Friday Sermon: Justice and State Relations

Opening and Prayers:

Lord Shahid Aziz opened by requesting prayers for all humanity, especially anyone who was ill or facing hardship. He mentioned people who had specifically asked for prayers, including community members and families in Italy and Malaysia, and he also remembered small communities working under difficult conditions in places such as Cuba and Florida.

He then introduced the sermon under the title ‘Justice and State Relations’. His purpose was to show that divine commands about fairness were not limited to private dealings between individuals; they also governed relations among communities, religious groups and sovereign states.

Foundations in the Holy Quran:

The first passage was the Holy Quran, chapter 5, verse 8. He explained that believers had to stand firmly for God as witnesses to justice and could not allow hatred of another people to make them abandon equity. Justice was closer to righteousness, and God remained fully aware of human conduct.

He next cited the Holy Quran, chapter 16, verses 90–91. These verses commanded justice, goodness and generosity towards relatives while forbidding indecency, wrongdoing and rebellion. They also required people to fulfil covenants made before God and not to break solemn promises after confirming them.

The third passage was the Holy Quran, chapter 55, verses 7–9. He said that God had established a balance and instructed humanity not to violate it. People had to maintain the balance with equity and could not give others less than what was properly due.

Justice Applied beyond Private Life:

Lord Shahid Aziz said that these verses were commonly applied to dealings with neighbours, colleagues, friends and relatives. He accepted that application but rejected the idea that it exhausted their meaning. In his view, the same standards also applied between religious sects, social groups, communities, nations and governments.

A person could not claim that a promise had to be honoured in private life while governments were permitted to disregard agreements whenever convenient. If breaking a contract between neighbours or businesses was wrong, then breaking a treaty between states was also wrong.

He illustrated this with a commercial example. A company might enter an agreement with a government to search for oil or gas on its land or in its territorial waters. Neither the company nor the government could be trusted if it abandoned the agreed terms merely because circumstances later changed.

Covenants and International Trust:

He extended the example to formal treaties. If one country entered an agreement and then broke it when it became inconvenient, other countries would have little reason to trust its future promises. The immediate advantage gained by abandoning a treaty could therefore weaken the entire system of international cooperation.

He argued that governments frequently supported agreements while those agreements served their interests and then searched for excuses to withdraw when the obligations became difficult. He regarded this selective approach as contrary to the Holy Quran’s command to honour covenants.

As an example, he referred to international rules against using force to replace another country’s government. He criticised Western military action involving Libya and questioned why conduct condemned in principle was accepted when carried out by powerful states. He presented the episode as an example of law being applied differently according to political interest.

His broader question concerned moral credibility. A state that expected obedience to international law from others had also to accept the same restrictions upon itself. Without that consistency, treaties and legal institutions would appear to be instruments of power rather than standards of justice.

Hatred and the Settlement after the First World War:

Lord Shahid Aziz returned to the Holy Quran, chapter 5, verse 8, and its warning that hatred must not prevent justice. He used the settlement imposed upon Germany after the First World War as a historical illustration of the consequences of ignoring this principle.

He said that the victorious Allied powers had been embittered by the enormous cost of the war and had wanted Germany to pay heavily. Reparations were imposed while Germany also lost territory, industrial capacity and access to resources. In his account, the settlement demanded payments without leaving the country a realistic means of meeting them.

He explained that the German government responded by creating more currency, which contributed to severe inflation and economic instability. Unemployment and public desperation then strengthened political extremism. He argued that the punitive and unbalanced settlement helped create the conditions in which an extremist movement gained power and another world war followed.

His point was not that one factor alone explained every later event, but that injustice towards a defeated enemy could produce consequences far beyond the original dispute. A short moral command in the Holy Quran could therefore have major implications for international peace.

Forgiveness and Post-war Reconstruction:

He contrasted the punitive settlement with the conduct of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) when Makkah came under his authority. The people who had opposed, insulted and persecuted him expected punishment, but he granted a general pardon. Lord Shahid Aziz presented this as an example of magnanimity after victory.

He then compared the treatment of Germany and Japan after the Second World War. The victorious powers helped the defeated countries rebuild rather than repeating the same degree of economic punishment. He believed that this more constructive policy contributed significantly to stability and peace in Europe and East Asia.

