Accountability from A Muslim's Perspective:

Reflections and realizations

By Yusuf Roque Morales

Introduction:

Leaders, has been said to be the binding fiber of a society, it is in their

hands that a community, a society or a country may either rise or fall. And yet,
at times, we forget that indeed in a democratic society such as ours,
sometimes, there are those leaders who fail to be accountable to their
community in in fact the paradigm of al-Insan al-Khilafatul ard (Man is the
custodian of the earth is forgotten and is barely remembered when the gavel of
rulership is handed over to them.

Public Ethics and Accountability is indeed one of the most controversial

topics ever to be discussed. This has always been the issue with many states
and governments, whether Muslim, Christian or highly sectarianized .This may
be so because corruption and lack of accountability have become something of
a cancer eating into the fabric of society and uprooting every social value,
structure and institution from its very foundations.

Many critics of Islam have pointed out that there is a clear disparity in
practice of Muslim groups and individuals for condoning or ignoring acts of
corruption. There is a need for us to affirm that the most effective response to
all criticisms is calm, reasoned discourse and active practice of open
accountability by Muslim groups and individuals.

Given the topic there can be said two be two angles where we can
discuss this topic. The first is to assert, with all sense of self-righteousness,
the truism that Islam preaches probity and accountability.

1
Discourse on Public Accountability and Ethics:

A typical lecture of this sort would involve citing of passages from the
Holy Quran that would equate Accountability and Correct Leadership
(Ai'immarah) with Piety including c itations from the Life and works of the Holy
Prophet, anecdotes from the lives of the Khulafa al-Rashidin,
the Sahaba, the Tabi'in and great pious rulers like ‘Umar ibn Abdul 'Azeez.

This would result to everyone applauding and feeling good after listening
to a well-cited and well read speech and lecture.

But if one would engage in this it would only lead to an exercise best
described as the giving in to the audience's collective egos and whims (if you
forgive the term) . It states the obvious, avoids the difficult and in no way
contributes to the purpose of such a gathering. To say that Islam teaches and
advocates good leadership and accountability, and to try to prove it to a
Muslim audience, is a useless intellectual exercise.

It will only serve the purpose of Tahseel al-haseel (attaining that which is
already attained); for every Muslim surely knows that not just Islam, but every
world-view or civilization worth its name, preaches accountability and probity.
Even Godless systems do so as evidenced by the recent execution in
Communist China of fourteen persons for acts of financial corruption. And as
such we cannot say that only Islam has the moral ascendancy over the
paradigm of Ethics and accountability.

However, one may apply a more logical,realistic, less palatable and

certainly more offensive to certain sensibilities. It is an approach which asks a
historically valid question which begs eternally to be answered: why is it that
despite the fact that we all know, academically or intuitively, that corruption in
all its forms is against Islamic Law, it remains a pervasive feature permeating
Muslim communities?

2
 A typical example is the present ruling regimes around the Muslim world
that has leaders who have been in power for quite a long time already and that
despite the length of service supposedly, there has been no notable changes in
the life of the common man in these countries.

One would be posed to ask why do we have Muslim leaders, including

those who have ruled in the recent past, not been a symbol of Public service
and accountability? Why has the crime of corruption not engaged the Muslim
mind with the same intensity as, say, the absence of the hijab among women
or the exclusion of hudud (fixed punishments) from the Penal Code? In simple
terms, why is it that over a long period and spreading over a large part of the
Muslim world, the teachings of Islam on probity and accountability have been
one thing, the practice of Muslim people and their leaders a completely
different thing?It appears that there is a marked disparity in the way that
leaders view social values.

This would mean that the answer to this question is to be found

necessarily in a reasoned analysis of the anatomy of corruption, specifically (1)
how it came to be embedded in the body politic of the Muslim Community
(ummah) (2) how the Ummah's mindset was conditioned to tolerate it and (3)
how an elaborate legal framework was set-up which,however ,effectively by-
passes the menace, allowing it to thrive even where an Islamic legal system is,
in theory, operational.

Perhaps it is about time to conduct an analytic probe into the history of

Public service, administration and corruption as well as see the lessons we may
have learned theirein.

