Evaluation of Responsibility Based on Al-Quran, Al-Sunnah and Scholars’ Interpretation

Evaluation of Responsibility Based on Al-Quran, Al-Sunnah and Scholars’ Interpretation

Muhammad Atiullah Othman¹, Noor Ruladha Mohamed², Khairunnisa A Shukor¹, Ahmad Firdaus Mohd Noor², Nafisah Ilham Hussin³, Ahmad Miqdad Bin Shamsuddin², Muhammad Nur Aizuddin Norafandi¹, Hafizan Mohamad Dain¹

¹ Department of Moral Education, Civics and Character Building, Faculty of Social Sciences, Sultan Idris Education University, Malaysia

² Ministry of Education, Malaysia

³ Academy of Contemporary Islamic Studies, MARA Technology University, Perak Campus, Malaysia.

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2024.8120376

Received: 17 December 2024; Accepted: 28 December 2024; Published: 25 January 2025

ABSTRACT

Elements of responsibility has implications upon human responsibility. The implications was mentioned by Islamic and Western scholars, particularly Muslim scholars who relied on al-Quran and al-Sunnah. Thus, this paper’s first objective is a discussion on justification of responsibility that can be ascribe to four elements namely knowledge, will, ability and actions. The second objective is to examine Islamic scholars’ interpretation of divine scripture on these elements. The third objective is to highlight principles of responsibility based on scholars’ interpretation. Inductive method is used to understand scholars’ views on the elements. Deductive method is also used to generalize views on elements of responsibility and identify Islamic principles. This study is substantiated with Islamic scripture which clearly states in general and in detail on responsibilities and its elements. Element of knowledge is taken seriously and considered the most important because Islamic scripture becomes a fundamental source of responsibility. Besides, existence of will and ability are considered accountable, if will and ability are strong and capable enough to make decision. Furthermore, action is eminent as being a direct responsibility as it is also considered as physical responsibility.

Keywords: responsibility, moral, divine scripture, Islamic Ethics, Islamic Thought.

INTRODUCTION

Responsibility is obligation to answer for something and to be accountable to someone ([15], [16]). This etymologically makes responsibility similar to accountability. Similarly, Christopher defines responsibility as accountability for the actions one performs and the consequences, they bring about for which a moral agent could be justly punished and rewarded [12]. If we contemplate further on Christopher’s definition, there are two main points about responsibility which are consequences of action that must be accounted for and its implication whether to be praised or criticized.

Therefore, the most basic problem when discussing about responsibility is, how to evaluate responsibility, its impact on existence and how to consider either responsible or without responsibility. To measure and justify responsibility, Western and Islamic scholars have identified four elements of responsibility, namely knowledge, will, ability and actions.

To solve this problem, Muktazilites identified as earliest scholars, had discussed on human responsibility and its element ([17], [60]). While Asharites reacted to Muktazilites views by mentioning those elements under polemic of human actions [72]. Western scholars also mentioned this polemic of human action under action theory discussion ([25], [65]). As such there has been an immense discussion on how to evaluate human responsibility, especially upon its elements.

METHODOLOGY

This study used Islamic texts, the Quran and Hadith, as well as classical and contemporary Islamic scholarly literature, to ensure authenticity, relevance to responsibility, representation of important schools, and the incorporation of both classical and contemporary perspectives. The study employed inductive and deductive methods to investigate primary literature on responsibility, detecting repeating themes and categorizing findings into knowledge, will, ability, and action, as well as applying Islamic principles for a thorough comprehension. The interpretation of Quranic verses and Hadith involves contextual analysis, cross-referencing, scholarly consultation, thematic organization, and critical evaluation, ensuring consistency, relevance, and strength of evidence.

To illustrate the research process, the graphic below depicts the step-by-step procedure from source selection to conclusion formulation, hence increasing the transparency of the research approach. This diagram is as follows:

LITERATURE REVIEW

Fig. 1 Elements of Responsibility

The Figure 1 above explains that elements of responsibility are a combination of knowledge, will, ability and deeds. All these elements are valid because these elements are very reliant on each other. Without one of these elements, then there is no full responsibility.

Especially on knowledge, it is very much connected to the other elements, such as action, will and ability. As Borchart [10] connects knowledge with action and freedom. Similarly, Honderich [26] and Kamil al-Hajj [23] connects knowledge with action and will [58]. In fact, there are many scholars such as Wolf [68], Corlett [13], and Liao Shen Bai [46], who gave priority on elements of knowledge in justifying responsibilities than other elements.

Also, ability is very closely related to the discussion of knowledge, as well as will and action. Association of ability within the elements has been proved by Robert Audi, David O Brink, Harry Frankfurt and Charles Taylor ([68], [13]). Moreover, ability can really produce any action [17]. Without ability, action nor any deed will fail to exist.

Will is also an important element to discuss justification of responsibilty. Wolf [68], Widerker & McKenna [66], and Corlett [13] prioritized will in justifying responsibility. Dughaym [17] also mentioned that will is a vital discussion on justification of responsibility. But the element of will always need other elements to determine full responsibility. Especially, action is an element that requires ‛will’ to make choices as intended action.

But action is the most important element for justifying human responsibility especially in court since action physical evidence, nevertheless, action is not the only attachment. As such, Dughaym [17], Weiner and Hasting [65] and Selbie [25] had mentioned that the process of action is very much related to other elements namely ability, knowledge and will. Whiles, Honderich [26], Kamil al-Hajj [23], Routledge [58], and Borchart [10] relate action with the elements of knowledge and will, including ability. Besides, some researchers focused on action’s relation to an element only, such as will [27], ability [57], and knowledge [67].

