How Can Religious Institutions Regulate Religious Discourse Online?
Religious discourse is among the most widely disseminated forms of communication across various media platforms. Its purpose is to inform people — believers and others alike — of the teachings of the religion, and to clarify them, so that this discourse becomes a guiding methodology for believers, and an invitation to Islam for non-believers.
Anyone who follows religious discourse online, and elsewhere, will notice a mixture of the worthless and the valuable, the beneficial and the harmful, the good and the poor in quality. The internet may well be the most dangerous platform among all others, given its vast reach, the ease with which content spreads and circulates, and the fact that it remains open to anyone who wishes to participate — making its content far more difficult to control compared to traditional platforms. For this reason, it has become incumbent upon religious institutions to exert significant effort in regulating this discourse, in order to limit its harms and pitfalls, while reinforcing the good content found within it.
Tracing religious discourse online, we notice a number of pitfalls that limit its genuine success — and I say "genuine" because it may succeed in the sense of achieving wide circulation, while still lacking the real, hoped-for fruits, thereby confusing people's understanding of their religion and leaving them lost and bewildered. Among the most prominent of these pitfalls are:
First: The Use of Takfīr (Declaring someone a disbeliever) and Tafsīq (Accusing someone of open sinfulness and impiety)
Proponents of this type of discourse consider themselves the sole possessors of truth, holding that anyone who does not share their beliefs, or who differs from them, has necessarily strayed from the truth — branding such people as kuffār (disbelievers), fussāq (sinners), or ḍāllūn (misguided). What is remarkable is that this language is often directed at fellow adherents of the same religion, and frequently concerns matters that are, in reality, subjects of legitimate scholarly disagreement! For example, someone who visits the grave of a walī (a righteous person) might be accused of being a disbeliever and a polytheist, someone who has strayed from the path and lacks sound belief — to the point that he must be declared a disbeliever, and indeed, that anyone who refuses to declare him a disbeliever is likewise a disbeliever himself.
This is language of the most extreme exclusion. Passing judgment on people's faith and beliefs cannot be done so carelessly. Rather, one must first verify the accuracy of their actual beliefs, and the proper path for this is dialogue with them. If an error is found, one should teach them the correct position; if no clear error is found, one should acknowledge that there may be a legitimate basis for their position — even if we do not agree with it or find it preferable. As for hurling labels such as mubtadi‘(innovator), ḍāll (misguided), or kāfir (disbeliever), this transmits the same mindset to the rest of one's followers, spreading this exclusionary culture throughout society, contributing to its fragmentation, and ultimately bearing fruit in extremism and terrorism — for at that point, I see before me either a polytheist or a misguided innovator, and nothing in between.
Second: Sectarian Fanaticism (al-Ta‘aṣṣub al-Madhhabī)
The existence of different schools of Islamic jurisprudence (madhāhib) has been a natural feature of this religion since its earliest days. What is truly blameworthy, in every time and place, is fanaticism (ta‘aṣṣub) — for it causes a person to depart from the path of justice and fairness, binding him so completely to his own school that he can no longer see anything beyond it, thereby suspending his reason and independent thought. The mind becomes rigid, rejecting the other. Instead of investing his time in study and learning, the fanatic becomes preoccupied with tracking others' errors and refuting them — an endless task, in which each new response only multiplies hostility in direct proportion. The victims of this discourse of fanaticism come to live within a cycle of mutual hatred toward anyone who disagrees with them, spreading a culture of hostility and rejection of "the other" throughout society — which, in turn, leads to extremism and terrorism. Indeed, throughout history, and to this day, those consumed by such fanaticism have frequently resorted to violence.
Third: Disparaging Scholars
This includes belittling the standing of scholars, casting doubt upon their religious integrity and beliefs, prying into their inner convictions, as well as calling for the wholesale abandonment of the recognized schools of jurisprudence, and disowning the efforts of our past scholars and imams.
Fourth: Detachment from Reality
This pitfall becomes evident through certain topics that are given disproportionate attention. While people live through crises known only to Allah, the Exalted, we find someone devoting an entire episode to the prohibition of shaving one's beard, or to the obligation of placing a sutrah (barrier) in front of oneself during prayer — matters that are, in reality, subjects of legitimate scholarly disagreement. Devoting an entire episode or book to such matters will not contribute in any meaningful way to the civilizational advancement of the ummah. Indeed, the room for disagreement on such matters is wide enough to accommodate everyone, since these are not matters of creed ('aqīdah) upon which a person's faith itself depends.
