How To Dismantle Evil in Society

Jeffrey Epstein ran a trafficking network that serviced some of the most powerful men in the world—politicians, financiers, academics, heads of state. The evidence is not circumstantial. The court documents, the flight logs, the testimony, the photographs are a matter of public record. And yet, years after his death and the arrest of his primary accomplice, the full accounting has not come. The powerful names remain mostly in orbit around the story rather than subject to it. What has happened is not that the public failed to learn what occurred. What has happened is that the public was given just enough to register the horror and just not enough to sustain outrage—and then the news cycle moved on.

This is the strategy. It has nothing to do with secrecy in the conventional sense. It is a wager on human acclimatization: that the revelation of evil, if managed carefully, will produce a spike of revulsion followed by a slow normalization, and that eventually what was once unthinkable will settle into the background as one more confirmed fact about how power works. The public does not need to approve of what was done. It only needs to stop reacting to it.

This is how corruption sustains itself, and the Quran provides the answer to combating it.

The Solution

Two claims run through everything that follows, and they should be stated plainly at the outset.

The first is that evil survives when people stop recognizing it as evil—when they grow accustomed to it, learn to live alongside it, or accept the euphemisms that power uses to obscure it. Corruption does not require public endorsement. It requires only that recognition be sufficiently eroded that no sustained response becomes possible.

The second is that evil becomes unchallengeable when those who recognize it remain divided. An isolated individual who names injustice can be ignored, discredited, or broken. A community that has made its recognition collective and refuses to unsee what it has seen is a fundamentally different problem for power—one that history suggests has never been fully managed.

The Quran addresses both of these realities, not incidentally but at the center of its moral vision, encoded in one of its most repeated commands:

Let there be a community of you who invite to what is good, advocate righteousness, and forbid evil. These are the winners. — Quran 3:104

The full weight of that command lives in its Arabic, and it is there that the diagnosis sharpens.

What the Words Actually Mean

The phrase at the heart of this command is yamurūna bil-maʿrūfi wayanhawna ʿani l-munkar. Rendered into English, it becomes “they advocate righteousness and forbid evil.” When we explore the Arabic of this statement, we can gain deeper insight into the meaning of this expression.

Maʿrūf (مَعروف) is a passive participle from the root ʿ-r-f (ع-ر-ف): to know, to recognize, to be acquainted with. Maʿrūf is literally “what is recognized”—what the conscience acknowledges as good, fitting, in harmony with the moral order. It is not righteousness as an abstract principle. It is righteousness as something seen and known, something the uncorrupted human conscience identifies without being told.

Munkar (مُنكَر) is its direct inverse, from the root n-k-r (ن-ك-ر): to not recognize, to be unacquainted with, to deny. Munkar is the wrong that conscience rejects—the unacknowledged, the denied, the evil that has been made to seem like something other than what it is.

The Quran provides its own illustration of the contrast. In the story of Joseph, when his brothers come to Egypt and stand before him, the text says: faʿarafahum wahum lahu munkirūn—he recognized them, while they did not recognize him. The same root, deployed in the same verse, as opposite conditions. Joseph sees through to the truth; his brothers stand in front of it and do not perceive it.

6	faʿarafahum	فَعَرَفَهُمْ	and he recognized them
7	wahum	وَهُمْ	while they
8	lahu	لَهُۥ	of him
9	munkirūna	مُنكِرُونَ	those who did not recognize.

The moral command inherits this structure. To advocate maʿrūf and forbid munkar is, at its foundation, a matter of recognition—the capacity to see what is in front of you, to name it accurately, and to refuse the substitutions that power offers in its place. The Quran’s implicit warning is that this capacity is not guaranteed. It can be eroded. A society can reach a point where it can no longer reliably distinguish what it is looking at.

Sura 91 establishes why this matters at the deepest level:

The soul and Him who created it. Then showed it what is evil and what is good. — Quran 91:7-8

1	fa-alhamahā	فَأَلْهَمَهَا	Then He placed innate knowledge in it (of)
2	fujūrahā	فُجُورَهَا	its evil / immorality
3	wataqwāhā	وَتَقْوَىٰهَا	and its righteousness.

