The debate surrounding the language of the Friday khutbah is a pivotal issue in contemporary Islamic jurisprudence, rooted in a fundamental divergence in its legal classification. At its core, the disagreement revolves around whether the khutbah is primarily a ritualistic act of worship ('ibadah) that must conform to a strictly prescribed form, or an act of spiritual instruction and admonition (tadhkir) whose efficacy is contingent on the audience's comprehension.
The classical schools of jurisprudence hold divergent views. The majority, including the Maliki, Shafi'i, and Hanbali schools, argue that the khutbah must be delivered in Arabic for the Jumu'ah prayer to be considered valid. The Hanafi school offers a more nuanced position, deeming a non-Arabic khutbah impermissible (Makrooh Tahreemi) but not invalidating the prayer that follows it.
In modern times, a dominant and widely accepted view has emerged. This position, favored by a number of contemporary scholars and fatwa councils, asserts that while the essential ritualistic components of the khutbah (such as the praise of Allah, blessings on the Prophet, and recitation of Qur'anic verses) should be retained in Arabic, the main body of the sermon can and should be delivered in a language understood by the congregation. This approach aligns with the higher objectives (Maqasid) of Islamic law, a clear directive found in the Qur'an, and the overarching purpose of the khutbah as a vehicle for guidance and spiritual instruction.
This report concludes that the most authentically correct position is one that permits the use of regional languages for the sermon's substantive content. This ruling effectively bridges the gap between ritualistic form and practical purpose, ensuring that the khutbah remains a vital, intelligible source of spiritual nourishment and education for all Muslims, regardless of their linguistic background.
The Dual Nature and Sacred Purpose of the Friday Khutbah
The Friday khutbah is a unique and essential component of the Jumu'ah prayer, a pillar of congregational worship that unites the Muslim community on a weekly basis. As a formal, structured event, it is not merely a lecture but a religious rite with specific conditions and integrals. These include the speaker standing, praising Allah, urging the attendees to have taqwa (fear and consciousness of God), reciting a verse from the Qur'an, and sitting briefly between the two sermons. The speaker is also advised to be in a state of ritual purity, wear appropriate clothing, and speak in an audible, clear voice without reading verbatim from a printout.
The central jurisprudential debate regarding the language of the khutbah arises from a fundamental tension between its two key functions: ritualistic worship and educational admonition.
On one hand, the khutbah is viewed as a form of ritualistic worship ('ibadah). This perspective is based on the established legal principle that the Friday khutbah serves as a substitute for two rak'at (units) of the four-unit Zuhr prayer. Since the prayer itself is a prescribed act of worship that must be performed in Arabic, proponents of this view argue that its substitute, the khutbah, must follow the same rule. The Qur'an also refers to the khutbah as 'Dhikr' (remembrance of Allah), a term more formal than tadhkir (admonition), further strengthening its classification as a prescribed ritual. This understanding prioritizes the preservation of the sacred form of worship, regardless of whether the audience understands the content.
On the other hand, a different perspective emphasizes the khutbah's role as an educational admonition (tadhkir). This view, supported by scholars who permit the use of regional languages, focuses on the khutbah's purpose to exhort, teach, and remind the congregation about Islamic principles and contemporary issues. The core of this argument is that the purpose of instruction cannot be achieved if the sermon is unintelligible to the audience. This perspective aligns the function of the khutbah with the overarching objectives of Islamic law (Maqasid al-Shari'ah) and the Qur'anic directive that messengers communicate in the language of their people.
This dual starting point is the most critical element explaining the wide variety of scholarly conclusions. A scholar's initial premise—whether the khutbah is primarily a ritual or a teaching—determines the entire trajectory of their legal reasoning and the final ruling. This report explores these opposing viewpoints, analyzes their supporting arguments, and ultimately presents a ruling that reconciles them in a way that is most beneficial to the global Muslim community.
The Classical Jurisprudential Views (Madhahib)
The debate over the language of the khutbah is deeply rooted in the foundational texts and methodologies of the classical schools of jurisprudence. The four major schools—Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi'i, and Hanbali—present distinct rulings that form the basis of all subsequent discussions on the topic.
