IN his Friday sermon during Maulud Nabi (Prophet Muhammad’s birthday) last month, our young guest Imam Hassan referred to Prophet Muhammad as the personification of the Quran and Muslims are to emulate him.

Our Imam went on to recite the relevant Quranic verse. His pleasant voice together with his exquisite proficiency made for a poignant recitation that captivated the congregation, reducing the children to silence in wonderment and acoustic pleasure. Exquisite wonderment because it was a rare display of the unique intrinsic aural beauty of our Quran.

He then proceeded with his sermon in English with his crisp American accent, “Approximately translated, that verse means…”

Such humility! Rarely heard in sermons. After all, translations are at best approximations and we must always be reminded of this. To have someone openly acknowledge it was refreshing, more so as it was a rare departure from the norm.

Listen to the glut of Malaysian sermons and Islamic discourses on radio and television as well as on social media. The smug certitude of the speakers is matched only by their intellectual arrogance. “And it means this…,” they say after reciting a particular hadith or Quranic verse. No room for discussion or to even consider alternate interpretations.

That has not always been the case. Back in my old village, when the imam expounded on religious matters he would invariably end it with, “Wa Allahhu A’alam!” (Only Allah knows the truth). Any exposition is at best an approximation.

That Arabic phrase underpins much more. Expression of humility aside, it implies we must continue seeking knowledge so we could do better. I am reminded of an advice early in my brief research career. “A good piece of research is when you have uncovered more questions than what you have attempted to answer!” my supervisor said.

Khaled el Fadl of the Los Angeles-based Usuli Institute distinguishes between the authoritative versus authoritarian discourses. Much of what goes on today is the latter. Notre Dame University’s Ebrahim Moosa, agreeing with Talal Asad, calls for a more discursive Islam.

Difference of opinion is mercy for my community, our Prophet Muhammad, reminded us. It is unfortunate and a great missed opportunity much discussions on hadith today relate to their authenticity, or lack of it. An impossible task considering those were utterances of over 1,400 years ago. More productive would be to relate a particular hadith to the Quran, and from there extrapolate its relevance for contemporary challenges.

Hadith are sayings attributed to the Prophet that is worth emphasising. There is a world of difference between what someone (Prophet or otherwise) said and what others claimed he had said. The late Kassim Ahmad in his book “Hadis: Satu Penilian Semula” (Hadith: A Re-Evaluation) related the classic freshman-psychology class exercise of a whisper being transmitted orally would end up far radically different in words, tone as well as meaning by the time the last student heard it.

Ancient scholars dealt with what euphemistically called “problematic” hadith by avoiding labelling them as outright false. Remember, Wa Allahhu A’alam! Rather, they used such terms as sahih (sound), hasan (good), or da’if (weak).

Similarly with the chain of narrators, as with mutawatir (continuous chain), mashur (famous), and ahad (isolated). How wise of them to avoid such divisive and polarising terms as right and wrong! This is what German scholar Thomas Bauer referred to as the culture of ambiguity of early Islam. Now that is worthy of our emulation.

I once viewed a panel discussion between Mu’nim Sirry, the Indonesian scholar at Notre Dame, and the local Mohd Asri Zainul Abidin (Maza) where the latter rudely walked out over some disagreement with what Mu’nim had said.

Both Maza (he goes only by his initials, aping our esteemed Pendita Za’ba,) and Mu’nim were traditionally trained until they went for their doctorates; Mu’nim to the intellectually rigorous University of Chicago, Maza to a provincial British one. The former is comfortable and thrives in a culture of ambiguity while Maza demands and seeks certitude.

It is sad that the likes of Maza are the norm in Malaysia. As Islam is an integral part of Malays, that is also the blight of our culture. With today’s state imprimatur on Islam, that is also a curse on the nation as well as our faith.

Friday sermons in Malaysia today are not the independent thoughts of the imams in the mosques attempting to address the particular issues of their ummah (community), rather the diktat from a central bureaucracy. Reminiscent of a communist regime.

This culture of ambiguity goes beyond mere tolerance of differences to embracing them. It was this that led to the vigorous expansion of Islam and the bountiful blossoming of its Golden Age. Today this freedom, and with the flourishing of the faith, is seen only in the West.

As for my young visiting Imam Hassan, I am pleased to note he was a student of our regular Imam llyas. Our community’s tradition of humility, wisdom, and excellence continues. – November 1, 2023.

* M. Bakri Musa reads The Malaysian Insight.

* This is the opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malaysian Insight. Article may be edited for brevity and clarity.