Friday Sermon: Islam and Social Media

Opening and Subject of the Sermon:

Lord Shahid Aziz opened by asking the congregation to remember people who were ill or facing serious difficulties. He referred particularly to members of the community in Italy and Cuba and requested prayers for everyone experiencing hardship.

He then introduced social media as his subject. He said that he intended to address two related questions: whether social media should itself be classified as lawful or unlawful, and how Muslims ought to use it in practice.

Foundations in the Holy Quran:

He began with the Holy Quran, chapter 41, verses 32–35. He explained that these verses described divine guidance as a gift from the Forgiving and Merciful, praised the person who invited others towards God while acting righteously, and instructed believers to answer evil with what was best. This higher response could transform hostility into friendship, but it required patience, self-control and strong moral character.

He next cited the Holy Quran, chapter 49, verse 6. He explained that when an unreliable person brought news, believers had to examine it carefully before acting. Failure to verify a report could cause innocent people to be harmed through ignorance and could leave the person responsible regretting what had been done.

The third passage was the Holy Quran, chapter 36, verse 12. He said that God recorded what people sent ahead as well as the traces or consequences they left behind. He later connected this teaching directly with the lasting record created by online messages and posts.

Prophetic Guidance about Speech and Information:

Lord Shahid Aziz then referred to sayings of the Holy Prophet Muhammad. In the first, a person might make a statement pleasing to God without considering it especially important, yet its influence could travel far and raise that person’s spiritual rank. Conversely, a careless statement that displeased God could spread widely and bring serious moral consequences upon its author.

A second saying divided people according to the opportunities they created. Some opened doors to goodness and closed doors to evil, while others opened doors to evil and obstructed goodness. He explained that people entrusted with the means of spreading good were fortunate, whereas those who became instruments of wrongdoing placed themselves in danger.

He also cited the teaching that a person could become thoroughly dishonest simply by repeating everything heard without investigation. Even when information came from someone trusted, a Muslim was not entitled to pass it onwards automatically. Its accuracy had to be checked independently before it was shared with others.

He connected this rule with the Holy Quran’s instruction to verify news. The purpose was not merely to correct falsehood afterwards, but to prevent damage before it occurred. A person who circulated a false accusation might later apologise, but the harm caused to another person’s reputation or wellbeing could remain.

Technology was Judged by its Use:

The sermon then considered the familiar debate that followed new inventions: people often asked immediately whether the invention was lawful or unlawful. Lord Shahid Aziz argued that this was usually the wrong starting point because a tool did not possess a single moral character independent of its use.

He recalled that religious objections had previously been raised against photography, motion pictures, television, video and even the printing press. He stated that resistance to printing had once become so extreme that possession of a printed copy of the Holy Quran could attract severe punishment. He regarded such attitudes as barriers to education and progress.

To illustrate the issue, he recounted an example associated with the Promised Messiah [Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian]. A sword used by a violent intruder for crime was condemned, but the same sword used by a householder in legitimate defence was regarded differently. The physical object had not changed; the intention, circumstances and use had changed. Therefore, the moral responsibility belonged to the human user rather than to the tool itself.

He applied the same reasoning to media. The existence of indecent, insulting or otherwise harmful material did not prove that writing, painting, photography or broadcasting had to be prohibited altogether. Human beings had misused older forms of expression long before electronic technology existed. The proper response was to reject the wrongful use while employing the same means for beneficial purposes.

Social media, he concluded, was not automatically lawful or unlawful. Its moral quality depended upon what people published, why they published it, how they responded to others and what consequences their activity produced.

The Danger of Amplifying Harm:

Lord Shahid Aziz described receiving messages that reproduced offensive statements about the Holy Prophet Muhammad. The sender asked recipients to condemn the original author and forward the material to a very large number of people. Although the sender apparently intended to defend the Holy Prophet Muhammad, the practical result was to give the offensive material a much wider audience.

He explained that online systems measured engagement rather than moral approval. A platform could interpret repeated sharing as evidence that a post was popular or important, even when people shared it only to express outrage. Greater engagement could increase its ranking and expose still more people to it. He therefore advised listeners not to help harmful material circulate merely in order to denounce it.