Regarding those four elements, arose an important problem, which element should be foremost? There are two answers. First, viewed by Muktazilite in that ability is the lead, then followed by knowledge and wills. The ending is action [17]. But, Asharites initiated the element action being first and proposed “Theory of Action” (Af^cal ^cIbad) which stated that the action would consist ability, knowledge and will [72]. However, in this paper, I will initiate my discussion with knowledge, as according to Islamic scripture, especially al-Quran text in Surah al-Nisa’ (4: 66-68) and al-Hadith in Sahih al-Bukhari.

Validity of Responsibility According to the Religious Text

According to Islamic tenets, primer source of responsibility and its elements are al-Qur’an and al-Sunnah. Al-Qur’an relates all those elements of responsibility as stated below:

وَلَوْ أَنَّهُمْ فَعَلُوا مَا يُوعَظُونَ بِهِ لَكَانَ خَيْرًا لَّهُمْ وَأَشَدَّ تَثْبِيتًا  وَإِذًا لَآتَيْنَاهُمْ مِنْ لَدُنَّا أَجْرًا عَظِيمًا  وَلَهَدَيْنَاهُمْ صِرَاطًا مُسْتَقِيمًا

Translation: “But if they had done what they were instructed, it would have been better for them and a firmer position [for them in faith]. And then We would have given them from Us a great reward. And We would have guided them to a straight path.”

(al-Quran, Surah al-Nisa’ 4: 66-68)

This verse indicates that some actions being done because of religious advice, bearing its knowledge from God.  Furthermore, a wise person will do according to their knowledge, not from desire ([64], [2], [59]). This verse also tells us that an act of obedience is affected by human faith and heart ([64], 47], [41]).

Thus, this verse shows the main elements of responsibility, which is “knowledge” that leads man towards pious deeds, and “will” that be manifested by faith in his heart that also leads to real and progressive actions. Therefore, action is a result of knowledge and will. However, this verse does not mention the “ability” that affects his pious deeds. Nevertheless, ability can be attributed to an action because the action will not materialize with the presence of incapability.

The elements of responsibility are also based on the hadith which relates that ^cUmar and ^cAmmar were unable to take the obligatory (junub) bath due to absence of water.  Quoted ^cAmmar to ^cUmar:

 أَمَا تَذْكُرُ أَنَّا كُنَّا فِي سَفَرٍ أَنَا وَأَنْتَ فَأَمَّا أَنْتَ فَلَمْ تُصَلِّ، وَأَمَّا أَنَا فَتَمَعَّكْتُ فَصَلَّيْتُ، فَذَكَرْتُ لِلنَّبِيِّ صلى الله عليه وسلم فَقَالَ النَّبِيُّ صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏ “‏ إِنَّمَا كَانَ يَكْفِيكَ هَكَذَا ‏”‏‏.‏ فَضَرَبَ النَّبِيُّ صلى الله عليه وسلم بِكَفَّيْهِ الأَرْضَ، وَنَفَخَ فِيهِمَا ثُمَّ مَسَحَ بِهِمَا وَجْهَهُ وَكَفَّيْهِ‏.

Translation: “Are you remember, we are in a state of travel.  You do not pray while I roll on the ground like an animal and (then) pray. Then, I mentioned to the Prophet s.a.w. He said: “Indeed, it is enough for you to do like this”.  Then the Prophet s.a.w. hit with both palms on the ground and exhaled on both. Then, he wiped with both palms on his face and wrists.”

(Sahih al-Bukhari: 326)

This hadith mentions that ^cUmar did not pray because he thought that janabah prevented him from praying.  While ^cAmmar prayed because he felt that rolling on the ground could lift janabah ([51], [54]). This situation displayed ^cUmar and ^cAmmar’s responsibility was released from their decision because there was no distinct instruction from the Prophet p.b.u.h. Although ^cUmar and ^cAmmar actions were considered improper, their decision was accepted because they did not have any knowledge of lifting janabah [33].

Furthermore, the hadith shows the elements of responsibility, as stated below:

1. “Knowledge” is considered an important element in responsibility. In this event, ^cUmar and ^cAmmar did not know the real way to perform janabah without water.  Then, actual knowledge was taught orally by example.
2. Both ^cUmar and ^cAmmar have no “ability” to find water. So, ^cUmar thought that their responsibility to pray had been released, but ^cAmmar still prayed and he simply rolled on the ground instead of having the obligatory bath.
3. Being forced which means no “will”. ^cUmar and ^cAmmar have no will and do not intend to abandon the obligatory bath due to the absence of water while traveling.
4. The “action” of ^cUmar who did not pray and ^cAmmar who prayed in a state of janabah were wrong acts. When the Prophet found out, he taught them what to do, but did not instruct them to pray again.

Moreover, the elements of responsibility are based on a hadith narrated by Ibn ^cAbbas that Prophet p.b.u.h. said:

إن الله تجاوز عن أمتي الخطأ والنسيان وما استكرهوا عليه

Translation: “Indeed, Allah forgives my people mistakes, forgetfulness and being forced upon them.”

(Sunan Ibn Majah: 2032)

This hadith explains that Allah equates three pardons in either mistakes, forgetfulness or being forced [4].  However, these three pardons are on something under God’s rights, not under human rights.  If considering under human rights, the offender must pay penalty and property damages ([51], [52]) (al-Mubarakfuri 1984, 9: 4052, al-Muhsin 1984: 76).

Similarly, in this hadith reveals the four elements of responsibility as follows:

1. The “act” of sin that God forgives is in His rights and not in human rights.
2. There is no “knowledge” such as absent-mindedness, which means God will forgive.
3. “Ability” and “will” that be forcibly denied to do something are also forgiven by God.

Thus, Islamic scholars have identified four key elements of responsibility which are knowledge (^cIlm), will (Iradah), ability (Qudrah) and action (Fi^cl). These elements are interdependent and essential for determining full responsibility.