The word used for “showed” is alhamahā—from ilham, innate divine knowledge, an inner awareness placed directly into the soul. This is not knowledge acquired through education or social conditioning. It precedes both. Every human being enters the world with the capacity to recognize good and evil, because God installed that capacity as a constitutive feature of what it means to be human. Maʿrūf names what the conscience already knows. The command to advocate it is a call to trust that knowledge and to act on it rather than suppress it.

This is what makes the corruption of recognition so precise an instrument of power. A system that cannot secure public approval for its injustices does not need to. It only needs to separate inner recognition from outward speech—to create the conditions under which people privately know what they are looking at and publicly say nothing, or say something else, or eventually stop looking at all.

The First Problem: How Evil Acclimatizes

The Roman Colosseum is the standard example of audience desensitization, and it is a legitimate one. By the height of the games, the death of a single human being required elaborate staging to register as a spectacle—more exotic animals, more humiliating choreography, greater technical ingenuity—because the moral faculty that would have made a single death unbearable had been dismantled through repetition. What would have horrified a Roman of the Republic had become, under the emperors, an afternoon’s entertainment. The mechanism was simple: exposure in sufficient quantity transforms the exceptional into the routine.

The Soviet show trials of the 1930s operated on the same principle, with greater theoretical sophistication. The trials were not primarily designed to produce conviction in their audiences. Many spectators privately knew that the confessions were extracted under torture, that the defendants had done nothing resembling what they were charged with. The purpose of the trials was not persuasion but participation—the public demand that citizens affirm something they knew to be false, and thereby fracture the connection between what they recognized and what they would say. Solzhenitsyn, writing from within that system, understood this clearly: the primary instrument of totalitarian control is not the labor camp but the lie that requires active cooperation. Every person who repeats what they know to be false has surrendered the faculty the Quran calls maʿrūf. Every such person also makes it slightly easier for everyone else to do the same.

This pattern does not require totalitarianism to operate. It runs through any system where the gap between popular recognition and official acknowledgment is wide and persistent. When widespread financial fraud destroys millions of households, and its architects receive government appointments rather than prosecutions, the cultural communication is exact: what you thought you recognized as theft is not recognized as such by the people who matter. Over time, this gap produces moral exhaustion—a withdrawal of moral claim-making, not because people have changed their minds but because claim-making has been demonstrated, repeatedly, to be without consequence.

The Epstein case is a current instance of this process in progress. The magnitude of what is documented is not in dispute. The involvement of powerful figures across governments, financial institutions, and social elites is not contested. What is being tested is precisely the Quranic thesis: whether the recognition event that occurred when the case became public will be sustained through to accountability, or whether it will follow the familiar arc—outrage, saturation, cynicism, normalization. The bet placed by those with something to lose is that it will follow the familiar arc. That bet has historically been sound, because it understands something important about what happens to recognition when it is not organized into action.

The Quran names the social mechanism that accelerates this process: nifāq, hypocrisy. The munāfiqīn are those who call evil good and good evil, who speak with their mouths what their hearts do not hold. But the hypocrite in the Quranic sense is not only the person who lies. The hypocrite is the person who has severed the connection between inner recognition and outward speech—and this severing is socially contagious. When enough people perform non-recognition of what they privately see, the performance becomes the norm. The person who insists on naming what everyone sees but no one names begins to seem disruptive, unhinged, or naive. The social pressure runs in the direction of compliance, not conscience.

This is the first weapon of corrupt power: not to make people endorse evil, but to make them stop saying what they know.

The Second Problem: Why Isolation Fails

The first weapon, if successful enough, makes the second unnecessary. But when recognition cannot be fully suppressed—when people still know what they are looking at—the response is to ensure that their knowing remains fractured and individual. An isolated person who recognizes injustice is a manageable problem. A movement of people who recognize it together is not.

