Justice

You shall not deny justice to the poor in their lawsuits.

If there is a dispute between men, they are to go to court to be judged, so that the innocent may be acquitted and the guilty condemned.

Do not deny justice or show partiality. Do not accept a bribe, for a bribe blinds the eyes of the wise and twists the words of the righteous.

The LORD executes righteousness and justice for all the oppressed.

He judges the world with justice; He governs the people with equity.

Defend the cause of the weak and fatherless; uphold the rights of the afflicted and oppressed.

Speak and act as those who are going to be judged by the law that gives freedom. For judgment without mercy will be shown to anyone who has not been merciful. Mercy triumphs over judgment.

Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You pay tithes of mint, dill, and cumin. But you have disregarded the weightier matters of the law: justice, mercy, and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former.

Brothers, do not slander one another. Anyone who speaks against his brother or judges him speaks against the law and judges it. And if you judge the law, you are not a practitioner of the law, but a judge of it.

Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said to Rabbi Yoḥanan: Even if you teach that baraita only in a language whereby a certain imbecile named ben Tedal states that this is the opinion of Rabbi Meir, a question remains, as isn’t there a stated reason for stringency in cases of uncertainties with regard to gifts left for the poor? As Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: What is the meaning of that which is written: “Do justice to the afflicted and destitute” (Psalms 82:3)? Specifically, what is the meaning of “do justice”? If we say that it means that one should do justice in judgments, i.e., a judge should sway judgments in favor of the afflicted and destitute, but isn’t it written: “Neither shall you favor a poor man in his cause” (Exodus 23:3)? Rather, the verse is teaching that in cases of uncertainty with regard to gifts left for the poor, be righteous with that which is yours and give it to the poor. Why, then, is the halakha stringent in the case of gifts left for the poor but lenient with regard to gifts to priests?

And similarly, with regard to David, it says: “And David executed justice and charity to all his people” (II Samuel 8:15). And is it not that wherever there is strict justice, there is no charity, and wherever there is charity, there is no strict justice? Rather, which is the justice that has within it charity? You must say: This is mediation. The Gemara cites an alternative interpretation of David’s method of judgment, in which we come to the opinion of the first tanna, i.e., Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, who says that it is prohibited to mediate a dispute: If a judge adjudicated a case of monetary law, and he correctly exonerated the party who was exempt from payment and deemed liable the party who was liable to pay, if he then saw that due to his ruling a poor person became liable to pay an amount of money that is beyond his means and therefore the judge himself paid for him from his own house, this is justice and also charity. The Gemara continues: It is justice for this one and charity for that one: It is justice for this one, because the judge restored his money to him; and it is charity for that poor person, because the judge paid for him from his own house. And similarly, with regard to David, it says: “And David executed justice and charity to all his people” (II Samuel 8:15). He executed justice for this one, because he restored his money to him, and charity for that one, because he paid for him from his own house. This interpretation of the verse is difficult for Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. If the word “charity” is meant to demonstrate that David supported the poor defendants, this term: “To all his people,” is incorrect. If the interpretation is correct, it should have stated: Charity to the poor people. Rather, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: Although he did not pay from his own house, it is still justice and charity. It is justice for this one and charity for that one. It is justice for this one, because the judge restored his money to him, and charity for that one, because the judge removed the stolen item from his possession. By adjudicating the case correctly and compelling the liable party to pay his debt, the judge thereby ensures that the liable party does not illegitimately maintain property to which he is not entitled.

Ilfai, and some say it was the Sage Ilfa, also raised a contradiction: It is written in the list of God’s attributes: “And abundant in kindness” (Exodus 34:6), and it is written in the same verse: “And truth,” which implies the attribute of justice. He answered: Initially, at the time of judgment: “And truth,” i.e., God employs strict justice, but in the end, when He sees that the world cannot survive on judgment based only on truth and justice: “And abundant in kindness,” i.e., He is merciful.

