Introduction

In this book, Professor Majid Khadduri attempted to define the concept of justice in
Islam. Justice is essentially a relative concept. If a man asserts or believe his claim is valid,
public order can be established so that justice is acknowledged. Khadduri stated that scale of
justice can be vary from land to land, but they all have certain elements in common which can be
divided into tow major categories. First category is men are capable of determining their own
interests and know what they need so they can establish a public order under scales of justice.
However, it is imperfect and men will always find a way to improve by continuing process of
social change. Second category is Divine justice. In Islam, Divine justice is enshrined in the
revelation and divine wisdom which the Prophet Muhammad communicated to his people. God
is the Sovereign of the believers, He is the ultimate ruler and Legislator. The revelation become
the primary sources of the developing the public order. Khadduri emphasizes that this study is to
inquire into the nature and scope of Divine Justice and to reconstruct from the diverse writing of
Muslim men of learning the Islamic theory of justice in all its aspects.
 Political Justice

In the first section of the book, Khaddari explained the concept of political justice.
Political justice is justice an accordance with the will of the sovereign. The sovereign will
determine how much of the elements of justice state acts should contain. It can be said that
political justice is a function of political aims. In Islam, the believers were committed to the
doctrine that their public order was derived from a high divine source which are Quran and
Prophets Sunna. Prophet was given the power to exercise Gods will and he was commanded to
rule in accordance with the truth and the path of God. According to most commentators, the
truth and the path of god were equated with righteousness and justice. However, this source
was challenged later by three major schools of thought which were the sunni, the shia and the the
khariji. Each of the school claimed that its principle of legitimacy was the only valid one. The
shia believed that only a member of prophets family could exercise the Divine Soverign will
with justice but the sunni rejected the idea of shia since prophet laid down no rule specifying
how the candicate from Qurasyh tribe would become imam. Therefore, the choice of the imam
rested with the community as a whole. The sunni doctorine has added an element of democracy
to its political justice. Before making any decisions, the sunni imam was under obligation to seek
consultation (shura) with the scholars on all matters concerning law and religion. The shia
doctrine can hardly be considered to have advanced the cause of political justice since the imam
claimed monopoly of power without limitations. However, the kharijites rejected both sunni and
shia doctrines of legitimacy, maintained that sovereignty belongs to God and He alone is the
ruler and judge among men. The kharijites admitted that there was the need for an imam, but
they have the right to remove him if he proved corrupt and inefficient since God will not approve
of such rulers. Due to their extreme views, they were rejected and completely isolated by all
other groups. There were a lot of political controversy among the believers such as the human
acts were predetermined-predicated by god or produced by mans free will. Most of the groups
used these controversial issues to gain support and take control of political justice.