Abstract
At the 2021 conference of the Society for the Study of Christian Ethics, Linda Woodhead presented a paper entitled ‘Truth and Deceit in Institutions’. Amra Bone was then invited to deliver a response to this paper drawing on her knowledge of Islamic traditions and culture. This article is her response. The article highlights the importance the Qur’anic scripture gives to justice and neither distorting nor refusing to give testimony. It then briefly explores the Arabic term Kufr found in the Qur’an. Whilst more commonly interpreted to mean disbelief, this term literally means hiding or covering up truth. Dishonesty can therefore be equated to disbelief which makes it a very serious matter for Muslims. Therefore ethics determine that the road to greater institutional honesty must be adopted. In Islamic Law the end does not justify the means; rather the outcome rests with God alone and the responsibility given to men and women is to act honestly and ethically. For any institution or society to develop positively, every individual must play their part and take this responsibility seriously and not to rely on a few courageous individuals.
In the Name of God the most Merciful the most Compassionate, Assalamu Alaikum, May Peace be upon you all.
Linda Woodhead's paper opens with the presentation of a scenario where a person in responsibility is confronted with gross abuse on the part of one of their employees and struggles to decide whether they should tell their trustees or keep it to themselves.
My first reaction to this was to recall the imperative stated explicitly in the Qur’an: to do justice even if it goes against myself or my family and without making any distinction between rich and poor (Qur’an 4:135). The challenge here, of course, is how this could be done without harming others or the organization. This process requires wisdom. At the Titus Trust the evidence for these crimes was concealed for some thirteen years. An ethical standpoint could not justify this course of action or in this case inaction.
Distorting testimony or refusing to give it is a major crime. A Muslim cannot be under any illusion that to hide, distort or delay is a sin and a crime. Dire warnings are given in the Qur’an to any individuals, communities or institutions that do so.
The next thought that came to me was the often poorly understood concept of Kufr/Kafir. Those who have come across these terms will probably understand a kafir to be a disbeliever, unbeliever, non-Muslim, infidel or even a more pejorative term. Most translations of the Qur’an use these crude and inaccurate interpretations, for instance the translation by Muhammad Asad, one of the most linguistically correct translations, translates kafir to mean ‘those who deny the truth’. 1
However, the root meaning of this word is ‘to cover’. In the context of belief, the word kafir means someone who knowingly covers up the truth and hence denies it. They become arrogant in the face of it and hence ungrateful to Al-Haq (the ultimate truth, God). Therefore, a Muslim is not simply a believer, but is one who consciously seeks the truth, acknowledges it and commits to it, and bows their will to God, who is the ultimate truth. This applies universally and at all levels, from the individual to the institutions.
To explain this, I often give the example of two academics: Mathematician X and Mathematician Y.
Mathematician X produced a book five years ago and continually promotes the truth of it at conferences and receives prestige and money in return. However, he is personally aware of the work of Mathematician Y which exposes an error in his work. Instead of acknowledging this he chooses to hide it or cover it up and does not acknowledge the truth of the progression of the work.
Anyone can act as a kafir. An individual could be an architect or a simple clerk of the courts, a husband, receptionist or a cleaner.
A Japanese scholar Toshihiko Izutsu in his work Ethico-Religious Concepts in the Qur’an 2 expounds the terms kufr and kafir in a number of chapters, examining them in the context of the ethical foundations of Islam.
When a Muslim pronounces the declaration of faith they do not say ‘I believe’; rather, they state ‘I witness’. They are witnessing the truth of the divine reality. The prime example of this is given as Abraham who uses his rationale and pure heart to seek truth and eventually witnesses it and bows his will to Al-Haq (The Truth, The Divine). The Arabic word used here is muslim. 3 We are reminded throughout to follow the way of Abraham.
Living ethically is at the very heart of what it means to be a Muslim. Hiding the truth is akin to being a kafir at a fundamental level. Yes, we are told that as human beings we are weak, we pile up wealth, we are unjust to the orphan, the poor, the weak and we spread corruption on earth, but at the same time we have been given the ability to overcome these weaknesses. This world is like a theatrical play; it is merely a test as opposed to the life hereafter which is eternal.
The Prophet would often remind people that this life is a prison for the believer and a garden for those who deny the truth. The reverse is true for the life to come.
To behave in the manner that Titus Trust did goes against the essence of what it means to be an ethical human being.
Institutions Rarely Lie and Rarely Tell the Truth
‘Deceit is more common’. Woodhead's exposition of deceit in institutions is excellent. 4 She explains the various factors that influence them in their decision-making processes, but notably the truth seems to take a back seat. In fact, deceit is far more sinister than lying because it gives the aura of some authenticity but at its core is pure hypocrisy. Hypocrisy (nifaq) is considered even lower than kufr and the hypocrites are considered the lowest of all human beings because they go even further in undermining the truth.
Muslims as individuals are not relieved of their personal responsibility within the institutions they work in. The institutions are comprised of individuals, and everyone is responsible to the degree of their authority and is answerable to God on the day of judgement. Many prophetic traditions reinforce this and for this reason the early Muslims accepted leadership with very heavy hearts, feeling the burden of responsibility rather than the prestige or status many leaders crave today.
