Friday Sermon: Freedom for All

Prayer for Humanity and Funeral Prayers:

Lord Shahid Aziz began by renewing his request that the congregation pray for all humanity. He asked Allah to protect every person experiencing hardship, regardless of religion, sect, nationality, colour or creed. He also urged members to give practical assistance wherever they could.

He announced funeral prayers in absentia for Palestinians who had died during the preceding weeks and for a former president of the Trinidad and Tobago branch. He recalled that this member had established a printing business when the Jamaat had struggled to have its literature produced and that Allah had blessed the effort with success.

Freedom of Belief in Holy Quran 18:29:

The first principal passage had been chapter 18, verse 29 of the Holy Quran. Lord Shahid Aziz explained that truth came from Allah, but each person had been allowed to choose belief or disbelief. The verse had also warned that choices carried consequences, yet the existence of consequences had not authorised human beings to compel faith.

He treated the verse as a clear foundation for freedom of conscience. Religion could only be meaningfully accepted when a person had the liberty to choose. Faith imposed by force or by a human guardian had contradicted the principle expressed in the Holy Quran.

Respectful Expression in Holy Quran 6:107–108:

The speaker then referred to chapter 6 of the Holy Quran. The Holy Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) had not been appointed as a keeper over those who chose another path. Believers had also been forbidden to insult the objects of worship invoked by other people, because such abuse could provoke them to insult Allah through ignorance.

These verses had joined freedom with restraint and respect. People had been free to hold and express different beliefs, while Muslims had been required to avoid deliberate provocation. Lord Shahid Aziz therefore presented Islamic freedom not as permission to humiliate others but as room for genuine disagreement conducted within moral limits.

Open Questioning in Early Islam:

He recalled that Muslims had openly asked questions and expressed views in the presence of the Holy Prophet Muhammad. He referred generally to discussions before battles, questions about military positions and matters concerning family law. These precedents had shown that sincere disagreement and inquiry had not automatically been treated as disobedience.

The speaker contrasted this tradition with the claim that unrestricted freedom of expression had been a uniquely Western achievement. In his view, the Holy Quran and the conduct of the Holy Prophet Muhammad had established a broad freedom of belief and discussion while still requiring responsibility towards other people.

Economic Pressure and Freedom of Expression:

Lord Shahid Aziz described a conversation in the United States in which an American had praised the country’s freedom of belief and expression. The speaker had replied by asking whether he could purchase media space for a strongly critical statement about Israel. He said that the response had been that media organisations would lose advertisers and face financial collapse if they carried it.

He interpreted this as a form of economic censorship. Formal law might allow an opinion, yet employers, advertisers and institutions could make its expression costly enough to silence the speaker. He also related that his son had attempted to place a similar full-page advertisement in a major newspaper and had been refused without a satisfactory route of appeal.

United States Anti-Boycott Measures:

The sermon criticised state laws and executive policies in the United States that penalised certain businesses or individuals for boycotting Israel or Israeli settlements in occupied territory. Lord Shahid Aziz cited figures indicating that more than half of the states had adopted some form of such policy and that a large majority of Americans lived within those jurisdictions.

He also referred to action by the United States Senate in 2019 that had supported the legal framework for these measures. In his view, compelling a company to trade contrary to its ethical position had contradicted the freedom of action and expression that the country publicly celebrated.

The Censure of Rashida Tlaib:

Lord Shahid Aziz discussed the congressional censure of Rashida Tlaib, whom he identified as the only Palestinian American then serving in Congress. He said that she had condemned Israeli policy, criticised President Biden’s support for Israel and advocated Palestinian freedom. Members of both major parties had supported a resolution censuring her.

He regarded this as another example of freedom being selectively applied. A representative had formally possessed the right to speak, but the political system had punished her for expressing an opinion that challenged a powerful consensus.

Language Used by British News Media:

Turning to Britain, the speaker criticised the language repeatedly attached to Hamas in news reports while, in his view, equivalent legal descriptions had not been consistently attached to Israeli settlements in occupied territory. He argued that repetition of one label and omission of the other shaped public perception rather than merely reporting neutral facts.

He believed that this pattern had concealed occupation and discrimination while intensifying hostility towards Muslims and Palestinians. His wider point had been that freedom of information required fair context, not only the technical ability of a broadcaster to choose its own words.

The Dispute Over a Pro-Palestinian March:

Lord Shahid Aziz criticised attempts by the British Prime Minister and Home Secretary to pressure the Metropolitan Police into banning a pro-Palestinian march. He rejected the description of the event as inherently hateful and compared it with public support for marches demanding freedom for Ukraine.

He praised the Metropolitan Police Commissioner for resisting political pressure and following the legal test for banning a procession. According to the speaker’s account, a march could only be prohibited when evidence indicated a serious risk of disorder, damage or danger. Political disagreement alone had not satisfied that threshold.

Selective Standards in British Politics:

The speaker referred to Jeremy Corbyn and argued that his criticism of Israeli policy and alleged violations of international law had contributed to his political exclusion. He treated this as part of a wider intolerance towards prominent figures who challenged prevailing positions on Israel and Palestine.

He was also critical of repeated demands that Muslims condemn the actions of Hamas on 7 October. His objection had not been that conduct should never be condemned, but that moral accountability had been demanded selectively. He asked why comparable denunciations were not regularly required for serious wrongs committed by British authorities, Zionist armed groups or Western governments.

Historical Examples of Selective Condemnation:

Lord Shahid Aziz referred to several historical episodes: the Jallianwala Bagh massacre under British rule, attacks by Zionist paramilitary organisations, the displacement of Palestinians during Israel’s creation, the 1956 Suez crisis and the Bengal famine during the Second World War. He used these events to challenge British and Israeli moral exceptionalism.

He argued that societies often celebrated or excused their own leaders while demanding immediate condemnation of opponents. In his view, freedom and justice required the same moral standard to be applied to every group. Historical prestige, national loyalty or religious identity could not remove responsibility for wrongdoing.

A Call for Muslim Unity:

Near the end, Lord Shahid Aziz told Muslims that speeches alone would not change their situation. He urged them to unite across national and sectarian divisions, support one another, oppose Islamophobia and work collectively for a genuinely independent Palestinian state. He also advocated coordinated political and economic pressure as part of that collective response.

He contrasted genuine Palestinian independence with arrangements in which Israel retained decisive control over movement and security. His appeal had been for sustained unity rather than temporary emotional reaction. Without cooperation, he believed that Muslim communities would remain politically weak and vulnerable to external pressure.

Disunity and the Colonial History of the Middle East:

The speaker traced part of the modern crisis to divisions among Muslims during the decline of the Ottoman Empire. He said that Arab forces had fought the Ottoman Turks with British support, after which Britain and France had imposed their own control instead of granting the promised independence. The later establishment of Israel had emerged within this colonial reordering of the region.

He used this history as a warning that internal conflict could be exploited by outside powers. In his view, Muslims who failed to learn from the consequences of earlier divisions would continue to experience political humiliation and powerlessness.

Overall Message:

The sermon’s central message had been that freedom must belong to everyone or it became an empty slogan. The Holy Quran had recognised freedom of belief, denied human beings the right to act as guardians over another person’s conscience and prohibited insulting other religions. Islamic freedom had therefore combined liberty with respect and moral responsibility.

Lord Shahid Aziz had contrasted these principles with what he regarded as selective Western practice, particularly concerning Israel and Palestine. He had argued that political censure, economic pressure, media framing and inconsistent standards of condemnation restricted unpopular opinions. He concluded by urging equal justice, consistent freedom and unity among Muslims in support of the rights of Palestinians and all oppressed people.