The Quran frames this directly:

You shall hold fast to the rope of GOD, all of you, and do not be divided. Recall GOD’s blessings upon you—you used to be enemies and He reconciled your hearts. By His grace, you became brethren. You were at the brink of a pit of fire, and He saved you therefrom. — Quran 3:103

The verse that follows is the command to advocate righteousness and forbid evil. The sequence is not incidental. Unity precedes the command because, without unity, the command cannot be effectively carried out. The ummah that names injustice is, first, a community that has refused to be divided. The Quran immediately reinforces the warning:

Do not be like those who became divided and disputed, despite the clear proofs that were given to them. For these have incurred a terrible retribution.” — Quran 3:105

Division here is not simply organizational failure. It is a moral failure, because a divided community has lost the capacity to function as a coherent force. And the loss of that capacity is not neutral—it actively serves the interests of those whose power depends on injustice remaining unnamed.

Corrupt systems learn to manage dissent. They have always learned this, and they have become sophisticated at it. The Roman emperors permitted a degree of Stoic and Cynic criticism of power; Seneca could write elegantly about virtue while serving Nero’s court, and this contradiction was tolerated, even cultivated, because it demonstrated magnanimity and posed no structural threat. Soviet-era systems created official channels through which citizens could report local corruption, directing popular frustration toward replaceable individuals and away from the system itself. Contemporary states permit, and sometimes quietly amplify, forms of protest that generate no sustained organized opposition—the outraged social media cycle, the street demonstration that disperses by evening, the documentary that trends for a week and is forgotten.

What these systems do not tolerate—and have never tolerated with equanimity—is organized, morally unified opposition that refuses to be redirected or managed. The Quran acknowledges this dynamic without sentiment:

You shall obey God and His messenger, and do not dispute among yourselves, lest you fail and scatter your strength. You shall steadfastly persevere. God is with those who steadfastly persevere. — Quran 8:46

The key phrase is “steadfastly persevere.” The schemes work when the community fractures—when individuals can be isolated, discredited, exhausted, or co-opted one at a time. They lose their force against a community that has chosen, collectively, to hold together.

Advocacy, Not Compulsion

The word the Quran uses in this command—yaʾmurūna (يَأْمُرُونَ)— which has been misunderstood by many to justify compulsion. From the misapplication of this command, Classical Islamic jurisprudence developed elaborate enforcement doctrines that gave state officials the authority to police public morality. This interpretation should be examined directly against what the text says.

The verse opens with an invitation: yadʿūna ilā l-khayr—inviting to what is good. The advocacy of righteousness is in parallel with this invitation, not in contrast to it. The community the Quran calls for is a community of moral witness—one that makes its recognition of good and evil visible and vocal—not an enforcement apparatus. The Quran is explicit elsewhere:

There shall be no compulsion in religion: the right way is now distinct from the wrong way. — Quran 2:256

Compulsion produces not righteousness but its performance—the outward compliance that coexists with inner rejection, which is the very condition the Quran names as hypocrisy. Therefore, enforced conformity generates hypocrites (munāfiqīn). It forces people to say things they do not believe, breaking the link between what they know is true and what they are allowed to say. This is not the remedy for a corrupt society. It is a different version of the same disease.

The Quran encodes this concept directly into the grammar of the command. The word translated “and they forbid” is wayanhawna (وَيَنْهَوْنَ), from the root n-h-w (ن-هـ-و), which carries two simultaneous meanings: to prohibit something to others, and to restrain oneself from it. Both senses are active in every occurrence. The person the verse describes is not simply someone who tells others to avoid evil. They are someone who holds themselves back from it. The outward prohibition and the inward restraint are a single act, encoded in a single word.

A person who advocates righteousness while committing evil has not fulfilled this command—they have performed only its surface while gutting its substance. The command refuses that split. Wayanhawna is simultaneously “they forbid it” and “they refrain from it,” and the person the Quran commends is one in whom those two things cannot be separated. Their authority to name evil is inseparable from their own refusal to practice it. The prohibition carries weight precisely because it is not empty words but embodied conduct.

