The Normative Model of the Verse “Repel [Evil] by That Which Is Better” (Fuṣṣilat: 34) and Its Applications to the Integrity of Disciplinary Decision-Making in Administrative Committees

Abstract

This study examines the verse “Repel [evil] by that which is better; then the one between whom and you was enmity [will become] as though he was a devoted friend” (Fuṣṣilat: 34), employing a thematic-deductive method to derive a normative model for disciplinary decision-making within administrative committees—one that safeguards the integrity of the decision-maker when personal enmity exists between him and the person under judgment. The study relies primarily on the Muslim exegetical tradition and draws on modern administrative literature by way of illustration rather than proof. It concludes that the verse is structured in three graduated levels: a level establishing the legitimacy of accountability by negating equivalence between the good deed and the evil one; a level granting the decision-maker a disciplined discretionary space governed by what is optimal and most conducive to reform; and a level regulating the decision through the criterion of “devotedness,” treating the adversary as though he were one’s closest ally, conditioned upon the capacity for self-restraint affirmed by the subsequent verse. It arrives at a procedural rule: the obligation of the decision-maker to recuse himself, or be excluded, when neutralizing standing enmity proves impossible—paralleling the principles of conflict of interest and procedural justice in modern administration.