O my people! Give full measure and full weight in justice, and wrong not people in respect of their goods. And do not evil in the earth, causing corruption

And who are payers of the poor-due

And of Moses' folk there is a community who lead with truth and establish justice therewith

Narrated Abu Huraira: Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) said, "Whoever has oppressed another person concerning his reputation or anything else, he should beg him to forgive him before the Day of Resurrection when there will be no money (to compensate for wrong deeds), but if he has good deeds, those good deeds will be taken from him according to his oppression which he has done, and if he has no good deeds, the sins of the oppressed person will be loaded on him

Narrated ʿAisha: The following Verse:-- "If a guardian is well-off, let him claim no remuneration (i.e. wages), but if he is poor, let him have for himself what is just and reasonable." (4.6) was revealed in connection with the guardian of an orphan, and it means that if he is poor he can have for himself (from the orphan's wealth) what is just and reasonable according to the orphan's share of the inheritance

Narrated Aisha: regarding the Statement of Allah: "And whoever amongst the guardian is rich, he should take no wages, but if he is poor, let him have for himself what is just and reasonable (according to his work). This Verse was revealed regarding the orphan's property. If the guardian is poor, he can take from the property of the orphan, what is just and reasonable according to his work and the time he spends on managing it

In the light of wisdom, our ancestors who sought deliverance performed their acts. Act thou also as our fathers of old did.

Conviction in sacrifice, austerity, and giving is also called Sat. So too, an action done only for the Lord's sake.

Reason and conviction are threefold, according to the quality that is dominant. I will explain them fully and separately, O Arjuna!

Yama said: The good is one thing and the pleasant another. These two, having different ends, bind a man. It is well with him who chooses the good. He who chooses the pleasant misses the true end. The good and the pleasant approach man; the wise examines both and discriminates between them; the wise prefers the good to the pleasant, but the foolish man chooses the pleasant through love of bodily pleasure.

The Brahman once won a victory for the Devas. Through that victory of the Brahman, the Devas became elated. They thought, "This victory is ours. This glory is ours."

If one should desire to live in this world a hundred years, one should live performing Karma (righteous deeds). Thus thou mayest live; there is no other way. By doing this, Karma (the fruits of thy actions) will not defile thee.

Misconduct is a woman’s stain. A giver’s stain is stinginess. Bad qualities are a stain in this world and the next.

If a mendicant is poor in offerings, the well-to-do ought not look down on them. For the gods indeed praise them, who are tireless and pure of livelihood.

A wise one judges others without haste, justly and impartially; that guardian of the law is said to be just.

Poverty is said to be suffering in the world, and so is being in debt. A poor person who has fallen into debt frets even when spending the loan. And then they’re prosecuted, or even thrown in jail. Such imprisonment is true suffering for someone who prays for pleasure and possessions. In the same way, in the Noble One’s training whoever has no faith, no conscience or prudence, contemplates bad deeds. After doing bad things by way of body, speech, and mind, they wish, ‘May no one find me out!’ Their behavior is creepy by body, speech, and mind. They pile up bad deeds on and on, life after life. That simpleton evildoer, knowing their own misdeeds, is a poor person who has fallen into debt, and frets even when spending the loan. And when in village or wilderness they’re prosecuted by painful mental plans, which are born of remorse. That simpleton evildoer, knowing their own misdeeds, goes to one of the animal realms, or is trapped in hell. Such imprisonment is true suffering, from which the attentive are released. With confident heart, they give with wealth that is properly earned. That faithful householder of discernment holds a winning hand on both counts: welfare and benefit in this life, and happiness in lives to come. This is how, for a householder, merit grows by generosity.

One teacher had this doctrine and view: ‘The one who acts does nothing wrong when they punish, mutilate, torture, aggrieve, oppress, intimidate, or when they encourage others to do the same. Nothing bad is done when they kill, steal, break into houses, plunder wealth, steal from isolated buildings, commit highway robbery, commit adultery, and lie. If you were to reduce all the living creatures of this earth to one heap and mass of flesh with a razor-edged chakram, no evil comes of that, and no outcome of evil. If you were to go along the south bank of the Ganges killing, mutilating, and torturing, and encouraging others to do the same, no evil comes of that, and no outcome of evil. If you were to go along the north bank of the Ganges giving and sacrificing and encouraging others to do the same, no merit comes of that, and no outcome of merit. In giving, self-control, restraint, and truthfulness there is no merit or outcome of merit.’ One teacher had this doctrine and view: ‘The one who acts does a bad deed when they punish, mutilate, torture, aggrieve, oppress, intimidate, or when they encourage others to do the same. A bad deed is done when they kill, steal, break into houses, plunder wealth, steal from isolated buildings, commit highway robbery, commit adultery, and lie. If you were to reduce all the living creatures of this earth to one heap and mass of flesh with a razor-edged chakram, evil comes of that, and an outcome of evil. If you were to go along the south bank of the Ganges killing, mutilating, and torturing, and encouraging others to do the same, evil comes of that, and an outcome of evil. If you were to go along the north bank of the Ganges giving and sacrificing and encouraging others to do the same, merit comes of that, and an outcome of merit. In giving, self-control, restraint, and truthfulness there is merit and outcome of merit.’

