Friday Sermon: Obey those in Authority

by Shafiat Shorab

13 November 2020 (Ahmadiyya Anjuman Ishaat-e-Islam Lahore, Trinidad & Tobago)

Opening Declaration and Purpose:

Shafiat Shorab opened with the Islamic declaration of faith, sought divine protection from evil and began in the name of God, the Beneficent and Merciful. He then explained that he had been asked to place contemporary elections within a perspective based on the Holy Quran.

The immediate background had been a recent election in Trinidad and Tobago and the presidential election in the United States. The latter had taken place more than a week earlier, but its outcome was still being contested. He used these events as an opportunity to consider the purpose of government, the character of electoral politics and the obligations of believers living under political authority.

The Holy Quran as Guidance for Public Life:

He said that the Holy Quran had described itself as a book in which there was no doubt and as guidance for those who remained mindful of their duty to God. Its direction therefore extended beyond worship and private morality. It also provided principles for communal conduct, public affairs and the organisation of society.

When electoral practices were compared with those principles, he believed that serious weaknesses became visible. Political systems claimed legitimacy through public participation, yet the methods used to obtain and retain power often damaged credibility, encouraged rivalry and placed party advantage above impartial service.

Obedience to God, the Messenger and Those in Authority:

Shafiat Shorab referred to the Holy Quran, chapter 4, verse 59, which instructed believers to obey God, obey the Messenger and obey those entrusted with authority among them. Governments possessed real authority over citizens whether or not every citizen personally approved of the government or all its decisions. Orderly society therefore required respect for lawful authority.

He did not present political obedience as unlimited. The order of the verse established the governing standard: obedience to human authority remained subordinate to obedience to God and His Messenger. A believer could comply with those instructions of government that agreed with divine teaching and the example of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), but could not treat wrongdoing as legitimate merely because an official had commanded it.

Within those limits, obedience protected social peace. Refusal to recognise any authority would produce disorder, while blind submission could turn power into an excuse for injustice. The believer’s position combined civic discipline with a conscience formed by revelation.

Democracy and the Electoral Process:

He described democracy as a system in which citizens of the required age were given an opportunity to choose who would govern them for a fixed period. In Trinidad and Tobago the period was five years, while in the United States it was four years. He contrasted this with countries in which governments were imposed or established without a genuine choice by the people.

The ideal of one person and one vote gave every elector a voice. Nevertheless, he argued that the existence of voting did not by itself guarantee justice, unity or moral government. The character of campaigns, the behaviour of candidates and the motives of voters all affected whether the process served the common good.

Political Division and Competing Camps:

The sermon criticised the way democratic politics frequently divided a population into rival camps. In Trinidad and Tobago, citizens had been separated broadly between opposing political positions. The same pattern had appeared in the United States, where approximately half the electorate supported one major party and the remainder largely supported the other.

Campaign language, partisan presentation and the struggle for office had often deepened those divisions. Each side advanced its own agenda and represented the opposing camp as an obstacle. Shafiat Shorab believed that this showed a central weakness in modern political practice: a system intended to represent the whole population could become a contest that fractured the very society it was meant to govern.

Unity as the Core of Divine Revelation:

He contrasted political rivalry with the unifying purpose of religion. Human beings had been created by one God, and the prophets had all called people towards Him. Earlier messengers had addressed different historical conditions and had received guidance appropriate to those circumstances, yet their essential purpose had remained the same.

That common purpose had included belief in God, acceptance of His messengers and the moral unity of humanity. Differences in time, place and practical law had not converted the prophets into leaders of competing divine parties. Their missions had formed one continuous movement of guidance, culminating, in his account, in the mission of the Holy Prophet Muhammad.

He therefore regarded unity as an important test of public life. Political organisation might be necessary, but it should not teach citizens to treat neighbours as enemies or to value party victory more than truth and justice.

Favouritism and Electoral Inducements:

Shafiat Shorab said that governing parties frequently used the advantages of office to strengthen their electoral base. Demographic information revealed where supporters were concentrated, and public works or other favours could then be directed towards those areas in the hope of securing votes. He referred to roads being paved in selected localities as one familiar example.

He judged such conduct against the religious requirement of fairness. Public resources had to be administered for everyone rather than converted into rewards for supporters. Religion opposed favouritism, special treatment and favours performed for personal or political gain. A government that served only its own base failed to recognise its responsibility towards the entire population.

The Holy Prophet Muhammad as the Practical Standard:

He cited the Holy Quran, chapter 33, verse 21, which presented the Messenger of God as an excellent example for those who hoped in God and the Last Day and remembered God frequently. The Holy Quran supplied the final revealed guidance, while the life of the Holy Prophet Muhammad demonstrated how that guidance had been put into practice.

This example explained the sequence of obedience. Muslims first owed obedience to God and His Messenger; they then obeyed those in authority so that social order could be maintained. Political commands were evaluated through revealed principle and prophetic conduct rather than through loyalty to a party, personality or office alone.