The Arabic-Only Stance: Maliki, Shafi'i, and Hanbali Schools
The majority of these schools, representing the dominant classical view, stipulate that the khutbah must be delivered entirely in Arabic. If any part of the sermon is delivered in a non-Arabic language, the Jumu'ah prayer that follows is considered invalid, and the congregation must perform the four rak'at of the Zuhr prayer instead. This position is based on the principle that the khutbah is a prescribed act of worship, similar to the prayer itself, which must be performed in the Arabic language.
- Maliki School: The Maliki school explicitly holds that the khutbah must be in Arabic for it to be valid. However, they offer a subtle concession: a short, non-Arabic portion would not invalidate the sermon, as it is legally treated as a period of silence. The underlying rationale is that non-Arabic speech is not "recognized by the Shari'ah" in a ritual context and is therefore deemed nonexistent.
- Shafi'i and Hanbali Schools: Their position is generally aligned with the Maliki view, emphasizing the necessity of Arabic for a valid khutbah. Some Hanbali jurists, however, offer a conditional allowance. They permit a non-Arabic
khutbah if the entire congregation is composed of non-Arabic speakers and no one is capable of delivering the sermon in Arabic.
The Concessionary View: The Hanafi School
The Hanafi school presents a more lenient and nuanced perspective. Their ruling states that it is permissible to deliver the khutbah in a non-Arabic language, and the prayer that follows is still considered valid. This viewpoint distinguishes between the act itself and its consequence. While a non-Arabic khutbah is not ideal and may be disliked, it does not void the Jumu'ah prayer.
The Hanbalis and a majority of other jurists, including Abu Yusuf and Muhammad, the students of Imam Abu Hanifah, permit a non-Arabic khutbah only when there is no one in the community who can deliver the khutbah in Arabic. Imam Abu Hanifah's original view, however, was broader, allowing the khutbah to be delivered in a language like Farsi, even if the speaker was fluent in Arabic. This view is documented in works such as Durr al-Mukhtaar and its commentary, Radd al-Muhtaar, which is considered a compilation of the great fatwas of Imam Abu Hanifah.
This difference between Imam Abu Hanifah and his students reflects a subtle but important historical development in the school's legal reasoning. Later Hanafi scholars may have restricted this initial, more liberal opinion to cases of necessity in an effort to align more closely with the majority position of the other schools or the common practice of the Muslim community. Despite its permissibility, the act is classified as Makrooh Tahreemi (impermissibly disliked), a term that places it close to being prohibited while not voiding the subsequent prayer. This position reflects the Hanafi school's attempt to balance the khutbah's ritualistic nature with its clear educational and spiritual purpose.
Arguments and Counterarguments: A Deeper Analysis
The debate over the language of the khutbah is supported by a rich tapestry of arguments and counterarguments, each drawing from different legal principles and practical considerations.
Arguments for the Arabic-Only Position
Proponents of the Arabic-only view base their position on three core principles.
First, the most powerful argument is the legal equivalence of the khutbah to two rak'at of the Zuhr prayer. A well-established legal principle, supported by the statement of Sayyidna Umar, the second caliph, holds that the khutbah was prescribed in lieu of two rak'at. Since prayer is a fundamental act of worship with a prescribed Arabic form, its substitute must also adhere to the same rule. The argument is that if one cannot pray in a regional language and still have a valid prayer, the same logic must apply to the khutbah.
Second, the Qur'an refers to the khutbah as Dhikr (remembrance of Allah), a term more formal than tadhkir (admonition or advice). This linguistic distinction suggests that the primary purpose of the khutbah is a formal act of worship and remembrance, not merely an educational lecture. As an act of worship, it is not subject to human rationale or opinion ('amr ta'abbudi), similar to other ritualistic acts like the throwing of stones at the Jamarat during Hajj. The form itself is the substance of the worship.
Third, the consistent practice of the Sahaba and the Ummah for over 1400 years has been to deliver the khutbah in Arabic, even in lands where the language was not spoken. This continuous, inherited practice is seen as a form of consensus (Ijma') that should not be altered. The fact that the companions, many of whom learned other languages, consistently gave the sermon in Arabic is presented as a definitive proof that the Arabic language is an essential condition of the khutbah.
Arguments for the Permissibility of Regional Languages
Proponents of delivering the khutbah in a regional language offer compelling counterarguments, primarily centered on the purpose and efficacy of the sermon.