Fifth: The Use of Myths and Fabricated Stories
A heavenly religion is built upon divine text, which is what must be conveyed to people. Resorting instead to stories, myths, and outright fabrications is among the most egregious practices used in religious discourse — despite the fact that such material is pleasant to the ear, readily accepted by people's hearts, numbing to the mind, and often moving to tears. An example of this is what circulates about "Shaykh Aḥmad, Servant of the Noble Prophetic Chamber," and his well-known "message," which claims that if you forward it, good will come to you, but if you ignore it, ruin and calamity await, and great misfortunes will befall you. Similarly, some preachers narrate stories that have no authentic basis or chain of transmission whatsoever, which they pick up from ordinary people and spread among them as though they were sacred text: "this girl became paralyzed because she disobeyed her mother," "that boy went insane because he refused his father's command," "another man became impoverished because he did not donate to such-and-such organization," "this woman contracted cancer because she did not wear the ḥijāb," and countless similar tales — all of which reinforce a distorted conception of Allah as one who only punishes His servants, rather than as the Merciful, the Forgiving, the Pardoner of sins and shortcomings.
This is but a glimpse of a much larger picture, but I wished to touch briefly upon these pitfalls so that the seriousness of the matter becomes clear. Anyone following religious discourse online will recognize that, taken as a whole, it has drifted from its intended purpose, and carries within it a range of destructive and off-putting negative elements.
All of this froth — which we observe in religious discourse online — rises to the surface in the name of religion, distorting its image rather than reflecting its true reality.
The Pressing Question: How Can Religious Institutions Help Regulate Religious Discourse Online?
Undoubtedly, this is a broad and multifaceted issue, but I will offer a number of insights on the topic to serve as a foundation for answering this question — distinguishing between "regulating religious discourse" in the sense of improving its quality, reliability, and professional accountability, and imposing strict censorship over religious opinions. The first meaning is built upon taking the initiative and competing [with lower-quality content] to raise public awareness through discussion and comparison — a matter of da‘wah and cultural engagement, which is the focus of this article. The second is built upon prohibition, control, restriction, and suppression — a matter closely tied to freedom of expression and intellectual pluralism, along with the laws and regulations governing them, which is a legal matter [outside the scope of this discussion].
For religious institutions to effectively regulate the pace of what is published online, they must become proactive— not merely passive, reactive entities. Among the measures that can help achieve this are the following:
The Presence of Official Institutions in the Online Space
Nature abhors a vacuum. If religious institutions retreat entirely behind their traditional means of communication, they will lose a great deal — their voice will carry little resonance, and they may well enter a state of clinical death, before eventually passing into Allah's mercy [i.e., becoming entirely irrelevant].
It has therefore become essential for these religious institutions to operate through verified accounts to project their voice, to provide dedicated platforms for answering sharī‘ah-related questions, to build accessible digital databases of fatwas and research, and to make use of short videos, podcasts, and live broadcasts to reach broader segments of society. What is required of these institutions is not merely a presence that proves they are "still alive," but rather genuine competitiveness, distinction, and creativity. Achieving this requires the following step:
Digitally Equipping Preachers and Scholars
Since the internet has become a competitive arena, scholars and preachers must be equipped to operate according to the rules of this space — in terms of communication skills, engaging and compelling writing, and speaking in a clear, accessible manner, all while preserving the institution's distinct visual identity. This leads us to the next step:
Presenting Religious Content in a Trustworthy and Engaging Manner
Trust is among the most important bridges connecting religious institutions with the public. These institutions must therefore ensure that everything they produce — whether written, audio, or visual — is accurate, free from any ulterior considerations, with due regard only for the pleasure of the Creator, Glorified is He, rather than the approval of any official or audience. That said, this trustworthy content must also be presented in an elegant and engaging manner — for just as a gift placed in an attractive box and wrapped in beautiful paper increases in value to its recipient, so too does content require attention to presentation and technical quality, alongside scholarly accuracy.
