Weekly Sermons

Question: Could you explain the concepts of absolute justice (adalet-i mahza) and relative justice (adalet-i izafiye)? Based on the notion of relative justice, is it permissible to disregard individual rights for the benefit of the state or an institution?Answer: At its most fundamental level, justice signifies balance and uprightness; it means living one’s life upon the straight path. Preserving this balance and uprightness is essential both to individual and social life and to the continued existence of nations. Justice also signifies the perfection of one’s servitude to God and the ordering of one’s life according to divine principles. Consequently, justice is far more than a legal concept. To regard it merely as a matter of social order is to understand it only partially. Justice is also closely connected with a person’s inner world, faith, and life of worship. In other words, a person’s ability to act with genuine justice depends upon sincerely living according to their religious convictions. Indeed, when Bediuzzaman Said Nursi identifies the fundamental objectives of the Qur’an, he lists justice immediately after the oneness of God (tawhid), prophethood, and resurrection. In doing so, he emphasizes that justice is indispensable to the complete and proper practice of religion.[1]Although traces of the distinction between absolute justice (adalet-i mahza) and relative justice (adalet-i izafiye) can be found within the broader Islamic intellectual tradition, it was Bediuzzaman who articulated these two concepts clearly and systematically.[2]Absolute justice does not permit the violation of the rights of even a single innocent person, regardless of the public benefit that may be at stake. According to this understanding, the rights of even one individual cannot be sacrificed for the sake of the nation or the wider community. Relative justice, by contrast, allows a comparatively lesser harm to be accepted in order to prevent a greater one. In this respect, it is based on the principle of choosing the lesser of two evils (ehven-i şer). Absolute justice may therefore be described as a rights-based approach, whereas relative justice is primarily guided by considerations of the public good (maslaha).<h2>The Risk of Abuse in Relative Justice</h2>Those entrusted with positions of leadership and governance are obliged, as far as possible, to uphold absolute justice, for it represents the highest ideal. Believers should always strive to align themselves with the highest standard in every matter concerning religion. Nevertheless, circumstances may arise in which absolute justice cannot be fully implemented. Widespread crises or extraordinary situations (belvâ-yı âmm) may occur, and prevailing conditions may make it necessary to make use of certain concessions. In some cases, the strict application of absolute justice may not be sufficient to preserve public order and social stability. Under such exceptional circumstances, it may be necessary to resort to relative justice.Because relative justice is invoked on the grounds of necessity (zaruret) and the public good (maslaha), it rests on an extremely delicate foundation. The claim that a greater harm is being prevented can easily become subject to arbitrary interpretation, thereby allowing those in positions of power to legitimize their own decisions and actions. For this reason, it must be determined with the utmost care whether a genuine necessity exists, whether all reasonable alternatives have been exhausted, and whether the harm being accepted is truly the lesser of the available evils. Otherwise, relative justice may cease to be a principle that protects rights and instead become a means of concealing injustice. Indeed, history provides examples in which the rights of certain individuals were violated under the banner of preserving the “eternal state” (devlet-i ebed müddet). Likewise, even in the most democratic societies, serious injustices have sometimes been committed in the name of the public interest.Relative justice also carries another risk. As is well known, public rights are also regarded in Islamic law as the rights of God (huquq Allah), which underscores their profound importance. Consequently, when responding to certain events, the rights of particular individuals may be disregarded on the grounds of relative justice. Over time, however, this approach may reach a point at which individual rights are increasingly regarded as insignificant and eventually cease to receive adequate protection. As a result, people deemed guilty on the basis of conjectural or ill-founded claims may be subjected to severe punishments.<h2>The Limits of Freedom</h2>One further point that may be misunderstood requires clarification. According to the principle of absolute justice, no individual’s rights should be violated, even when the rights of the wider community are at stake. This, however, does not mean that everyone is free to act as they please or that they cannot be held accountable for their actions. Respect for individual rights and freedom of conscience does not entail granting people unlimited freedom. An individual’s rights extend only to the point at which the rights of others begin. If the exercise of individual rights harms the rights of the wider community, certain legal sanctions inevitably become necessary. Even the most liberal legal systems recognize that rights and freedoms are subject to reasonable limitations. For example, individuals are not permitted to incite social discord or public disorder with impunity. Indeed, in their respective periods, the Messenger of God (peace and blessings be upon him) and the Rightly Guided Caliphs used force to suppress incidents involving armed apostasy and rebellion. In such circumstances, certain restrictions were imposed upon the rights of particular individuals.Whether a citizen of a state or a member of a civil organization, if a person’s actions undermine social cohesion (vahdet-i ruhiye) or infringe upon the rights of the wider community, society has a responsibility to prevent such conduct. There are, however, different ways of fulfilling this responsibility. The first step is to offer sincere advice and seek to persuade the individual to abandon the harmful course of action. If the person persists, other measures may be taken to prevent further harm. Where necessary, the individual may be isolated from a particular group or removed from that environment. If a legal offense has been committed, the law should be applied to prevent further harm. Depending on the nature of the harm caused, appropriate remedies may include a retraction, clarification, correction, or the payment of compensation.The principle is much like that of passengers travelling aboard the same ship: no one can be allowed to bore a hole in the vessel, for if the ship sinks, everyone on board will suffer. Preventing such an act—and taking away the tool being used to damage the ship—is therefore both the right and the responsibility of everyone aboard.