A Brief Presentation on the Oriental and Occidental Perspective of Justice: Prof. Dr. Muin-ud-Din Ahmad Khan
[*** The author is a Retired Senior Professor of Islamic History and culture, Chittagong University; former first Director-General, Islamic Foundation Bangladesh, Dhaka; ex-Vice Chancellor, Southern University Bangladesh, Chittagong and presently Research Scholar in Residence, Southern University, Chittagong]

In the West justice is dispensed according to the law. Both ‘law’ and ‘justice’ in the West are concepts and ideas and are, as a rule, more or less fixed ideas. Hence the judgment elicited from the law are often too harsh or too soft, especially because the laws are enacted by an interested faction of the a party or parties in power to suit their ideals or convenience which may not fully tally with the changing space-time and personal circumstances. As a consequence from a wholesome view in such lopsided enactment of fixed law, there invariably remain many gaps and loopholes, which beget ambiguities.

Moreover, Platonic declension of the meaning of justice from rendering every body his or her ‘due’ which implies ‘birth right’—to giving one one’s enacted ‘legal right’ (as we have explained in a previous paper): which amongst to denying the natural ‘due right’ and imposing artificial ‘legal right’ by the Majestic will of a sovereign king or emperor or national assembly in the form of carefully formulated laws by learned legal experts and over and above that, as and when those laws are codified after the model of Justinian Code or Nepolianic Code, the laws being the tools of justice, become highly professional, hardly understandable to the general people for whose welfare these are enacted.


In the Western historical process, the adoption of Platonic declension of the meaning of justice by the Roman emperors and their adoption of an artificial and dead language of Latin as the Roman Imperial Court Language, made direct communication between the judges and the plaintiff and litigant (complainant and defendant) practically impossible. To facilitate the legal communication between them the legal usage of installing the mediating pleaders on both sides of the plaintiff and litigant gradually emerged. As we have noticed in our first discourse that in Roman times the pleaders were highly specialized professional lawyers who pleaded the cases of the complainant and defendants, as one against the other, in chaste legal terms before the judges and thereafter placed the judgement in plain language before their respective clients. This usage was doggedly followed by the medieval and modern West employing the professional advocates and barristers as well as now defunct Indo-British Ukil and Mukhtear to do the selfsame functions of the pleaders.

Obviously in such Court proceedings law becomes predominant over life, demanding adjustment of life to the requirement of the law. It smacks of a philosophy of ‘life for the law’ as diametrically opposed to the combined Eastern commitment to ‘law is for life’.

Can’t it be argued then that, if you believe in ‘human right’ as a gift of law (enacted by the human sovereign), then law becomes the regulatory principle of human life including human rights; but if you believe in ‘human rights’ as due to him by virtue of his birth as a human being as a gift of Nature and as a gift of Creator Allah, then law becomes purported to the welfare of human life including human rights? Here lies a gaping cleft between the West and the East. To the West, life is for law and to the East law is for life. It brings us back once again to the difference of ‘right ‘ and ‘due’ which widely divides also the intellectual hue between the Modern Western Christianity and Modern Islam, the West advocating modification of the activities of life to conform to the Law whereas the East demanding modification of Law for promoting the welfare of life.

The gaps and loopholes of the Western law can be illustrated with an amiable humor by the legal demand of Portia to the plaintiff Shylock, in Shakespeare’s Merchant of Venice, to take a pound of flesh from the chest of Antonio as per legal contract of penalty between them, on the expiry of the date of the repayment of the debt, but she demanded not to shed a drop of blood which was not provided in the contract, that restrained Shylock from perpetrating his vengeful design. Here activities of life are modified by the demand for the conformity to the law.

In another brand of humor, it is said that in the Western Law Courts the judge is a cipher whose honorable ears are being taken possession of by the two sets of pleaders, one representing the plaintiff and the other representing the defendant and whosoever party succeeds in tilting his face towards it, that party wins the case.

In the East, on the other hand, justice is not a fixed idea or a mere concept. In Hinduism, Buddhism and Islam justice or ‘bichar’ is a processual verbal noun and calls for a processual operation. In Aryan Sanskrit representing both Hinduism and Buddhism, justice is called ‘bichar’ meaning ‘judging’ and it is modified by the adverb ‘nyaya’ meaning justly, that is, justly judging. The same is also in Bangla language. It is called nyaybichar in conjugated term, which also means ‘justly judging’, that is nyayata bichar, in Sanskrit terminology.