The lesson was that justice did not require permanent humiliation of an opponent. Reconciliation, reconstruction and fair treatment could protect future generations more effectively than revenge.

Balance in Human and International Relations:

Returning to the Holy Quran, chapter 55, Lord Shahid Aziz said that balance existed not only among natural forces but also within human emotions and relationships. Excess in either direction disturbed the order needed for communities to live together.

This social balance had to be maintained between individuals, religious groups, sects and countries. When fear, anger, racial prejudice or religious hostility became excessive, they distorted judgment and caused people to deny others their proper rights.

He compared the disruption of moral balance with interference in the balance of the natural world. The comparison was intended to show that reckless interference could produce effects much larger than the original action. In international affairs, unequal treatment and unresolved resentment could spread instability across regions and generations.

Examples of Alleged Double Standards:

Lord Shahid Aziz then discussed several contemporary cases that, in his view, showed inconsistent treatment by powerful governments. These examples reflected his argument in the sermon and were presented as illustrations of perceived double standards rather than as an independent legal investigation.

He referred to Shireen Abu Akleh, an American-Palestinian journalist who had reported for Al Jazeera for many years and was killed while covering events in the occupied Palestinian territories. He criticised what he regarded as an inadequate initial response from the United States despite her American citizenship.

He contrasted this with an American contractor detained in Lahore after two Pakistanis were killed. He said that strong American pressure had contributed to the man’s release and return to the United States. The comparison was used to argue that citizenship appeared to receive vigorous protection in one political setting but not another.

He also mentioned the death of a young British motorcyclist in a collision involving an American driver. The driver left Britain after diplomatic immunity was asserted, and the victim’s parents campaigned for years to secure legal proceedings. Lord Shahid Aziz praised their determination but believed that the eventual outcome still fell short of full justice.

The International Criminal Court:

The sermon then considered the International Criminal Court. Lord Shahid Aziz said that evidence gathered by journalists and other investigators had challenged early explanations of Abu Akleh’s death, and he referred to efforts to place aspects of the Israel–Palestine conflict before the Court.

He criticised the United States for opposing action concerning Israel while supporting international accountability for Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. He asked why similar legal principles appeared to be promoted in one case and resisted in another.

He also noted that the United States was not a party to the Rome Statute establishing the Court. He referred to American resistance to possible investigations involving its own military personnel and to assurances that Israeli officials would be protected from such proceedings. In his view, this further weakened the claim that international justice was being applied impartially.

He discussed reported disagreements within the United States government over an investigation into Abu Akleh’s death and criticised Israeli opposition to an external inquiry. He also compared the limited accountability he perceived for earlier military actions in Lebanon with the prosecution of leaders from less powerful states.

The underlying principle remained the same: a legal institution could command confidence only if the rules applied equally to allies, opponents, powerful countries and weaker countries.

Hatred could not Replace Equity:

Lord Shahid Aziz returned once more to the Holy Quran’s instruction that hostility towards a people must not lead to injustice. He attributed continuing conflict to entrenched prejudice and resentment, particularly the denial of equal justice to Palestinians.

He rejected the idea that religious commitment justified unequal treatment. People might imagine that hostility towards another group served God, but wrongdoing remained wrongdoing regardless of the identity or religion of the victim.

The commandments in the Holy Quran concerning justice, goodness, restraint and covenants therefore applied to every side. No community could demand rights for itself while refusing comparable rights to others.

Conclusion:

In conclusion, Lord Shahid Aziz argued that lasting peace required justice for every individual regardless of religion, sect, ethnicity or colour. Fairness had not only to exist in principle; it had to be implemented consistently and be visibly impartial so that people could develop confidence in institutions and agreements.

The sermon connected personal morality with international order. The duties to act justly, control hatred, honour promises and maintain balance were the same whether the parties were neighbours or nations. Powerful states were not exempt from standards that applied to ordinary people.

His central warning was that selective justice destroyed trust and created future instability. His central hope was that equitable treatment, fulfilled covenants and generosity after conflict could restore balance and make genuine peace possible.

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