Statements at the Second Strategic Ideas Meeting on Justice

In the Name of God, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful

I thank the esteemed attendees, dear brothers and sisters, and also the organizers of this profound and useful meeting; especially Mr. Dr. Vaez-Zadeh for managing the session well. I appreciate that you have created this opportunity for these discussions to take place, and God willing, it will continue. I praise the Almighty God, the dear Wise God, who granted comfort, security, resources, and vitality to the present gathering and those who were behind the formation of this meeting, enabling them to carry out this work. If it were not for God's grace, if there were no peace of mind for thinkers, professors, and intellectuals, it would not have been possible for the system to seize this opportunity. This is an important opportunity that, fortunately, the Almighty God has placed at our disposal.

What took place today in this meeting is a beginning, and we are hopefully pursuing it so that this beginning finds a worthy continuation and has a blessed outcome. I feel that there is a vast human capacity in the country for pursuing and bringing this important discussion - that is, the discussion of justice - to fruition.

Those experts who are not present in this session are, in our view, partners in this discussion. Certainly, throughout the country, in universities, in seminaries, and in the extensive research centers that fortunately exist in the country, there are those among the experts who have either conducted research on this topic or are ready to carry out research. We consider them partners in this discussion.

The discussion of justice must transform into an elite discourse. We must pursue this issue and not abandon the pursuit of this discussion; because the ground is very fertile, the need is very urgent, and in the statements of friends, part of this need was palpable. The discussions you have had and, God willing, will have in the future will yield valuable and highly needed results for the current generation and future generations. It may be necessary to later utilize the insights of scholars from the Islamic world. Perhaps there are experts in other countries who can assist us in the final compilation and realization of the discussion of justice.

I was pleased and delighted to feel that friends paid attention to each other's discussions. The sections of objection and critique that Mr. Dr. Vaez-Zadeh included in this session were, in my opinion, among the most engaging discussions; indicating that the attendees were attentive to the topics. This creates synergy. All of you have opinions, you have thought about this topic, and you will think more; but when in such a gathering everyone comes together and exchanges views, what we have thought becomes deeper, broader, more comprehensive, and ultimately, God willing, leads us to a final point - which I will refer to.

I will not delve into the content. The substantive discussion was initiated today by you, and it must, God willing, continue in the center that Mr. Vaez-Zadeh referred to; that discussion and the final substantive outcome will be a synthesis of the thoughts and opinions and intellectual products of our scholars and thinkers. Therefore, I will not enter into that matter; I just want to present a few points.

One point is that justice has been a perennial and historical concern of humanity. Following the widespread feeling of the need for justice that has existed among people throughout history until today, human thinkers, philosophers, and sages have engaged in this topic and it has been their concern. Therefore, from the earliest periods of history until today, discussions about justice and social justice in this general sense have been held, and theories have been proposed; however, the role of religions is exceptional. That is, what religions have said, desired, and emphasized regarding justice over time is unparalleled and exceptional. In the views of philosophers and thinkers, that emphasis of religions is not observed at all.

Firstly, as attested by the Quran, religions have set justice as their goal: "Indeed, We sent Our messengers with clear signs and sent down with them the Scripture and the balance that the people may maintain [justice]." This verse certainly commands that the goal of sending messengers and revealing scriptures and coming with clear signs - that is, the irrefutable and undeniable arguments that the prophets present; the scripture, meaning the charter of religions regarding knowledge, laws, and ethics; the balance, meaning the measures and criteria - has been to establish justice: "that the people may maintain [justice]." Of course, there is no doubt that establishing justice and all that pertains to the worldly, social, and individual lives of people is a prerequisite for the goal of creation: "And I did not create the jinn and mankind except to worship Me"; that is, servitude. The ultimate perfection is indeed this servitude to God. However, in the path to reach that goal, the goals of prophethood and the sending of messengers are included; among which is what this verse explicitly states. Of course, there are other explicit references in the Quran that point to other goals of sending messengers, which can be reconciled with one another. Thus, the goal became justice. The goal of system-building, the goal of civilizations, the goal of humanity's movement in the social environment became justice. This does not exist in any other school; it is specific to religions.