The first point is an excursion into history, specifically the fitnah, the
early conflicts and the end of the Khulafa Ar-Rashidun. (the righteous Caliphs,
ie, Abubakr, Umar, Uthman (RTA) and Ali (Karamallahu wajah)).

3
 The second is a look into the philosophy and particularly ethics, pointing
out the misapprehension of the necessary connection between metaphysical
theism and our morality which, I will argue, represents some degree of
impairment to our conception of Tawhid, and our full belief in the absolute
unity of Allah the One as the source of our existence and values;

The third is looking into Shariah law as we know it, and an examination
of the limitations imposed on its scope by politics as well as the failure of
scholars to rise to the responsibilities implied by the flexibility of its
injunctions.

The paper therefore is a look into the discousre of Public accountability

and the historical and philosopical antecedents during the early ages of islam
hoping that they would serve as reminders and guidances to us Muslim and
non-muslims in the 14th century Hijrah.

This papermay appear to be uncomfortable to some, tumultuous to

others, sickening to a few, but hopefully in the end worthwhile and enriching,
opening before us new vistas in thinking, breaking old barriers and challenging
the structures which served as mitigants to the progress of the Ummah in this
regard.

Examples of Exemplary Leadership and Public Accountability of the

Early Leaders of Islam

The coming of Islam and the establishment of the Madinatun-Nabi (also

known as the prophetic state) marked a fountain of exemplary leadership in
the area of Leadership and accountability. The spirit of Islam was trully
watered with the the Sunnah of the Prophet (S.A.W.) was maintained
throughout the reign of three out of the four caliphs of the early period and
over a substantial part of the Caliphate of Uthman.

4
 The shining examples set by Abubakar, Umar (RTA) and Ali(Karamallahu
wajah) will not fit in the context of this paper,but we will try to do justice by
noting some of their significant accomplishments.

After his election in Saqifah, the first khutbah of Abubakar (RA) set the
tone for his leadership: "Now O People! I have been made your ruler though I
am not the best among you. If I do what is right support me. If I do what is
wrong set me right. Follow what is true for it contains faithfulness, avoid what
is false for it contains treachery. The weaker among you shall in my eyes be
the stronger, until, if Allah will, I have redressed his wrong; the stronger shall
in my eyes be the weaker until, if Allah will, I have enforced justice upon him.
Let the people not cease fighting in Allah's way lest He abase them; let not evil
practices arise among the people, lest Allah bring punishment upon all of them.
Obey me as I obey Allah and His messenger; if I disobey them, then do you
disobey me". These are the words of a man changed neither his residence nor
his mode of living when he became a ruler. He refused to take a salary until his
companions forced him and even then, on his deathbed he commanded that all
he had received from the treasury during his tenure should be counted up and
repaid out of his property and his lands.”1

Looking at the actions of the Second Caliph, Umar b. al-Khattab who

said in his second sermon to his people: "O people! It is your duty, if I show
certain evil qualities, to reprove me for them. You must see that I do not exact
from you any tax or anything of what Allah has given you, except that which
He allows. You must see that when I have control of the money nothing should
be spent improperly…etc". This is 'Umar, who used to say: "The property of
Allah has the same standing with me as that of an orphan; If I have no need of
it, I will leave it untouched, and if I need it, I will take only what is right".
Asked what his entitlement from the treasury should be, Umar replied: "Two
sets of clothing, one for the summer, one for the winter. Enough to perform the

1 Sahih Al-Bukhari 1/69;Sahih Muslim 1/306

5
Hajj and sufficient to provide me with food for myself and my household on the
level of a man of Quraish who is neither overrich nor overpoor`. Beyond that I
am an ordinary Muslim, and I share the lot of all Muslims"2.

One cannot forget Ali (Karamallahu Wajhah), commander of the Faithful,

who took over the caliphate at a time of great tumult, and who was grievously
wronged by the dissent of some Companions? Ali who used to eat barley meal,
hand ground by his wife, and who used to seal the meal-bag with the words "I
like to know what is entering my stomach". Ali who as Amir used often to sell
his sword to get money to buy food and clothing, who preferred living among
the poor than stay in the capital of Kufah. 'Utba ibn 'Alqama once visited Ali
and found him sitting with sour curds in front of him. Their sourness and
dryness vexed 'Utba who said: " O Commander of the Faithful do you eat this
stuff?" He answered " Abu Janub, Allah's Messenger used to eat it drier than
this and used to wear clothes coarser than these" - and he pointed to his own
clothes - "and if I do not accept what he did, then I fear I will not join him in
the hereafter". The piety and asceticism of Ali are legendary.3

The leadership and governance of these three Companions were

noteworthy, being both pious and steadfast.

