used to it.” However, Abu Yusuf and Muhammad argued that the Qur’an was inimitable, and that this inimitability consisted in both its nazm (the composition of the Arabic text) and meaning, so in order to fulfill the obligation (i.e. the recital of the Qur’an in prayer), one should combine these. But, in case of inability, the Muslim is required to do whatever is within his capacity.[1] This view is based on the norm that “obligation is according to ability”.[2] It is claimed that Abu Hanifah abandoned his original unconditional permission, and that in the end he accepted the opinion of his two chief disciples in permitting the use of translations only for those unable to recite the original Arabic.
 

With the exception of the Hanafis, all the scholars of the other schools are against the use of translations in prayer whether one is able to recite the original Arabic or not. Al-Shafi‘i, for instance, holds that it is obligatory to recite the Qur’an in Arabic. He quoted the Qur’anic verses (43: 3) and (41: 44) which loudly proclaim that the Qur’an was revealed in Arabic and that it was Allah’s intention to reveal it in none but the Arabic tongue. He also stated that the Persian translation is of human speech so the prayer with it becomes invalid.[3] According to the Maliki jurist, al-Qadi Abu Bakr b. al-‘Arabi, while commenting on the second verse said that this verse alone invalidated Abu Hanifah’s opinion.[4]

In the beginning of the twentieth century the issue was raised while discussing the issue of translating the Qur’an into foreign languages. Both the proponents and opponents of the translation referred to the old discussion on the issue of the recitation of translated Qur’an in prayer in support of their attitude. Some of them mentioned the different views but did not give preference to one of the two views concerning this issue over the other such as Sheikh Shaltut and Muhammad al-Khidr Husayn. However, Sheikh Rashid Rida[5], Muhammad Mustafa al-Shatir[6], Hasanayn Makhluf[7], and Shaykh al-Islam Mustafa Sabri[8] preferred the majority view stating that Abu Hanifah had abandoned his original permission and accepted the majority view which forbids the use of translations in prayer. Not only did Sheikh al-Maraghi prefer the viewpoint of the Hanafis but also he made the recitation of the translated Qur’an in prayer obligatory upon whoever was unable to recite the Arabic text, for prayer was communion with Allah and thus it should be either through Allah’s Word for those able to recite it, or through the translated meaning for those unable to do so.[9] He also permitted the recitation of the translation in addition to the obligatory amount of the Qur’an in Arabic, to help those, who could not recite the Arabic text properly, lengthen their communion with Allah and reflect on the meanings of what they utter.[10]

In contrast to al-Maraghi’s attitude, Shaykh al-Islam Mustafa Sabri was against the recitation of the translation in prayer and responded to the arguments of al-Maraghi stating that what was required for prayer was the recitation of the Qur’an but the translation was not the Qur’an and this would lead to the invalidation of prayer as even some of the Hanafis had stated. So at least, he continued, to be on the safe side this must be avoided.[11] Sheikh Sabri stated that in practice Muslims including the Hanafis did not use the translated Qur’an or dhikr in prayer.[12] As for combining the translation with the obligatory Arabic amount, he also stated that the permission of the Hanafis was not absolute; it was conditional on that a Muslim should not get used to the recitation of the translation. He concluded that the whole issue and the differences of the jurists are confined to the one or two days during which a newly converted Muslim had not yet learned any passage from the Qur’an. The Hanafis permitted him to recite the translation while the other schools required him to recite some dhikr or remain silent. Usually the newly converted Muslim, he continued, did not know the Qur’an or its translation, and it was better for him to learn first the obligatory amount of the Qur’an needed for prayer than to learn its translation. The opinion of the Hanafis was only practical for the newly converted Muslim who knew the translation, which was a very rare case.[13] The al-Lajna al-Da’ima lil-Buhuth al-‘Ilmiyya wal-Ifta’ (The permanent committee for scientific researches and Ifta’) in Saudi Arabia also issued a fatwa in which it was stated that the recital of the translation in prayer is not permissible and every Muslim should learn the obligatory amount of the Qur’an needed for the performance of prayer.[14]

