'Adalah (Justice): Difference between revisions

'Adalah (عدالة) is the Arabic word for "justice" and is used in various forms throughout the Islamic scriptures. While the basic concept of justice in Islam and Islamic law is not wholly distinct from modern conceptions of the word, in the definitional sense of justice being what is fair and reasonable, there are many contexts in which what is considered Islamically just is, in practice, significantly distinct from what a modern sense of justice would entail. An important example of this difference is found in the frequent and broad-ranging preferential legal and financial treatment of Muslims over and above non-Muslims and of men over and above women in Shariah courts -- while such treatment would not evoke in many modern persons the feeling that justice had been attained, it is nonetheless considered just under Islamic law. In addition to these substantive distinctions, which are themselves significant, there are also certain meaning-laden phraseologies and symbols with which the concept of justice is associated in the Islamic scriptures which are noteworthy for historical and literary reasons. One recurrent and still-popular image in the Quran is that of the Scales of Justice, which are supposed to be employed to determine individuals fate (be it Hell or Heaven) on the Day of Judgement.

Distinct from the legal and literary senses of 'Adalah, or justice, in Islam is the theological nature of expectations of Justice from Allah. According to mainstream Islamic theological schools, which defined themselves directly against the Mu'tazilites of the early Islamic period, God must be more powerful than he is just. While the Mu'tazilites, or rationalists, of early Islamic history maintained that God was bound to justice and could neither favor nor disfavor anyone except by their merits and demerits, the theological schools (particularly the Ash'ari school) that emerged to denounce this view as heretical would win first political favor and finally the contest of history. What results is that, today, all major schools of Islamic theology hold that while one may expect justice from Allah on grounds of likelihood, Allah is not bound by it, and may arbitrarily decide to punish or reward whoever he wills. This is because it is believed that justice must be beholden to an all-powerful God rather than vice-versa.

Justice in the Shariah

Muslims are worth more than non-Muslims

In many legal matters, Muslim parties involved in a dispute are given immediate and incontestable priority and preference over non-Muslim parties. One example of where such preferential treatment is given to all Muslims, no matter the facts of the case, is in the case of killing. The vast majority of Muslim scholars hold the view explicitly formulated in Sahih Bukhari 1:3:111, among other hadith, that while a non-Muslim will be executed for killing a Muslim, a Muslim should never be killed for killing a non-Muslim. A minority of scholars, by contrast, hold that a Muslim may be executed if he kills a non-Muslim, but only if that non-Muslim is a sub-citizen dhimmi who is under the "protection" of the Islamic state.^[1][2]

Similarly, in the case of a killing where compensation is paid in the form of blood money, the sum to be paid for killing a Muslim is significantly more than that to be paid for killing a non-Muslim. The same is also the case for the genders: if a man is killed, the money owed is significantly greater than that owed if a woman is killed. In monetary terms, the direct implication is that the life of a Muslim is worth more than the life of a non-Muslim and that the life of a man more than that of a woman.

The above example of Muslims being favored over non-Muslims is just one instance of religious preference in the Sharia. Other examples of legal issues where Muslims are unequivocally favored over non-Muslims include slavery, marriage, inheritance, transport, attire, houses of worship, taxation, residential zoning, and freedom of expression, among others.

Men are worth more than women

In perhaps equally numerous instances in the Shariah, male parties involved in a dispute are given immediate and incontestable priority and preference over female parties. Two famous examples found in the Quran include men's double right to both inheritance and testimony in court when compared to women.

Other examples of men being favored in the Shariah over women abound. These include matters of murder, slavery, marriage, attire, mobility, domestic autonomy, and public leadership, among others.

It is also worth noting that in some few cases, women are given preferential treatment. Examples of this preferential treatment include, for instance, apostasy, where according to a minority of Islamic legal authorities, a female apostate's life may be spared (by contrast, a male apostate must always be killed).

Justice and Allah in Islamic theology

The first significant formal theological school to emerge in the Islamic world was that of the Mu'tazilites, or rationalists. According to the Mu'tazilites, Allah was obligated to do justice to his creation and could not do otherwise. Thus, a good person was guaranteed a good fate in the hereafter, and a bad person a bad fate. Many early Islamic thinkers, however, found this notion to limit God's omnipotence to an unacceptable degree. This theological discontent ultimately manifested itself in the formation of rival theological schools, most famously Ash'arism, the school that became affiliated with Abu Hasan al-Ashari (d. 936). Ash'arism is still the most common theological school in the Muslim world today, and its stance on the doctrine of God being more powerful than he is necessarily just rings true through all major competing theological schools until today.

In the hadith

There are some authentic hadiths which convey stories immediately relevant to Allah's relationship with justice. The messages found in these hadith are not always consistent and may not square perfectly or easily with the doctrines endorsed by the main schools of Islamic theology.

The rich are punished more severely

The poor are rewarded less handsomely

Symbolic associations in scripture

Scales of Justice in the hereafter

The symbol of the scales used in trade has been used throughout history by various cultures to represent the concept of Justice and is still seen in court rooms today. For instance Maat, the Egyptian goddess of truth, right, and orderly conduct, holds the scales which weigh the human heart in the judgment of the dead. Justitia, the Roman Lady Justice, is another goddess of justice who carries measuring balances. And the book of Daniel refers to scales being used to judge a man just as with other ancient religions.^[3]

The same symbolism is found in Islamic scriptures, which describe Allah using a balancing scale to measure every individuals good deeds against their bad deeds to determine their fate in the hereafter.

In the Quran

The Law of Honest Scales

The Tanakh contains a codified law which requires that scales and measuring balances be honest. Such a rule and similar statements can be found in the Torah^[4] and the book of Proverbs^[5][6] and is in all likelihood found throughout various other cultures and religions. The Qur'an includes the this same expectation of worldly scales being used justly.

Islamic scholars on Western vs. Islamic notions of justice

The following fatwa by a famous Saudi fatwa organization reflects the attitude many traditionalist Islamic authorities hold towards Western notions of justice when compared to those found in Islam. While the opinions of Islamic scholars vary widely across the world, the basic message and non-conciliatory attitude this fatwas consists of can be considered representative of the mindset held by the majority of Islamic scholars around the world today. It is worth noting that the small proportion of Islamic scholars residing in the West (only 3% of the global Muslim population lives in the West) is likely to have considerably more conciliatory feelings towards Western notions of justice, but this would represent an exception to the more common global phenomenon of sharp and pronounced disagreement.

References