<h2>Law and Consultation as Safeguards Against Arbitrariness</h2>At the same time, to prevent abuse, such matters must not be left to personal opinion or entrusted to the discretion of particular individuals. Otherwise, personal desires and subjective inclinations may influence the decisions made. Solutions to these issues must always be sought within the framework of the law. What constitutes an offense should be clearly defined in advance by law, and those who commit offenses should likewise be held accountable through due legal process. As Bediuzzaman emphasizes, authority must reside in the law, not in individuals.[3]The same principle applies to social organizations such as charitable foundations, associations, and religious communities. Decisions concerning when and how absolute or relative justice should be applied must not be left to the arbitrary judgment of individuals. Rather, they should be made through established mechanisms of consultation (shura). When exercising the rights and authority entrusted to them, such organizations should consult their governing bodies. No one should be permitted to make arbitrary decisions affecting the rights of others. All actions should be undertaken in accordance with previously established bylaws and regulations.If the administration of justice is left to the arbitrary decisions of individuals, personal feelings and prejudices may easily come into play. People may even cloak acts of oppression in the language of justice. Tyrants who trample upon the rights of thousands may claim to be acting according to the principle of relative justice, invoking necessity and the public good to justify actions that ultimately undermine justice itself.<h2>The Foundation of Justice: Faith and Conscience</h2>The establishment of justice depends, in large measure, upon faith, one’s relationship with God, and a deep sense of moral responsibility. By virtue of the positions they hold, some individuals are entrusted with broad discretionary authority, and their decisions may profoundly affect the lives of large numbers of people. Those whose relationship with God is strong and who sincerely believe that harming even the smallest living creature entails grave moral responsibility will not lightly violate the rights of others or knowingly commit injustice. By contrast, those whose belief in the Hereafter is weak and who have little fear of ultimate accountability may become captive to their personal desires, make unjust decisions, and engage in wrongful practices. They may even attempt to justify their negligence, mistakes, and acts of oppression by appealing to religious arguments.People whose hearts are filled with reverence for God do not wish to stand before Him burdened with the violation of another person’s rights. They constantly engage in self-examination and scrutinize their own shortcomings. They weigh all their attitudes and actions on the delicate scales of conscience and are therefore better able to distinguish justice from oppression. They carefully consider whether their actions truly uphold what is right or result in the infringement of another person’s rights. Since their primary aim is to uphold truth and justice, they continually strive to realize absolute justice. If circumstances leave them no choice but to resort to relative justice, they do so with a profound sense of moral responsibility. Should they realize that they have violated someone’s rights, even unintentionally, they do not hesitate to rectify the injustice, apologize, and seek the person’s forgiveness. This is because they deeply fear appearing before God while burdened with the rights of others.From this perspective, the genuine establishment of justice and the fair resolution of problems ultimately depend upon maintaining a strong relationship with God. If faith and taqwa (God-consciousness) are weak, people may cloak even their acts of oppression in the guise of justice through various interpretations and rationalizations. Guided by subjective judgments, they reshape justice according to their own preferences, expanding or restricting its boundaries to suit themselves. Religion, however, was revealed to shape human beings according to the principles of truth and justice—not for people to reshape religion according to their own desires. Religion belongs to God; our duty is to remain faithful to the principles and limits He has established.If we feel constrained in certain respects while striving to live according to the teachings of religion, the problem lies not in religion itself but in our approach to it. Such discomfort may indicate that the society in which we live, the culture we have adopted, or the environment in which we were raised has instilled certain mistaken habits or assumptions in us. For this reason, our first priority should be to reform ourselves and strive to free ourselves from such deficiencies. Once we have refined ourselves and attained the moral and spiritual maturity required to practise religion fully, we will also be able to establish justice properly and lead lives that respect the rights of all.[1] See Bediüzzaman, İşârâtü’l-İ’câz, p. 9; Muhâkemât, p. 9; Barla Lâhikası, p. 309. [2] Bediüzzaman, Mektubat, pp. 54–55 (“The Fifteenth Letter,” “The Second Question”). [3] Bediüzzaman, Tarihçe-i Hayat, p. 54.

Two Forms of Justice: Absolute and Relative Justice.