Divine Justice

Individual differences are one of the most fundamental facts of human life. Knowing the differences, wisdom and their results is very important in building the human worldview and his social interactions. On the other hand, answering the questions and resolving the ambiguities surrounding an important issue such as divine justice depends on knowing the wisdom and results of individual differences. By differentiating between wisdom (philosophy of existence) and result (result of presence) of individual differences, this research examines verses and narrations related to the subject. The research method is descriptive-analytical in such a way that after collecting verses and narrations with library search tools, it analyzes their content. The results of the research show that: divine will, knowledge of God, employment of people, consistency of human life, creation of different positions and different duties, mutual recognition, divine test and display of divine justice are among the most important wisdoms of individual differences in the verses and traditions. Also, the most important results and consequences of these differences are: difference in responsibilities, not judging each other, consulting, avoiding fault-finding and blaming others, pardoning and accepting excuses, and respecting capacity for duty.

One of the main problems for the doctrine of the traditional view of hell is Proportionality objection. It claims that eternal punishments for finite crimes of human beings cause undue harm and therefore are incompatible with divine justice. The proportionality principle states that the degree of punishment that a person justly merits must be proportionate to the level of his wrongdoing. One of the common ways to respond to this objection is rejecting the retributive nature of hell. Morteza Motahhari denied retributivism by distinguishing between the criminal system of the world and hereafter. He believed punishments in hell are identical to human deeds and they are nothing more than spiritual aspect of them. Regarding this view which is called 'Self-imposed punishments', God is not the punisher of the sinners, and the residents of hell suffer from their sinful actions. This paper begins with examining Motahhari's metaphysical theory of punishment as a theodicy of hell. Then I will discuss a modal argument against his theory. I shall argue there is not a necessary correlation between crimes and punishments. My conclusion is that Motahhari's theodicy would be undermined God's moral perfection either therefore it does not get God off the moral hook.

Due to the long-standing nature of the discourse surrounding it, the definition of justice has evolved within a wide range of theories that attempt to define it. Each theory in the intellectual history of humankind that has sought to define justice has done so based on its foundational commitments. Consequently, the definition of justice is intrinsically linked to the theoretical framework from which it emerges. This article seeks to review several liberal theories of justice—particularly those of Hume, Kant, and Adam Smith—and to demonstrate that, despite their internal variations, these theories are characterized by a secular orientation. The central question this article addresses is whether Imām Riḍā's (PBUH) teachings offer any response to the secular foundations underpinning these theories. In the findings section, drawing on the dialogue between ʿAllāma Ṭabāṭabāʾī and Henry Corbin, the paper argues that secularism, by emphasizing anthropomorphic theology (tashbīh) and rejecting transcendent theology (tanzīh) along with the metaphysical dimension of divinity, has enabled the secular and worldly interpretation of various dimensions of human life—including justice. In the final section and conclusion, the focus turns to the link between Imamate and justice, highlighting the potential of the Razavi hadiths to critique secular theories of justice.