Justice in the struggle

by Miqdaad Versi


Understanding the struggle of Imam Husayn (AS),
and the concept of justice in Islam, is all the more
important in Muharram, when truth and righteousness
were involved in an epic battled against tyranny,
oppression and injustice. "Was the struggle
of Imam Husayn (AS) just", although seemingly
simple and straightforward, is thus a pertinent
question that merits more discussion than one may
initially think. First, we must consider the definition
of justice and then distinguish between different
types of justice. Only when we have grasped the
basics of this concept, can we answer this question
with any level of confidence.

Justice is one of those rare concepts in life, which
everyone agrees upon: politicians and economists
(left or right wing), sociologists and philosophers,
as well as secular liberals and religious scholars.
Unfortunately, semantics is the only real common
ground, and justice, even in its most basic definition,
is a highly contentious issue.

Let us consider, for example, the idea that given the
existence of heaven and hell, “God”, in whatever
way you would describe Him, will put good people
into heaven. In actual fact, this simple idea is the
source of scholarly and intellectual discourse within
Islamic academia. One point of view states that
justice is actually defined by what Allah does and
were Allah to put a good person in the hellfire, that
would be just. On the other hand, others believe
that justice is an abstract, rational and deducible
notion, which Allah’s “actions” comply with. This,
however, then leads to the problematic inference
that Allah is constrained by His justice! It is thus
very clear that on a theoretical level, justice is neither
simple, nor straightforward but is actually very
complex.

What about on a practical level, which may in fact
be more relevant to the question at hand?
Throughout the world, justice is the banner under
which politicians rally their constituents. Social
justice in the UK is a prime example, and is
(theoretically at least) the backbone of the Labour
movement. In Iran, Ahmedinejad won the elections,
calling for justice for the poor. Islamist groups
throughout the world base their resistance movements
on their quest for justice. There is thus at
least an understanding of what justice means to
them. However, regrettably we almost always have
two opposing groups claiming justice is their territory.
Israel, for example, claims that its incursions
and assassinations, are part of its quest for justice
for the Jewish diaspora. At the same time, the Palestinians
use the slogan: “No justice, no peace”, as
the legitimacy for their continuing, military struggle.
If one were to give credence to both these points
of view, or to analogous struggles throughout the
world, we would be forced to conclude that justice,
at least to a certain extent, is a subjective concept.
Simplifying the problem to its fundamentals, consider
the situation of two people dying: a Muslim
and a non-Muslim. For Muslims, it is a compulsory
duty to save the Muslim – that is the just course of
action. For liberal humanists, their concept of justice
would not necessarily lead to the same solution.

Does this apparent lack of objectivity in understanding
justice mean that all those who claim justice
is on their sides, are in fact referring to their
subjective perception of justice, or is there in fact

some objective basis for justice? The “Declaration
of Human Rights” is part of the United Nations
legal framework, and internationalists would argue
that objective justice does exist and that these
rights constitute at least one part of it. The consensus
on these being fundamental rights, does give
some weight to this argument. The problem, however,
is that although all countries of the UN agree
to these principles, and most even claim to champion
justice, their actions with regards to human
rights are often inconsistent. How is this seeming
contradiction solved in world politics? It seems
that in practice, semantics plays an important role
and in most situations the argument is moved to an
area of subjective justice. Let me give two examples
to clarify what this means:

The whole world agrees that torture is unjust.
However, the US justifies “waterboarding” and
other so-called interrogation techniques in two
ways. Firstly, it claims that the definition of torture
is misunderstood and that their actions do not
constitute torture. This is pure semantics. Secondly,
they claim that their actions are justified
because, although it might be unjust to that individual,
this limited injustice results in safety for its
citizens, and is thus in an “overall sense” just. This
is an example of subjective justice.

The infamous former Prime Minister, Tony Blair
might argue that human rights are an essential
objective entitlement of any just people, and injustice
[contravening this “Declaration of Human
Rights”] would be an objectively just cause for war!
However, the obvious flaw in this logic is that although
the cause might be objectively just, aggressively
fighting others for it cannot be, as that infringes
on other people’s rights. It is therefore,
only subjectively just (consequently subjectively
unjust for opponents of the war).

The resultant conclusion is therefore, that the
existence and observance of objective justice does
not in fact have any consequence in reality, as semantics
and subjective justice take over. In light of
the above discussion, maybe a more astute question
would be:

“Was the struggle of Imam Husayn (AS)
objectively or subjectively just?”

[it must be noted that not being objectively just
does not detract from its moral legitimacy]

Further to the discussion on Tony Blair, one may
infer that although the cause may be objectively
just, fighting for it cannot be. However, this inference
would be logically flawed, as in fact the sensible
and rationally sound implication is that attacking
others to enforce objective justice cannot itself
be objectively just. This leaves an interesting question
with regards to defending oneself. There cannot
be a doubt that if someone was actively and
illegally, physically assaulting you, then defending
yourself is objectively justified. The extent of your
defence would be the next source of contention.

However, it would be reasonable to deduce that if
forced to choose between killing the aggressor
and being killed in this situation, the objectively
just course of action would be that which preserves
your innocent life.


What would be the implication of this for the third
Imam (AS)? It is indisputable that it was not Imam
Husayn (AS), together with his followers and family,
who started a war against the corrupt leadership
of the Muslim Ummah, rather it was Yazid
who ordered the forced pledge of allegiance and
refused them an alternative to being killed. The
popular Shi’i view portrays Imam Husayn (AS) as
an infallible leader who was not seeking political
power. Based on this, if one were to infer that he
did not constitute a threat to the security of the
state, then there is no doubt that the slaughter of
Imam Husayn (AS), together with his family and
supporters, represents one of the most striking
examples of objective injustice in Islamic history.