Why Don't Institutions Tell the Truth
Woodhead delineates succinctly several reasons why so many institutions find it difficult to tell the truth.
Individuals lacking integrity and commitment to truth, or perhaps deluding themselves that they are acting for the good of the organization, can be responsible for injustice. We cannot sacrifice an individual or a group of people's dignity for the sake of the perceived end goal to protect an institution. Clearly, where a person in a place of responsibility has become aware of malpractice, corruption or a misdemeanour, they will have to consider various factors including financial consequences and the reputation of the institution etc.
Dealing with it is crucial, for the future good of the organization. Using means that are unethical or simply hoping the problems will go away cannot be good in the long run.
The end does not justify the means. All means to an end must be lawful (Halal) and legitimate in God's eyes. Shariah, Islamic law, is there to ensure that the means is also itself lawful and not merely what we can get away with. The spirit of the law always overrides the technicalities of the law. Examples are given of dishonest means of circumnavigating the letter of the law which are shown to undermine the objectives of the law. In Maqāṣid Shariah (objectives of Law) the spirit of the law is upheld even when this comes into conflict with the letter of the law.
The Road to Greater Institutional Honesty
Institutions are the product of the individuals within them so producing ethical individuals with personal commitment to truth will also lead to ethical institutions, as we see through Woodhead's example of the NHS trust.
The Prophet taught that our responsibility is in ensuring our actions are honest, lawful and just and the final outcome is God's responsibility as nothing can happen in this world without his will. This thus removes any potential conflict between the means and the end.
It is not a hidden fact that among the Muslim communities some Mosque Committees have power struggles. Group preference politics take place and different groups see their perspective as the only correct one. They maintain and look after the financial affairs of the mosque and facilitate daily prayers and should hold the best of characters, but some inevitably fall short of this ideal. This may lead some individuals to choose one local mosque over another to say their prayers, but for the large majority their direct connection with God is what matters and any political infighting is irrelevant. Perhaps this may be somewhat different to the institution of the Church.
The five pillars of Islam, praying, fasting, giving in charity etc., are not an end in themselves but are a process by which we refine our characters. The rigour of these disciplines should bring about positive change in those who practise them. The history of mankind is one of God allowing mankind to stray and then sending prophets and messengers to guide them back to the right path and refine their weak characters.
The Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) stated, ‘I have been sent to perfect human character’ 5 and the five pillars are the key building blocks of his methodology. Even before he began to deliver God's message his own character was clear to all, and he was given the epithets ‘the truthful’ and ‘the trustworthy’. He was often called upon to settle disputes between families and tribes and he founded an organization to support the poor, the weak and the oppressed in Meccan society.
In another tradition the Prophet said ‘Whosoever of you sees something evil, let him change it with his hand; and if he is not able to do so, then [let him change it] with his tongue; and if he is not able to do so, then with his heart—and that is the weakest of faith’. 6 So the emphasis is always on direct action to promote truth and combat falsehood.
Many Muslim institutions are actively working towards improving their working practices to make them more ethical and Muslim charities such as Islamic Relief have led the way. A key component of their strategy is to promote internal criticism to make it easy for an individual to speak out when they see something that is wrong.
Conclusion
Woodhead's paper has highlighted the difficulties that institutions face in telling the truth. These difficulties are all part of being human and it is when we are confronted with such challenges that our faith is truly tested.
Striving to act ethically, staying steadfast, following lawful means, being just and balanced in our approach, is what is required of us. Taking the right path is not always easy and there can be many obstacles along the way, but we need to show patience and perseverance and always act with integrity. The final outcome of our actions cannot always be predicted but this should not be our primary concern. If we lower our standards in the name of pragmatism, then there can be no hope for our institutions to ultimately be ethical in the way that they operate.
This can require great courage. To speak truth to a tyrant has been described as the best form of striving in God's way (jihad), and in another tradition the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) enjoined his companions to help the oppressed and help the oppressors. This confused them and led them to ask how they could help the oppressors to which he stated—by helping them to not commit oppression. 7
I would echo Woodhead's view that it is not a question of glorifying the brave individuals who do speak out and defend the truth; rather, we should create an institutional culture where criticism is accepted, welcomed and acted upon.
When the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) passed away some of his companions fell into despair. They relied upon him to be the brave individual that would call out oppression and tyranny and they could not conceive of life without his leadership and presence. However, his closest companion reprimanded them for this, saying ‘Whoever worships Muhammad should know that Muhammad died. Whoever worships God should know that God is Hayy (immortal)’. 8 He then recited the verse ‘Muhammad is no more than a Messenger: many were the Messengers that passed away before Him. If he died or was slain, will you then turn back on your heels? If any did turn back on his heels, not the least harm will he do to God; but God (on the other hand) will swiftly reward those who (serve him) with gratitude’. 9 His message was therefore that in the absence of a hero we all need to accept responsibility for our community and our institutions and share the burden of responsibility to protect the truth with honesty and integrity.
I think Woodhead has beautifully highlighted throughout her paper some of the ways in which such a positive approach can be taken and how we can effect positive change within our institutions.
