The Observance of Entitlement

This notion is not only common in both Islamic and Western thought, but also it is used to complement the concept of equality; since for some, equality is the equitable provision of the opportunities of flourishment and then equality in terms of gaining achievement in accordance with the efforts of the person. Then, they considered such an observance of entitlement as the superior meaning.

 

Besides looking into the history of thought to see the traces of this definition, it should be noted that it is logical to accept that human being, given the privileges and rights that he thinks he deserves to have, linked the concept of right with the notion of right and exercising it either at a theoretical level or in the social and political interactions. To pursue this, we do need not consider a broad definition of the concept of right that encompasses both moral and legal domain of human communication; but to understand the issue, one only needs to limit the concept of the right to the duty that one expects others to fulfill or a judgment which is in favour of the rightful and against the obliged or interest and property which are given to the one who is deserved to have.

 

It seems that in the opinion of Muslim scholars, the semantics of justice is more concerned with observing the entitlements than addressing the concept of equality. Moreover, it is in light of the concept of right and observing the entitlement that equality becomes essential to the concept of justice.

 

Farabi considers the creatures to have a capacity that must be actualized, and when that capacity has been actualized justice would be revealed.

 

In Ibn Sina’s thought, pure equality, apart from being just or an act of oppression, is the cause of society’s destruction, and this division among the members of the community would give people different tasks and jobs which is necessary for survival of society. That is why Ibn Sina sees the nature of this division and difference as the wisdom that exists in creation.

 

Nasir al-Din Tusi also addresses the same meaning in the Nasirean Ethics and writes: “The difference in people’s tasks and carriers which is derived from the differences in their wills and powers is required by the system of creation. The divine wisdom required the divergence of people’s will-powers and views so that each would pursue another’s occupation through which the social life will continue.”

 

Historically, in Western thought, topics such as Socratic Dialogues, the right of wise to rule in Plato’s views, the connection of Aristotle’s Doctrine of the Mean with the entitlements of people, the definition of the point of entitlement under the eternal law of God in the view of Augustine and Aquinas, the expression of fundamental rights in modern philosophy from the John Locke’s perspective, and the particular Kantian interpretation of justice provided by Rawls, all show how old this meaning is in Western thought.

 

In Imam Khomeini’s thought, like many other scholars in the Islamic world, the concept of justice is linked to the concept of entitlement. He writes: “And the one who witnesses plurality without ignoring the unity and also witnesses unity without ignoring the plurality, would give everyone his rights; hence, he would be the manifestation of justice.”

 

In other remarks Imam Khomeini, although not explicitly using the word justice, has likened the necessary attention to different aspects of affairs to observing the rights.

In Islamic thought, one of the manifestations of justice, when it means observing the entitlement, is the issue of divine justice both in the formative and legislative senses. In the formative sense, God naturally guides the creatures towards the peak of their talent or perfection.

 

In the view of Imam Khomeini, “The whole universe is temporal and has trans-substantial motion through which all the creatures incline and move towards the Perfect world.” 

 

“Existence is originated from the all-encompassing divine mercy, and every phenomenon would reach its spiritual perfection and inner guidance through special divine mercy. That is why in Islamic traditions we see phrases such as God is Rahim (All-Compassionate) in this world and Rahman (All-Merciful) in the Hereafter; God is Rahman towards all the creatures. He is Rahim towards the faithful only. Hence, God, with His All-Merciful truth, has bestowed existence upon the non-existent essences and the mortal things guiding all the creatures towards His path by His special mercy.” 

 

Likewise, the justice of God requires that there would be legislation so that the basis for human beings who willingly intend to move towards the peak of perfection will be provided. In this regard, Imam Khomeini writes: “Since Islam is the last and most completed religion and the Holy Quran is the latest and the seal of the divine books which links the creatures to the Creator, they should be at the highest point of perfection in terms of encompassing the truths of divine monotheism, detachment, and divine teachings which is the primary and ultimate aim of the divine religions and scriptures; otherwise, the shari’ah will be considered as imperfect which, in addition to being contrary to divine Justice and Grace, is absurd and fallacious.”  

 

Putting Everything in Its Right Place

 

Putting everything in its right place implies a general meaning which includes real objects, individuals, institutions, laws, and more generally, prescriptions. It thus encompasses a minimal meaning, such as the distribution of material benefits to appointments, creation of institutions, structures, and setting the principles, rules, and regulations.

 

One of the most famous interpretations in religious teachings which addresses this meaning of justice is Imam Ali’s response to the question of superiority of justice and generosity over each other: “Justice puts things in their places while generosity takes them out from their directions; justice is the general caretaker while generosity is a particular benefit.”

 

It seems that the meaning of “putting everything in its right place” can be considered as a comprehensive meaning of justice. In other words, the semantics of justice for the scholars who study justice whether or not they have addressed this meaning of justice or not goes back to that meaning. More clearly, how to create balance among various components of a set in studying justice from the perspective of balance, determining the rights and principles governing the process of granting the rights (including when there is a conflict between the two rights) in studying justice from the perspective of observing the entitlements, and determining the type and form of valid equality as well as the cases of exercising equality in studying justice from the perspective of equality, all in all, in fact, revolve around the recognition of the positions of objects.

