I read in your column that reward for reading the Qur’an only applies to reading it in Arabic. Could you please explain your answer, and whether it means that we should not read the Qur’an in translation. (Ayaz)
Reading the Qur’an earns a generous reward from God, because the Qur’an is His own word which admits no distortion, editing, change or modification. Therefore, reading it is an act of worship. Although each one of His words carries a meaning, putting the meaning in a different language is not the same. Anyone who fluently speaks more than one language is aware that words from two languages expressing the same action are not identical in sense and connotations. Therefore, when we read something in translation, we cannot say that it is identical to the original. The maximum that can be said for it is that it is an approximation of the original.
Because of the special style of the Qur’an, which is unlike any human form of literary expression, an accurate translation cannot be given. It is for this reason that competent translators have attempted to produce different versions of translating God’s book. None of these translations can be considered a mirror image of the Arabic text revealed by God to Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). At times translators make mistakes. Besides, no writer can maintain the same degree of excellence throughout his writing career. Every sentence and verse of the Qur’an is of superior literary merit. How can a human being achieve a similar excellence?
When we speak of the act of worship which is reading the Qur’an, we are referring to reading God’s word, as He revealed it to His messenger, Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). This means the Arabic text, not its translation. The Prophet says that for each letter of the Qur’an we read, we are credited with the reward of a good deed. This cannot apply to a translation.
What this means is that if you want to read the Qur’an as an act of worship, you have to read it in Arabic. Even if you do not understand it, or you pronounce the words with a heavy accent, you will still be rewarded for your reading.
Reading a translation of the Qur’an in order to understand its meaning and know what God requires of us is a worthy act and will, God willing, be rewarded. The reward is commensurate with the effort, time and money a person puts into such a learning exercise. Yet it is not the same as reading the Qur’an in its original form.
Is taqleed a valid practice? Does it mean that we can accept any ruling without question?
(Abd Al-Samad)
Linguistically speaking, taqleed means “imitation, or following a particular practice”. In another sense, the word means “tradition”. We can see how the word came to acquire both senses, because a tradition means the following of a practice that has been approved as standard by a certain community. In Islamic law, or Fiqh, the word means adopting or following a particular view that is acceptable in a school of thought different from one’s own.
Let us take a simple and clear example. According to the Sahfie school of thought, any skin-to-skin contact between a man and a woman who can be married, or are married, invalidates ablution. The Hanafi school does not consider such contact to affect the validity of ablution. If a follower of the Shafie school shakes hands with a woman or hands something to his wife, touching her hand, he is required by his scholars to have a fresh ablution before he can pray. If on a certain occasion he finds this difficult, he may think of adopting the Hanafi view on that particular occasion. Can he do that? If he does, is his prayer without a fresh ablution valid? According to the Shafie school of thought, it is not, but according to the Hanafis, it is. Where does this leave him?
Before answering this question, I would like to remind my readers that Imam Abu Haneefah, the first of the founders of the four schools of thought, did not sit to teach or issue any ruling until year 120 H, when he reached 40 years of age. This means that for 110 years after the Prophet’s death, none of the four Imams had uttered a single ruling. Indeed two of them had not been born yet. So, what was the status of Muslims who lived during this period lasting more than a century? I am simply asking this question to make it clear that following a particular school of thought is not essential.
I have often stated that in practice very few people adhere to a single school of thought. A scholar who is well-versed in Islamic Fiqh will choose from each school the view he is most comfortable with, according to the evidence cited in support of that view. A layman follows a particular school only in the basics which we all learn in childhood. These apply only to daily acts of worship. On major matters, we refer the question to a scholar who does not need to know the school of thought the questioner belongs to. He should give him the answer that is easiest and supported by stronger and better evidence. Only a scholar who studied a school of thought in depth and decided to follow it diligently does so. Otherwise, we all follow what we learn from scholars who are required to give us the most suitable ruling in any question we put to them.
Where does this leave us. It simply tells us that none of us practically follows a single school of thought. We all take some views from here and there, as suits us and as scholars tell us to do.