The Umayyad Legacy of negative management.

It would be noted that we have skipped the third Caliph, Uthman

(RA),also known as Zun-nurain, the son-in-law of the Prophet. Uthman,
compiler of the Qur'an provider for the companions in times of need.

One cannot question the greatness of Uthman in Islam . But the truth,
and the truth be said, is that no discussion of accountability and probity in
Islam and how the Muslim Ummah lost these values is complete without a
discussion of the reign of Uthman and, more profoundly, the rule of his clan,
the Umayyads over the Muslim world.

2 ibid
3 Razi, Syed, Sharh Nahjul Balagha, Darul Iman, Beirut Lebanon

6
 The Caliphate was passed over to Uthman in old age and lasted for 12
years. The first six years were in keeping with the Sunnah of the Messenger
and of the Shaykhayn (Abubakr and 'Umar). Then old age set in, and some of
'Uthman's greatest strengths became weaknesses - he loved his family, and in
old age became hostage to them. He was generous in spirit and in old age
allowed profligacy with public funds4. He held that as Imam he had the right to
give public funds as gifts and allowances.

When Harith ibn al-Hakam married Uthman's daughter, the latter gave
hin 200,000 dirhams from the public Treasury leading to a showdown with and
removal of Zaid ibn Arqam from his position as treasurer. 'Uthman gave al-
Zubair 600,000 dirhams one day, and Talha 200,000 and presented his cousin
Marwan b. Hakam with one-fifth of the land tax of the entire province of
Ifriqiyya. The Companions expostulated with him but he insisted that he had a
duty to take care of his relatives and kinsmen.5

Most of the latter day actions of Uthman were carried out under the
influence of his family, the Bamu Umayya. Abu Sufyan, the prophet's arch-
enemy who refused to join Islam until the defeat of his forces in Makkah, and
who even after joining Islam had nothing but contempt for Islamic values,
especially the high esteem in which early Companions who he considered
"slaves" like Bilal, Salman and Suhaib were held, was still alive. Like a mother-
hen, he gathered his flock around him. He guided his son, Muawiya, his
nephews Uthman and Marwan b. Hakam, and other Umayyads like al-Hakam b.
al-As [who had been expelled by the prophet but rehabilitated by 'Uthman],
Abdullah ibn. Sa'd ibn Abi Sarh, and so on. Marwan had unlimited control of
the Treasury, he dispensed gifts as he wished, supported oppressive Umayyad
governors and ruthlessly destroyed dissenting voices.6

4 Musawi, Abdul-Husayn Sharaffuddin, Al-Murajaat, Darul Liban, Beirut, Lebanon 1355 AH/1936 CE
5 As-Samawi, Muhammad Al-Tijani, Inna Maasadiqin, Darul Liban Beirut Lebanon,1975
6 ibid

7
 Abu Zarr (RTA), the prophet's companion was exiled for his strident
criticism of the prodigality of the Umayyads. At the end of the day, the
excesses of Uthman's appointees led to the fitnah in which he was sadly killed.
But the seeds of corruption had been sown. What was ironic in this period that
became the trend for those who criticized abuse and holding these leaders
accountable was either exile or assassination. This was the beginning of the
fitnah (trials) that tested the Muslim leaders over accountability.

'Ali (Karamallahu Wajah) took over the Khilafah at a point when the
Umayyads had been strengthened. They had control of armies and had
amassed substantial wealth. Under the pretext of fighting for the blood of
Uthman the Umayyads waged a war against the seat of Islamic power, the
caliphate, but no sooner had Ali died than did it become apparent that all they
wanted was power.