Textual Confirmation on Knowledge as an Element of Responsibility

^cIlmu is justified as true knowledge ([19], [20]). According to Islamic teaching, cIlmu includes textual and rational knowledge ([43], [19], [21]). Therefore, the rational knowledge plays a main role in understanding and interpreting human responsibilities. However, textual knowledge is given more priority than rational knowledge, especially to decide obligations and responsibility. Islamic scholars state that there is no decision except from Allah, based on the verses of al-Qur’an:

إِنِ الْحُكْمُ إِلاَّ لِلَّهِ

Translation: “The decision is for Allah only.”

(al-Quran, Surah al-An^cam 6: 57)

While Mutazilites who was considered the most rigid sect in favor of reason, also agreed with Asha rite on the issue of decision for Allah ([3], [71], [7]). This point of view indicates that a believer must not contradict God’s law as stated in al-Quran and al-Sunnah. Otherwise, entailing digressed from the religion. The basis of this view is based on the Qur’anic text:

فَلاَ وَرَبِّكَ لاَ يُؤْمِنُونَ حَتَّى يُحَكِّمُوكَ فِيمَا شَجَرَ بَيْنَهُمْ ثُمَّ لاَ يَجِدُوا فِي أَنفُسِهِمْ حَرَجًا مِمَّا قَضَيْتَ وَيُسَلِّمُوا تَسْلِيمًا

Translation: “But no, by the Lord, they can have no (real) Faith, until they make thee judge in all disputes between them, and find in their souls no resistance against Thy decisions, but accept them with the fullest conviction.”

 (al-Quran, Surah al-Nisa’ 4: 65)

On discussion related to knowledge and responsibility, most Islamic scholars agree that responsibility is determined by the Islamic scripture (text of Islamic rules [Syara’] which is al-Quran and al-Sunnah). The followers of al-Hanabilah such as Ibn Quddamah [35], and Asharites such as al-Juwayni [43], al-Ghazali [20] and al-Amidi [3] stated that responsibility is only known with the text of Syara’.

Similarly, knowledge must be accompanied by a conscious mind. Without adequate common-sense awareness such as a delusional person, children who have not reached adolescence and an unsound person, they are not responsible even though they know their duties. Knowledge must be accompanied by a perfect intellectual awareness to justify knowledge. The need for common sense and knowledge is mentioned as in a hadith narrated by ^cAli bin Abi Talib:

رفع القلم عن ثلاثة عن النائم حتى يستيقظ وعن الصبي حتى يحتلم وعن المجنون حتى يعقل

Translation: “There are three people whose actions are lifted pen (not recorded), a sleeping person till he awakes, a child till he is a grown up, and an insane person till he is restored to reason or recovers his sense.”

(Sunan Abu Dawud: 4399, al-Nasa’i: 656, Ibn Majah: 2041)

This hadith explains the exclusion of responsibility. “Pen” mentioned in this hadith is parable of those having no responsibility because responsibility is usually written to express one’s dependents. In fact, the person who has no responsibility, is not written as his dependents ([5], [24]).

This means, when a person does not have a perfect conscious mind, then he is considered not having responsibility like an unsound man, being in a state of fast asleep and for young children. A perfect mind is a state of having responsibility such as having a sound mind, being in full consciousness and being adolescence [42]. In fact, the mind becomes eligible submissions of faith [31], marriage and divorce validity [33], criminal responsibility [14] and particularly for delivering knowledge and hadith narration [9].

Therefore, responsibility has an important provision which is knowledge and awareness of the mind. This means, existence of knowledge indicates existence of responsibility. On the other hand, lack of knowledge means no responsibility at all. This view is based on the Qur’an text and authentic hadith. Besides, it can also be understood through contention and reasonable example.

To sum up, the Quran and hadith emphasize knowledge as a responsibility, emphasizing Islamic scripture over human reasoning, with conscious awareness required, except for asleep individuals, children, and mentally ill individuals.

Textual Confirmation on Will as an Element of Responsibility

The main source of will as an element of responsibility is based on Islamic scripture. Al-Qur’an had mentioned as below:

وَإِنْ تُبْدُوا مَا فِي أَنْفُسِكُمْ أَوْ تُخْفُوهُ يُحَاسِبْكُمْ بِهِ اللَّهُ

Translation: “If you disclose what is in your hearts or conceal it, Allah shall hold you accountable for it.”

(al-Quran, Surah al-Baqarah 2: 284)

This verse clearly states that will is something hidden in human beings and is accountable. Of course, all wills are in Allah’s knowledge. However, not all wills are accountable. Islamic scholars had classified the wills based on whether there is a responsibility or otherwise.

Scholars who interpret the Qur’an (Mufassirin) such as al-Tabari [64], al-Qurtubi [55] and al-Nasafi [53] mentioned that this verse explains that whatever hidden desire is present in the heart, it is considered as not having responsibility, so long as it is not performed yet or uttered. Imam al- Tabari [64] explained that this will is not considered responsibility because Allah wants to present His mercy to human beings.

However, if element of will does not associate any action, scholars interpret this into two types. First, the will without any action had to be responsible under the following circumstances:

1. Will with intense intention (^cAzm) for good or bad ([2], [8], [30], [53], [59], [70])
2. Fixed intention ([56], [70])
3. Willingness together with pretense and doubt of faith ([2], [32], [55])

While the second type is not a responsible will, having the following conditions:

1. Anxious situation ([53], [70])
2. Ostentatious desire ([2], [30], [53], [55], [56], [59])
3. Unavoidable feelings such as love and hate as long as it does not remain in the heart [53]

In fact, it is very clear that scholars had indicated that will within action should be responsible. However, when the will has not been performed yet, the will strength needs to be considered, weak or strong. If will is still weak such as being in a state of anxiety, having ostentatious desire and trifling feelings, this will cease as responsible. On the other hand, when will is strong enough with determination, fixed intention, or pretentious willingness, it can be listed as responsible.

