Friday Sermon: Between Unity of Intentions and Unity of Texts

Does religious discourse achieve its goals merely because preachers recite the same words, or because their objectives align, their evidences are sound, and their efforts converge to reform society? This question gains importance in light of the Ministry of Awqaf and Islamic Affairs’ directive mandating strict adherence to the ministry’s Friday sermon text. It necessitates distinguishing between the goal of regulation and the means employed, as well as between the unity of the message and the verbatim identity of the texts.

First: Regulation is a necessity, but the means are subject to debate. There is no disagreement regarding the ministry’s responsibility to organize mosque affairs, regulate religious discourse, protect the pulpit from transgressions, and unify messages concerning national issues. Exceptional circumstances may warrant a unified sermon to clarify a general stance, confront a crisis, or strengthen societal cohesion and security. However, agreement on the goal does not imply that a single means is optimal in all cases. The question is not about the necessity of regulation, but rather about the appropriate extent of it and the means most capable of achieving the public interest without imposing restrictions that exceed necessity. It is fair to note that the ministry has prepared a Mosque Charter to regulate the performance of imams, preachers, and muezzins. Additionally, its technical office provides written sermons for preachers who wish to deliver them. Committees for listening to and evaluating sermons also exist in the governorates, in accordance with the Charter, and preachers are guided when observations necessitate correction. These are important regulatory and supervisory tools that should be considered when discussing and developing pulpit policy.

Second: The preacher is a caller to God, not merely a transmitter of text. The Friday sermon is a religious rite with an educational, formative, and reformative mission. A qualified preacher is not just a repeater of phrases, but a caller who understands the texts, applies rulings to realities, and considers the circumstances and needs of the audience. One region may require addressing a family issue, while another may need to correct a common misconception or discuss an urgent social matter. A specialist preacher’s expertise may allow for a deeper treatment more relevant to their audience. This does not mean releasing preachers without controls; the Mosque Charter, review, evaluation, and accountability are all means to protect the pulpit. However, the existence of controls opens the field to exploring how to combine effective supervision with disciplined independent reasoning (ijtihad), without assuming that textual uniformity is the sole means to ensure compliance.

Third: Unity of objectives does not require verbatim identity. One must distinguish between unifying the sermon’s topic, defining its axes, evidences, and controls, and compelling preachers to use a single text word for word. Each level has its own requirements and implications. The ministry can determine the week’s topic, its core messages, and its accepted evidences, then allow qualified preachers to formulate the treatment in a manner suitable for their audience, while adhering to the Mosque Charter and religious and regulatory controls. In this way, the message is unified while the methods of presentation vary. Verbatim textual uniformity may be appropriate in exceptional circumstances requiring the delivery of a unified message, but it is not necessarily the most suitable option in all cases. The criterion is not the similarity of words, but the realization of objectives, the soundness of the content, and the effectiveness of the discourse.

Fourth: Policy and jurisprudence of objectives (fiqh al-maqasid). The rule governing conduct toward the community is tied to public interest. General administration should aim to achieve recognized public interest. Policy requires balancing the benefits of unifying discourse against the potential narrowing of the space for independent reasoning or the weakening of responsiveness to certain local needs. These are potential consequences deserving evaluation, not outcomes that can be asserted definitively without study. The policy of unification can be evaluated through three criteria: the degree of necessity for verbatim compulsion, the appropriateness of its scope and duration to the purpose, and the possibility of reviewing its results in light of implementation. What a national crisis necessitates may not be required under normal circumstances, and what is suitable for an exceptional situation does not become a permanent rule without a valid justification.

Fifth: A model that integrates discipline and effectiveness can develop existing policy by leveraging its institutional tools: unifying references, evidences, axes, and controls; continuing to evaluate sermons in accordance with the mosque charter; and providing a disciplined space for qualified preachers to exercise independent reasoning (ijtihad). A unified text may be adopted when public interest so dictates, with clear delineation of the scope of obligation and its justifications. The success of this model is measured by the soundness of the content, the quality of its reasoning, the appropriateness of the discourse to the worshippers’ needs, and its educational and social impact—not merely by textual conformity. Determining the legal scope of the obligation and the consequences of its violation requires reviewing relevant legislation and regulations.

In summary, the issue is not a conflict between the Ministry and the preacher, but rather a search for balance between the unity of the message and the effectiveness of performance. The pulpit requires regulation to protect it, a charter to govern it, oversight to uphold it, and disciplined ijtihad to activate its mission. While public interest may sometimes necessitate textual unification, it does not make verbal conformity an end in itself. The success of Friday sermons is not measured by worshippers hearing the same words in every mosque, but by hearing discourse that is sound, prudent, impactful, addresses their issues, and reinforces their values.

Key Points:

1. Unifying the discourse may be necessitated by exceptional circumstances, but it does not require textual unification in all cases.

2. The mosque charter and mechanisms for listening and evaluation provide tools for regulation and accountability.

3. A qualified preacher is a caller who addresses reality, not merely a transmitter of text.

4. It is more prudent to unify references, evidences, and controls, coupled with disciplined ijtihad and textual unification when necessary.

5. The success of the pulpit is measured by the integrity of the content, the quality of performance, and reformative impact—not by mere verbal conformity.

Dr. Abdulhamid Khalifa Al-Shaiji