Konsep Keadilan dalam Leviathan dan Islam: Sebuah Perbandingan
The concept of justice, a cornerstone of any just society, has been a subject of intense philosophical and theological debate throughout history. Two prominent figures who grappled with this complex notion are Thomas Hobbes, the English philosopher known for his masterpiece *Leviathan*, and Islamic scholars who have meticulously explored the concept of justice within the framework of Islamic jurisprudence. This essay delves into the contrasting perspectives on justice presented by Hobbes and Islamic thought, highlighting their similarities and differences.
Hobbes's Social Contract and the Pursuit of Justice
Hobbes, in his *Leviathan*, paints a stark picture of the "state of nature," a pre-social condition where individuals are driven by self-preservation and a constant fear of death. In this chaotic state, there is no justice, only a relentless struggle for survival. To escape this brutal reality, individuals enter into a social contract, surrendering their natural rights to a sovereign power in exchange for security and order. This sovereign, according to Hobbes, is the ultimate arbiter of justice, with the power to enforce laws and punish those who violate them. Justice, in Hobbes's view, is essentially the fulfillment of the social contract, ensuring the preservation of peace and order within society.
Islamic Perspectives on Justice
Islamic jurisprudence, on the other hand, views justice as a fundamental principle derived from divine revelation. The Quran, the holy book of Islam, emphasizes the importance of justice, stating that "Allah commands justice and good conduct" (Quran 4:135). Islamic scholars have developed a comprehensive system of jurisprudence, known as *Sharia*, which encompasses various aspects of life, including justice. The concept of *adl*, which translates to "justice," is central to Islamic thought, encompassing fairness, equity, and the upholding of rights. Islamic justice is not merely a matter of enforcing laws but also involves promoting social harmony, protecting the vulnerable, and ensuring the equitable distribution of resources.
Similarities in the Pursuit of Justice
Despite their contrasting starting points, Hobbes and Islamic thought share some common ground in their understanding of justice. Both recognize the importance of order and stability in society. Hobbes emphasizes the need for a strong sovereign to enforce laws and prevent chaos, while Islamic scholars highlight the role of the state in maintaining justice and protecting the rights of its citizens. Both perspectives acknowledge the need for a system of rules and regulations to govern human behavior and ensure a just society.
Differences in the Source and Scope of Justice
The fundamental difference between Hobbes and Islamic thought lies in the source and scope of justice. Hobbes derives justice from the social contract, a human agreement designed to maintain order. Islamic justice, however, is rooted in divine revelation, with its principles derived from the Quran and the teachings of the Prophet Muhammad. This difference in source leads to a broader scope of justice in Islamic thought. While Hobbes focuses on the preservation of order and the enforcement of laws, Islamic justice encompasses a wider range of issues, including social welfare, economic justice, and the protection of human rights.
Conclusion
The concept of justice, as explored by Hobbes and Islamic thought, reveals distinct perspectives on its source, scope, and implementation. While Hobbes emphasizes the role of the sovereign in maintaining order and enforcing laws, Islamic jurisprudence views justice as a divine principle encompassing a broader range of social and ethical concerns. Both perspectives, however, recognize the importance of justice in creating a stable and harmonious society. Understanding these contrasting perspectives provides valuable insights into the complexities of justice and its enduring relevance in shaping human societies.