Friday Sermon: Human Rights in Islam

Opening:

Lord Shahid Aziz welcomed listeners to the Friday service and recited the Islamic declaration of faith, followed by the customary prayers seeking God’s protection and guidance.

He then recited the concluding portion of the Holy Quran 5:44. He explained that its message was that believers should not fear people, compromise divine teachings for a small worldly advantage, or replace God’s moral guidance with judgments designed merely to please society.

He explained that although the verse initially referred to the Israelites and their religious leaders, the Holy Quran frequently moved from a particular historical example to a universal principle. Muslims therefore could not dismiss a teaching simply because its original context concerned Jews, Christians or another earlier community.

The general principle, he said, was that people should do what was morally right before God instead of acting according to public pressure. He argued that much injustice and social disorder arose because people were more concerned about human approval than divine guidance.

He then announced that the sermon would briefly examine the principal human rights established by the Quran, the practice of the Prophet Muhammad and his reported sayings.

1. The Right to Life:

The first and most fundamental right was the protection of human life.

Referring to Quran 5:32, he explained that killing one person unlawfully was treated as an offence against the whole of humanity, while saving one person was comparable to saving humanity itself.

He pointed out that the verse spoke about killing a person, not specifically a Muslim. Consequently, the protection applied irrespective of religion, race, caste or creed. A Muslim killing a non-Muslim was not treated more leniently simply because the victim followed another religion.

He said that a life could only be taken under strictly defined law and after proper legal proceedings—for example, where murder or an exceptionally grave offence had been proved.

This led him to discuss the danger of capital punishment. Courts and police systems could make mistakes, and evidence could be fabricated when investigators were under public pressure to find someone to blame. He referred to the Birmingham Six, who had been wrongly convicted of bombings and imprisoned for many years before their convictions were overturned. Had they been executed, their later exoneration could not have restored their lives.

His broader point was that the right to life required careful judicial safeguards and genuine due process.

2. The Right to Freedom:

The next right was personal liberty and freedom from enslavement.

He cited a hadith from Sahih Bukhari in which the Prophet Muhammad warned that, on the Day of Judgement, he would personally argue against someone who captured a free person, sold that person and benefited from the payment.

Lord Shahid Aziz presented this as clear evidence that enslaving a free human being was a serious offence in Islam. He rejected the idea that Islam gave people unrestricted permission to capture and trade human beings.

He connected this principle with the lasting consequences of the transatlantic slave trade, particularly the forced transportation and sale of Africans in America.

3. The Right to Equality:

Quran 49:13 was introduced as the foundation of human equality. Humanity was created from a male and female and subsequently developed into different peoples, tribes and families. He explained that these distinctions existed so people could recognise and understand one another—not so one group could claim inherent superiority.

He said that the only distinction that mattered before God was a person’s righteousness, sense of duty and moral conduct.

He reinforced this with the Prophet Muhammad’s Farewell Sermon: Arabs possessed no inherent superiority over non-Arabs, nor non-Arabs over Arabs. Similarly, white people were not superior to black people, and black people were not superior to white people.

Lord Shahid Aziz recounted meeting members of a Christian group in the United States who associated darker skin with sin. He responded humorously that his own skin had become darker during several weeks of travelling in America; according to their theory, America must therefore have caused him to become more sinful. The person to whom he said this was displeased, but the anecdote illustrated the irrationality of connecting skin colour with moral worth.

In Islam, he concluded, people were simply human beings. Their worth depended upon their character and the good they did, not their complexion or ancestry.

4. The Right to Impartial Justice:

He stated that every person was entitled to justice without discrimination based on race, colour or religion.

He referred to the Rodney King case in America as an illustration of racial injustice and the public anger that could arise when recorded evidence of police violence appeared inconsistent with a jury’s verdict.

He then invoked the Quranic principle that God loves people who act justly and equitably. Although the statement appeared after discussion of a particular dispute, he explained that it established a general command applicable to every case.

He concluded that judges and jurors had to assess evidence honestly. Loyalty to one’s racial, religious or social group could not justify denying justice to someone from another group.

5. The Right to Dignity and Respectful Treatment:

He stated that Islam also granted every human being honour and dignity.

The Prophet Muhammad taught that the best person is one from whose tongue and hands other people remain safe. Lord Shahid Aziz emphasised the universal wording: the teaching concerned avoiding harm to anyone, not merely avoiding harm to Muslims.