Duty to God and Continual Submission:

Turning to the first of two adjoining passages from chapter 3 of the Holy Quran, he explained that believers had been instructed to remain conscious of their duty to God and not to let death overtake them except in a state of submission. He defined a Muslim as one who submitted to the will of God.

The command required more than adopting a religious name. A person had to live by the Holy Quran and the example of the Holy Prophet Muhammad so that submission became a continuing condition of life. Since no one controlled the arrival of death, obedience could not safely be postponed until a later year or a more convenient stage of life.

Arabia before the Prophetic Mission:

Shafiat Shorab described Arabia before Islam as deeply divided and morally disordered. Tribal conflict and many forms of wrongdoing had become normal. The Holy Prophet Muhammad had grown up within that environment, observed its practices and dealt with its people, yet had remained upright rather than being drawn into prevailing corruption.

His integrity had become so widely recognised that he was known as trustworthy even before receiving revelation. At the age of forty, he had been called to deliver God’s final message, not merely to one tribe or to Arabia, but to humanity. His task had included both conveying the Holy Quran and demonstrating its meaning through his own conduct.

Holding Fast Together and Rejecting Disunity:

The next passage from chapter 3 instructed the people to hold fast together to God’s covenant and not become divided. Shafiat Shorab treated this as the central political and social achievement of the Holy Prophet Muhammad. The message had addressed tribes that had repeatedly fought one another and had taught them to recognise a bond stronger than inherited rivalry.

He said that the Holy Prophet Muhammad had led through personal example. He had not demanded one standard from others while following another himself. His consistency had inspired people to adopt the teaching voluntarily and had enabled former enemies to become brothers within one community.

The Holy Quran had reminded those people that they had once stood near a destructive pit created by their hostility, but God had rescued them and joined their hearts. The speaker presented this transformation as evidence that revealed moral leadership could replace fragmentation with a shared purpose.

Humanity as One Nation:

From this historical example, he moved to the wider teaching that humanity formed a single nation. Political parties and states promoted separate interests, but those divisions could not cancel the fundamental unity of the human family. All prophetic missions had pointed towards that unity, and the mission of the Holy Prophet Muhammad had completed their common message.

He believed that peace and prosperity would become possible if people organised public life around their shared duties before God and towards one another. By contrast, struggles for control, territory and partisan dominance repeatedly brought societies close to conflict. Elections could either serve orderly cooperation or become another expression of those competing ambitions.

The Best Community and Its Responsibilities:

Shafiat Shorab cited the Holy Quran, chapter 3, verse 110, which described a community raised for the good of humanity through belief in God, encouragement of what was right and resistance to what was wrong. He stressed that being regarded as the best community was not an automatic privilege or a title secured merely by religious affiliation.

The distinction carried a practical responsibility. Believers had to support good actions, participate in what was right and refuse to assist wrongdoing. Their value to society depended upon the moral quality of their conduct and the benefit they brought to others.

Belief Had to Produce Good Deeds:

He connected this responsibility with the repeated association in the Holy Quran between faith and righteous action. Every deliberate action arose from some belief about what was valuable or what result would follow. In political life, people sometimes joined parties because they expected employment, access or another personal favour.

Such motives allowed self-interest to determine public conduct. By contrast, sound belief produced honest action. A person who truly believed in accountability before God would not support injustice in exchange for advantage, and a political community shaped by that belief would measure policies by fairness rather than by the benefit delivered to its own supporters.

Responsible Participation in Public Affairs:

The sermon did not call upon believers to withdraw completely from public activity. Shafiat Shorab recognised that people would be asked to participate in elections, organisations and other collective decisions. He said that participation had to be governed by two principles: support what was right and refuse involvement in what was wrong.

This required knowledge and judgement. Muslims had to read the Holy Quran, understand its messages and translate them into practice. They could not excuse misconduct by saying that political life operated according to different rules from religion. The same obligations of truthfulness, justice, unity and service applied inside and outside formal worship.

Conclusion:

In conclusion, Shafiat Shorab had presented obedience to authority as a necessary part of social order, but he had placed it within the higher obedience owed to God and His Messenger. Governments deserved lawful cooperation, while citizens retained a duty not to encourage conduct that contradicted divine moral teaching.

His criticism of elections had focused upon division, inducements, favouritism and the pursuit of party advantage. His alternative had been the vision of the Holy Quran: a community united by duty, impartial service and concern for all humanity. The transformation of Arabia under the Holy Prophet Muhammad had served as his chief example of principled leadership overcoming hostility and creating brotherhood.

The final practical message had been that faith must guide participation. Believers were to encourage what was right, reject what was wrong and allow good belief to produce good deeds. By studying and practising the Holy Quran, they could fulfil their civic responsibilities without surrendering moral judgement to political pressure or personal gain.

Top