Another characteristic of religions is that the prophets throughout history have stood alongside the oppressed; that is, they have fought for justice. Consider this; it is explicitly stated in the Holy Quran that the prophets face tyrants, face the affluent, face the elite; all of whom are among the oppressive classes; affluent and affluent, in two respects, corresponds to a specific class; both are correct. Of course, in the Quran, there are "affluent ones", but "affluent" is also correct. The affluent are in opposition to the prophet; "And We did not send in a city any warner except that its affluent said, 'Indeed, we disbelieve in that with which you were sent.'" There has not been a prophet who has not faced the affluent; that is, the prophet fights against the affluent. The elite are the companions and stakeholders of power. Tyranny is also a general term that encompasses all of these. Therefore, the prophets have always sided with the oppressed in the conflict between the oppressor and the oppressed; that is, they entered the field for justice and fought; this is also unparalleled. Philosophers have spoken about justice; but many times, like many various professional intellectuals, they talk, but do not enter the field in practice. We saw this during the struggles, after the struggles, and even today to some extent. The prophets were not like this; the prophets entered the field, shielded themselves; even when the affluent told them why they support the oppressed classes, they confronted them. The noble verse "And I do not say to those whom your eyes disdain that Allah will not give them any good" - which reflects the response of Prophet Noah to his opponents - is in this context. Therefore, those who were deprived of justice were the first to embrace the prophets.

The third point is that all religions agree that the end of this great historical movement will be a hopeful end to justice. That is, they firmly state that a time will come that will be a time of justice, which is the time of the establishment of the complete religion. In the supplication after the noble visitation of Al-Yasin, it is stated: "Allah will fill the earth with justice and fairness - or 'fairness and justice', which varies in different places - as it was filled with oppression and tyranny"; in some places, it also states: "after it was filled with oppression and tyranny." All prophets, all religions, all prophethood have pointed to this end, emphasized it, insisted on it, and said that we are moving towards it. Thus, at the beginning, in the path, and at the end, the emphasis of prophethood has been on justice; this is unparalleled.

Another point is that in our Islamic Revolution - which was a religious movement - naturally, justice has had and has a prominent position. In the people's slogans, in the constitution, in the statements of Imam Khomeini (may his soul be sanctified), in the situational discourses, and at various times and occasions that the Islamic Republic has raised, this prominent position is evident. For instance, during the Sacred Defense when they constantly pressured and raised the slogan of peace to remove the Islamic Republic from the field, there the Islamic Republic raised the slogan of "just peace". Well, peace is not an absolute value; it is a relative value; in some places, peace is good, in some places, peace is bad, war is good. However, justice is not like this; justice is an absolute value; that is, we do not have any place where justice is bad. Well, in the Islamic Republic, this situation has existed, it has been at the forefront of the system's concerns since the beginning of the revolution; in the implementation of justice, a lot of work has indeed been done; but it is not satisfactory. Some friends provided good information and statistics in describing what has been done; regarding the work that has been done, I may have more information; I know that extensive work has been done since the beginning of the revolution; but it is absolutely not satisfactory. What we need, what we are pursuing, is maximum justice; not merely at an acceptable level; no, we are seeking maximum justice; we want there to be no oppression in society. We are very far from this stage. Therefore, we must strive for this.

What I want to convey in continuation of this is: today, as we engage in the discussion of justice - the discussion of this meeting and the raising of the topic of justice - this is a continuation of the same fundamental concern; this does not mean that over the years we have not recognized justice or that the Islamic Republic has had no definition of justice and has not acted; no, there have always been general and abstract definitions and certain certainties; everyone was familiar with them, and a lot of work has been done - as I mentioned - but today, as we are raising this, firstly, it is because we want the discourse of justice to be a vibrant and always present discourse in the scene. Among the elites, among the officials, among the people, especially among the new generations, the title of justice and the issue of justice must be continuously raised as a main issue. One of the goals of this meeting and the presentation of the topic of justice in this meeting is this.

Another is that if we want to reduce the gap between what we need from justice and what should be and the current situation - the situation that is currently established - we must find new and effective methods and solutions. We must know what the practical methods of justice are; that is, we must consider the time of trial and error to be over. In these thirty years, in many cases, our work has been trial and error; whether in the first decade with the inclination that existed at that time - which some friends pointed out - or later, the opposite point in the second decade and in between, various methods and approaches have been seen. It is no longer appropriate for us to act this way. We must sit down, find sound methods based on sound definitions, identify them, establish ourselves on them, and move forward.