There are some ascetics and brahmins who have this doctrine and view: ‘The one who acts does nothing wrong when they punish, mutilate, torture, aggrieve, oppress, intimidate, or when they encourage others to do the same. They do nothing wrong when they kill, steal, break into houses, plunder wealth, steal from isolated buildings, commit highway robbery, commit adultery, and lie. If you were to reduce all the living creatures of this earth to one heap and mass of flesh with a razor-edged chakram, no evil comes of that, and no outcome of evil. If you were to go along the south bank of the Ganges killing, mutilating, and torturing, and encouraging others to do the same, no evil comes of that, and no outcome of evil. If you were to go along the north bank of the Ganges giving and sacrificing and encouraging others to do the same, no merit comes of that, and no outcome of merit. In giving, self-control, restraint, and truthfulness there is no merit or outcome of merit.’ And there are some ascetics and brahmins whose doctrine directly contradicts this. They say: ‘The one who acts does a bad deed when they punish, mutilate, torture, aggrieve, oppress, intimidate, or when they encourage others to do the same. They do a bad deed when they kill, steal, break into houses, plunder wealth, steal from isolated buildings, commit highway robbery, commit adultery, and lie. If you were to reduce all the living creatures of this earth to one heap and mass of flesh with a razor-edged chakram, evil comes of that, and an outcome of evil. If you were to go along the south bank of the Ganges killing, mutilating, and torturing, and encouraging others to do the same, evil comes of that, and an outcome of evil. If you were to go along the north bank of the Ganges giving and sacrificing and encouraging others to do the same, merit comes of that, and an outcome of merit. In giving, self-control, restraint, and truthfulness there is merit and outcome of merit.’ What do you think, householders? Don’t these doctrines directly contradict each other?” “Yes, sir.”

Pauree: The Lord pervades and permeates the water, the land and the sky; there is no other at all. The Lord Himself sits upon His Throne and administers justice. He beats and drives out the false-hearted. The Lord bestows glorious greatness upon those who are truthful. He administers righteous justice. So praise the Lord, everybody; He protects the poor and the lost souls. He honors the righteous and punishes the sinners. ||16||

If it pleases the Commander, one goes to His Court, robed in honor. By His Command, God's slaves are hit over the head. ||5|| The profit is earned by enshrining Truth and justice in the mind. They obtain what is written in their destiny, and overcome pride. ||6||

The Merciful Lord saves the honor of His slave. Guru Nanak speaks - it is confirmed in the Court of the Lord. ||2||6||86||

The people suffer from famine because of the multitude of taxes consumed by their superiors. It is through this that they suffer famine. The people are difficult to govern because of the (excessive) agency of their superiors (in governing them). It is through this that they are difficult to govern. The people make light of dying because of the greatness of their labours in seeking for the means of living. It is this which makes them think light of dying. Thus it is that to leave the subject of living altogether out of view is better than to set a high value on it.

If we could renounce our sageness and discard our wisdom, it would be better for the people a hundredfold. If we could renounce our benevolence and discard our righteousness, the people would again become filial and kindly. If we could renounce our artful contrivances and discard our (scheming for) gain, there would be no thieves nor robbers. Those three methods (of government) / Thought olden ways in elegance did fail / And made these names their want of worth to veil; / But simple views, and courses plain and true / Would selfish ends and many lusts eschew.

Favour and disgrace would seem equally to be feared; honour and great calamity, to be regarded as personal conditions (of the same kind). What is meant by speaking thus of favour and disgrace? Disgrace is being in a low position (after the enjoyment of favour). The getting that (favour) leads to the apprehension (of losing it), and the losing it leads to the fear of (still greater calamity):—this is what is meant by saying that favour and disgrace would seem equally to be feared. And what is meant by saying that honour and great calamity are to be (similarly) regarded as personal conditions? What makes me liable to great calamity is my having the body (which I call myself); if I had not the body, what great calamity could come to me? Therefore he who would administer the kingdom, honouring it as he honours his own person, may be employed to govern it, and he who would administer it with the love which he bears to his own person may be entrusted with it.