The issue was recently raised in an article entitled, “The Observance of the Al-Salat in Yoruba Language and the Indigenisation of Islam in Yorubland” in Islam in the Modern Age. The author started by stressing the importance of Arabic for the Nigerian Muslims as well as its unifying role among all Muslims, which can be observed in the ritual prayers, Friday sermon, and pilgrimage. Without referring to the views of Muslim jurists on the issue, he suggested that to support endeavors for the indigenization of Islam, the use of local language in prayer might be considered, for such a step, he viewed, would go far extent in leading these Muslims to a meaningful participation and sincere response to the call of Allah.[15]

To conclude, it seems that the recital of translated Qur’an remains a theoretical rather than a practical license[16] and it has nothing to do with reality for there is a practical consensus that the recitation of the Qur’an in prayer should be in Arabic as expressed by Ibn Qudamah.[17] This is also indicated by the fact that the calls for the observance of prayer in non-Arabic languages seem to fall on deaf ears.

2. Writing the Qur’an in non-Arabic Characters

First, we should have a look at the way the Qur’an is written. The Qur’an was written in a particular orthography (rasm), which became known as al-rasm al-‘Uthmani (the ^‘Uthmanic way of writing the text of the Qur’an) also referred to as rasm al-mushaf. The only full official written copy, which was made under Abu Bakr (d.13/634), had remained unpublished until the third Caliph ‘Uthman b. ‘Affan. It was kept first with Abu Bakr, then with ‘Umar, and after his death with his daughter Hafsa, a widow of the Prophet. Responding to the demand of Hudhayfa b. al-Yaman to help Muslims before they differ about the text of the Qur’an, ‘Uthman sent word to Hafsa, asking for the copy in her possession to be sent to him so that a number of copies could be made of it, to be publicized and followed as the only authorized Qur’an in the different parts of the Muslim world. This prevented the possibility of different versions evolving in time.[18]

Arabic orthography at the time was not yet developed in the way we have known for centuries. In order to ensure correct reading of the written texts of the Qur’an, particularly for those coming after the first generation of Muslims, steps were taken gradually to improve the orthography. This started with introducing dots to indicate different vowels and tanwin and these were put in different colored ink from that of the text. Understandably there was some opposition at first to adding anything to the way the Qur’an was written. Ibn ‘Umar (73/692) disliked the dotting; others welcomed it, clearly because it was, in fact, doing no more than ensuring proper reading of the Qur’an as received from the Prophet, and this view was accepted by the majority of Muslims throughout the different parts of the Muslims world, from the time of the tabi‘un [successors].[19]

Alongside the development of studies in Arabic grammar, Arabic orthography also developed for linguistic and literary material, and although the ‘Uthmanic rasm was one of the sources of ordinary orthography the latter began to differ from the ‘Uthmanic rasm of the Qur’an. [20] The question was asked whether it was admissible to write the Qur’an itself in the new orthography. Imam Malik (d. 179/795) was asked and said: No, the Qur’an should be written only in the way of the first writing. He was also asked whether the additional waw and alif (as in the word ) should be deleted since they were not pronounced and said no. Similarly Ibn Hanbal (244/858) said it was unlawful to deviate in writing the mushaf in waw, ya, alif or any other way.[21]

In the past and present some people have argued that there is nothing sacred about the Qur’anic rasm. There is nothing in the Qur’an or hadith to make it obligatory or recommended. The Muslims could use any specific system for writing the Qur’an to facilitate the reading and learning of the Qur’an to each generation according to their contemporary orthography. However, the advocates of the viewpoint that the Qur’anic rasm is obligatory argue that the early rasm was set by the Companions of the Prophet and was adopted by their followers in what amounts to an ijma‘, so that Malik, Ahmad and other imams held that it should not be altered in any way. Great care was also taken to keep the Qur’an as it originally was in pronunciation of the words and writing at that time. If the gate were to be opened, they argue, to what was deemed desirable in rasm it might in time become open in the same way to changes in pronunciation. Thus the juristic principle of sadd al-dhara’i‘ (blocking the way for unlawful or undesired things) was invoked.[22] Another argument of the advocates of the ‘Uthmanic orthography is that it made it possible from the beginning for some words to be read in more than one way, and the copies of the Qur'ân written and distributed according to the order of ‘Uthman are reported to have contained all the seven canonical readings of the Qur‘an. In numerous cases, a word was written in such a way as to be suitable to more than one reading. Thus in sura 1 could be read as malik or malik; (2:51) as wa‘^‘adna or wa‘adna; (34:37) is al-ghurfati or al-ghurufati; (52:18) is fakahin or fakihin. If another orthography is adopted not to mention the transcription of the Qur’an into non-Arabic characters this advantage will be lost.[23]