Muawiya appointed himself the "first of the Muslim Arab Kings", forced
everyone to accept him and his conversion of the Khilafa into a hereditary
monarchy with his son, Yazid as his successor. Muawiya fought Ali with the aid
of the Kalbi Arab tribes and the old Syrian aristocracy and set up a new
political economy which Nazih Ayubi describes as a "lineage/Iqta'i symbiosis".
The Umayyads became feudal lords; their Jahili pride in Arab supremacy
became once more ascendant and non-Arabs were gradually marginalized. All
restrictions on the public treasury were removed and it became a legitimate
source of public plunder for the kings, their courtiers and their sycophants.7

This was the system that lasted over one hundred years with the one
exception of the Umayyad Caliph 'umar ibn Abdul-Aziz. So we see how in the
formative period of Islam a corrupt aristocracy without regard for
accountability and probity ruled the Ummah.

7 Ibid

8
 It is inevitable that the long reign of the Umayyads set the tone for how
subsequent Muslim leaders would see themselves. The attitude continued
throughout Islam's long history.

Even today, in the oil-rich sheikhdoms of the Muslim world, the Royal
families are not accountable to the people in their management of the
Treasury, to mince words, not exactly a paragon of accountability and probity.8

All of this has been made possible by an intellectual superstructure, a moral

philosophy that encourages acquiescence to the rule of corrupt and despotic
rulers. Although the Umayyads themselves were beneficiaries of a rebellion
against Ali, it soon became standard Sunni doctrine that rebellion against
unjust and corrupt rulers was unIslamic. In what follows I examine the nature
of this philosophy, and then proceed to the legal superstructure to which it
gave rise [in the name of the Shariah] before concluding.

Evolving Moral Ethics as Philosophy for Public Service and

Accountability.

A system can not survive for a long time without conditioning the mind-
set of the populace. The early Muslim monarchies, despite everything said
above, played major roles in prosecuting Jihads and expanding the frontiers of
the empire, providing the young faith with the political and military protection
required for its survival.

Eventually as a process, people came to accept bribery and corruption as

an acceptable feature of political leadership9.

This accommodation was attained partly by the genuine conviction that

the benefits of political stability outweighed the costs of corruption; partly
through the ruthless suppression of political dissent and denial of fundamental
Human rights and freedoms10; but also largely through an elaborate
8 Speech of Usama Bn Laden, released August 21, 2003
9 This became the rallying point of findamentalists that Muslim leaders have become corrupt and has lost taste for
following Islamic Law and thus managed to get people into fundamentalism, thus causing more harm than benefit
10 Speech of Usama Bn Laden, released August 21, 2003

9
philosophical framework, principally within Sunni Islam, which makes it an
Islamic duty to "listen and obey" corrupt despots so long as they pray.

The question of ethics in public policy is a fundamental philosophical

question, which is relevant to all states and societies. Islamic philosophy in all
its dimensions ultimately goes back to the principle of Tawhid [Monotheism].
Allah is the source of all knowledge, all guidance, all existence and all morality.
A truly Islamic epistemology, ethic, ideology or science must therefore find its
locus within the Divine Reality, and fit into the essential unity of Allah, the One.

It seems to me that somewhere along the line, Islamic ethics in the area
of public policy lost its essential contact with Divine Reality. The ulama,
deliberately or by accident, gave prominence to certain hadiths which were
interpreted in a manner that made it incumbent on people to and accept
leaders who were lacking in ethics of leadership and accountability. This was
the experience of Sunni Islam in a lot of the states that their leaders were
elected or taken hold of positions.

Due to circumstances of history, a different trend occurs among the

Shiites, due to a history of being oppressed by the ruling class and a history of
martyrdom among its leaders the principle of 'Adliyah, [justice] like
the Imamah, [leadership] is one of the Pillars of Islam according to Shii
11
thought.

Most of the philosophical discourse around Adl roots it squarely in the

principle of Tawhid. Allah is a Just Lord, Who loves Truth and Honesty. It is
therefore inconceivable that anyone who believes in Allah can perpetrate or
tolerate injustice.12

11 Nasr, Seyyed Hossein, Shi'a, Ansariyyan Publications, 1998, Qum, IRAN

12 ibid

10
 It is in a similar vein that other sects like the Kharijites resisted the
attempt by early Muslims to exclude certain groups from leadership on account
of clan, tribe, race or even gender. It was considered inconsistent with Divine
Justice as expressed clearly in the Qur'an.13

Bringing us to the question of ethics, which is a recurring debate in

philosophy. According to Iris Murdoch,a British moral Philosopher, who
believed in the metaphysical foundation of morality. She argues convincingly
for the existence of a metaphysical reality, the Good, which we perceive by our
very perception of the imperfection of our world. Yet having laid the foundation
for a metaphysical ethics, Murdoch says the Good is not God - she accepts the
existence of this transcendental Reality but denies the Reality a will and an
effect. To the best of my understanding, this is the point of departure between
Iris Murdoch and moral philosophers among Christian Theologians.