First, this position invokes the Maqasid al-Shari'ah, the higher objectives of Islamic law. The khutbah's purpose is to provide guidance, exhortation (maw'izah), and instruction, which are all integral to the preservation of religion and intellect—two of the five essentials of human well-being protected by the Shari'ah. An unintelligible sermon, while ritually performed, fails to achieve these higher objectives, rendering its purpose moot. This argument presents a powerful counter-narrative to the ritualistic view by asserting the primacy of purpose over form. The fact that the khutbah has characteristics that differentiate it from salah, such as the khateeb facing the congregation instead of the Qiblah and the permissibility of delivering it without wudu, further suggests it is not a direct, prescribed equivalent of prayer.
Second, a key piece of evidence is the Qur'anic principle found in Surah Ibrahim, verse 4, which states, "And We sent not a Messenger except with the language of his people, in order that he might make (the Message) clear for them". This verse establishes a universal principle of communication in Islam: a message must be clear and comprehensible to its audience. The khutbah, as a weekly vehicle for the Prophet's message, must adhere to this principle to be effective. To address millions of non-Arabic speakers in a language they do not understand is to disregard this fundamental directive.
Third, proponents highlight the pressing practical necessity of the modern world. Millions of Muslims in non-Arabic-speaking countries do not understand the Arabic khutbah, leading to a profound disconnect from the core teachings of Islam and a lack of awareness of contemporary issues. This is especially critical for younger generations raised in non-Muslim societies, for whom the khutbah is a vital tool for strengthening their faith and identity. Delivering the sermon in a regional language is a necessary and logical response to this need, ensuring the khutbah remains a dynamic and relevant source of spiritual guidance.
For a more comprehensive view of the debate, a closer look at the key arguments and their rebuttals is provided. The argument that the khutbah is a substitute for prayer is countered by the fact that the khutbah has distinct rules from salah, such as the khateeb facing the congregation and not requiring wudu. The claim that the khutbah is a form of Dhikr is rebutted by the argument that its purpose is instruction (tadhkir), which is lost if the language is not understood by the audience. Similarly, the argument for a 1400-year historical consensus (Ijma') on the Arabic-only practice is challenged by the direct Qur'anic principle that a messenger must deliver the message in the language of his people for clarity. The practical necessity of an understandable sermon to provide guidance, especially for modern youth , is a powerful counterpoint to the argument that Muslims should simply be encouraged to learn Arabic.
Additional Juristic Views and Contemporary Fatwas
Beyond the four classical schools, a diverse array of prominent scholars, councils, and jurists have weighed in on this issue, reflecting the ongoing and evolving nature of the debate in the modern world. Their opinions often expand on the classical positions or propose new solutions that bridge the gap between tradition and contemporary necessity.
- The Fiqh Council of the Muslim World League: This influential council has ruled that using Arabic for the Friday khutbah is not a condition for its validity in non-Arabic-speaking countries. They recommend a hybrid approach where the preliminaries and Qur'anic verses are recited in Arabic to familiarize the congregation with the language, while the rest of the sermon is delivered in the local language for greater comprehension.
- The Standing Committee for Issuing Fatwas: This body states that there is no explicit proof from the Prophet's practice that the khutbah must be exclusively in Arabic. The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) delivered his sermons in Arabic because it was his language and the language of his people. They, therefore, conclude that it is permissible for a
khateeb to deliver the sermon in the language of the country where the people do not understand Arabic. - Shaykh Ibn Baaz: The prominent Saudi scholar suggested that if the majority of the congregation are non-Arabic speakers, it is acceptable to deliver the khutbah in a different language or to translate it immediately after the Arabic delivery. He used the Qur'anic verse from Surah Ibraheem (14:4) as a key piece of evidence for his position, emphasizing the necessity of a clear message in the language of the people.
- Shaykh Ibn ‘Uthaymeen: Another influential contemporary scholar, he held the view that it is permissible for a khateeb to deliver the khutbah in a language the people understand, as the purpose of the sermon is to provide explanation and guidance. He also specified that while the body of the sermon can be in another language, any verses from the Qur'an should be recited in Arabic first, followed by an explanation in the local language.
- Ahmad Raza Khan: Acknowledging the need for comprehension, this scholar stated that an Urdu translation of the khutbah is also considered a part of the sermon, as it contains the elements of "reminder and waiz" (admonition). However, he deemed it
Makrooh (disliked) to mix non-Arabic with the khutbah because it goes against the "inherited way of Muslims" (sunnat mutawarisa) and can prolong the sermon, making it difficult for the congregation. - Shaykh Muhammad Illish: This Maliki scholar, while strictly adhering to the Arabic-only rule, offered a fascinating rationale for it. He argued that the words of truth in Arabic "will reach and affect the heart, even if their meaning is not understood," similar to the recitation of the Qur'an. He, therefore, treated a short, non-Arabic portion of the sermon as a period of silence, which is permissible.
