Why is intention (niyyah) important in Islam?

 

Special Secrets of Intention: Uplifting a heart of Devotion

The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: 

"Verily, Actions are according to their Intentions."

(Muslim and Bukhari) 

A Scenario

Imagine this: a hitman lays in position atop a building, waiting for the right moment to take the shot to eliminate his target within a bank. When he takes the shot though, he misses. Consequently, everyone is sent into full-blown panic and they all scamper away. Due to the chaos, however, a man who had intended to rob the bank was dissuaded. Therefore, the hitman's actions had prevented a bad deed. 

So the question is: is what the hitman did morally acceptable? 

A question of intention and consequence

The answer lies in whether you believe the value of an action is dependent on the intentions or the consequence.

The belief that morals are decided by their intention is deontology; which asserts that morals are inherent in an action. The belief that morals are decided by the consequence of the action is consequentialism; which asserts that morals are external to the action. 

The whole discussion relies on the position of ethical realism; that morals do indeed exist. For if one were to assert that they do not (ethical nihilism) then it would not matter as to what morals are determined by because there is nothing to be determined. 

Hence, the dilemma is as such. If intention, then why would the hitman be blameworthy if he essentially did something good? If consequence, then why would the hitman be held accountable to a reality not in his control -that is to say, he himself does not determine the consequences of his action. 

For example, if a person accidentally gives charity, then at the end of the day, he still contributed and thus should be considered praiseworthy. On the other hand, if a person steals from the rich with the intention of giving it to the poor, then although the charity (ie the consequence) is good, the intention is immoral (he is stealing what is not rightfully his), and should be considered blameworthy.

An example of deontological ethics is Immanuel Kant's categorical imperatives. It sounds confusing, but it's really not. It can be simplified to the maxim: Act as though your action will turn into a universal principle. In other words, one shouldn't steal, for if everyone were to steal, then the world would fall into chaos. Therefore, immoral actions are those, which, if universalised, then chaos would ensue.

 This is flawed. Firstly, Kant does not provide conclusive proof as to why his maxim is true. Secondly, on what moral basis can we conclude that this hypothetical 'chaos' is bad. As David Hume maintained, one cannot get 'ought' from an 'is'. You cannot use the theory to prove this, though, for that would be circular reasoning.

An example of consequentialist theory, is Jeremy Bentham's Utilitarianism. It is based on the following principle: The greatest good for the greatest number of people. For example, it is better to give £1 to five people, than to give £5 to one person. By face value, it seems coherent, persuasive even. However, let us test its principle.

The reason why the example works, is because more people benefitted, and in such case, morality dictates that a person should do that. The logical conclusion of this principle though, is that gang rape is moral. If 5 people rape one other, then in such a case, 5 individuals are benefitting, but only one person is getting harmed.

 

The Islamic Perspective

Let us proceed. Know that actions constitute three parts.

Firstly, the desire, followed by the purpose, and then the manifestation. However, the Hadith only explicitly mentions ‘intention’ and ‘action’ (which we have called ‘manifestation’). Perhaps this is because, in the intended meaning of ‘intention’, both ‘desire’ and ‘purpose’ are implied.

This will be clear once we’ve elaborated on the meanings.

By ‘desire’, we intend the action one imagines in his mind, either actively or passively, upon which he wishes to commence. That is, by the desire of stealing, we are talking about the imagination or inclination which proceeds it. Without desire, an action is either forced or is 

done in a state of unconsciousness or its like (for example, being drunk).

 

By purpose, we mean the end goal, either long-term or short, which one intends to achieve upon acting upon the desire. So, the purpose of stealing may be the short-term joy of added wealth, or it could also be the cold pleasure of vengeance.

 

By manifestation, it is meant the actual commencing of the action upon the desire and purpose. Like actually going to a man’s house and unlawfully stealing from his wealth.

The hadith is telling us that the manifestation is judged according to the preceding desire and purpose. But judged on what?

It is judged on whether the action is virtuous and thus praiseworthy, or sinister, from which punishment can be derived. There is, additionally, the third category of actions, which we have called, ‘neutral’ upon which the names, ‘virtuous’ nor ‘sinister’ can be placed.

Knowing this, understand, then, that actions, or manifestations, are judged morally on the virtue of their desire and purpose from which they were born. In other words, to know the goodness of an action, we must look to the virtue value of the desires and purpose in order to determine it. 

Let us look at stealing as an example. The desire for this, in all cases, is the very act of stealing, just as for murder, the desire would be the act of murder. Then, the purpose is, let us say, to merely satisfy one’s greed. When the purpose manifests his intention, he is, in this case, to be called ‘evil’ and is sinful in the eyes of the lord. 

If one says that actions are dependant on their consequences, we say: but in all things there is a mixture of both good and bad, like a fire that produces warmth but also takes away fuel. Hence, the virtue of any action would be too ambiguous to conclusively decree its value.

Further, to claim that morality is extrinsic to actions is to move the focus elsewhere. Still, the question still remains as to what makes the consequence good or bad? This is essentially the same question of morality.

This answer thus depends on Divine Command theory, the idea that morals come from a higher Being from whose Omniscience and perfect perception certain commands are imparted. These 'divine' rules then form the basis of what we call 'morality'.

There is no need for us to delve further into ethical philosophy and the consequence of this Hadith in jurisprudence (fiqh), for that will stray us far from our purpose. For now, remember this formula: the only way actions are to be deemed morally virtuous, is if their desire and purpose are both virtuous. So a good desire with a bad purpose is sinister, and a bad desire with a good purpose is also to be considered sinister. 

The Prophet (peace be upon him) said:

“Truly, the angels lift up a page of a slave’s good deeds, and Allah most high says, ‘Throw it away, for verily, he did not desire my countenance” 

(that is, the slave did not have the purpose of receiving Allah’s pleasure and reward).

The Prophet (peace be upon him) also said: 

“If two Muslims confront each other with their swords, both the killer and the killed are in the Fire” It was said to him(upon whom be peace), ‘Oh messenger of Allah! One is a killer, but what about the killed?’ He (upon whom be peace) replied, “He intended to kill his companion.” (Sahih Bukhari: 6672) 

Thus, Oh seeker! Perfect your intention and desire nothing but the happiness of the Lord who fed and clothed you.

There is no power except by Allah.