To sum up, Surah al-Baqarah (2:284) identifies will as a responsibility element, with scholars classifying it into accountable and non-accountable wills, based on strong and compelling intentions.

Textual Confirmation on Ability as Element of Responsibility

Ability is an element of responsibility. The main ratification is derived from al-Quran in Surah al-Nisa’ (4:25) and Surah al-Mubadala (58: 4) that shows ability has significant implications in Islamic law. This can be seen especially in Surah al-Baqarah (2: 286), Surah al-A^cra (7:42) and Surah al-Talaq (65: 7) which mentioned regarding a person is not regarded responsible unless he has sufficient ability to cope. These verses clearly confirm ability has direct implications on responsibility. Literally, al-Quran mentioned as below:

لاَ يُكَلِّفُ اللَّهُ نَفْسًا إِلاَّ وُسْعَهَا

 Translation: “Allah does not lay a responsibility on anyone beyond his capacity.”

(al-Quran, Surah al-Baqarah 2: 286)

The word wus^c in the above verse has literal meaning which is breadth and denies narrowness [61]. But most commentators interpret for the word wus^c with ‘capacity’ ([2], [55], [30], [39], [56], [61], [64], [69]). There are also those who interpret it as ‘ability’ 9[8], [38], [47], [53], [56]).  However, this verse generally explains promise from Allah regarding no responsibility except with sufficient ability [49]. Besides, it is a praise because Allah does not give any duty except by one’s ability ([2], [8], [32], [49], [69], [47], [56]).

Therefore, responsibility and duty should be paired with ability because there is no responsibility if without coexistence of ability ([39], [48], [49]). Similarly, there is no responsibility for something that is unachievable [40].

The most obvious hadith in this matter is a narration of ^cImran bin Husayn, the Prophet Muhammad a.s.a.p. said:

صَلِّ قَائِمًا، فَإِنْ لَمْ تَسْتَطِعْ فَقَاعِدًا، فَإِنْ لَمْ تَسْتَطِعْ فَعَلَى جَنْبٍ

Translation: “Pray standing. If you cannot (stand), then you should sit. If you cannot (sit), then you should (pray) in a sloping position.”

(Sahih al-Bukhari: 1049)

This hadith tells us on how to perform duties. It depends very much on human ability [37]. This hadith also mentioned clearly that the obligatory prayers should be in a standing position, and if unable to stand, can be changed to a sitting position and if still unable to do so can further change in a sloping position. These changes depend greatly on one’s ability [(6], [63]).

Similarly, these changes depend on the degree of weakness of one’s ability ([28], [29], [44]). Also, no ability means in the rate of weakness. In fact, the rate of ability depends on the rate of difficulties. For example, fear of further harm, fainting, fear of enemy attacks or drowning in the ocean are considered in the rate of weakness and having no ability [62].

 In summary, the Quran and the hadiths emphasizes the connection between ability and responsibility, asserting that no responsibility exists without ability, and exceptions are made for genuine incapacity.

Textual Confirmation on Action as an Element of Responsibility

Responsibility is closely related to actions. Many texts of the Qur’an have explained this view as follows:

وَكُلَّ إِنْسَانٍ أَلْزَمْنَاهُ طَائِرَهُ فِي عُنُقِهِ وَنُخْرِجُ لَهُ يَوْمَ الْقِيَامَةِ كِتَابًا يَلْقَاهُ مَنْشُورًا (13) اقْرَأْ كِتَابَكَ كَفَى بِنَفْسِكَ الْيَوْمَ عَلَيْكَ حَسِيبًا (14) مَنِ اهْتَدَى فَإِنَّمَا يَهْتَدِي لِنَفْسِهِ وَمَنْ ضَلَّ فَإِنَّمَا يَضِلُّ عَلَيْهَا وَلَا تَزِرُ وَازِرَةٌ وِزْرَ أُخْرَى

Translation: “And We have fastened every man’s deed to his neck, and on the Day of Resurrection, we shall bring out for him a book which he will find wide open. (It will be said to him): “Read your book. You yourself are sufficient as a reckoner against you this Day.” Whoever goes right, then he goes right only for the benefit of his ownself. And whoever goes astray, then he goes astray to his own loss. No one laden with burdens can bear another’s burden.”

(al-Quran, Surah al-Isra’ 17: 13-15)

These verses convey the principle of individual responsibility for actions, whether good or evil [70]. The relation of responsibility to actions in these verses can be understood as follows:

While the second type is not a responsible will, having the following conditions:

1. This verse was revealed regarding al-Walid bin al-Mughirah who said, “O people of Mecca. Disobey against Muhammad. I will bear your sin (disobedience)”. Thus, the Qur’an denies this responsibility claim ([30], [55], [70]).
2. The chain accounted for in this verse means action or practice ([18], [53], [59], [69]). Another meaning of the chain is one’s fate that was affected by his action. Both meanings can be understood as each action has its own destiny and reward [64].
3. This action is depicted to a chain fastened at the neck as a reminder that this act will surely be taken into account. Therefore, whoever does something good will be weighed with gains, and whoever does bad will be bereaved later in return. In fact, every responsibility will be held accountable for himself and not for others ([45], [55], [56], [64], [70])
4. This verse also recommends that everyone reflect and reconsider for himself. When someone has been given The Book of Deeds, he can expect his own responsibility. Hence, Allah s.w.t. does not oppress a person because the reward will be granted as stated in The Book of Deeds. There is nothing in the latter except the deeds one has done [64]. This Book of Deeds shows His justice that allows a person to calculate and cultivate his deeds [64]. Similarly, the Book of Deeds shows that He does not oppress anyone [56].
5. This verse also gives a parable if a person has been a witness to his deeds, it is enough for him and does not need another witness ([8], [53], [59]). Moreover, a person can judge his own actions [49].
6. Thus, Islamic principles explain that whoever does something on the basis of true guidance, he will benefit from such guidance. On the other hand, whoever commits a deviation from the true guidance, he gets retribution for his own acts without bearing the fault of others ([55], [56], [64]).
7. Similarly, the principles of Islam insist that one does not bear the sins of others ([30], [49], [55], [56]).