The debate in our own moral philosophy is similar. Our scholars [by
which is implied Sunni Scholars and Theologians] have never gone to the
extent of denying Allah a role in our lives. What they have done, in the context
of the ethics of public officers is to build a shield between our morality and its
source, the Divine presence14.

Our metaphysics is not in substance Murdochian, yet it effectively lands

us in the same muddles as Iris Murdoch. A Muslim who believes in Allah the
All-seeing [Al-Basir] does not lock himself in a room and turnout the light
believing he can commit injustices and be impartial to his constituents and
escape. The same with one who believes in Al-Sami' [the All-Hearing]. He does
not speak things in private, which are prohibited by Allah. In exactly the same
way, a Muslim who believes in Allah the Just can not stand injustice.
Corruption, nepotism and abuse of office are manifestations of injustice.15

13 Razi, Syed, Sharh Nahjul Balagha, Darul Iman, Beirut Lebanon

14 ibid
15 “Letter of Imam Ali to Malik Ashtar upon deputizing his as Governor of Egypt”, Razi, Syed, Sharh Nahjul Balagha,
Darul Iman, Beirut Lebanon

11
 Corruption in the Muslim psyche has been facilitated by the severance of
the organic link between our moral philosophy and its Metaphysical roots in the
Divine Reality. A proper apprehension of Allah, His Beautiful Names(al-asma'
al-husna) and His Exalted Attributes(as-sifat al-'ula) must necessarily
transform our ethic such that we not only seek to imbibe or emulate the moral
good, we actually are moved, compelled, to seek its enthronement.

As a result, the greatest tragedy in Sunni thought is its hatred of

philosophy and philosophers and its enthronement of the legalistic rulings of
jurists over all facets of our life. The priorities and constraints of the
environment in which the jurists lived often conditioned these rulings.

The continued refusal of this Ummah to break away from the

constriction of taqlid ("blind copying") and the closing of the door to ijtihad will
only lead to a perpetuation of the social structures, priorities and value-
systems of the environments in which the rulings were made.

Even the authenticity of hadiths and the validity of their interpretation

must be established after accounting for the impact of the environment on the
narrators and interpreters. Most fundamentally, the principles of Tawhid, an
apprehension the Allah's Asma' [Names] and Sifat [Attributes], must continue
to be the inspiration for our moral, political and other philosophies. We will now
briefly touch on the Shariah and how the ascendant philosophical outlook has
restricted its scope.

The Shariah and Public Sector Corruption.

In the time of the prophet [S. A. W.] the government was not a major
economic force. The role of the prophet was largely that of a guide, a judge
and a military commander.

12
 The government treasury received zakat and fai' for distribution but the
major revenue flows and expenditures on social welfare, defence and the
bureaucracy that later came to typify the state were virtually non-existent - It
is natural that the crime of public sector corruption should not be a major
feature of such a society not just because of the limited finance of the state
but also, and more fundamentally, because of the quality of persons managing
these funds and the presence of the Prophet of Allah among them.

Thus although the Qur'an did come up with verses which showed the
prohibition of corruption, its occurrence was rare and its punishment
/deterrence was therefore not the pre-occupation of the Shariah at that stage .
We find a greater focus on offences like theft, adultery, intoxication and slander
- crimes of a largely personal nature, which was a reflection of the limited
nature of public sector crimes.

With the passage of time and the conquest of the early empire, the
coffers of the state were filled with treasures managed by human beings whose
fear of Allah was decreasing by the day. Corruption became a cancer in public
life, as we have shown.

The Umayyads established a hereditary kingship, nepotism and the

appropriation of booty and property and profits.