- The Deoband School: Jurists from this school, particularly in India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh, have traditionally held a strong position against interjecting any non-Arabic segments into the khutbah. They oppose even a translation or explanatory note, viewing it as a deviation from the established tradition and a source of disunity.
The Contemporary Juristic Consensus and the Preferred Ruling
In recent times, the scholarly landscape has shifted significantly, with a growing number of jurists and fatwa councils favoring the position of permissibility. This includes influential figures and bodies such as Sheikh Ibn ‘Uthaymeen, the Islamic Council of Jurisprudence, and Dar al-Ifta. This modern consensus represents a re-evaluation of the classical positions in light of the needs of a globalized Muslim community.
The most authentic and correct position is that the primary purpose of the khutbah is instruction (tadhkir), and therefore, its language must be comprehensible to the audience. This view is substantiated by three key justifications:
- Alignment with Maqasid al-Shari'ah: The purpose of the khutbah is to benefit the community and preserve their faith and intellect, which are core objectives of Islamic law. An unintelligible sermon fails to achieve these higher objectives. While the Arabic-only position argues that the khutbah's form is non-rational, like the rituals of Hajj , the regional-language view correctly points out that the khutbah's purpose is rational and clearly stated. The sermon is meant to be a vehicle for guidance and a means to keep the community connected to their faith.
- Clear Qur'anic Evidence: The verse "And We sent not a Messenger except with the language of his people, in order that he might make (the Message) clear for them" [Ibraheem 14:4] provides a direct and unambiguous principle that the message must be made clear to the people being addressed. This directive is not a matter of scholarly opinion but a divine command that underscores the importance of clear communication in Islam. The khutbah, as a weekly sermon, is a direct extension of this prophetic mission.
- Practical Necessity: In the modern world, the khutbah serves as a critical tool for mass education and spiritual guidance, especially for Muslim youth raised in non-Islamic countries. To insist on a language they do not understand would be to squander a vital opportunity for spiritual development and connection to the global Ummah. The fact that millions of Muslims do not understand the Arabic khutbah makes it an issue of pressing social and spiritual concern.
The optimal approach is not to choose between ritual and purpose, but to synthesize them. The Arabic-only view correctly identifies the khutbah's ritualistic nature and its connection to prayer , while the regional-language view correctly identifies its educational purpose and alignment with the higher objectives of Islamic law. The most effective resolution is a hybrid model. The foundational, ritualistic parts of the khutbah—praise of Allah, blessings on the Prophet, and recitation of Qur'anic verses—can be retained in Arabic. The main body of the sermon, which conveys the weekly message and instruction on contemporary issues, can be delivered in the local language. This synthesis fulfills the ritualistic requirements while ensuring the primary purpose of the sermon is achieved.
Practical Recommendations for the Modern Mosque
Based on the analysis of classical and contemporary jurisprudence, the following recommendations are put forth for the delivery of the Friday khutbah:
- Adopt a Hybrid Model: The most effective and jurisprudentially sound model is a two-part khutbah where the essential components are delivered in Arabic, followed by the main sermon in the local language. This approach honors the tradition and ritualistic aspects of the khutbah while ensuring its message is accessible and beneficial to the entire congregation.
- Educate the Congregation: Imams should use the opportunity to explain the importance and meaning of the Arabic portions of the sermon. This serves to educate the community about the sacredness of the language of the Qur'an and encourages them to learn Arabic, strengthening their connection to the source texts of Islam.
- Promote Unity: The choice of language for the khutbah should not become a source of division within the community. Imams and community leaders must act with wisdom (hikmah) to implement a solution that promotes cohesion and avoids unnecessary conflict. The khutbah is a demonstration of Islamic equality and brotherhood , and its delivery should reflect this principle by ensuring the message is inclusive and understandable to all members of the congregation.
In conclusion, the khutbah is a vital spiritual and social institution. By making the sermon comprehensible, the community ensures that its weekly gathering is truly beneficial, fulfilling its purpose as a vehicle for guidance and spiritual enlightenment for all Muslims.
Comments
Post a Comment