Introduction
For an intellectual who has studied the issue of justice, asking about the scope of the concept of justice means that on the one hand, what does he mean when he uses the term, and on the other hand in what areas he considers the meaning of justice to be meaningful? Whether we intend to theorize about justice or read the views of scholars in this regard, the semantics of justice and the areas in which this concept can be examined, are some of the starting points in this theoretical field. Because on one hand, addressing this concept by the scholars requires having a semantic notion that is largely (or completely) devoid of epistemological, anthropological, and cosmological doctrines, and on the other hand, the question of the frameworks including the universe, the individual life or the social life of man in which the scholars study this concept can greatly influence the formation of their theory.
For example, the attitude of ancient Iranian thought towards the issue of the order of the universe implies a mentality that is based on the formative justice of the universe and seeks to outline how order or justice on earth would be established so that social system will become compatible with the order of the universe (artha). “The position of the ideal king in the political thought of ancient Iran corresponds to this meaning. An ideal king is one who adapts earthly order to the cosmic one and transforms earthly society into a manifestation of utopia. Anything that disrupts this order is considered as heresy.”
It is also clear in Plato’s Theory of Justice that social justice is a reflection of justice which exist among the human faculties.” Because justice, as it is manifested in the human spirit, is small and thereby is not visible, Socrates is trying to identify it in a larger context which is manifested in the city of justice.” He believes that if this city is complete, “clearly it will have four features: wisdom, courage, and abstinence. Then the only trait remaining in the city is the one that created other features and, as long as they are with it, they will be preserved and protected.” “Justice means that man should deal with his own affairs.”
In the same way, three faculties corresponding to the first three attributes are active within the human being, and justice as the fourth attribute does not allow these three faculties to violate their territory. The just person creates harmony between the components of his or her self namely reason, anger, and lust.”
As far as the meaning of justice is concerned, by examining the views of scholars on justice in both Western and Islamic thoughts, the following four concepts can be considered as common concepts that have always been attached to the concept of justice; balance, equality, justice and putting everything in its place.
Even though in Imam Khomeini’s view which of these concepts is attached to the concept of justice, one important question is that whether a meaning which could be considered as the superior meaning of justice can be achieved so that it would include other correspondent meanings and concepts?
This article seeks to describe and analyze Imam Khomeini’s views in this field in an attempt to clarify his ideas regarding the meaning of the concept of justice and show that in which existential areas justice is meaningful in his viewpoints. In this regard, his views will be described and analyzed in terms of the four concepts mentioned, and also the areas in which he considers justice to be meaningful will be addressed.
Imam Khomeini’s View from the Perspective of the Concepts Attached to Justice
Balance
The spontaneous mental occurrence of the concept of balance indicates that there are a set of interrelated components that provide the best form of communication or at least the ideal form of communication between the components in terms of quality and quantity. Balance also implies some kind of divergence between the components.
Balance is created because of the difference which exists among the components, and in fact, the overlap of the various components which make up for each other’s deficiencies constitute the balance of the whole system.
Considering this concept from such a perspective, in addition to covering the individual and social life of man in terms of organizing the affairs and institutions, in Islamic thought, would embody a reality that has been spoken of in the religious texts. From this perspective, “the world is balanced. If it was not balanced, it would not be established and there would be no definite order. The Holy Quran says:
“And the heaven He raised and imposed the balance” (Quran 55:7)
As commentators have said, the point is that balance has been considered in the construction of the world; everything has been properly used and the distances have been correctly and accurately measured. We also read in a hadith that it is because of justice that the heavens and earth exist.” This implies a sense of balance.
Generally, in addition to the sphere of formation, justice in this sense can be seen in the sphere of human social life, as well as in the inner realm or individual ethics. What Ayatollah Motahhari said about the specific conditions of a system in terms of the amount of each component and the quality of the relationship of the components in order to achieve the purpose of the system, the balance between all the internal human powers in the shadow of the absolute rule of rationality, as a moral school and the necessity for the balanced growth of human abilities for having a perfect human being, all are the examples of the attachment of the concept of balance to the concept of justice in three realms of formation, the inner life of man and his social life.