He returned to the prophetic warning about statements whose effects travelled farther than their authors expected. The teaching applied not only to spoken words but also to letters, text messages, WhatsApp, Facebook, YouTube and every other means of communication. A person who created an abusive message remained answerable for it, but those who spread it also had to consider their own contribution to its reach.

Opening Doors to Goodness:

Social media could also open doors to goodness. He gave the example of a person who needed medical treatment that was unavailable publicly and could not afford private care. Online communication could be used to organise a legitimate appeal, inform potential supporters and raise the necessary funds.

The same platforms could instead be used to mock, humiliate or harass someone. He recalled the online abuse directed at footballers from racial minorities after missed penalties in a major competition. Such messages did not serve justice or improvement; they opened a path to prejudice and cruelty.

He explained that time spent producing or reading something beneficial was itself time diverted from harmful activity. A message could assist people morally, physically or psychologically. In that way, the sender and recipient both participated in opening a door to good and closing a door to evil.

He acknowledged that much social-media activity was harmful, but said that Muslims had a responsibility to demonstrate a better standard. They should use digital platforms constructively and should be recognised for truthfulness, restraint and service. He expressed regret that Muslims were also frequently involved in spreading false information, insults and abuse.

Calling towards God through Good Conduct:

Returning to the Holy Quran, chapter 41, he said that the person who called towards God had also to perform good deeds and live as one who sincerely submitted to divine guidance. Religious communication was therefore not made righteous merely by attaching a religious label to it. Its method, tone and consequences also had to reflect good character.

He regarded social media as one of the opportunities or gifts through which speech could reach others. In this context, speech included written text, pictures, recordings and other forms of expression. Every format could be used to educate and encourage, or to deceive and injure.

Before sending or forwarding anything, listeners were asked to decide whether they wished to become a means of goodness or a means of evil. The content had to be authentic, the intention had to be honourable and the likely effect upon other people had to be considered.

Verification, Patience and Restraint:

Lord Shahid Aziz urged people to slow down rather than react impulsively. A message should be checked and verified before a judgment was formed or the material was sent to numerous contacts. The ease and speed of forwarding increased responsibility; it did not remove the duty to investigate.

He cited a saying of the Holy Prophet Muhammad that associated patient deliberation with God and haste with the devil. His practical advice was therefore simple: stop, think, verify and consider the consequences before pressing the button that published or forwarded a message.

Digital Footprints and Accountability:

The sermon then returned to the Holy Quran, chapter 36, verse 12, and its reference to what people sent ahead and the traces they left behind. Lord Shahid Aziz said that modern technology made this principle particularly easy to understand. Social-media services wrote, recorded and preserved people’s words and activity.

A user might delete a post, but copies or records could remain elsewhere in online storage. Messages could be captured, forwarded or retained outside the author’s control. The digital footprint therefore formed a kind of continuing legacy whose consequences might survive the original moment of anger or carelessness.

He added that a person might appear anonymous to other users but could never be anonymous before God. This was why belief in the Hereafter remained essential. People would ultimately have to answer for what they had done, including conduct they believed had been hidden behind a screen name or deleted account.

He advised listeners to shape their present lives with that future accountability in mind. Online behaviour was not separate from moral life; it was part of the record created through daily choices.

Do not Lose the Real World:

Lord Shahid Aziz also warned that social media could displace face-to-face relationships. People might accumulate large numbers of online contacts while rarely meeting or truly knowing them. He referred humorously to a television scene in which a character claimed thousands of friends, only to be reminded that they were all online and had never been met.

He said that meeting people in person, learning to understand body language and practising direct communication were important parts of human life. These abilities could be weakened when communication took place almost entirely through screens.

His advice was not to abandon social media, but to use it reasonably and moderately. Digital communication had to support rather than replace real relationships, personal service and responsible participation in society.

Conclusion:

In conclusion, Lord Shahid Aziz said that social media should be used to spread good rather than abuse. It should not become a means of hurting people, damaging reputations or insulting the elders and founders of other religions. Muslims had to answer hostility with better conduct and had to make truthfulness, verification and patience visible in their online behaviour.

The central message was that technology magnified human choices. The same platform could raise funds, educate, comfort and encourage, or it could circulate falsehood, humiliation and hatred. Each user therefore had to decide whether the digital traces left behind would open doors to goodness or doors to evil.

The sermon then closed with the customary prayers and the Friday service continued.