The meanings in these verses are also mentioned in the Quran Surah al-Nisa’ (4: 79, Surah al-Shu^cara’ (26: 208-209), Surah al-Rum (30: 41), Surah al-Qasas (28: 59, 17: 58) and Surah al-Shura (42: 30). All these verses mention that Allah may not punish a person and not to oppress him except by his own sin.

To sum up, the Quran asserts that each individual is accountable for their actions, with no one bearing the burden of another’s actions, and actions are recorded and accounted for in the afterlife.

Overall, the concept of responsibility in Islamic thinking, as derived from scriptural sources, consists of four interwoven elements: knowledge, will, capacity, and action, all of which have a substantial impact on Islamic ethics and jurisprudence. The visual aid below effectively demonstrates the hierarchy and interdependence of responsibility elements in Islamic ethics, with a flowchart explanation and a table summarizing key findings.

Fig. 2 Hierarchy and Interdependent of Responsibility Elements

The figure 2 highlights the relationship between the four elements:

1. Responsibility as the overarching concept.
2. Knowledge (^cIlm) as the foundation, as awareness is essential for moral accountability.
3. Will (Iradah) and Ability (Qudrah) as interdependent factors that influence an individual’s capacity to act responsibly.
4. Action (Fi^cl) as the culmination of knowledge, will, and ability, representing accountable deeds.

Arrows depict the influence flow, illustrating how knowledge influences both will and ability, which, when combined, lead to action. In contrast, the table below shows all related pieces.

Table 1: Textual Evidence for Elements of Responsibility

DISCUSSIONS

Based on the principles of responsibility established in Islamic thought and incorporate comparative perspectives on Islamic ethics, we can examine how it relates to other major ethical frameworks, particularly virtue ethics and utilitarianism. This comparison highlights both the unique aspects of Islamic ethics and its universal principles.

Islamic ethics and virtue ethics both focus on character development, virtue cultivation through rituals and actions, and view ethics as a path for moral development. However, Islamic ethics differs in its divine base and ultimate goal: Islamic ethics seeks to follow the “path of God” (Shariah), whereas virtue ethics seeks human development [73]. While Islamic ethics differs significantly from Utilitarianism in terms of consequences, scope of benefit, source of moral authority, and time horizon. It considers both worldly and spiritual benefits, while utilitarianism focuses on maximizing happiness for the greatest number [74].

As a result, we may grasp the uniqueness of Islamic ethics through divine responsibility, individual-community balance, and the concept of fitrah. Divine responsibility is especially significant in Islamic ethics because it emphasizes individual accountability to God, which is lacking in secular ethical frameworks that might strengthen the justice principle [Ebrahimi & Yusoff]. Islamic ethics also strikes a balance between personal morality and society gain, which can strengthen the social responsibility principle [Mufazzal & Chaudhary, 2024]. Islamic ethics encompasses the concept of fitrah, which is a natural human drive toward virtue and God-consciousness, as well as the compassion (rahma) principle [Othman, 2022].

As an example, we can highlight the significance of responsibility, transparency, capacity building, ethical principles, dispute resolution, and organizational ethics. It promotes the implementation of knowledge management systems, ethical decision-making frameworks, and accountability mechanisms. It also recommends education, updating legislative frameworks, infusing responsible concepts into AI, fostering corporate social responsibility, and media accountability.

CONCLUSIONS

The concept of responsibility is deeply rooted in Islamic texts, with four elements of responsibility: knowledge, will, ability, and action. Knowledge is considered the most important, while will is a crucial aspect, with two types: will to be held accountable and will not to be held accountable. Ability is also a key element, with the existence of both indicating responsibility. Action is a determinant of human responsibility, and no one can escape punishment for their actions. These elements are certified by both Eastern and Western scholars and are emphasized in Islamic Scripture.

The study highlights the significance of responsibility mechanisms, transparency, capacity-building programs, and ethical guidelines in governance, conflict resolution, and organizational ethics. It provides a comprehensive framework grounded in Quranic verses and Hadith, and recommends applying Islamic principles to contemporary challenges.

This study suggests that Islamic ethics, based on principles of responsibility and ethics, can be applied to environmental, social, and economic issues. These principles, such as ‘adl, ‘justice, and zakat, promote fairness and equity, sustainable resource management, and waste reduction. The Islamic economic model, which emphasizes social justice, can be applied to economic equity, promoting ethical business practices and alternative financial models.

In contrast, the study on responsibility in Islamic thought has limitations, including reliance on secondary interpretations, a focus on Sunni Islamic sources, a limited of empirical data, and a historical context. Future research should include empirical studies, an interdisciplinary approach, comparative religious studies, contemporary applications, gender perspectives, and legal implications. The study should also consider the historical context and the application of Islamic concepts of responsibility in contemporary ethical dilemmas. By addressing these limitations, future research can provide a more comprehensive understanding of responsibility in Islamic thought and its relevance to contemporary ethical challenges.