In Islam, Justice is called adl and the function of judging is called hakm. The Holy Quran says ‘idha hakamtum baynan-nasi an tahkumu bi’l –adl’, whenever you judge between the people judge with justice (Surah Nisa; 4:58). The Quran further commands, while, judging “to restore the due trust to its owner”, which is justice and Holy Prophet Muhammad (SAW) defines justice as “to render the due right to its owner”. This is in complete conformity with the Bible, which seems to have been quoted by Plato in his exposition of the meaning of justice in his Republic.



And the overall Quranic order is to render justice with compassion. Hence, in the East, justice is not a concept or an idea, nor even fixed and blind idea but justice is a process of ‘balancing life’, a means of mutual adjustment and social welfare. Justice is meant for promoting life and not for stultifying it. Justice is not primarily an act of retaliation, but is an act of balancing life (Mizan).

Justice in Islam -a further consideration

The fountainhead of justice in the three Abrahamic successor-religions of Judaism, Chritianity and Islam is ‘God-fearing’, called ‘taqwa’ meaning vigilant fear of Allah. The Muslims are instructed by Allah in the holy Quran to remain steadfast in upholding justice. The Quran says; “And the enmity of any nation ought not deviate you from doing justice; do justice, it is nearer to taqwa, God-fearing, and fear Allah with vigilance” (al-Maidah; 5:8). Thus God-fearing is the fountain-head or fundamental source spring of adl or justice. In another ayah or verse of the holy Quran, Prophet Muhammad (SAW) is prompted to say: “ And I have been commanded to do justice amongst you” (al-Shura; 43:15). In still another verse the Muslims are instructed: “And whenever you arbitrate between the people, arbitrate with justice (adl) (Al Nisa; 4:58). It has also been said “the Word of your Lord has been established with truthfulness and justice (adl) (al-Anam; 6:115). Thus, adl (justice) is a keyword in the social system of Islam, as such; the concept of justice is foundational prop of the Islamic society. Yet, in order to cope with the dynamism of human life, in Arabic adl is used always in the verbal sense of ‘judging’.

The Quranic use of adl for justice, however, seems to be a new Islamic usage in the Arabic language. In the verbal sense adala originally meant ‘dividing something into two halves’ and ‘an equivalent exchange of something’. But in the legal usage of the holy Quran adl means being just and equitable and acting justly, (contra) deviating from the right way, as observed by Richardson in his monumental work: Arabic –English Dictionary.

In the latterly administrative usage of the Muslims, the Arabic term insaf has come to mean selfsame adl. Insaf is the plural of nisf meaning half. Hence insaf means dividing, taking the half, holding the middle path, adjusting a difference equitably (ibid), that is and contra monopolistic design.








In order to further ensure justness of judging, it is stated in the holy Quran: “If two factions of the Muslims engage in fighting, then settle the dispute between your brotherly factions; but if one of the factions get hostile and attacks the other faction, then fight against the obstinate one until it returns to the command of Allah; if it returns then settle the dispute between them with adl, justice, and do it with qist, with equity and balance” (al-Hijrat 49:9).

The term qist is applied to justice, equity, as also to the balance and weighing scales. In another verse, it is stated: And we (Allah) have sent down with them (the Prophets) books and balance in order to make the people stand on the qist, equitable justice and added thereunto “And fulfil the measure when you weigh and weigh with straight measuring scales (qistasul mustaqim)(al- Isra: 26:25) also al-Shuara: 182; al-Hud: 11:85).

In another verse Allah says: “We (Allah) shall erect the scales of justice (qist) on the Day of Judgment” (al-Nisa: 21:48). Furthermore, people have been commanded: “And erect the weight with justness (qist) and do not diminish the measurement (al-Rahman 55:19). In another verse it is added: “Fulfil the weight and measure and do not diminishingly deprive the people from their things, due to them” (al-A’raf; 7:185), on account of their purchasing them.

Again the holy Prophet is asked to: “Say my Providence (Rabb) commanded me to do everything justly (bi’l-quist). Even, so to soften the harshness of punishment by the strict operation of justice and to stress on the reformative objectives of punishment by reflecting the kindness, compassion, and forgiving characteristics of the magnanimous Allah, it is stated “ “Verily Allah commands with justice and welfare-oriented compassion (adl and ihsan) (Al Nahl: 16:90), which is actually repeatedly recited by the Imams in the weekly Friday sermon of the Juma prayer.

