Recently, after my talk on the subject of integrity, a participant asked on the difference between “honesty” and “integrity”, and why it is that the latter is more prevalently employed. Well, I replied that perhaps it is simply because the term integrity is more emphatic in effect.
We all know that honesty already refers to comprehensive moral traits; it covers being truthful in speech, fair in dealing with others, keeping one’s promises, being trustworthy, duly repaying one’s debt, coveting responsibility, and so on.
Such a moral ideal of being rectitude in intention, speech and action is arguably more emphatically couched by the term “integrity”. Derived from the Latin “integer”, meaning “entire” or “untouched”, integrity implies moral “incorruptibility to a degree that one is incapable of being false to a trust, responsibility, or pledge” (see, e.g., Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary).
“Integrity” also reflects well the inner self of an honest man, who is conscious that to be morally corrupt means to violate the unity of his human self as a whole-to at once betray the wholesomeness of his very self and human society whose general welfare he partakes. Hence, to be dishonest is to be losing harmony in both private as well as public life that is worth the name.
If honest external conduct reflects internal rectitude, dishonesty mirrors symmetrical hypocrisy. Quite relevant to this principle is the Prophet Muhammad’s caution that there are three characteristics of the hypocrite (munafiq): that when he speaks, he lies; and when he promises, he breaks the promise; and when he is entrusted with something, he betrays that trust. Such a hadith has been rigorously authenticated by many authorities including Bukhari and Muslim.
In the narration recorded by Imam Muslim, there is a further insistive Prophetic remark which equally applies, namely, “even if the person involved ritually observes canonical fasting and prayers, and asserts that he is a Muslim.” I suppose the moral concern here is not dissimilar from that of Marcus Tullius Cicero (d. 43 BC) when he aptly observed in his moral treatise De Officiis, that “no type of injustice is more glaring than that of the hypocrite who, in the very instant of being most false, makes the pretence of appearing virtuous.”
Indeed, the most destructive unjust deeds to one’s self, to society and to the state revolves around the above-mentioned three vices of lying, breaking a promise, and betraying a trust. The modern Muslim world has long been reminded to effectively check these vices since the First World Conference on Muslim Education held in Mecca, in April of 1977, when Professor Dr. Syed Muhammad Naquib al-Attas presented the plenary paper on “the Dewesternization of Knowledge”. (He was quick to point out that although those three characteristics may sound like three different acts, in reality they are three different ascending degrees of lying-lying when speaking, lying when not fulfilling a promise, and lying with the act of breaking someone’s trust.)
Many verses of the Qur’an as well as many other authentic hadiths have corroborated this principle. As far as the religion of Islam is concerned, dishonesty is simply antithetical to true Belief, real Faith, and conscious Submission to Allah. A Mu’min or a Muslim can never be a habitual liar nor a betrayer of trust as far as his ethics and morality is concerned.
For example, the Prophet said that the one who does not possess honesty, does not possess Faith; and the one who does not keep his pledge, is not a Muslim (narrated by Tabrani and Bayhaqi).
Here, I suppose it is not for nothing that the tradition of Islamic scholarship has defined human beings as al-hayawan al-natiq. Man is, as it were, “a speaking animal” in the sense that his speech simply symbolizes his inner, unseen self (nutq identified as ‘aql).
It is not irrelevant here that even the French sceptic Michel Eyquem de Montaigne (d. 1592) admitted that “We are human beings, and hold together, only by our word…Since mutual understanding is brought about solely by way of words, he who breaks his word betrays human society. It is the only instrument by means of which our wills and thoughts communicate, it is the interpreter of our soul. If it fails us, we have no more hold on each other. If it deceives us, it breaks up all our relations and dissolves all the bonds of our society.” (Emphasis added.)
For the Malays, this universal ethical principle is encapsulated well for posterity in their adage kerbau dipegang pada tali, manusia dipegang pada janji.
Now, emphasizing about the duty not to betray a trust, there is a Qur’anic verse (al-Ma’idah, 5:1) in which God commands the believers to fulfil their ‘uqud, which is a completely comprehensive Arabic term which denotes a solemn undertaking or engagement (shadd wa shiddat wuthuq) involving more than one party.
Indeed, al-Raghib al-Isfahani has explained that the covenants referred to in this verse are of three kinds. Firstly, the covenant between God and mankind; that is to say, man’s obligations towards God as outlined in the religion of Islam (al-A’raf, 7:172). Secondly, the covenant between man and his self. Substantially, this means to put his carnal or animal soul under the control of his rational soul. And thirdly, the covenants between the individual and his fellow men, provided that-as another lexicologist Abu Ishaq al-Zajjaj added-the mutual covenants are agreeable with the requirements of religion. Examples are, commercial contract, social contract, a contract of marriage, an international treaty, and a social convention.
Commentators of the Qur’an have pointed out that even tacit obligations are covered under this duty and, hence, must be discharged conscientiously. For example, there exists tacit obligations between host and guest, wayfarer and his companion, employer and employee, and so forth. Abdullah Yusuf Ali affirms that the man who deserts those who need him and rather goes to pray in a desert is a coward who disregards his ‘uqud or obligations.
There is another Qur’anic verse which states to the effect that “Allah commands you to render back your trusts (amanat) to those to whom they are due” (al-Nisa’, 4:58). The term amanah here denotes everything one has been entrusted with, be it in the physical or moral sense. If there is any obligation due to someone, that duty is also considered a trust which must be discharged. For example, if someone is employed to do a certain job, then feeling responsible and doing it well is also the act of discharging that trust.
Similarly, it is quite remarkable that according to historians such as Ibn Hisham and al-Tabari, by 24 years of age, long before his prophecy, the Prophet Muhammad had acquired from his fellow Meccans the surname al-Amin (the honest one) for his just behaviour. Later, after his prophecy began, he was strongly supported by his closest Companions, one of whom was Abu Bakr, also dubbed al-Siddiq (the truthful).
Such a fact that honesty is the mainstay of religion is also reflected in the story of the prophet Moses who, during his journey to Madyan, watered the goats belonging to two girls and did not ask for any reward. After returning home, one of the girls praised him to her aged father, the prophet Shu’ayb, and said, “O my (dear) father! Engage him on wages. Truly the best of men for thee to employ is the (man) who is strong and trustworthy (al-amin)” (al-Qasas, 28:26).
Obviously, while capability and strength are the requirements of a good employee, he should also be honest and trustworthy. A dishonest person may lie about his ability or qualifications, presenting himself as something he is not.
Indeed, Syed Sulaiman Nadvi observed in his study Ethics in Islam, untruthfulness is productive of other evils, such as being sinful (al-Shu’ara, 26:222) and transgression (al-Mu’min, 40:28), because a liar will not hesitate in doing any evil act, or in exceeding the limits of propriety, for he thinks that he would be able to hide such facts merely by telling another lie at the appropriate time. A liar is also an ungrateful person (al-Zumar, 39:3) to any of his benefactors, because he suspects others are as untruthful as he is in his intention, speech and action.
But then, how is one going to live with any other individual in a solid friendship, and how will a community co-exist with other communities in unity, if they are rather mutually suspicious and not convinced of each other’s honesty?