The third direction is that today the country is on the path of leapfrog advancements; this is a reality. Fortunately, the country's movement towards progress - in the general sense - is a rapid movement. Today, it is truly incomparable to twenty years ago. Today, our forward movement towards progress is leapfrog. In a situation where such leapfrog movements occur, there is a need for major decision-making; major decisions must be made. Well, if in these major decision-making processes, the element of justice remains neglected, then the damages and losses will be incalculable. Therefore, today especially, attention to justice must be increased; especially the relationship between progress and justice must be clarified.

It was mentioned that a center has been predicted for pursuing the issue of the model of progress, the preliminaries and arrangements have been made; God willing, it will be diligently pursued; the discussion of justice must also, God willing, be followed there.

The next point is: in the theoretical stage, what we want to achieve is to reach the pure Islamic theory of justice. Of course, it must be approached with a modern perspective, with an innovative outlook, to refer to Islamic sources and extract that theory from the text of Islamic sources - within its scientific and technical frameworks, which some friends pointed out. We have scientific methods and experienced, well-calculated methods for inference; these must be utilized. Therefore, in the theoretical stage and theory-building, the pure Islamic theory of justice must be derived from Islamic sources and texts. My emphasis in this point is that we do not want to create a theory by assembling and juxtaposing the various theories of thinkers and sages who have spoken in this field. That is, in this matter, we must seriously avoid syncretism; we must be cautious. In many instances, we have fallen into this mistake. Without intending to, we have slipped into the quagmire of syncretism. Getting out of it will be very difficult. No, we must truly search in Islamic sources. These sources are abundant; as friends have also pointed out. In the Quran, in Hadith, in Nahj al-Balagha, in jurisprudential, theological, and philosophical writings, there are many discussions that can all serve as our source in finding the pure Islamic theory.

Of course, like all other matters, familiarity with the views of others can help us understand Islamic texts better. This is the case everywhere, and it is the same in our legal and jurisprudential discussions. When we become familiar with an external view and our minds gain the necessary breadth, we utilize our Islamic source better and more completely; it is the same here. However, we must seek to reach the pure Islamic theory and avoid syncretism. Of course, it is evident that the reason we say the Islamic theory must be pure and untainted is that the issue of justice is based on ontological and epistemological foundations and fundamental bases; and if we want to refer to Western theories - which are mostly those - we are essentially relying on philosophical foundations that we do not accept and cannot accept, which are the ontological views.

Complementing this point is that the Islamic approach to justice is fundamentally different from the approaches of Western systems and theories. In Islam, justice arises from rights; as friends pointed out - fortunately, good points were made in this session that make me need not elaborate further - and in addition, there is a 'must' in justice; that is, from the Islamic perspective, practicing justice is a divine duty; whereas in Western schools, this is not the case. In Western schools, justice is presented in various forms - in socialism one way, in liberalism another way - with all the developments and various forms that these schools have had. In none of these, the view of justice is a foundational and fundamental view based on essential values like religion and like Islam.

Another point is that in the realm of thought and theorizing, we need a plurality of opinions and the clash of opinions. That is, when we say we must reach a theory and discover the pure Islamic theory, it is based on a relatively long and extensive premise; the most important of these premises is that the opinions of thinkers must clash, various opinions must be presented; and this is necessary; this is scientific vitality. One should not think that we have a prejudice, that we have something in mind beforehand and we want to reach it; no, we want to find what is right and what is correct through the clash of opinions. Therefore, the clash of opinions is necessary. There is no limit to it. That is, after we reach the final and preferred opinion for this period of time, there remains the possibility that new opinions, new views, and fresh points may be raised in the future; there is no obstacle to that. However, in any case, there is a need to reach a strong conclusion based on which long-term planning can be carried out in the country. Therefore, the clash of opinions is necessary; but ultimately, the administration of the country requires reaching a strong, sound, and substantiated conclusion regarding social justice that can serve as the basis for long-term programs. Of course, after we reach this conclusion, fresh research will begin to find the methods; that is, practical research. Today, I noticed that some parts of the discussions pertain to practical discussions - which is very good - the scope of which is very wide; that is, after we reach a sound and compiled theory regarding justice, we will need practical discussions to find the methods of implementation and realization in society; which will itself follow numerous researches. It is at this point that we can utilize human experiences.