What changes communities is the visible example of people who live by what they say they recognize, whose conduct confirms rather than contradicts their moral claims. The Quran notes that this quality is not confined to a single religious affiliation:

They are not all the same; among the followers of the scripture, there are those who are righteous. They recite GOD’s revelations through the night, and they fall prostrate. They believe in GOD and the Last Day, they advocate righteousness and forbid evil, and they hasten to do righteous works. These are the righteous. — Quran 3:113-114

Maʿrūf, being what is universally recognized, is accessible to every sincere person regardless of the name of their religion. The capacity God placed in the soul at creation is not sectarian.

The image of salt is apt here. Salt does not preserve by force. It preserves by being what it is, by its contact with the surrounding matter. The community that advocates righteousness is the community that trusts the power of visible recognition—that holds confidence in the fact that when good is embodied and evil is named plainly, most human beings, if their conscience has not been entirely dismantled, will recognize what they are seeing. The bet on recognition is not naïve. It is, in fact, the Quran revealing the structure of how society operates.

The Choice That Remains

Every generation eventually faces a version of the same question: whether its moral vocabulary is still functioning—whether the words it uses to describe good and evil still correspond to what its members, in their uncoerced interior, actually recognize. The degradation of that correspondence is the first casualty of sustained corruption. Language is repurposed. Euphemisms multiply. The machinery of power acquires the name of protection; systematic extraction acquires the name of efficiency; the persecution of inconvenient witnesses acquires the name of security.

The Quran’s command is a refusal of that repurposing. To advocate maʿrūf is to insist that what the conscience recognizes as good is in fact good—and to say so aloud, persistently, in community with others who share that recognition, and to refuse the exchange by which inner knowledge is traded for social comfort.

The command does not promise that this will be easy. The Quran is frank that those with power have learned to exploit division:

O you who believe, do not befriend outsiders who never cease to wish you harm; they even wish to see you suffer. Hatred flows out of their mouths and what they hide in their chests is far worse. — Quran 3:118

It is also frank that the schemes of such people have a structural vulnerability: they depend on fragmentation. They lose their force against a community that has refused to fragment.

What the Quran calls al-mufliḥūn—the winners—are not those who possess superior worldly resources or political advantage. They are those who recognized, held together in their recognition, and refused to stop saying what they knew. The Quran’s word for what their opponents accomplish, in contrast, is precise:

The example of their accomplishments in this life is like a violent wind that hits the harvest of people who have wronged their souls, and wipes it out. GOD never wronged them; it is they who wronged themselves. — Quran 3:117

What is built on the denial of recognition has no foundation that outlasts the denial.

The choice before any society at any moment is not complicated, though it is difficult. A society that continues to recognize evil for what it is—that names it plainly, that holds together in naming it, that refuses to trade clarity for comfort—retains the precondition for its own recovery. A society that acclimatizes, that learns to live alongside what it once recognized as intolerable, that allows its moral community to fragment into isolated individuals who each privately know what they will not collectively say, loses something that is very hard to recover. The capacity to recognize is not permanently destroyed all at once. It is relinquished gradually, in small accommodations, in the reasonable-sounding decision not to make a scene, in the exhaustion that comes from naming things that powerful people insist are not what they are.

The Quran does not describe this trajectory as inevitable. It describes it as a choice—and it places the alternative in front of that choice with unusual clarity:

You shall hold fast to the rope of GOD, all of you, and do not be divided. Recall GOD’s blessings upon you—you used to be enemies and He reconciled your hearts. By His grace, you became brethren. You were at the brink of a pit of fire, and He saved you therefrom. GOD thus explains His revelations for you, that you may be guided. Let there be a community of you who invite to what is good, advocate righteousness, and forbid evil. These are the winners. Do not be like those who became divided and disputed, despite the clear proofs that were given to them. For these have incurred a terrible retribution. — Quran 3:103-105

The winners are not those who waited for power to reform itself. They are those who held the recognition together long enough and steadily enough that the thing named could no longer pretend to be something else.