Idea of justice in Islam
By Dr Riffat Hassan
THE Quran puts great emphasis on the right to seek justice and the duty to do justice. In Surah 5, verse 8, it tells the believers: “Be ever steadfast in your devotion to God, bearing witness to the truth in all equity; and never let hatred of anyone lead you into the sin of deviating from justice. Be just: this is the closest to being God-conscious.”
Surah 4, verse 136, states: “Be ever steadfast in upholding justice, bearing witness to the truth for the sake of God, even though it be against your own selves or your parents and kinsfolk. Whether the person concerned be rich or poor, God’s claim takes precedence over (the claims of) either of them. Do not, then, follow your own desires, lest you swerve from justice: for if you distort (the truth), behold, God is indeed aware of all that you do!”
In the context of justice, the Quran uses two concepts: adl and ehsan. Both are enjoined and both are related to the idea of balance, but they are not identical in meaning. A. A. A. Fyzee defines adl as: “to be equal, neither more nor less,” and states that in “a court of justice the claims of two parties must be considered evenly, without undue stress being laid upon one side. Justice introduces the balance in the form of scales that are evenly balanced.”
Adl was described in similar terms by Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, who stated: “What is justice but the avoiding of excess? There should be neither too much nor too little; hence the use of scales as the emblems of justice.”
Surah 4, verse 95 distinguishes clearly between passive believers and those who strive in the way of God: “Such of the believers as remain passive — other than the disabled — cannot be deemed equal to those who strive hard in God’s way with their possessions and their lives: God has exalted those who strive hard with their possessions and their lives far above those who remain passive. Although God has promised the ultimate good unto all (believers), yet has God exalted those who strive hard above those who remain passive by (promising them) a mighty reward — (many) degrees thereof — and forgiveness of sins, and His grace: for God is indeed much-forgiving, a dispenser of grace.” Just as it is in the spirit of adl that special merit be considered in the matter of rewards, so also special circumstances are considered in the matter of punishments. For instance, for crimes of unchaste behaviour the Quran prescribes identical punishments for a man or a woman who is proved guilty (Surah 2:2), but it differentiates between different classes of women: for the same crime, a slave woman would receive half, and the consort of the Prophet (PBUH) double the punishment given to a ‘free’ Muslim woman (Surahs 4:25; 33: 30).
In making such a distinction, the Quran, while upholding high moral standards, particularly in the case of the wives of the Prophet (PBUH) whose actions have a normative significance for the community, reflects God’s compassion for women slaves who were socially disadvantaged.
While constantly enjoining adl, the Quran goes beyond this concept to ehsan, which literally means “restoring the balance by making up for a loss or a deficiency”. In order to understand this concept, it is necessary to understand the nature of the ideal society or community (ummah) envisaged by the Quran. The word ummah comes from the root ‘umm’, or ‘mother’. The symbols of a mother and motherly love and compassion are also linked with the two attributes most characteristic of God, namely, Rahim and Rahman, both of which are derived from the root ‘rahm’, meaning ‘womb’.
The ideal ummah cares about all its members just as an ideal mother cares about all her children, knowing that all are not equal and that each has different needs. While showing undue favour to any one child would be unjust, a mother who gives to a physical or mentally challenged child more than she does to her other child or children, is not acting unjustly. Rather, she is exemplifying the spirit of ehsan by helping to make up for the deficiency of a child who is unable to meet the requirements of life. Ehsan thus, shows God’s sympathy for the disadvantaged segments of human society (such as may be women, orphans, slaves, the poor, the infirm and minorities).
The writer teaches at the University of Louisville, US.
rshass01@gwise.louisville.edu


Working mothers
By Geraldine Bedell
WHO is best placed to bring up your child? You, or the possibly transient, probably underpaid, young, and not as naturally qualified staff of a daycare centre?
This is the question raised by a recent report from Unicef on the state of childcare in 25 developed countries. For the first time in centuries, it notes, the majority of parents in the developed world are farming out the care of their children to paid workers. At the same time, neuroscientific research shows that the architecture of the brain is formed largely through the interactions of the early years; love, it turns out, is as important for intellectual as for emotional development.
So this mothering thing that my generation was taught to disdain as something we could fit in round our economically valuable, high-status, real work proves to be not such a side issue after all.
Women have always known this secretly, of course. When we were on maternity leave, or doing more of the childcare, we could see how much social capital was created by meeting other parents hanging around at school gates.
This awkward truth remains the great unspoken issue of the childcare debate. Feminists don’t particularly want to face it publicly because it plays into the hands of reactionaries. Unfortunately, there’s another unpalatable reality, in conflict with that one: being with children all the time can be boring, draining and frustrating. Most women work not only because they couldn’t otherwise manage financially, but also because work offers self-esteem, sociability, power and dignity. The trouble with paid childcare is that it lets men off the hook. Women have to pay for childcare because most men aren’t prepared to cut back their hours to do enough of the parenting.
The countries doing best in Unicef’s assessment are those with the most social and gender equality — Sweden and Iceland. In the UK, the debate about whether to opt for paid childcare, in what form, and how much of it, takes place against a background of growing inequality, a winner-takes-all society where not to be constantly available on your BlackBerry is not to have a proper career. The rewards for work of often opaque value, certainly compared to raising a child, can be enormous. Extended parental leave, job security and part-time employment are for wimps.
Many women look at the pay gap, at their own inclination to balance, at the impossibility of two parents being distracted most of the time, and choose to work part-time, or at any rate with less zealotry. And most parents manage to cobble something together that more or less works. (The Unicef report is flawed in not taking into account informal, home-based, or neighbourhood childcare — grandparents, child minders, au pairs.)
Parents may feel guilty about how much of their children’s upbringing they delegate to others, but the dangerous experiment that Unicef implies we are embarked upon is actually being pursued for the most part with love and concern for the balance of everyone’s interests. Which is not to say that the circumstances in which the decisions are being made are remotely ideal.
It is those who aren’t in a position to make decisions with whom we should really be concerned. One reason Britain figured so poorly on Unicef’s rankings is that there are still three million children living in poverty here. Many are clustered in places where the notion of family itself seems to have collapsed. Here it is not a choice of whether both parents have serious jobs, because there’s only one parent and no work.
These families feature a desire to do the best by children, as do families everywhere, but have little ballast in terms of work or structure to lives. A child from the most disadvantaged five per cent of families is 100 times more likely to have multiple problems at the age of 15 than a child from the most affluent 50 per cent of families. Nursery care can be invaluable here. The Unicef report acknowledges that daycare can improve linguistic and social development and help break the cycle of deprivation.
If you wanted to design an ideal childcare strategy, you wouldn’t start from here. You’d have to go much further back, to gender parity and social equality, and an economy that was designed to serve those ideals, not ride roughshod over them.
— The Observer, London