REFERENCES

1. Abu Dawud, Sulaiman Al-Asy^cath. (275H). Sunan Abi Dawud. Bayrut: Matba^cah al-Sa^cadah.
2. al-Alusi, Shihab al-Din Mahmud bin ^cAbdullah al-Husayni al-Alusi. (1415H). Ruh al-Ma^cani fi Tafsir al-Qur’an al-^cAzim wa al-Sab^c al-Mathani. Bayrut: Dar al-Kutub al-^cIlmiyyah.
3. al-Amidi. (2003). Al-Ihkam fi Usul al-Ahkam. al-Riyad: Dar al-Sami^ci.
4.  al-^cAsqalani, Ahmad bin ^cAli bin Hajar al-^cAsqalani. (1379H). Fath al-Bari Sharh Sahih al-Bukhari. Bayrut: Dar al-Ma^crifah.
5. al-^cAzim Abadi, Muhammad Ashraf bin Amir bin ^cAli bin Haydar. (1415H). ^cAwn al-Ma^cbud Sharh Sunan Abi Dawud. Bayrut: Dar al-Kutub al-^cIlmiyyah.
6. al-Baji, Sulayman bin Khalaf bin Sa^cad bin Ayyub bin Warith al-Tajibi al-Qurtubi al-Baji. (1332H). al-Muntaqa Sharh al-Muwatta’. al-Qahirah: Matbu^cah al-Sa^cadah.
7. al-Basri, Muhammad bin ^cAli bin al-Tayyib. (1983). al-Mu^ctamad fi Usul al-Fiqh. Bayrut: Dar al-Kutub al-^cIlmiyyah.
8. al-Baydawi, ^cAbdullah bin ^cUmar bin Muhammad. (1418H). Anwar al-Tanzhir wa Asrar al-Ta’wil. Bayrut: Dar Ihya’ al-Turath al-^cArabi.
9.  al-Baghdadi, Abu Bakr Ahmad bin ^cAli bin Thabit bin Ahmad bin Mahdi al-Khatib al-Baghdadi. (Nd.). al-Kifayah fi ^cIlm al-Riwayah. Madinah: al-Maktabah al-^cIlmiyyah.
10. Borchart D. M. (ed.). (2006). Encyclopedia of Philosophy 2^nd. New York: Thomson Gale/MacMillan Reference USA.
11. al-Bukhari, Muhammad Ismail al-Bukhari. (256H). Sahih al-Bukhari. Beirut: Al-Matba’ah al-Khairiyyah.
12. Christopher J. (2006). Encyclopedia Dictionary of Philosophy. New Delhi: Anmol Publications Ptv. Ltd.
13. Corlett J. (2008). Epistemic Responsibility. In. International Journal of Philosophical Studies. Vol. 16 (2). pg. 179-200.
14. al-Dahlawi, Shah ^cAbd al-^cAziz Ghulam Hakim al-Dahlawi. (1373H). Mukhtasar al-Tuhfah al-Ithna ^cAshriyyah. al-Qahirah: al-Matba^cah al-Salafiyyah.
15.  Draz M.A. (2008). The Moral World of the Qur’an. New York: I.B. Tauris & Co Ltd.
16. Darraz, Muhammad ^cAbdullah. (1998). Dustur al-Akhlaq fi al-Qur’an: Dirasah Muqaranah li al-Akhlaq al-Nazariyyah fi al-Qur’an. Terj. ^cAbd al-Sabur Syahin. Bayrut: Mu’assasah al-Risalah.
17. Dughaym, Samih Dughaym. (1992). Falsafah al-Qudur fi Fikr al-Mu^ctazilah. Bayrut: Dar al-Fikr al-^cArabi.
18.  al-Farra’, Yahya bin Ziyad bin ^cAbdullah bin Manzur al-Farra’. (Nd.). Ma^cani al-Qur’an. Al-Qahirah: Dar al-Misriyyah.
19. al-Ghazali, Abu Hamid Muhammad bin Muhammad bin Muhammad. (N.d). Iljam al-^cAwam ^can ^cilm al-Kalam. In. Majmu^cah Rasa’il al-Imam al-Ghazali. Bayrut: Dar al-Kutub al-^cIlmiyyah.
20.  al-Ghazali, Abu Hamid Muhammad bin Muhammad bin Muhammad. (1993). Al-Mustasfa min ^cIlm al-Usul. Bayrut: Dar al-Kutub al-^cIlmiyyah.
21. al-Ghazali, Abu Hamid Muhammad bin Muhammad bin Muhammad. (1975). Ma^carij al-Quds fi Madarij Ma^crifah al-Nafs. Bayrut: Dar al-Afaq al-Jadidah.
22. al-Ghazali, Abu Hamid Muhammad bin Muhammad bin Muhammad. (2004). Al-Iqtisad fi al-I^ctiqad. Bayrut: Dar al-Kutub al-^cIlmiyyah.
23. al-Hajj, Kamil al-Hajj. (2000). Al-Mawsu^cah al-Muyassarah fi al-Fikr al-Falsafi wa al-Ijtima^ci. Bayrut: Maktabah Lubnan Nashirun.
24. al-Hasani, Muhammad bin Isma^cil Bin Salah bin Muhammad al-Hasani. (2011). al-Tanwir Sharh al-Jami^c al-Saghir. al-Riyad: Maktabah Dar al-Salam.
25. Hastings J. & Selbie J. A. (2000). Encyclopædia of Religion and Ethics. London: T&T Clark Ltd.
26. Honderich T. (1995). The Oxford Companion to Philosophy. New York: Oxford University Press, USA.
27.  Iannone P. (2001). Dictionary of World Philosophy. New York: Routledge.
28.  Ibn al-Malak, Muhammad bin ^cIzz al-Din ^cAbd al-Latif bin ^cAbd al-^cAziz bin Amin al-Din bin Firishta.  (2012). Sharh Masabih al-Sunnah li al-Imam al-Baghawi. al-Kuwayt: Idarah al-Thaqafah al-Islamiyyah.
29. Ibn al-Rajab, ^cAbd al-Rahman bin Ahmad bin Rajab bin al-Hasan. (2001). Jami^c al-^cUlum wa al-Hikam fi Sharh Khamsin Hadithan min Jawami^c al-Kalim. Bayrut: Maktabah al-Risalah.