Aside from the work and status of each component of a set, as well as the differences and overlaps they have, in some cases, we would face the issue of conflict and contradiction either between the interests of different people or between the interests of the individuals especially when we speak of human society. An important aspect of the relation between the concept of justice and balance is how justice will be implemented when dealing with the aforementioned conflict?
Referring to the three levels of communication and action among the individuals, between individuals and society, or between different communities within the international community, Catherine Lou believes that “justice must have something to say when a conflict occurs at these three levels. This is when the concept of balance should be taken into consideration. Portraying justice as balance shows that who and what have weights. Justice is not synonymous with other values such as freedom or equality and does not directly compete with other values; rather it acts as an element of reconciliation between them.”
In addition to the conflict between individuals, sometimes the interests themselves are conflicting. For example, one of the political and legal arguments of the American scientific community after the events of 9/11 was that the conflict between the interests defined in liberal rights on the one hand and the need for security, on the other, necessitated redefining justice as “balance.” Both Mac and Kelly discuss these two conflicting aspects given the post-9/11 developments and explain the conclusion by creating a balance between civil liberties and security.
It can be argued that a considerable amount of Imam Khomeini’s arguments on the concept of justice are devoted to presenting semantics that deal with the concept of balance and understanding of the inner life of man.
First, Imam Khomeini acknowledges the attitude of the old scholars regarding the division of human inner powers and the view of justice as being a virtue that organizes other powers. Imam Khomeini sometimes referred to this inner justice as moderation.
Because this justice has the task of organizing other powers, in Imam Khomeini’s view, it is “the origin of all virtues of the soul.” “Justice is a state of self that compels man to observe the virtue of piety and prevents him from committing great sins, and even the minor ones.”
This is because, in his view, justice is essentially “the middle term of the excess and negligence.” It is the concept of the mean in Aristotle’s view which recognizes the levels of excess and negligence for the attributes or better to say the various powers viewing the middle term between excess and negligence as an ideal which is called justice.
Aristotle gives importance to justice believing that while other virtues are the middle terms, it determines the middle term.
By showing the peak of justice, Imam Khomeini extends this concept beyond the domain of human beings; First, the tipping point of justice that Imam Khomeini has portrayed within the inner realm of man is the perfect human being. In his view, “the absolute justice is all the esoteric, exoteric, physical, and spiritual virtues. Because the absolute justice in any cases follows the direct and right path; this is due to it being the manifestation of the divine Names and Attributes which is exclusive to the perfect man.” But beyond the perfect man, it is God who is just.
“The Lord of the perfect man observes absolute moderation and takes the straight path. Likewise, His servants follow the straight path and observe the absolute moderation; however, this is the case with the Lord while He is Independent of other beings whereas it is true for the creatures while they are dependent beings.”
It is because of such an absolute moderation that “the system of existence enjoys absolute perfectness and order” and “is run by an orderly arrangement of causes and effects in a manner that if it is disturbed the whole system will stop working.” “This general system is the most completed one among the systems that may be conceived.”
Imam Khomeini’s interpretation of the divine absolute moderation expresses his theoretical position in one of the most important theological conflicts in the history of Islamic thought. Speaking of God’s justness and absolute moderation implies that justice and injustice are essentially meaningful. In other words, the act of God does not create justice, rather it is in accordance with it, and it is this attitude which, in the domain of divine legislation, considers the dos and don’ts to be based on expediencies and corruptions. In fact, the basis of religious laws, which revolve around real expediencies and corruptions, is in line with divine justice in the field of legislation.
Equality
It is not an extravagant claim to say that throughout the history of studying the concept of justice, the concept of equality, in parallel with the concept of justice, has been considered at least as an inevitable aspect if not as a corresponding concept.