I accept the point made by one of the gentlemen that methods are certainly influenced by goals - there is no doubt about that - but this does not mean that we cannot utilize the methods and experiences of others; no, we can certainly utilize them. Here, in the section of practical research, it is time to utilize the experiences that others have undertaken. For instance, in the field of banking or in any other area of economic issues, or in social discussions in a different manner, or in judicial discussions in another way, a nation has undertaken an experience and has gone through that experience for a while, and its effects are clear; well, we can utilize this; this is not a problem at all. Therefore, we must benefit from the experiences of others.

Another point: one of the most important tasks in the theoretical realm is that we recognize justice research in seminaries and universities as a defined scientific discipline, which does not currently exist; neither in seminaries nor in universities. That is, it is not a problem if, for instance, in a seminary one of the topics that is discussed is justice, a jurist discusses it with a juristic method. Now, the same principle of justice and fairness that you referred to must be clarified; it is not clarified. The reason for its lack of clarification is that one sees that in various jurisprudential sections references are made to this principle that cannot be fully substantiated - that is, it is not defensible - it is mentioned in various sections. What is the problem with discussing justice in the seminary - which, thank God, distinguished scholars are present in this session - as one of the sections that a jurist pursues in his jurisprudential lessons, the issue of justice; "the book of justice"? This is different from the justice discussion that was referred to by Sheikh (may God have mercy on him); that is another discussion. A strong jurisprudential discussion on social justice should be held.

In universities, an interdisciplinary knowledge should be established and defined; discussions should be held, work should be done, and independent investment should be made on it. In my opinion, this is a necessary task in the theoretical realm; it will both expand theorizing and train capable forces in this field.

Another important task is to determine the indicators of justice. One of our important theoretical tasks is to find the indicators of justice. Well, today the indicators that are presented in the West are conditionally acceptable; some are absolutely not indicators, some are incomplete indicators, some may be indicators under certain conditions. We must sit down and independently find the indicators of justice, the establishment of justice in society; this is one of the important parts of the work. Of course, in the realm of practice, a lot of work must be done, one of which is to consider justice as a fundamental criterion and measure in legislation. This point is worthy of attention from the esteemed representatives of the parliament and the Guardian Council, that in legislation, especially attention should be paid to the issue of justice and its constant monitoring.

I will present two brief points at the end, which, of course, are outside the main discussion, but it is not bad to remind and alert. One is that in the issue of justice, belief in the origin and resurrection plays a fundamental role; we must not neglect this. One cannot expect that true justice will be established in society without belief in the origin and resurrection. Wherever there is no belief in the origin and resurrection, justice will be nothing more than a burden, imposed and forced. The reason that some of the beautiful Western proposals regarding justice do not materialize in practice at all is the same; they lack a supportive belief. The words are beautiful - at least they have a beautiful appearance, even if they are not very rational - but in practice, in Western societies, in Western life, there is absolutely no news of it; absolute injustice exists there. The reason is that there is no backing of belief in the origin and resurrection. Belief in resurrection, belief in the manifestation of deeds, belief in the manifestation of virtues in the Hereafter, has a significant impact. If we are just, if we seek justice, if we praise justice, if we strive for justice; these will manifest in the Hereafter. The opposite is also true. This belief energizes a person; a person knows that oppressive behavior, even oppressive thoughts, in the realm of the manifestation of deeds in the Hereafter, what calamity it brings upon him, will naturally bring him closer to justice.

O you who have torn the skin of Joseph, If the wolf rises from this heavy sleep...

One who believes that the wolf-like behavior here, its manifestation there, the wolf rising from the heavy sleep of death, has a significant impact. Therefore, in the research related to justice, we must not neglect this point.

The second and final point that is not bad for me to mention here is justice in relation to oneself, which is unrelated to social justice. In the Quran, oppression against oneself is repeated in multiple verses. Well, oppression is the opposite of justice. In the supplication of Kumayl, we read: "I have wronged my soul." In the noble supplication of Sha'ban, we express: "I have acted unjustly towards my soul in looking after it; woe to it if You do not forgive it." Sins, slips, pursuing desires, following whims, distancing from attention and humility before the Lord, is oppression against oneself. This is also an important realm. When we discuss justice - justice in social relations, justice in forming a social system - we cannot neglect justice towards ourselves. We must not oppress ourselves. We must also practice justice towards ourselves. The opposite of this "I have acted unjustly towards my soul" is the same justice. Let us not be unjust, let us have justice. If the Almighty God grants us the success to avoid this oppression, I have great hope that He will grant us the ability to establish justice in the community, God willing.

Peace be upon you and God's mercy and blessings.