Muawiya himself made it clear in his sermon in Kufa and Madinah that he
had fought for power and would reap the benefits from it. The early Muslims
did fight against this Umayyad mind-set. There was the great rebellion against
'Uthman. Then there was the rebellion of the Hijaz against Yazid ibn Muawiya.

There was the Qarmatian revolt. All of these and many more were
directed against exploitation, arbitrary power, class distinction and other
features of a system without accountability and probity.

13
 The striking thing about all of this is that the fight against corruption was
16
always waged by those outside the establishment.

Throughout the reign of the Umayyads, Abbasids, Fatimids etc, the

Muslim world was governed by the Shariah, and by the system of civil and
criminal Law recognised as distinctive of Muslim societies. Zakat was collected,
the hands of thieves were cut off, and the courts continued to administer
capital punishment for murder, apostasy and rebellion.

Yet those who supervised the implementation of Shariah were

themselves corrupt - and, seemingly, above the law. This is the question that I
hope to address.

We would like to contextualize that this form of corruption has not only
existed only in our forebears , but also is prevalent in different parts of the
Muslim world and even here in the Philippines, particularly in the ARMM areas.

A government can claim to be implementing Shariah, cut off the hands of

a thief who steals a cow or money, force women to dress in a particular way,
collect zakat for distribution etc, without coming out with strong sanction for
corruption in public office. This has been the problem of the Taliban, although it
had insisted that it was engaging in the implementation of Islamic law, it
however was one of the biggest traffickers of illegal drugs and narcotics,
having the largest opium poppy fields in the world.

This has led some people to the false impression that the Shariah is a
law designed to punish the poor while allowing leaders to go scot-free. Nothing
can be further from the truth.

We would like to impress that what is described above is inconsistent with

Shariah, but its interpretation by society at different points in time in a manner

16 Tabatabaie, Allamah Husain, Islamic Teachings in Brief, WOFIS, 1985, Tehran Iran

14
consistent with the dominant world-view of the leaders and ulama in that
society. It is not the eternal law revealed by Allah but its interpretation and
crystalisation in time and space.

It is perhaps fair to say that the rudimentary nature of political structures

in the Muslim world, the absence of effective checks and balances and the low
political consciousness of civil society have contributed to this state of affairs.
It is however, equally important to recognize fundamental flaws in our
understanding of Islamic Law.

Criminal/Civil Law in Islam divides offences, from the perspective of

sanction, into three categories. Hadd offences [jara'im al-hudud] are those
which attract a fixed and non-negotiable punishment once established. These
include adultery & fornication, apostasy, drinking, rebellion, slander and
highway robbery. Qisas and Diyah offences [jara'im al - qisas wad-diyah] are
those which are retributive in nature, but which can be substituted by some
payment in kind as restitution, or forgiven by the injured party or his heirs 17.
These include murder, manslaughter and bodily harm. A third
category, Ta'zeer offences [jara'im at-ta'azeer] refers to everything that is
prohibited in the Qur'an or Sunnah but for which a punishment is not
prescribed under Hadd or Qisas and Diyah. Understanding this point is critical
to understanding Islamic Civil and Criminal Law. There has been a lot of
polemic over the limits of punishment for ta'azeer offences. Abdul Rahman
'Audah has a detailed discussion of these including justification for including
offences not specified in the Qur'an and Sunnah but which affect "general
interest" of society, in his classic work on Islamic Criminal Law [at-tashri' al-
jina'I al-Islami]18

What interests us here is that for all offences defined as Ta'azir offences the
Shariah provides a range of sanctions.

These are:

17 Baqr As-Sadr, Muhammad, Introduction to Fiqh, Darul Imaan, 1975, Beirut Lebanon
18

15
a] threat of punishment

b] whipping or caning

c] humiliation

d] detention or jailing

e] crucifixion or execution

f] exile.

These offences have been extracted by scholars from the Qur'an, Sunnah and
Ijma'.

Now we know that the Qur'an prohibits many things without specifying
the punishment for the offenders. For example, we know that bribery is an
offence, that nepotism, in the sense of appointing an incompetent person to
office, is an offence, that consuming wealth of orphans is an offence, that
spreading fasad [evil] and fahisha [obscenity] among the Ummah are offences
etc. If the Hakim at a point in time chooses not to punish an offence severely
[and we have said his options are as severe as the death sentence] it is not
because the Shariah does not provide for it but because either the judge or the
government does not consider it a problem.

