Maliki jurists prized liturgical correctness over congregational comprehension

Evidence

The Maliki, in an apparently rigorist interpretation, flatly prohibits recitation of the Koran in a language other than Arabic if the person concerned can do it in Arabic, but then he goes on to say that if the person is incapable of doing so in Arabic, ajamiyya (“non-Arabic language”) is permissible, as is its use by students. … The attitude on preaching in a language other than Arabic is perversely and illogically ultra-strict: it is not allowed if the preacher can use Arabic (no mention is made of whether the faithful can understand what the preacher is saying!). And actually to explain the sermon is rejected outright. The Hanafiresponsum on this topic is much more ready to countenance the use of a language other than Arabic in situations where the congregation would otherwise not understand. Hanafism was (and is) the school most widespread among the Turks, and among the Turks there was a well-established tradition of use of their own language for certain well-defined religious purposes. — L. P. Harvey, Muslims in Spain, 1500 to 1614, 361

Categorization

• XREF: Connects to debates about vernacular liturgy in Christianity (e.g. Latin vs. vernacular masses) and to the Aljamiado literature discussed elsewhere in this book.
• SEED: Article angle: how clerical insistence on liturgical language in the face of mass incomprehension tracks the divide between rigorist and communicatively-minded schools across religions.