30.  Ibn ^cAshur, al-Tahir bin Muhammad bin Muhammad al-Tahir bin ^cAshur al-Tunisi. (1984). al-Tahrir wa al-Tanwir Tahrir al-Ma^cna wa Tanwir al-^cAql al-Jadid min Tafsir al-Kitab al-Majid. Tunis: Dar al-Tunisiyyah li al-Nashr.
31. Ibn Hazm, ^cAli bin Ahmad bin Sa^cid bin Hazm. (Nd.). al-Fasl fi al-Milal wa al-Ahwa’ wa al-Nihal. al-Qahirah: Maktabah al-Khanaji.
32. Ibn Kathir, Isma^cil bin ^cUmar bin Kathir al-Qurshi. (1999). Tafsir al-Qur’an al-^cAzim. Bayrut: Dar Tibah.
33. Ibn Mulqan, Siraj al-Din ^cUmar bin ^cAli bin Ahmad al-Shafi^ci al-Misri. (2008). al-Tawdih li Sharh al-Jami^c al-Sahih. Dimashq: Dar al-Nawadir.
34. Ibn Nizam al-Din, Muhammad bin Nizam al-Din al-Ansari al-Kinawi. (2002). Fawatih al-Rahmut bi Sharh Musallam al-Thubut. Bayrut: Dar al-Kutub al-^cIlmiyyah.
35.  Ibn Quddamah, Abdullah bin Ahmad bin Muhammad bin Quddamah al-Maqdisi. (2002). Rawdah al-Nazir wa Jannah al-Manazir fi Usul al-Fiqh ^cala Mazhab al-Imam Ahmad. Bayrut: Maktabah al-Rayyan.
36. Ibnu Majah, Muhammad bin Yaziyd al-Qazwini. (2009). Sunan Ibnu Majah. Bayrut: Dar al-Risalah.
37. Ibnu Taymiyyah, Ahmad bin ^cAbd al-Halim bin Abd al-Salam bin Abdullah. (1903). Manhaj al-Sunnah al-Nabawiyyah. Al-Qahirah: Matba^cah Bulaq.
38. Jalal al-Din, Muhammad bin Ahmad al-Mahalli & Jalal al-Din, ^cAbd al-Rahman bin Abi Bakr al-Sayuti. (Nd.). Tafsir al-Jalalayn. al-Qahirah: Dar al-Hadith.
39. al-Jassas, Ahmad bin ^cAli Abu Bakr al-Razi al-Jassas. (1405H). Ahkam al-Qur’an. Bayrut: Dar Ihya’ al-Turath al-^cArabi.
40. al-Jawzi, ^cAbd al-Rahman bin ^cAli bin Muhammad al-Jawzi. (1422H). Zad al-Musayyar fi ^cIlm al-Tafsir. Dar al-Kitab al-^cArabi.
41. al-Jaza’iri, Jabir bin Musa bin ^cAbd al-Qadir bin Jabir Abu Bakr al-Jaza’iri. (2003). Aysar al-Tafasir. Madinah al-Munawwarah: Maktabah al-^cUlum wa al-Hikam.
42. Jum^cah, ^cUthman Jum^cah Dumayriyyah. (1996). Madkhal li Dirasat al-^cAqidah al-Islamiyyah. Jaddah: Maktabah al-Suwadi.
43. al-Juwayni, ^cAbd al-Malik bin Abdullah bin Yusuf. (1997). Al-Burhan fi Usul al-Fiqh. Bayrut: Maktabah al-Kutub al-^cIlmiyyah.
44. al-Khattabi, Hamd bin Muhammad bin Ibrahim bin al-Khattab al-Busti al-Khattabi. (1932). Ma^calim al-Sunan. Halab: al-Matba^cah al-^cIlmiyyah.
45. al-Khazin, ^cAla’ al-Din ^cAli bin Muhammad bin Ibrahim bin ^cUmar al-Khazin. (1415H). Tafsir al-Khazin Lubab al-Ta^cwil fi Ma^cani al-Tanzil. Bayrut: Dar al-Kutub al-^cIlmiyyah.
46. Liao Shen Bai. (2009). Responsibility for “Doing What is Right”: Aristotle’s Approach and Difficulties. In. Journal of Chinese Philosophy 36: 4. 618-628. From: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1540-6253.2009.01545.x.
47. al-Maraghi, Ahmad bin Mustafa al-Maraghi. (1946). Tafsir al-Maraghi. al-Qahirah: Maktabah wa Matba^cah Mustafa al-Babi al-Halabi wa Awladih.
48. al-Maturidi,  Muhammad bin Muhammad bin Mahmud Abu Mansur al-Maturidi. (2005). Tafsir al-Maturidi Ta’wilat Ahl al-Sunnah. Bayrut: Dar al-Kutub al-^cIlmiyyah.
49. al-Mawardi, ^cAli bin Muhammad bin Muhammad bin Habib al-Mawardi. (Nd.). Tafsir al-Mawardi. Bayrut: Dar al-Kutub al-^cIlmiyyah.
50. Muhammad Atiullah Othman. (2015). Elemen Tanggungjawab menurut Ibnu Taymiyyah dan Immanuel Kant. Tesis Doktor Falsafah. Jabatan Usuluddin dan Falsafah, Fakulti Pengajian Islam, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia.
51.  al-Mubarakfuri, ^cAbd al-Rahman bin ^cAbd al-Rahim al-Mubarakfuri. (Tth). Tuhfat al-Ahwazi bi Sharh Jami^c al-Tirmizi. Bayrut: Dar al-Kutub al-^cIlmiyyah.
52. al-Muhsin, ^cAbdullah bin Salih al-Muhsin. (1984). al-Ahadith al-Arba^cin Ma^ca Ma Zada ^cAlayha Ibn Rajab wa ^cAlayha al-Sharh al-Mujiz al-Mufid. al-Madinah al-Munawwarah: al-Jami^cah al-Islamiyyah.
53. al-Nasafi, Abu al-Barakat ^cAbdullah bin Ahmad bin Mahmud al-Nasafi. (1998). Tafsir al-Nasafi Madarik al-Tanzil wa Haqa’iq al-Ta’wil. Bayrut: Dar al-Kalam al-Tayyib.