Medina contained Muslims, Jews, Christians, idol worshippers and other communities. Nevertheless, the Prophet’s principle protected everybody from verbal and physical injury.

Human dignity therefore required restraint in both speech and action. Insults, rumours, humiliation and abusive conduct violated this principle even when they did not cause physical injury.

6. The Right to Life’s Basic Necessities:

He explained that the Quran also recognised a right to essential material support.

Referring to Quran 51:19, Lord Shahid Aziz explained that the wealth of society contained a rightful share for the poor, destitute and those unable to support themselves.

He said that this was not to be understood only as a recommendation that individuals occasionally give money to beggars. It could also justify a government collecting taxes and reserving funds for social welfare.

In his interpretation, an Islamic government had to ensure that nobody was left without food, medical treatment, education or other essential support. Money collected for the vulnerable should be used for that purpose instead of being diverted to less urgent projects or expensive military equipment.

Assistance to the poor was therefore not simply generosity from the wealthy. The needy possessed a legitimate claim upon society’s resources.

7. The Right to Privacy:

The final right considered was privacy.

He referred to Quran 24:27–28, which instructed believers not to enter homes other than their own without first seeking permission and greeting the occupants. If nobody was available, visitors had to wait until permission was granted. If they were asked to leave, they should depart without resentment.

Two incidents involving Hazrat Umar illustrated this principle.

In the first, Umar and a companion heard something while walking near a house. Umar realised that standing outside and listening might amount to searching for people’s faults. His companion agreed, and they left rather than intruding upon the residents’ privacy.

In the second account, Umar climbed over the back wall of a house after becoming aware of possible wrongdoing. He told the occupant that he might be summoned and punished. The occupant admitted one fault but pointed out that Umar had committed several: he had entered by climbing the back wall rather than approaching through the proper entrance; he had entered without permission; and he had deliberately searched for someone’s private wrongdoing.

Umar accepted the criticism, apologised and did not punish the man. The story demonstrated that rulers were also subject to moral limits and could not invade privacy merely because they possessed authority.

Recapitulation of the Rights:

He summarised the seven rights as the protection of every human life; freedom from enslavement; equality regardless of race, nationality or ancestry; impartial justice; honour and dignity; access to food, healthcare, education and other necessities; and protection of the home and private life.

He gave an everyday example of privacy: if someone visited a house and the occupant said they were busy, the visitor should accept the refusal and leave peacefully. Instead, some people became offended, accused the householder of arrogance and subsequently spread rumours. Such behaviour directly contradicted the Quranic instruction.

Muslims Must Practise What They Preach:

The sermon then turned towards Muslim self-examination.

Lord Shahid Aziz asked what right Muslims had to preach Islam when they did not follow its teachings themselves. He recalled discussing Islam with a non-Muslim who was impressed by its moral principles and said that he had only one remaining question before accepting the religion.

The man asked why people born as Muslims often failed to display the excellent character that the Quran was supposed to produce.

Lord Shahid Aziz considered this a powerful criticism. He said that Islam did not endorse an attitude of telling others what to do while behaving differently oneself and that the Quran strongly condemned preaching principles that one refused to practise.

He argued that when Muslims observed social disorder—whether associated with racial conflict, injustice or the disruption caused by the coronavirus pandemic—they should not only blame other people. They had to ask whether their own failure to practise justice, compassion and equality had contributed to society’s problems.

Colourism as an Example of Hypocrisy:

He returned to the Prophet’s declaration that neither white nor black people possessed racial superiority.

He then asked why skin-lightening products were so widely purchased in countries such as Pakistan and India. He regarded this as evidence that racial and colour prejudice remained deeply rooted, even in Muslim societies.

He said that the same prejudice appeared when families searched for a daughter-in-law and made fair skin an important condition. Such preferences contradicted the Prophet’s explicit rejection of superiority based on colour.

His concluding criticism was deliberately forceful: Islam’s moral message had not attracted humanity as widely as it could have because Muslims frequently contradicted that message through their behaviour. If they genuinely practised Islam’s principles, people would find the religion much more convincing.

Conclusion of the Service:

The sermon concluded with traditional Arabic prayers asking God to make the Quran beneficial to the believers. The second portion of the Friday service included praise of God, prayers upon the Prophet Muhammad and the customary Quranic reminder that God commands justice, goodness and generosity while prohibiting indecency, wrongdoing and oppression.