 

It was stated earlier that in general, balance is the result of everything being in its own place. In the relationship between the components of a set, for example, if it is seen from the perspective of pure equality, the systematic relation between the components would not occur. 

 

In addition, the disparity that exists between the components will lead to the creation of convergence which is in line with the systematic functioning of the set provided that each component had been put in its place in advance. For example, the balance with regard to the interests of the individual has already been addressed from two angles; one is the balance between the interests of different people and the other is the balance between different interests. The main question, of which balance is the fruit, is that what is the position of the interests and then the beneficiaries in the system of benefiting from the interests? And what are their boundaries?

 

Thus balance is the apparent manifestation and the product of putting things (in the general sense) in their positions. Concerning equality, we also found that this concept is at first glance a simple theory. But by reading the questions and considering the ambiguities surrounding this concept, its apparent simplicity, in terms of the theory, finds a special complexity that makes its relation with the concept of putting things in their right place inevitable. Talking about proportional equality in contrast to numerical one implicitly acknowledges the view that equality is possible at certain points which are not rooted in the idea of pure equality; rather, with respect to the relevant aspects and determinant criteria, the status and way of exercising equality will be clarified.

 

Questions such as: Equality for whom yes, for whom no? What aspects (human dignity, efforts, talents, well-being, etc.) are considered relevant in practicing equality? 

 

How does focusing on equality in opportunities or the responsible actions of individuals or their capabilities would guarantee exercising equality?

 

All such questions show that equality, before it has a simple outlook, is based on determining the relevant positions to draw the form of equality, especially on a social scale. To what extent the equality of opportunity and prosperity can bring about justice is a question that will be resolved through organizing the affairs, rules and scales within a certain framework, and this is, in fact, the reason for the particularizations that have been mentioned regarding the concept of equality throughout history. 

 

Looking at theories of equality shows that generally in these theories one or several aspects are considered as related aspects so that equal conditions will be created. These aspects represent positions in which equality will be fair not vice versa. It is worth noting that in this interpretation the question that whether simple equality can last or not is ignored. Regarding the observance of entitlement, it can be said that this concept, only when is considered in a general sense, will have a high potential for synchronization with the concept of “putting everything in its place.” Otherwise, it would be difficult to explain the correspondence of this concept with justice and its full potential for the formation of justice at individual and social levels.

 

If the entitlement is defined as deserving, it can be easily linked to the interpretations which are appropriate to different positions and situations. For example, a handsome person for working on television has the advantage over a less beautiful one, though beauty does not result from one’s volitional action. But limiting the concept of entitlement to the state of conscious effort, creating the right, and then granting it, demonstrate the need to complete this concept. The flooded person is not the cause of his unfortunate situation. On the other hand, a merchant’s economic sense in selling food at a favourable price in times of crisis does not in any way entitle him the right to determine the prices. 

 

In fact, it is the different situations that determine how to give a person a certain entitlement, and in fact, the key question is, “who (and in what position a person) deserves a gift, reward, punishment, or position?” For example, what is the difference between what a salesperson is deserved during the time of a crisis and the normal situation in terms of the level of ownership and transferring his properties?

 

Although Imam Khomeini’s definitions of justice may focus on concepts such as moderation and middle term rather than putting everything in its place, yet it can be clearly seen in his views that the deeper layer of his semantics, like many other scholars, especially in the Islamic thought, is that latter meaning.

 

The most prominent semantics of justice in Imam Khomeini’s views is studying the meaning from the point of view of balance and, as he stated, moderation and middle term. Moderation or middle term at first glance indicates a middle point and implicitly the approximate equality of the distance between the midpoint of the two ends in which that midpoint is placed as the point of justice. However, when considering the deeper layer of Imam Khomeini’s semantics of justice, it becomes clear that the central focus of justice is not the state of being the middle, but it is the positions of the objects and the necessary state or more generally, the righteousness.

 

This claim can be well illustrated in two positions; one is the cases in which the meaning of justice is more likely to be applied to concepts such as righteousness, the necessary state and the like than the middle term; For example, Imam Khomeini considers justice to be meaningful in the domain of beliefs and truths in addition to the realm of human traits as he says, “perceiving the truths about the existence in their true sense from the ultimate point of the perfection of the divine names to the manifestations returning to beings. This is the reality of Ma’ad (the Day of Resurrection).”

 

Thus, the righteous and just man not only possesses moderation in terms of the inner powers which lead to the formation of human actions but he can also be the subject of justice in terms of the theories that form his beliefs and thoughts. Accordingly, we can say that the meaning of justice is more than harmony, balance, equality or the granting of rights.

