Is God 'Just'?

Is God just as the Abrahamic religions, primarily Islam, claim? What ways are there to understand God's justice in a world filled with oppression, violence, discrimination, and inequality? What evidence can be presented to argue for God's justice? Even if we close our eyes to the world, inequality is present from the moment of birth. Some individuals are born without certain body parts, others with syndromes or genetic differences, or special needs that can place them in an unequal position compared to others. Why and how should we believe in the justice of the God presented by religions? Soroush Dabagh, a researcher in religion and philosophy, and Zohair Baqeri Noeparast, a philosophy researcher and editor of the philosophical journal 42, are our guests in this program, discussing these questions. The central question of this discussion is whether God is just. Soroush Dabagh: What you raised falls under the discussion of Abrahamic religions. In Islam, Christianity, and Judaism, which believe in an anthropomorphic God, they attribute certain qualities to God, one of which is justice. If we borrow from Aristotelian thought to explain justice; justice means giving rights to those who deserve them. However, in contemporary times, the discussion of justice has become much richer and has taken on various dimensions. I will give just one example. The well-known contemporary philosopher John Rawls refers to justice as the absence of discrimination in his famous book A Theory Of Justice. The Ash'arites believed that we had no rights to begin with. We were not there, and our demands were not there; your grace hears us without being spoken. This means that since we did not possess a right beforehand, whatever God does is at His discretion, and we define justice based on that. It is as if He is managing His own property. They deduce justice from God's actions and believe that what God does is just. The Mu'tazilites, on the other hand, bring up the question of from what perspective we should look at matters. When I look at the surrounding world from a human perspective, there is oppression and discrimination, injustice. But from a divine perspective, when we look at existence, the story changes. The narrative of oppression and justice in relation to God becomes different. For example, consider an ant or some animals that are small to us humans. From the perspective of that ant, when we look at the relationships among humans, our mere stepping on the earth is an act of oppression because many ants are crushed under our feet. However, from our perspective, this act is not unjust. We are doing our thing, or we might do it unconsciously. Or even if we know, it is possible that humans kill cockroaches too. Now, with these descriptions, looking at the story from God's perspective and from a human perspective is different. Especially since you said that justice means giving rights to those who deserve them. Now, if we return to the literal meaning of justice, which is placing everything and everyone in their rightful place; then what is the essence of rights? Who is the rightful owner? Is this a predetermined right? There is a top-down perspective in this explanation you provided. Of course, I would like to allow Mr. Baqeri Noeparast to join the discussion. Mr. Baqeri Noeparast, as a guest who is supposed to challenge these arguments, what evidence will you present so that we can also hear the other side of the story and the doubts regarding this issue of justice? Zohair Baqeri Noeparast: To address the concept of divine justice, we must go to a specific definition of God. The definition we are dealing with here, because more people are involved, is that God is a person who has a mind, consciousness, will, and a series of moral characteristics, and we assume that this person created the world. We try to understand what characteristics this creator has by examining the world He created. For example, we have learned through the natural sciences that the world has certain laws. Therefore, a world that has these laws, created by a God, allows us to draw conclusions about that creator based on this lawfulness. For instance, some have concluded that this indicates that an all-knowing and powerful God created the world. Now, based on this, we can look at our world and see that if this world has a creator, can we conclude from this creation that its creator is also just or not? If we simply look at our world, we see a world filled with gender, economic, racial, religious, and sectarian discrimination, and other types of discrimination, not only in our time but throughout history. If a person is born a woman, from the very beginning of her life, she is exposed to patriarchal discrimination until the end of her life. Or if a person is born into a poor family, they will face economic discrimination throughout their life. Anyone who claims that the world is just must clarify the status of these discriminations. What I have in mind has a somewhat anarchistic hue, which is that wherever we see discrimination, a person who believes that this discrimination is right and justified must provide a reason, and if they do not provide a reason, we cannot accept it. If a God created this world and also created us as free humans, why has He not introduced us to a political and economic system that can eliminate discrimination? Especially since this God is supposed to be our judge. The pain and suffering of animals is not limited to our human world. In the animal world, pain and suffering exist on an incredibly vast scale and on a daily basis. This means that in addition to animals tearing each other apart, we humans are also slaughtering billions of animals daily. Here we can ask why we and other animals were not created in such a way that we do not need to kill each other to eat and survive. Very well, now I return to the point you have raised. Mr. Dabagh, you said that they deduce God's justice from His actions, and now you have heard Mr. Baqeri Noeparast's analysis and doubts. He pointed out the issue of being a woman, which I find interesting. You also mentioned in your examples that even if an ant is harmed, it could be considered injustice. I want to know your response to these arguments. For instance, someone who is born a woman, not only according to what is prevalent in societies but even in the texts of sacred books—from the Quran, the sacred text of Muslims, to the sacred texts of other religions—we see that women are engaged in discrimination from the very text. How can justice be attributed to the creator then? Soroush Dabagh: Regarding what you said about being a woman and the reference made by Mr. Baqeri, which you also emphasized, and broadly what is mentioned