Here we are faced with another question: can the Qur’an be written down in letters other than the Arabic characters? As some of Arabic letters have no exact counterparts in other languages, it was feared that this would lead to mispronunciation, and this in turn to misunderstanding of the Holy text.[24] Sheikh Husayn Wali, former head of the fatwa committee at Al-Azhar, (d. 1936) was asked about the writing of the Qur’an in Latin letters and he gave the following answer: undoubtedly there are some letters in Arabic which do not have equivalents in Latin script, so the Latin letters cannot replace the Arabic letters. So if the Qur’an was written in these letters there would be distortion of its words followed by change and corruption of their meanings. He argued that according to the Shari‘a, the Qur’an must be protected against whatever may expose it to alteration or corruption. The early and late generations of Muslims unanimously agreed that any act in respect to the Qur’an which may lead to altering its words or meanings is absolutely forbidden. The Companions of the Prophet as well as those who came after them until the present day have abided by writing the Qur’an in Arabic letters.[25] Sheikh Mahmud Abu Daqiqa repeated the same argument adding that this act would mean abandoning the rasm, which is deemed obligatory by the consensus of scholars.[26]

However, Sheikh Muhammad Bakhit was asked by some Muslims in Transvaal (in South Africa) about writing the Qur’an in the English or French alphabets. They added that the English letters are fewer than the Arabic alphabet, and for this reason there was dispute among Muslims in South Africa concerning this issue. In his answer Sheikh Bakhit came to the conclusion that according to the Hanafis, it was permissible to write the Qur’an in a non-Arabic language (i.e. characters) in case of inability provided that the wording and meaning were not affected. But to be on the safe side, he continued, it was better to write it in Arabic characters and then write the interpretation and translation in another language such as English.[27]

The same question was raised before Sheikh Rashid Rida who said that if the other language fails to provide exact counterparts to some of the Arabic letters, then it is forbidden to write the Qur’an in that letters for this in turn leads to the distortion and mispronunciation of its words. However, if the Qur’an can be read correctly if written in the letters of a language such as Persian, then it is not against religion to do so. But it should be taken into account that Muslims all agree on one orthography. Thus, at all times they have agreed on using the ‘Uthmanic rasm. He said that this is an indication that Allah protects this Book, stating that using this system is obligatory. He referred to the views of the imams who held that it is obligatory and should not be altered in any way.[28]

Then he referred to the only case in which writing the Qur’an in non-Arabic characters can be tolerated as a case of necessity, that is to facilitate its reading by non-Arabs who embrace Islam and who are used to non-Arabic characters. But he attracted the attention of those who argue that Christians are keen to translate their gospels into all languages, to the fact that the Christians also are keen to spread their languages and scripts.[29]