As we live in an environment in which these offences bother all of us,

[corruption, religious intolerance, destruction of places of worship, mediocrity
in the name of quota system, tribalism and ethnic genocide etc.] we must
remember that Sharia explicitly prohibits each of them and also allows the
state to punish with a range of punishments including jailing and death. The
choice however reflects our own values, not of the Shariah.

That corruption has for so long remained unpunished is a reflection of the

underlying moral philosophy, which has come to permeate our collective
consciousness, deadening the sense of outrage and revulsion against this

16
heinous and cancerous crime.

Reflection:

The Qur’an calls for fair, open and ethical behavior in all dealings and
transactions. As one example, Verse 2:282 requires that financial transactions
be made through witnessed, written contracts. Numerous other verses exhort
believers to fulfill their contracts faithfully and testify honestly (see, e.g.,
Verses 4:135, 5: 89. or 5:108). Honesty, accountability, reliable bookkeeping,
and dependability should be the hallmarks of Muslim organizations.

Nonetheless, as the Quran asserts, the lapses of others do not offer any
excuse for lapses on our own part (see, for instance, Verse 5:8 which teaches
Muslims that hatred or prejudice are never a reason to swerve from justice).
The standards of accountability and transparency laid out in the Qur’an are the
standards we should aim for, whether or not we receive approbation from the
greater community, and whether or not they have different standards for
Muslim versus non-Muslim organizations.

Calm response to any criticism, whether or not that criticism is fair, is

consistent with Qur’anic exhortations to gentle discourse, rational debate, and
the Islamic tradition of courtesy (see, for instance, 6:125). Not only does
rational discourse fulfill Qur’anic ideals, but it presents the community in a
favorable light, and illuminates the hostility behind ill-motivated attacks.

These principles go far beyond organizational proprieties. They extend to

our ability to address larger issues. Yes, the crisis in Darfur has roots in neo-
colonialism and global warming; yes, female genital mutilation and so-called
“honor killings” are cultural practices and not really Islamic; but whatever the
cause or scope of the problems in the community of believers we must be
responsible and accountable if we are ever to solve them.

Simply put, a problem involving Muslims, whether or not it is an Islamic

issue, is a Muslim problem. It is never enough to neglect our internal

17
housekeeping by making excuses or blaming others. We have a duty as
Muslims to improve ourselves and our world. From the smallest problem to the
most complex, we can only find solutions by being open and responsible.

We have attempted to cover in this paper the origin and nature of

corruption in the public affairs of the Muslim Ummah, the philosophy which has
nourished it and the legal superstructure which, elaborate as it is, has been
seemingly designed by lawmakers to side-step it. We would like to emphasized
that we have not yet exhausted all the issues relevant to this topic. It is
hoped that this paper has given us all food for thought and contributed to our
outstanding of Islamic history, philosophy and law.

If this paper may have sounded too critical of some aspects of Muslim
thought, please accept this clarification: the writer has implicit respect and
love for generations gone by.

However, no one is perfect and it is only by learning from mistakes of the

past and questioning "received wisdom" that change is possible. "Allah does
not change what is with a people unless they change themselves".

It should be self-evident that any and all public organizations should

adhere to ethics of conduct that include transparency of responsibility and
bookkeeping. We appreciate that such a simple, clear standard is complicated
by mounting government secrecy, racism, Islamophobia, and xenophobia, but
even with these considerations in mind, we affirm that organizational and
financial transparency, and being open to constructive criticism are in the best
interest of all organizations.

Selected Bibliography:

• Quranil Kareem, various commentators and editions

18
 • Nahjul Balagha, various commentators and publishers

• Sahih Bukhari,_________________

• Sahih Muslim, _____________

• Al-Murajaat, by Abdul Husayn Sharafuddin Musawi

• Inna Maassadiqin, by Muhammad Tijani as-Samawi

• Shia, by Dr. Seyyed Hossein Nasr

• Teachings of Islam in Brief, by Allamah Hussein Tabatabai'e

• Introduction to Fiqah, by Muhammad Baqr As-Sadr

19