![A mother’s taweez and the Cape’s interfaith traditions [+ video]](https://muslimviews.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/Michael-Weeder-Book-Launch-9May26-360x180.webp)
In a continuation of the conversation on thinking, justice, and Muslim public responsibility, the writer argues that the debate following the US-Israeli aggression against Iran and the assassination of its leader reveal deeper questions about justice, sectarian identity and the moral responsibility of the khutbah.
A continuation of the conversation on thinking, justice, and Muslim public responsibility
By ADNAAN ADAMS
In my recent Muslim Views article, ‘Khutbah, thinking, and the moral crisis of sectarianism in an age of anti-intellectualism,’ I argued that the Friday khutbah remains one of the most influential pedagogical spaces in Muslim communal life: a space where moral reasoning is either cultivated or quietly abandoned. That reflection emerged through three khutbah moments, each exposing how sectarian thinking often precedes ethical judgement, and how anti-intellectualism takes root when inherited positions are defended rather than examined. The current war involving Iran, the United States and Israel now places that earlier argument under direct moral pressure.
What should have been a relatively clear ethical response to military aggression has, within parts of our own Muslim community in South Africa, quickly become entangled in sectarian hesitation. Instead of beginning with questions of justice, many discussions begin elsewhere: can Sunnis openly support Iran? May du’a be made for Supreme Leader Sayed Ali Khamenei after his death? Can his death be described with honour, dignity or martyrdom? Does solidarity with an attacked people imply theological endorsement? This is precisely the kind of intellectual condition the earlier article sought to expose.
When sectarian identity comes before justice
A believing community committed to justice should first ask simpler and more urgent questions: has aggression occurred, has sovereignty been violated, have civilians suffered, and has power been exercised without restraint? These are moral questions before they are sectarian ones.
Yet what has become visible in some mosque spaces is a notable reluctance even to name Iran directly. Certain khutbahs avoid the matter altogether. Others allow the congregation to ‘decide for themselves’, as though moral direction in moments of international crisis lies outside the responsibility of religious leadership. But leadership cannot permanently remain suspended in ambiguity.
To provide ethical direction does not mean political allegiance. Nor does it require theological agreement with every doctrinal position of another community. It simply requires the ability to distinguish between doctrinal difference and moral responsibility. A Sunni Muslim does not become Shia by condemning unjust aggression. Nor does solidarity with a people under attack require theological surrender.
Silence, ambiguity and the youth who listen
The khutbah, as previously argued, is never neutral. Even silence teaches. When the mimbar becomes hesitant in moments of moral crisis, that hesitation itself becomes pedagogical. It teaches caution where clarity is needed. It suggests that sectarian discomfort may outweigh ethical obligation.
For younger Muslims, this creates deep confusion. The youth do not merely seek emotional reactions; they seek coherence. They listen for consistency between what Islam teaches about justice and what Muslim leadership is prepared to say publicly when justice is tested. When silence dominates, uncertainty expands — a situation we cannot afford to allow.
A minority community and its moral memory
This hesitation is particularly striking in a minority Muslim context such as ours. Muslims in South Africa know, historically, what solidarity means when power is unevenly distributed. We know what it means to stand against domination even when political outcomes remain uncertain. That historical memory should sharpen moral instinct, not weaken it.
The Qur’anic ethic of promoting what is right and resisting what is wrong does not ask believers to verify sectarian identity before standing with the oppressed. If theological distance becomes greater than moral concern, then sectarianism has already succeeded in narrowing ethical imagination.
Beyond reflex: recovering moral thought
There are, of course, important pockets within our community where this hesitation does not prevail, where Sunni Muslims have expressed solidarity with Iran despite theological difference, recognising that justice cannot be suspended by sectarian boundaries. That itself demonstrates that moral maturity remains possible. The real question is whether our broader religious discourse can rise above reflex and cultivate principled thinking. Because what is before us is not only a geopolitical conflict. It is a test of whether Muslim public thought still possesses the intellectual courage to separate justice from inherited prejudice.
Returning to the mimbar
The deeper question therefore returns to the khutbah itself. What kind of Muslim is the khutbah forming in this moment? One who first asks who deserves solidarity according to sectarian identity? Or one who recognises that the Qur’anic demand for justice begins wherever oppression appears? If the khutbah remains unable to name injustice clearly because theology first demands caution, then it risks reproducing the very anti-intellectual condition that weakens moral judgement. But if the khutbah can help believers think carefully, distinguish responsibly, and respond ethically, then it remains what it was always meant to be — not merely a sermon, but a living moral and intellectual space.
And perhaps that is the real test of this moment: not only how we speak about Iran, but whether we still possess the courage to let justice speak before sectarian certainty does.
Adnaan Adams is the Founder and Director of The Muslim Thinker. He can be reached via email: info@themuslimthinker.org or WhatsApp: 083 687 0559.