 

The other position is the cases in which justice does not obviously conform to the notion of the middle state. For instance, he writes regarding this verse of the Quran in which God Almighty describes believers: 

 

“Muhammad is the Messenger of God; and those with him are forceful against the disbelievers, merciful among themselves.” (Quran 48:29)

 

this is the state of moderation that when it is needed requires practicing mercy and compassion or intensity and wrath. It has been said that the Messenger of God (s) never asked for help in the face of difficulties except when a divine law was about to be violated, so he would get angry for the sake of God. Therefore, it became clear that the wrath which is placed against mercy and is advocated by ignorance and Satan neither has the state of moderation and nor is under the rule of reason, God, and religion; but its extravagance is intended here.”

 

Likewise, concerning the issue of equality, as it was said, in the view of Imam Khomeini, human equality is valid in terms of human dignity, but this equality has a condition which is the piety of humans as well as their level of dignity. However, the same criterion cannot be applied anywhere, and there are many important cases in which the infallible Imam has no difference from an ordinary person who lacks a specific individual and social status. Human dignity gives rise to rights under which Imam Khomeini rejects communal equality and the state of being dependent on the government, but this does not mean accepting rights in a liberal sense. Whereas equality of opportunity and facilities is valid in his view, there are still rooms in his ideas for making plains to organize and improve the lives of poor or disadvantaged people which implies a kind of equality linked to the necessity for human beings to benefit from basic opportunities and bounties.

 

Granting the right to the rightful is also a valid meaning in the minds of Muslim scholars, including Imam Khomeini. However, for Imam Khomeini in determining the rights that should be fulfilled specific positions are involved. Imam Khomeini explicitly writes:

 

“The ruler can unilaterally annul religious contracts forged with the people in case the contracts are against the interest of Islam and the country. He can prevent any affair —devotional or else — whose occurrence is against the interests of Islam as long as it is so. The government can temporarily stop the performance of the Hajj, which is one of the important religious obligations, at times when it is against the interests of the Islamic country.”

 

In this way, the way equality is exercised, creating balance and the definition of rights that must be granted, all depend on knowing the positions of the issues that have become the subject of justice. Furthermore, recognizing these positions, as it can be understood from the words of Imam Khomeini, depends on the recognition of the great purpose or purposes for which sometimes he used the term “expediencies.”

 

He states that: “The just and righteous ruler is Prophet Muhammad (s). If he decides to take a place, burn a house, kill the people of a tribe that jeopardizes Islam and Muslims, his orders would be just and fair. If he does not make command in such cases, it would be against justice because he has ignored the state of Islam, Muslims and human society. One who governs Muslims and human society must always take into account the public interest and ignore personal and individual interests and desires. Hence, Islam has killed people for the sake of the interests of society; it has destroyed people for the sake of humanity; it has destroyed tribes because they were harmful to society.”

 

The fact is that, in Imam Khomeini’s view, the principle of bringing about justice, even though it is mentioned as one of the purposes of sending the prophets, in itself is not the ultimate aim. From his point of view, the purpose of sending the prophets was not to establish government and social justice, and these are merely the intermediate goals. The goal is to actualize the potential human being and making him becoming divine and, from a comprehensive semantics of justice, “spreading justice is spreading the divine attributes.”

 

Conclusion

 

Justice in Imam Khomeini’s thought has been associated with the notions of balance, equality, and the granting of the right to rightful. From the perspective of balance, justice within the inner realm of human beings is the moderation of power and is taking a middle way with respect to that power. Full moderation is found in the perfect man, and beyond that, the Lord of the perfect human possesses absolute moderation.

 

The effect of divine justice which has absolute moderation in creation is a system that is designed in the best form in which the creatures are guided towards their points of perfection. The particular status of man in terms of having the faculty of free will requires that he should be provided with legislation in addition to the general guidance and it is the divine justice that has determined the real expediencies and corruptions as the foundation of divine decrees. 

 

From the perspective of equality, humans have equal dignity except for the level of innate virtue and dignity. Of course, this criterion also is not the case in many important positions. Human dignity will cause the results of volitional actions of man to be recognized, but on the other hand, apart from the results of human endeavourment, Imam Khomeini clearly recognizes the rights of enjoying the basic opportunities and bounties and the necessity of equitable use of these benefits for all humans.

 

Granting the right to the rightful is also a concept incidental to the concept of justice. But overall, the definition of these rights and the rules governing the process of granting them, in addition to the method of outlining equality and determining the point of moderation as well as determining the relevant and irrelevant aspects in the formulation of valid equalities, all, in a deeper layer of the semantics of justice, go back to the concept of putting everything in its place. 

 

Understanding the positions of the objects that include many things such as prescriptions, blessings, etc. also depends on knowing the supreme purpose (human divinity) of which the intermediate goals are subordinates.

 

The notion of justice in Imam Khomeini’s thought encompasses the realms of divine action with two subdivisions of formative justice and the legislative one as well as the human action with two subdivisions of individual and social justice.

 

 

Archive of Imam Khomeini