3. Delivery of the Friday Khutba in a Language Other than Arabic

Friday sermon [khutba] is the main feature of Friday prayer. In fact, it consists of two sermons between which the imam sits for a while on the pulpit. These two sermons stand for the two rak‘as omitted in Friday prayer.[30] There is a consensus that the two sermons are a requirement for convening the Friday prescribed prayer, and that they are to be delivered before the prescribed prayer part begins.[31] As for the two ‘Ids, the khutba should come after the prayer. The question is whether it is permissible to deliver the sermons in a language other than Arabic or not. The Hanafis do not consider Arabic a necessary condition for delivering the sermons if there is an excuse to do so. This is the opinion of Muhammad and Abu Yusuf, the two companions of Abu Hanifah, but Abu Hanifah deems it possible also even if there is no excuse.[32] The Shafi‘is consider Arabic necessary if the people are Arabs, and if they are non-Arabs then it is not a condition even if the preacher is well-versed in Arabic,[33] except for one Qur’anic verse which should be uttered in Arabic, but if the preacher is unable to do this then he should say Arabic dhikr or du‘a’ instead. If he is unable also to do this, he should make a pause for the time of reciting it but should not utter the translation.[34] According to the Hanbalis, the khutba should be delivered in Arabic whether the people are Arabs or not. If the preacher does not know Arabic, he may deliver it in the relevant language. As for the Qur’anic verse, they hold the same opinion as the Shafi‘is.[35] The Malikis say it is obligatory to preach the khutba in Arabic even if the people are non-Arabs and do not understand a word. If there is no one among them who knows Arabic, there is no obligation to perform the Friday prayer.[36]

Contemporary fatwas on the translation of the khutba: The question whether it is permissible to translate the khutba was directed to the Fatwa Committee at al-Azhar by some Senegalese students at al-Azhar. In their question they referred to the fact that those who attended the Friday prayer could not benefit from the khutba when it was delivered in Arabic, and therefore asked if it was permissible to deliver it in a non-Arabic language or translate it (after delivering it in Arabic first) for them in their own language before the prayer. The response was given by Sheikh Muhammad ‘Abd al-Fattah ‘Anani, head of the committee of fatwa. After referring to the opinions held by the Hanafis and some Shafi‘is that it was not a condition for the khutba to be in Arabic, he stated that in order to achieve the purpose of the khutba, which is admonition, it should be in the language of the people to whom it is delivered. The committee also called upon Muslim leaders to pay attention to teaching Muslims the Arabic language so that they may understand the Qur’an and ahadith of the Prophet and benefit from them, since this was one of the strongest aspects of Muslim unity.[37]

Sheikh Hasanayn Makhluf maintained that it is useless to ask people who do not understand Arabic to listen to khutba delivered in it. It is better that the khutba be in their own language so that they can understand it and comprehend its meanings for this is the purpose of the Lawgiver, even though they should learn the language of the Qur’an to grasp its meanings and imports. He referred to the opinion of the two companions of Abu Hanifah that it is permissible to deliver the khutba in a non-Arabic language in case of the inability on the part of the imam or the people if both of them do not know Arabic. But in case of their ability, Arabic is a condition. Then he refused the opinion of Abu Hanifah for if the imam can preach in Arabic and the people can understand it as well, the imam should not be permitted to deliver it in another language for this leads to deserting the language of the Qur’an. As for the Maliki view, he said that it should be reconsidered, since in case people are ignorant of Arabic, it is preferable that the imam preach in their own tongue rather than give up the khutba.[38]

Sheikh Rashid Rida was asked about delivering some parts of the khutba in Arabic and the other parts in a non-Arabic language if people do not know Arabic and thus cannot benefit from the khutba. In his answer, Rashid Rida said that in such a case it is permissible for the Imam to translate the khutba under the law of necessity, otherwise it will be a mere formality and fail to achieve its purpose. He referred to some non-Arab Muslims, particularly in China, who translate and explain the khutba after the prayer to be on the safe side, and approved this practice.[39] Again the same question was directed to him and he was also asked whether the translation of the khutba is considered as a separation between the prayer and the khutba.[40] In his answer this time, he said that the question is based on the opinion of the Shafi‘i school that Arabic is a condition for the khutba. He stressed that the unity of the Muslim nation cannot be achieved unless they have a common language with which all Muslims can understand their religion from the same source. According to the Shafi‘is, he said, separation is not permissible if the period between the khutba and prayer is as the time spent in performing two rak‘as of prayer or more. However, there is no consensus that consecutiveness is a condition. He also added that he had previously approved the translation of the khutba after the prayer as practiced by some non-Arab Muslims.[41]

