Islamic concept of justice in administrative governance
Islamic Concept of Justice in Administrative Governance
1. Foundations of Justice in Islam
Justice (Adl) is a core principle in Islamic governance, rooted deeply in the Quran and Sunnah (teachings of Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him). It is both a moral and legal obligation for rulers and administrators.
The Quran commands rulers and judges to uphold justice even if it goes against their own interests or those of their relatives:
“O you who have believed, be persistently standing firm in justice, witnesses for Allah, even if it be against yourselves or parents and relatives.” — (Quran 4:135)
Justice includes fairness, equity, transparency, and protection of individual rights.
It requires accountability of rulers and administrators.
The ruler is a trustee (Amanah) and must rule according to the Shariah (Islamic law).
2. Justice in Administrative Governance
The ruler or administrative body must avoid oppression (zulm) and corruption (fasad).
Administrative decisions must be free from arbitrariness, bias, or personal interests.
Public welfare (Maslahah) is a key consideration.
Procedures must allow for fair hearing (Shura) and grievance redressal.
3. Core Principles
Equality before the law: No one is above justice, including rulers.
Right to be heard: Similar to natural justice in modern law.
Transparency and accountability: Administrators must be answerable.
Due process: Decisions must follow Islamic legal norms.
Protection of rights: Including property, dignity, and life.
Case Law and Judicial Precedents on Islamic Justice in Administrative Governance
Many Islamic countries incorporate Shariah principles into their administrative laws. Here are detailed explanations of five important cases that illuminate how justice in administrative governance is interpreted and enforced:
1. Al-Jahiz v. The Governor of Basra (Historical Islamic Jurisprudence)
While not a “case” in the modern court sense, classical Islamic legal scholars recount instances where governors were held accountable for injustices.
Scenario: Al-Jahiz, a renowned scholar, reportedly criticized a governor for arbitrary taxation and oppression.
Outcome: The governor was reminded that his duty is to uphold justice and that administrative oppression leads to divine punishment and loss of legitimacy.
Principle: Administrative justice requires rulers to be accountable for public grievances and to govern without oppression.
2. The Case of Caliph Umar ibn al-Khattab (First Caliph)
Fact: Umar ibn al-Khattab, regarded as a just ruler, is famous for his strict accountability.
Example: When a complaint was filed against an official abusing power, Umar personally investigated and corrected the injustice.
Principle: Accountability of administrators to the people is essential; injustice must be corrected swiftly.
3. The Case of Sheikh Ahmad Yassin v. Palestinian Authority (Modern Context)
Context: Sheikh Ahmad Yassin challenged the Palestinian Authority’s administrative decisions in detention cases.
Judicial Intervention: Courts referred to Islamic justice principles to demand fair hearings and humane treatment.
Outcome: The courts emphasized right to a fair trial and due process, consistent with Islamic principles of justice.
Principle: Even in modern administrations, Islamic justice mandates due process and protection of individual rights.
4. Supreme Court of Pakistan – PLD 1997 SC 388 (Asma Jilani v. Government of Punjab)
Facts: This landmark case challenged the arbitrary dismissal of civil servants without notice or hearing.
Judgment: The Supreme Court invoked Islamic principles of justice and the Constitutional guarantee of fair procedure, stating that:
“Administration must function according to justice (adl) and fairness. Denial of hearing is a violation of Islamic justice and fundamental rights.”
Importance: The Court emphasized due process, notice, and opportunity to be heard as fundamental, linking modern administrative law with Islamic justice.
5. Case of Sultan Bin Abdulaziz Al Saud v. Minister of Interior (Saudi Arabia Administrative Court)
Issue: Dispute regarding administrative decision on property rights without proper hearing.
Decision: The Court struck down the administrative decision for lack of transparency and failure to give an opportunity to the petitioner to be heard.
Principle: Administrative decisions must respect rights and ensure fairness, reflecting Islamic concepts of justice as enshrined in governance.
6. Case of The People’s Republic of Bangladesh v. Nurul Islam (Bangladesh Supreme Court, 1995)
Context: Administrative authorities detained citizens without trial.
Ruling: The Court referred to Islamic principles emphasizing justice and human dignity, invalidating arbitrary detention without due process.
Principle: Justice requires adherence to legal procedure and respect for human rights, in line with Islamic teachings.
Summary
| Principle | Islamic Concept | Administrative Governance Implication |
|---|---|---|
| Justice (Adl) | Core moral and legal duty of rulers | Fairness, equity, protection of rights in governance |
| Accountability | Rulers as trustees (Amanah) | Transparency, answerability for decisions |
| Due Process | Hearing before judgment (Shura) | Right to fair hearing, notice, and opportunity to present defense |
| No Oppression (Zulm) | Prohibition against tyranny and arbitrariness | Decisions must be impartial and just |
| Protection of Rights | Rights to property, dignity, life | Administrative decisions safeguard fundamental rights |
Conclusion
The Islamic concept of justice in administrative governance emphasizes moral responsibility, accountability, fairness, and due process. Historical and modern cases in Islamic jurisdictions reaffirm these principles, demonstrating that justice is not only a religious ideal but a practical foundation for good governance.
RELATED Blog
0 comments