54. al-Qastalani, Ahmad bin Muhammad bin Abi Bakr bin ^cAbd al-Malik al-Qastalani. (1323H). Irshad al-Sari li Sharh Sahih al-Bukhari. al-Qahirah: Al-Matba^cah al-Kubra al-Amiriyyah.
55. al-Qurtubi, Muhammad bin Ahmad bin Abi Bakr bin Farh al-Ansari al-Qurtubi. (1964). Tafsir al-Qurtubi al-Jami^c li Ahkam al-Qur’an. al-Qahirah: Dar al-Kutub al-Misriyyah.
56. al-Razi, Muhammad bin ^cUmar bin al-Hasan bin al-Husayn al-Taymi al-Razi. (1420H).  Tafsir al-Razi Mafatih al-Ghayb aw Tafsir al-Kabir. Bayrut:  Dar Ihya’ al-Turath al-^cArabi.
57. Roth J. K. (2005). Ethics: Revised Edition. California: Salem Pr Inc.
58. Routledge (ed.). (2000). Concise Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. New York: Routledge.
59. al-Sha^crawi, Muhammad Mutawalli al-Sha^crawi. (1997). Tafsir al-Sha^crawi. al-Qahirah: Akhbar al-Yawm.
60.  al-Shafi^ci, Hasan (1998). al-Amidi wa Ara’uhu al-Kalamiyyah. al-Qahirah: Dar al-Salam.
61. al-Shawkani, Muhammad bin ^cAli bin Muhammad bin ^cAbdullah al-Shawkani. (1414H). Fath al-Qadir. Bayrut: Dar Ibn Kathir.
62. al-Subki, Mahmud bin Muhammad bin Ahmad bin Khattab al-Subki. (1351H). al-Manhal al-^cAzb al-Mawrud Sharh Sunan al-Imam Abi Dawud. al-Qahirah: Matba^cah al-Istiqamah.
63. al-Sun^cani, Muhammad bin Isma^cil bin Salah bin Muhammad al-Sun^cani. (Nd.). Subul al-Salam. al-Qahirah: Dar al-Hadith.
64. al-Tabari, Muhammad bin Jarir bin Yazid bin Kathir bin Ghalib al-Tabari. (2000). Jami^c al-Bayan fi Ta’wil al-Qur’an. Bayrut: Mu’assasah al-Risalah.
65. Weiner B. (1995). Judgement of Responsibility: A Foundation for a Theory of Social Conduct. New York: The Guelford Press.
66. Widerker D. & McKenna M. (2003). Moral Responsibility and Alternative Possibilities: Essays on the Importance of Alternative Possibilities. New York: Routledge.
67. William G. (2008). Responsibility as a Virtue. In. Ethic Theory Moral Practice. Hlm. 455-470. Retrieved from: http://web.ebscohost.com.www.ezplib.ukm.my/ehost/pdfviewer/ pdfviewer?hid=104&sid=d342b3b7-0439-4286-937f-2f7fc3635a69% 40sessionmgr15&vid=6 [27 Disember 2010].
68. Wolf S. (1999). Sanity and the Metaphysics of Responsibility. In. Reason and Responsibility. Belmont: Thomson Wadsworth. pp.465-473
69. al-Zamakhshari, Mahmud bin ^cAmru bin Ahmad al-Zamakhshari. (1407H). al-Kashshaf ^cAn Haqa’iq Ghawamid al-Tanzil. Bayrut: Dar al-Kutub al-^cArabi.
70. al-Zuhayli, Wahbah al-Zuhayli. (1418H). Al-Tafsir al-Munir fi al-^cAqidah wa al-Shari^cah wa al-Manhaj. Dimashq: Dar al-Fikr al-Mu^casirah.
71. al-Zuhayli, Wahbah al-Zuhayli. (1998). Usul al-Fiqh al-Islami. Dimashq: Dar al-Fikr.
72. al-Zirkan, Muhammad Salih al-Zirkan. (N.d.). Fakhr al-Din al-Razi wa Ara’uhu al-Kalamiyyah wa al-Falsafiyyah. Bayrut: Dar al-Fikr al-^cArabi.
73. Rafique, R. (2024). A Theory for a Virtue Ethics-Oriented Interpretation of the Qur’an. In Open Journal of Philosophy, 14, 602-608. From: doi: 10.4236/ojpp.2024.143040.
74. Alebouyeh, A. R. (2021). Compatibility or Incompatibility of Bentham’s Utilitarianism with the Quran’s Doctrine. In. Journal of Theosophia Islamica, 1(2), pp. 48-74. From: doi: 10.22081/JTI.2022.63049.1025.
75. Ebrahimi, M. & Yusoff, K. (2017). Islamic Identity, Ethical Principles and Human Values. In. European Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies. September-December 2017 Volume 2, Issue 6. From: https://brucol.be/files/articles/ejms_v2_i6_17/Mansoureh.pdf
76. Mufazzal, M.A., & Chaudhary, N.F. (2024). From Apocalypticism to Eschatology: A Comparative Analysis of Western “Utilitarianism” and Islamic “Maṣlaḥah”. In. IJISH (International Journal of Islamic Studies and Humanities), 7(1), 45–65.
77. Othman, M.A. (2022). Penghayatan Etika dan Teori Moral [Ethics and Moral Theory Understanding]. Tanjong Malim: Sultan Idris Education University Press.