One reason for the correspondence of the concept of equality with justice is that many critics of equality, instead of abandoning this concept, have provided an interpretation of equality that is inconsistent with their views about justice.
The concept of proportional equality, rather than numerical equality, is posed to translate the concept of equality into a concept that can make equality incidental to justice.
Aristotle’s conception upon which “equality is for equals and inequality is for the unequal things” implies proportional justice. In fact, it is through different interpretations coming from different cognitive foundations that, throughout the history of studying justice, equality has always accompanied by the concept of justice and as a priori concept through different cognitive teachings has found different contents.
Thomas Nigel agrees with modern political theories on the need for societies to treat their people with predetermined aspects. However, he points out that there are disagreements about the nature of these aspects and how to prioritize them.
What is important about the issue of equality is that in the view of various scholars what aspects of human dignity or life have priority and thereby what are the relevant respects in determining the form of equality?
Libertarianism has looked at the issue of equality from the perspective of human dignity and its requirements such that human beings because of enjoying the power of reason and free will have autonomy. This attitude has provided the basis for the formation of equal freedom for all which is the central core of human rights. This approach rejects any redistribution that would limit the actualization of individuals’ talents and efforts and the endeavours of individuals as well as the gains and results of those efforts.
On the contrary, one concern here is that the issue of the wellbeing of humans perhaps in an intuitionistic way which has been accepted among the theories of equality and the first question that is posed is whether founding the equality on the basis of dignity or what Kant, or others such as Nozick, have identified as the aspect related to the issue of equality can guarantee the wellbeing of individuals or not? Despite moving within the liberal tradition and building on his principles of justice based on the guarantee of equal liberty, Rawls acknowledges that “because great inequality of income leads to inequality in power and dominance and the centralization of social power also would impede freedom and equality of opportunities, therefore the government should not let that boundaries to be violated.” Rawls considers the natural endowment and difference of humans in terms of such endowments raising the concern that these differences, on the one hand, are not within the realm of a deliberate choice of individuals, and on the other hand, they bring different benefits whereas everyone has equal opportunity.
Elizabeth Anderson has looked at the issue from a different angle and sees the goal of equality not as redressing the bad luck but as ending the oppression that is socially imposed (in the form of social structure) on people. Equality, in her view, guarantees equal standing for all people of a social system.
As far as the place of the concept of equality in Islamic thought and the views of Muslim scholars is concerned, one should first consider that equality and its various aspects have been emphasized in religious tradition. One of the basic teachings regarding equality in religious tradition is that human beings have been created equally regardless of their races, languages, clans, geographical and historical backgrounds, and economic classes, and thus they have equal basic needs. The Holy Quran says:
“Oh mankind, indeed We have created you from male and female and made you peoples and tribes that you may know one another. Indeed, the noblest of you in the sight of God is the most righteous of you. Indeed, God is Knowing and Acquainted.” (Quran 49:13).
In Islamic thought, human beings have a faculty that religion calls instinct, and all humans enjoy it. In fact, instinct is the divine nature upon which all human beings have been created.
The point that is repeated in the opinions of many Muslim scholars regarding equality is that this concept is in strong connection with the concept of entitlement. According to Ayatollah Motahhari’s interpretation, “justice requires that the matter of entitlement is equally observed in society.” “If justice means having equality in terms of the entitlement it would be a correct definition. Justice requires such equality which is itself one of the requisites of justice.” From this point of view, if one seeks to extend equality to other contexts, in particular to the areas from which human beings can gain the benefit, such equality will no longer guarantee justice; rather, it is by itself the injustice.
In general, among these views, sometimes human dignity in terms of his abilities and their requirements have become the focus of attention and in some cases, in addition to these abilities the target points that will be achieved through the application of those abilities have been addressed and the correspondent equality index has been outlined accordingly. Therefore, given the studying of various aspects of justice, the idea of equality has emerged. Sometimes the focus is solely on human dignity in terms of wisdom and free will, while in some cases scholars who study the issue of justice address the basic needs of humans, enhancing their abilities, or the issue of providing humans with a full range of opportunities and facilities.