in sacred texts, I want to present my view that when we talk about sacred texts, we should not overlook that the concepts that are socially constructed—meaning they arise from within societies and human relations—can change their components and elements from one era to another. We read in the Quran that 'Indeed, God commands justice and good.' There is a time when you read this in the second century of Hijra, and there is a time when you read it in the fourteenth century of Hijra. Depending on your understanding of justice and its components, the story changes. There was a time when the seclusion of women and not being visible was part of just behavior in Islamic societies and broadly in human societies. But today, this concept has changed, and if this happens, it is considered an instance of injustice. I want to ask you a question here: Is justice not a matter or characteristic in the God being discussed that transcends times, places, and different periods in different societies? I mean, justice should stand above these things. I think this idea contradicts what is expected of God's justice. Not that different definitions of it arise based on societies or different times... Soroush Dabagh: You see, humans are also different in different eras; they change. There is a time when you can technically say that from an ontological and existential perspective, God must be just; very well, that is one of His attributes. But there is a time when you say, how do we understand justice? We are humans made of flesh and blood. At that time, I will tell you that a person from the seventh century understands justice differently than a person from the twenty-first century. You see, whether God would have been better off creating us in such a way that we did not need to tear the flesh of animals or that humans are created in poor families or with lower intelligence. All of these are correct. I do not think anyone denies these differences. At the same time, if I want to use expressions from the Quran, God does not impose burdens beyond one's capacity, and no one sees anything except for the effort they have made. There is also the story of free will. Let us remember that in human evils, all of this is preceded by the fact that humans are free and autonomous. In the religious view, to the extent that a person acts, they are responsible for their behavior. That is, since in our religious view, our life in this world does not end, and we continue our life in one way or another, there is also this point that humans who are free to the extent that they use this freedom and actions arise from them must be responsible. Now, Mr. Baqeri Noeparast probably has a response to Mr. Dabagh's remarks. The discussion of free will is there, but for instance, a person who is born with a disability or with a syndrome that can change their entire life, what choice do they have? Our listeners might ask where justice is, and on what basis should this person be born this way, and why should they think that God is just? Baqeri Noeparast: That is correct. I would like to point out before addressing your question to another important remark made by the other guest. Regarding sacred texts, for example, we have all kinds of punishments and truly unjust violence attributed to God in the Old Testament. For instance, suppose that one person or a small group in a city or tribe does something wrong, and then all the people of that city or area are destroyed because of the mistake of one or a few individuals. He said that we humans have a different perception of justice at any time. This is completely correct in terms of description, but it seems that if a book is supposed to have a divine origin, it should come in the form of prescriptions that are always correct. The second point is that women have not had a voice throughout history. So in the descriptive sense, there is room for debate about whether in societies where patriarchy was so strong that it seemed women themselves accepted these conditions, was it really so? Another point he made was the example of the ant. Our discussion with God is that we have reason; we are a person. We have a mind and consciousness, and God has the same characteristics, and that is why we engage in dialogue with God in the image of God-belief. That is, God has spoken to humans, and apparently, some humans have also spoken to God, but we cannot have such a dialogue with an ant to use this example. Regarding your question, he rightly pointed out that in the religious image, God is supposed to test humans, and one of the requirements of this test is to have will and choice. Well, now we should ask what the need is for humans to be created if we want to test them? We say that humans are created. Now, is the playing field equal? Do we humans start in equal conditions in society? No. When it is said that every human is judged according to their abilities, conditions, and efforts; one question that remains is that a human born in a poor society, who is exposed to all these discriminations, will have a very unpleasant experience in this world. What will happen to this suffering and the experience of this suffering and this blame? I mean, even if in another world this human enters paradise or such a place, what will happen to this suffering in this world? This can never be compensated. In fact, here you have led me to another question in this discussion. Although perhaps Mr. Dabagh would like to respond to your remarks, but on the other hand, Mr. Dabagh, I want to ask about the issue of resurrection as well. Does belief in resurrection and another world stem from this impossible nature of justice? The question can be whether if God is just, how can His justice not be realized in this world that is said to have been created by Him, and this justice must be deferred to another world? Dabagh: Let me first make two points regarding what Mr. Baqeri said and then answer your question. I say that when it is said 'Indeed, God commands justice and good,' this was understandable for the audiences of the Prophet's time. It cannot be that these words are conveyed to people, but we think and guess or want [to be suitable for] those who were the audience fifteen centuries later. At the first stage, those audiences must understand this. This is the profound concept of communication; it must be compatible with the set of perceptions, applications, and common beliefs of the time so that the audience can understand it. Yes, you may then ask what happens to the universality of the story? Here I want to use the words of Shah Waliullah Dehlawi in his book Hujjatullah al-Baligha, where he correctly states that customs and popular beliefs of the Prophet's time do not have sanctity in themselves.