Justice needs a place to stand. One Tablet welcomes a decree that every city should have a center where lawsuits are heard and the rights of the people realized, foreseeing public calm wherever such a court takes root. ‘Abdu’l-Bahá draws a firm line between private revenge and public judgment: a father may not break the hand of the one who injured his son, though society through its courts may impose a measured penalty to protect others. Yet the Writings speak just as plainly about tribunals where bribery blinds the eyes of impartiality and favoritism stops the ears, and ‘Abdu’l-Bahá once told believers awaiting a hearing not to trouble themselves, since nothing would come of it. Deuteronomy joins the appointment of judges with a stern warning that gifts blind the wise [1]. An institution can bear the name of justice and lack its substance. The question leads onward to the culture that sustains honest law, to the Western traditions of rights and order that ‘Abdu’l-Bahá admired, and to the vision of a supreme tribunal for the nations.
According to the decision that has been announced, the shah and the prime minister have decreed that in every city a special center shall be appointed for the purpose of judging court cases, deciding lawsuits, and realizing the rights of the servants, and lawsuits will be confined to that center. This matter is extremely beneficial, and will produce public calm and serenity both near and far. If it is carried out, the cornerstone of the Most Great Civilization in all regions shall be laid.
(‘Abdu’l-Bahá, 1904 ca., to Baha'is of Tihran -- AB00341)
02
For example if a person breaks the hand of your son, you have no right to revenge yourself by breaking his hand; but the body politic through its courts of laws and the decision of jury may measure to the offender a similar retribution to serve as an example so that other members of the Society may not commit such evil deeds.
(‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Words spoken on 1914-Jun-05 in Tiberias -- ABU2175)
03
The intervention of the government and the courts in the problems arising between owners and workers is fully warranted, since these are not such particular matters as are ordinary transactions between two individuals, which do not concern the public and in which the government should have no right to interfere. For problems between owners and workers, though they may appear to be a private matter, are detrimental to the common good, since the commercial, industrial and agricultural affairs, and even the general business of the nation, are all intimately linked together: An impairment to one is a loss to all. And since the problems between owners and workers are detrimental to the common good, the government and the courts have therefore the right to intervene.
(‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Chapter 78, Strikes, 1904 ca. -- AB00099)
04
Up to now the religious law has not been given a decisive role in our courts, because each of the ulama has been handing down decrees as he saw fit, based on his arbitrary interpretation and personal opinion. For example, two men will go to law, and one of the ulama will find for the plaintiff and another for the defendant. It may even happen that in one and the same case two conflicting decisions will be handed down by the same mujtahid, on the grounds that he was inspired first in one direction and then in the other. There can be no doubt that this state of affairs has confused every important issue and must jeopardize the very foundations of society. For neither the plaintiff nor the defendant ever loses hope of eventual success, and each in turn will waste his life in the attempt to secure a later verdict which would reverse the previous one. Their entire time is thus given over to litigation, with the result that their life instead of being devoted to beneficial undertakings and necessary personal affairs, is completely involved with the dispute. Indeed, these two litigants might just as well be dead, for they can serve their government and community not a particle. If, however, a definite and final verdict were forthcoming, the duly convicted party would perforce give up all hope of reopening the case, and would then be relieved on that score and would go back to looking after his own concerns and those of others.
(‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Madaniyyih (The Secret of Divine Civilization), 1875, to The People of Iran -- AB00004)
05
In the Turkish law Courts there comes often foreign lawyers who are very exact in enforcing the letter of the law. On the other hand the ignorance and the indifference of the Judges, as regard the execution of the law is more than evident and often bribery blinds the eyes of their impartiality and favoritism deafens the ears of their justice and thus they hand down their decision against truth and fairness.
(‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Words to some Druze friends, spoken around Nov. 1914 -- ABU1098)
06
"A certain Pasha, having most unjustly and cruelly beaten one of his servants, was arrested and brought before that just man who represented Britain. To the intense surprise of the Pasha, he himself was sentenced to a term of imprisonment, and told that he richly deserved the punishment. He could not think it possible that so great a person as himself could be sent to prison, and offered a large bribe for his release. This was sternly refused. A much larger sum was offered with the same result, and the unjust lord was compelled to accept the punishment awarded him for his cruelty to his servant.
"The news of this incident, being noised abroad, did much to show the Eastern people that British justice is in reality the same for the rich and for the poor, and therefore worthy of all respect."
(‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Words spoken in Sep. 1911 in London -- ABU1480)
07
O you who are firm in the Covenant! You had written that the government has ordered a court hearing to establish the truth, so that through trial the oppressor may be distinguished from the oppressed.
… In any case, the hearing will be fruitless - do not trouble yourselves.
(‘Abdu’l-Bahá, 1904 ca., to Ali Najafabadi -- AB02365)