Also Sheikh Yusuf al-Dijwi, a member of the board of great scholars of Al-Azhar, was asked by an Indian imam whether it is permissible according to the Shafi‘i school to appoint some persons to translate the khutba of Jumu‘a and those of ‘Id prayers into Urdu after delivering them in Arabic. He answered that this is permissible in respect to the khutba of the ‘Id prayer whether there is one translator or more. As for the khutba of Jumu‘a prayer, he continued, it should be delivered in Arabic according to the preferable opinion of the Shafi‘i school, even if the people could not understand it, for this is not a condition. So he concluded that it suffices if the questioner delivered it only in Arabic, but if he wanted after that to translate it then he should do so after the prayer since there should be no separation between the khutba (in Arabic) and the prayer. This can be done, he continued, by the preacher himself or by another person or persons.[42]

The issue of the translation of the Friday sermon was on the agenda of the 13^th session for imams and preachers, organized by the General Trusteeship for the Islamic Call at al-Azhar. The issue was then filed to the late Grand Sheikh of al-Azhar Jad al-Haqq ‘Ali Jad al-Haqq, and he in turn issued a fatwa after a thorough discussion of the definition, requirements, and fundamentals of the khutba. He stated that the imam should deliver the two Friday sermons and then translate each into the language of his people after delivering it in Arabic. He distinguished the Arabic khutba and its translation as two separate parts of the khutba, in the sense that the first must be in Arabic in order to comply with the juristic ruling [hukm fiqhi], and the second should be in the language of the people seeking the benefit of guidance and admonition in their language, or applying the Islamic principle of enjoining the good and forbidding the evil [al-Amr bil-Ma‘ruf wan-Nahy ‘an al-Munkar].[43]

In order to agree with the conditions stated by the different schools and be on the safe side as well as fulfill the purpose of the khutba, one of the following two methods is recommended: a

In order to comply with the conditions set down by the different schools and to be on the safe side, and at the same time fulfilling the purpose of the khutba, one of the following two methods is recommended:

First, the khutba is to be delivered in the language of the people on the grounds of excuse and necessity except for the essential parts of the khutba which the preacher should say in Arabic in accordance with those who make Arabic a condition. These essential parts include starting with the praise of Allah, invoking blessings on the Prophet, reciting at least one verse of the Qur’an, exhortation to piety, and supplication for Muslims.[44] Second, the khutba is to be delivered in Arabic and then translated by the preacher or another person at the time the khutba is delivered or after the prayer.[45]

From the previous fatwas and discussions we can conclude that the khutba can be given in a non-Arabic language. However, it is necessary for Muslim communities to do their best to teach their children Arabic and arrange courses in Arabic for newly converted Muslims so that they can have direct access to the Qur’an and the Sunna of the Prophet.

4. Conclusion

The discussion of the translation of the khutba focused on the importance of fulfilling the purpose of the khutba as we previously concluded, but it also stressed the importance of the Arabic language, for it should be delivered first in Arabic and then translated into the language of the audience. The same applies to the issue of writing the Qur’an in non-Arabic characters. The majority deemed it not permissible, for it will lead to mispronunciation and alteration of the text, and even those who permitted this practice gave this permission only where it was necessary to facilitate its reading by non-Arabs who were not familiar with the Arabic alphabet. As for the recital of the translation of the Qur’an in prayer, we noticed that the issue was theoretical, and in practice Muslims still perform their prayers in the Arabic language in order to feel the utmost unity in their worship of Allah. Thus the main conclusion to be reached is that Muslims as one Ummah should pay attention.

From the aforementioned discussions we can feel the important role that the Arabic language has played in unifying the Muslim world, for it is not the language of Arabs but of all Muslims. This appears from the fact that it is the language of the Qur’an, of worship, and Islamic heritage, and in order to better understand Islam and practice it, Muslim communities should do their best to teach their children Arabic and arrange courses for the study of Arabic by Muslims in their countries as well as in the West. From here I call upon all Muslims to pay more attention to the Arabic language in their educational curricula, and to establish institutions in the West to shoulder the task of teaching Muslims there the language of the Qur’an.