From Imam Khomeini’s point of view, first of all, in terms of human dignity “all human beings are equal before God. He is the creator of all and all the creatures are His bondmen. The principle of equality of human beings indicates that the only privilege of one individual over another is the criterion of virtue and cleanliness from diversion and lapses. Therefore, one should struggle against anything that disturbs equality in society and imposes hollow and vain privileges in society.”
The important point is that the criterion of virtue and purity, which is the sole criterion of the superiority of a human being, does not apply to all positions. In other words, in many social and political affairs, even the criterion of piety cannot change the equation of equality in favour of the more pious. Perhaps the most important consequence of this attitude can be seen as equality before the law, because different schools agree on this, despite their differences in terms of the outcomes they seek from human equality. He talks about the Islamic state during the first days of Islam and the behaviour and practices of its ruler in this way: “the execution of justice in an Islamic system is such that if someone from the lowest class in the land wanted to lodge a complaint with a court of law against the first person of the country, that is against the ruler or the governor, the judge would summon the ruler to stand before him and he, in turn, would have to comply; if the judge’s decision went against the ruler, he would still have to abide by that decision.”
In terms of social relations and, in particular, the distribution of welfare, Imam Khomeini does not believe in the equality of humans in a way that all would live a similar life and all would be dependent on the government. Especially in the face of communal thinking, Imam Khomeini believes that Islam is regarded as a moderate system that recognizes ownership and respects it in a manner that one could enjoy ownership and use his property while considering pursuing communism as the result of not paying attention to some of the verses of the Quran and Islamic traditions. In his will, Imam Khomeini not only recommends the executive agencies to respect the ownership and legitimate properties within the Islamic boundaries but also believes that assuring people in this regard would result in the economic development of the country.
On the other hand, Imam Khomeini’s view is not limited to the results of the will and wisdom of individuals as we see, for example, in the liberationist attitudes. Although he has explicitly rejected equality which the communal systems advocate and recognized the acts of the wise subject, he has also addressed the equality of humans in using the essential and primary opportunities and facilities. This aspect of equality can be considered in more detail by studying the concept of entitlement. This entitlement, beyond work and activity, is derived from the right which is created by human need and talent because of his type of creation. That is why Ayatollah Motahhari has called this right the ultimate right. From this point of view, “before humanity could make an action and before the divine laws were conveyed to humans by the prophets, there had been a kind of interest and connection between man and the bounties of creation all of which belong to him and are his right. As it says, “It is He who created for you all of that which is on the earth.” (Quran 2:29) Imam Khomeini has highlighted this kind of attitude at various times by addressing the issue of poverty alleviation, creating prosperity for all classes of people and the distribution of wealth.
From his point of view, “All the people should live comfortably, the poor should
be helped; the poverty-stricken hovel-dwellers who have nothing should be taken care of. The wealth of the nation should not lie only in the hands of the elite and the aristocrats. The government should not see solely to the needs of the aristocrats. No, the government belongs to all sections of the community; it should work for everyone, it should work more for the weak and the poor in order to help them attain a suitable standard of living.” “Ownership in the manner that is usual in the United States does not exist in Islam. Islam recognizes and accepts private property, but there are some rules in Islam to regulate it. If these Islamic rules are observed, no one will have great land properties. Ownership in Islam is in a manner that all the people will be at the same level and if it is so, why should we involve the government in these affairs and why shouldn’t we let the people be in charge of lands and industries?”
“Islam demands a balance to be maintained. It neither prevents the accumulation of assets nor does it allow the assets to be such that one possesses hundreds of millions of dollars, and even a car for his dog and a chauffeur and such things, while another person has to go home at night to his children without any bread. This situation should not exist; it is not practical. Neither does Islam approve of it, nor does any human being.”
Archive of Imam Khomeini
leave your comments