Ultimate Aim of Justice

If the spring of justice (adl) is the vigilant fear of Allah (taqwa), its eventual goal lies in promoting human life, stage by stage, to the universal system of balance, which Allah has set up on this earth and amidst the universe at large. It is stated in the holy Quran that: “And the earth, He has set it up for holding living animals” (al-Rahman – 55:10). Again, “and the earth, He spread out … and created everything well-measured (mawzun) (al-Hijr 15:19) . “And the sky, He raised it up and placed in it the measured balance (al-mizan). Beware of violating the balance” (al-Rahman 55: 7-8).




Elaborating further, Allah says: “Verily We have sent down our Prophets with clear evidences and We have sent down with them the Scripture and the measured balance (mizan) in order to make the people stand by justice (qist). And We have sent down iron (hadid) in which there lies tremendous violent power and utility for people in order that Allah may know whosoever comes to his help and that of His Prophets from unseen; Verily Allah is strong and All-powerful” (al-Hadid 27:25). Again: “And We have put up into it (earth) peg-like mountains and grown in it every sort of things well-measured (al-Hijr 15:19). Thus, the ultimate goal of ulum at-tajribiyah, the experimental sciences is to explore the pattern of Allah’s creation and the laws of Nature which flow from the balance at the micro as well as macro level in the universe set up by the Creator, Sustainer and Providence of the Universe, Allah (swt.).

Commenting on the verse of the Hadid or Iron, Dr. Taslima Mansoor, a renowned Professor of Law at the University of Dhaka writes “Three things are mentioned as the gifts of Allah. They are the book, the balance and Iron, which stand as emblems of three things which hold society together, viz. Revelation, which commands Good and forbids Evil, Justice, which gives to each person his due; and the strong arm of the law (Iron) which maintains sanction for evil doers (International Seminar on Islamic Law, IIUC, 6 July 2004, p. 13). Dr. Muhammad Muslehuddin says: “Justice, therefore, (what Muslims suggest) is the quality of being morally just and merciful in giving to every man his due” (Philosophy of Islamic Law and Orientalists, Lahore p. 97 quoted ibid.). Abdur Rahman Doi says “Justice is a command of Allah, and whosoever violates it faces grievous punishment “ : “Allah commands justice, the doing of good, and the charity to kith and kin and He forbids all shameful deeds, and injustice and rebellion; He instructs you, that you may receive admonition “(Al-Quran Al-Nahl: 16:90)(cf. Shariah, the Islamic Law, London 1989, p:3, quoted ibid.). Probably from a Christian subconscious profile the Shorter Oxford Dictionary (1985, p: 1075) gives the initial meaning of justice as “to give what is due”, as it is stated in the Bible.

Thus from the Islamic point of view, Justice is not a proper noun with hard meaning of ‘right;’ but as a verbal noun with the processual soft meaning of giving everybody his due as demanded by space-time circumstances. As a processual dynamic phenomenon, Justice as somebody’s due flows from the universal and natural balance set up by the Creator for the divine administration and fateful control of the universe both at the micro level and macro level of the created world.

It being so, the Western concept of hard core legal right prompted the Westerners to develop, in course of time, three instrumental tentacles to help formulate as well as dispense





proper judgment by means of implementing the laws and regulations purported by justice, which are analogy, equity and presumption. In this triadic amalgam ‘analogy” is regarded as the keynote of the Western system of law. In Bangla language analogy is translated as “svadrishya anuman” and in Arabic, Persian and Urdu it is called “qiyas”, which has obviously been adopted by the Muslims legists form the Roman legal system.

On the other hand, justice being amicably resolving the difference between disputing parties and restoring normal and peaceful balance in the society in the view of Islam, its dispensation demands taking into account space-time factors and things or persons involved in the case of this dispute, for which the holly Prophet devised an equitable process of ijtihad meaning intellectual exertion and juridical endeavor and circumstantial effort to find a just and comprehensive solution of a dispute. Thus, as a dynamic solution of a dynamic problem Islam introduced a dynamic endeavor to solve the ever-changing problem, of flowing life. Therefore, as against the Western legal keynote of analogy or qiyas, Islam introduced ijtihad as the keynote of Islamic legal system, which involves searching, research, elicit evidence, utmost intellectual exertion to uncover the truth.

It must be carefully noted in considering the legal system of East and West that, the driving force for dispensing justice in the West is the fixed concept of analogy along with its source material of precedence, which is equally a static and fixed idea. Whereas the driving force of Islamic dispensation of justice is ijtihad, a dynamic endeavor to find a dynamic solution of flowing dynamic life which is far removed from the fixed ideas and static concepts of Western brand.