It is worth noting here that the online audience is vast, broad, and diverse — encompassing women and men, young and old, the educated and otherwise, the learned and the unlearned, believers and atheists. Each of these groups should be able to find something suited to them within this discourse, in terms of topic diversity and accessible, simple language. This brings us to one of the most important duties that must be undertaken:
Combating Misleading or Incorrect Religious Information
Erroneous, incorrect, or misleading information leads religious people astray. To confront this distortion, specialized media units must be established to monitor rumors and anomalous fatwas circulating online, expose their flaws and errors, and refute and correct them using sound sharī‘ah evidence. This leads us to one of the most important methods of correction and awareness raising:
Dialogue and Openness
One-way communication is no longer effective in this era, given the proliferation of discussion forums and dialogue spaces among people. These spaces for discussion must therefore be opened, and platforms for dialogue must be secured — spaces in which awareness increases, trust grows, and bridges of communication are built — so that these institutions are not confined merely to a virtual presence. This encourages people to raise their problems and share their ways of thinking, which in turn facilitates communication with them, rather than institutions entrenching themselves behind screens and allowing this to become a barrier between the institution and the people. This naturally leads to the necessity of organizing such dialogues and participation, which requires:
Establishing Professional and Ethical Standards for Digital Religious Discourse
This is achieved by emphasizing the values of moderation and balance, and respecting disagreement — which does not mean agreeing with another's opinion, but rather respecting their right to hold one. This approach leads us to curb the discourse of incitement, accusations of sinfulness, innovation, and disbelief, and the defamation and attempted "elimination" of one's "opponent." There is, therefore, no alternative but to encourage transparency in presenting the various and differing juristic opinions, free from fanaticism, while clarifying the spirit of breadth and accommodation found within our upright religion.
Conclusion
What is required, then, is for religious institutions to establish clear priorities for religious discourse and to adhere to them, steering clear of the online froth that has begun to rise to the surface — froth that harms rather than benefits, and divides rather than unites. In my view, these priorities can be summarized under two headings: form and substance.
As for form: it involves using the gentle, inviting language that Allah, the Exalted, commanded Mūsā and Hārūn, peace be upon them, to use with Pharaoh, where He says (what means): "And speak to him with gentle speech that perhaps he may be reminded or fear [Allah]" [Ṭāhā/44]. It likewise means emulating the manner of our Prophet ﷺ, of whom Allah says (what means): "So by mercy from Allah, [O Muḥammad], you were lenient with them. And if you had been rude [in speech] and harsh in heart, they would have disbanded from about you. So pardon them and ask forgiveness for them and consult them in the matter" [Āl ‘Imrān/159]. Gentleness of tongue and heart is the language that truly influences and moves people.
As for substance: it means focusing on topics that genuinely matter to society, and steering away from subjects that are already well-established, self-evident matters of the religion. Muslims, for example, are monotheists, and there are no polytheists among them — so we should not waste time expounding on shirk and its various forms, making shirk and the nullifiers of tawḥīd our constant preoccupation, as though we were living in a society where the majority of people were non-Muslim. Yes, Islamic creed ('aqīdah) is the foundation of the religion, and no structure can be built without a foundation — and the foundation of creed is belief in the existence of Allah, the Exalted, and His absolute Oneness in Essence, Attributes, and Actions, which strengthens the individual's certainty in Allah, Glorified is He, alone.
Following this, focus should shift to the rulings governing acts of worship and transactions, which regulate a person's relationship with his Lord and his relationship with his fellow human beings, and then to encouraging noble character — for truthfulness, trustworthiness, sincerity, faithfulness, justice, kindness, and mercy are moral values without which a person's religion cannot stand upright, and which also strengthen individual character and protect the fabric of society — all while taking into account the general public one is addressing, so as not to speak to them in a manner beyond their actual circumstances, which could scatter their thinking.
Finally, there must be a reminder of the ummah's greater causes: such as the Palestinian cause, Al-Quds ash-Sharīf (Jerusalem), the rejection of division and disagreement, calls for unity and solidarity, the challenges of development, the obstacles to civilizational progress, and discussions of issues such as poverty, unemployment, and social justice.
With this ordering of formal and substantive priorities, the performance of religious discourse will improve, and its outcomes — for both the individual and society — will likewise improve. And Allah is the Grantor of success.
