Differentiation between 'Amr bil maroof wa nahe anel munkar' and Establishment of Justice (2)

 

In part (1) of this article titled “Institutionalization of ‘amr bil maroof wa nahe anel munkar”,  we have seen that obligation of ‘amr bil maroof wa nahe anel munkar’ is to be performed at three levels. First at individual level; every individual having some influence is to perform this obligation in respect of persons under his influence. Second at group level; every non-state organization having some influence is to perform this obligation regarding persons under its influence. Thirdly at state level; state institutions having legal authority are to perform this obligation in their respective jurisdictions. It may be noted that an individual/group having no influence over other people are under no obligation to perform ‘amr bil maroof wa nahe anel munkar’ in respect of such people; however if such individual/group performs such obligation in respect of such people which are not under the influence, it is not forbidden rather it is an act of ‘azeemat’  which is associated with higher spiritual level than the act of ‘rhkhsat’; performing such obligation only in respect of persons/groups under one's influence (and not performing this obligation w/r to people outside the circle of influence) is an act of ‘rukhsat’.

Now we would see ‘amr bil maroof wa nahe anel munkar’ is something different from holding someone accountable for any wrong  and punishing him accordingly.  ‘Amr bil maroof’ and  ‘nahe anel munkar’ are two facets of the same coin. Whenever the right/ ‘maroof’  is being enforced, in fact, the wrong/ ‘munkar’ is being forbidden and vice versa. But ‘amr bil maroof wa nahe anel munkar’ needs to be differentiated from establishment of justice. In fact, ‘amr bil maroof’ means enforcement of the right when the wrong is attempted to be done/enforced; similarly ‘nahe anel munkar’ means to enforce the right when the wrong is attempted to be done/enforced. In other words, ‘amr bil maroof wa nahe anel munkar’ is an obligation to be performed when the wrong is attempted to be done/enforced. But when the wrong has been done, it comes out of scope of application of ‘amr bil maroof wa nahe anel munkar’; after the wrong has been done, the rectification/punishment/compensation thereof becomes within the scope of another obligation i.e. establishment of ‘justice’. This obligation of establishment of justice is to be performed through state institutions, vested with required legal powers.

The Quran has described two concepts regarding establishment of justice. One concept is called ‘qist'.
‘Qist’ is that component of system of justice which is relating to dispensation of justice through legal process/ laws involving penalty.  'Qist' is mentioned in Quran in situations which involve, or which may lead to, crimes. All sins are to be rewarded either in this world or hereinafter; crimes are such sins of which compensation is to be given in this world through enforcement of law. Such sins of which no compensation is to be given in this world through enforcement of law, are to be compensated in the world hereinafter. In other words, in the world hereinafter, every sin is to be treated as crime. The concept of ‘qist’ has been mentioned in dozens of Quranic verses; everywhere it has been used to describe a situation which involves crime/ dispute, or which may lead to, crime/dispute.

“And for every 'ummah' is a messenger/ ‘rasool’. So when their messenger/ ‘rasool’ came, it (matter) was judged between them with qist/justice, and they are not wronged” (yunus-47).

We know every ‘rasool’/ messenger comes with his shriah/laws according to which he decides between the people. In this above mentioned verse, the matters under adjudication are crimes/disputes and the word ‘qist’ has been used to describe a situation in which crimes/disputes are decided upon under the laws. It does not mean a Messenger deals with only crimes/disputes; obviously he also deals with matters other than crimes, but dealing with such other matters is not called adjudication of matters; the word ‘quziya’/adjudication, used in this verse, is only used for such matters which involve disputes /crimes.   Other examples in which the word ‘qist’ has been used in Quran with reference to a situation which involves, or may lead to, crime/ disputes may be seen in sura maidah-42; al-anaam-152; yunus-54; hud-85; al-rehman-9; al-hadeed-25, and in dozens of other verses. In this regard a special mention needs to be made for al-anbiya-47 which states:

“And We place the scales of justice/ ‘qist’ for the Day of Resurrection, so no soul will be treated unjustly at all. And if there is [even] the weight of a mustard seed, We will bring it forth. And sufficient are We as accountant” (al-anbiya-47).

As has been mentioned earlier, in qiyamah, every sin is to be treated as crime, because every sin is to be compensated on qiyamah. This verse states about qiyamah and placing of scales of ‘qist’ thereof. In other words, in this verse too, word ‘qist’ has been mentioned about a situation involving crimes.

The second concept regarding establishment of justice mentioned in Quran is ‘adl’. This concept is wider in its application than ‘qist’; ‘qist’ only relates to legal justice, but ‘adl’ may include both legal and other than legal justice. There are dozens of Quranic verses containing word ‘adl’ which states about legal and non-legal justice. Examples are sura al-anam-150; al-baqra-282; al-talaq-2; al-araaf-159; al-shura-15, and many others. Briefly speaking, establishment of justice revolves around two concepts i.e. ‘adl’ in which social justice is established not necessarily through legal tools; the second concept is ‘qist’ in which social justice is established essentially through legal means. One important difference between 'qist' and 'adl' is that in case of 'qist', penalty is awarded; but in case of 'adl', no penalty is awarded.

‘Amr bil maroof wa nahe anel munkar’ is different from establishment of justice.  ‘Amr bil maroof wa nahe anel munkar’ is an obligation to be performed when the wrong is attempted to be done/enforced. But when the wrong has been done, it comes out of scope of application of ‘amr bil maroof wa nahe anel munkar’; after the wrong has been done, the rectification/punishment/compensation thereof comes within the scope of establishment of justice. Out of two approaches to establishment of justice (i.e. ‘adl’ and ‘qist’), rectification/compensation for the wrong is to be done through ‘qist’, if such wrong is a crime/ dispute. This approach to establishment of justice (i.e. ‘qist’) is to be performed only through state institutions, vested with required legal powers, and in cases of crimes/ disputes only. The scope of ‘amr bil maroof wa nahe anel munkar’ includes all ‘munkarat’ whether or not they are crimes/ disputes. But when a ‘munkar’/ wrong has occurred, its rectification/ compensation will be enforced through ‘qist’, only if such wrong comes under the category of crime/ dispute. If it is not a crime/ dispute, its rectification/compensation  cannot be enforced  through ‘qist’. However such rectification/ compensation may be encouraged through  ‘adl’,  which is a tool to establish social justice through legal/non-legal means, without violating the laws.

We may conclude that ‘amr bil maroof wa nahe anel munkar’ is to be performed at three levels. First at individual level; every individual having some influence is to perform this obligation in respect of persons under his influence. Second at group level; every non-state organization having some influence is to perform this obligation regarding persons under its influence. Thirdly at state level; state institutions having legal authority are to perform this obligation in their respective jurisdictions. ‘Amr bil maroof wa nahe anel munkar’ is relating to period before commission of the wrong;  after the wrong is done, the injunctions of amr bil maroof wa nahe anel munkar’ no longer remain applicable. After commission of the wrong, its rectification/ compensation may be done through legal means, through state institutions under the process of ‘qist’, if the wrong is categorized as a crime/ dispute. If the wrong is not categorized as a crime/ dispute, its rectification/ compensation may be encouraged through legal/non-legal means of ‘adl’, without violating islamic laws. One important difference between 'qist' and 'adl' is that in case of 'qist', penalty is awarded; but in case of 'adl', no penalty is awarded.