Justice feels like a drumbeat in the bones. For some of us, it’s not an abstract principle but a visceral pulse: unfairness hits the skin as heat, tightens the jaw, sharpens the eyes, and before the mind has fully formed a sentence the hands are already moving. For Muslims with ADHD traits, this embodied urgency can be both a mercy and a minefield—moral courage primed for action and, at times, action outrunning wisdom. This essay weaves two streams into one current: the psychology of ADHD-related justice sensitivity and the Islamic frame that commands ‘adl (justice) while enjoining ihsān (excellence, often expressed through forgiveness), all within limits, process, and proportion. The aim is practical: not to dim the fire, but to refract it into light.
A story in three emails
Email 1: “This isn’t right.”
Yusuf reads the restructure memo at 8:12 a.m. A junior colleague, Hana, is being dropped from the project. Hana is the only one who challenged a dubious vendor contract last month. The timing feels surgical. Yusuf’s heart rate lifts, a rise he has come to know as the body’s “GO signal.” He types hard: a reply-all calling out the decision as “retaliatory,” copying the head of legal, sprinkling words like “duty of care” and “hostile environment.” He hits send. For a moment he feels clean.
By lunch, the corridor is louder. A senior PM tells him that “tone” matters. Another asks why he didn’t “seek the facts first.” Hana avoids his eyes. The meeting at 3 p.m. is tense; the director opens with, “We take allegations seriously,” and then spends twenty minutes explaining governance and confidentiality. The memo stands. Yusuf goes home vibrating with a bitter compound: righteous certainty fused with social whiplash.
Email 2: “I overreached.”
At 10:37 p.m., after the adrenaline ebbs, he notices shoddy edges in his earlier message: adjectives standing where evidence should be; no specific ask; escalation before verification. He writes to Hana apologising for making her the face of a fight she didn’t authorise. He feels the dull ache of remorse, which for him often arrives as a migraine behind the left eye.
Email 3: “Let’s try again—properly.”
Two weeks later a different memo circulates: a resource constraint that will cut the travel budget only for staff who cannot charge time to clients. Yusuf feels the same inner flare—this will hurt early-career staff and caregivers most. His body surges. Then he does something new: he opens a single-page template he has titled Justice A3.
- Fact pattern (evidence, not adjectives): Budget change restricts travel reimbursement for non-billable staff only; affected cohort = 31 people, 23 of whom are early-career or part-time caregivers (HR snapshot, last quarter).
- Harm map: Short-term: exclusion from key learning opportunities; medium-term: promotion lag; long-term: structural inequity.
- Options + consequences: Private counsel to sponsor; propose reversible pilot; formal equity review; collective letter.
- Preferred path + escalation ladder: Step 1: meet sponsor with data; ask for two-quarter pilot to fund travel on need basis; Step 2 (if refused): DEI review; Step 3: leadership huddle.
He sends one email to the sponsor with the A3 attached, cc’ing no one. The ask is crisp: authorise a reversible, measured pilot; we’ll evaluate with three transparent metrics. Within a week, the sponsor agrees to the pilot. Not all injustices are solved this way. But this one is contained, measured, and moved towards repair.
The body’s storm: why justice can feel urgent fast
Yusuf’s first email wasn’t propelled by mere opinion; it was driven by a known neurobiological pattern. ADHD is not simply “attention deficit”; it’s also a disorder of inhibition—the braking system that allows a person to pause, hold competing options in mind, and select the wisest response under stress (Barkley, 2015; Nigg, 2017). When a situation reads as morally salient, anger, which psychologists classify as an approach emotion, mobilises the body for action—towards the perceived obstacle (Carver & Harmon-Jones, 2009). For many people with ADHD, delay aversion makes waiting itself feel punishing, which nudges behaviour toward immediate action even when additional information is still loading (Sonuga-Barke, 2002).
Two more factors tighten the loop:
- Emotion dysregulation: Adults with ADHD often show faster escalation, higher peaks, and slower returns to baseline during emotional events (Shaw et al., 2014; Bunford et al., 2015). Executive bandwidth shrinks, working memory drops, and cognitive flexibility narrows exactly when nuance is needed (Barkley, 2015).
- Justice sensitivity & moral identity: Some people score high on justice sensitivity—they experience unfairness as personally urgent. When that trait fuses with a strong moral identity (“I am the sort of person who stands up”), not acting feels like a betrayal of the self (Schmitt et al., 2010; Aquino & Reed, 2002).
So the pattern is not mysterious: strong moral cue → body mobilises → inhibitory control has less time to act. The result can be brave clarity—or hasty accuracy, where the moral gist is right but the method is wrong.
The mosque conversation: fire meets frame
That evening after his first misfire, Yusuf stopped by the mosque for maghrib. He lingered after prayer, shoulders tight, heart unsettled. The local sheikh noticed and invited him to sit. Yusuf shared his story—his anger at injustice, the email he fired off, the backlash, and his sense that standing up had only made things worse.
The sheikh listened quietly, then asked:
“Tell me, Yusuf, when you struck out, did it bring more justice or more heat?”
Yusuf admitted it had brought confusion.
The sheikh smiled gently.
“Justice in Islam is not optional—it is a command. But how we deliver it matters just as much as the impulse itself. The Qur’an says, ‘Do not let hatred of a people cause you to swerve from justice. Be just; that is nearer to mindfulness’ (Q 5:8). That means we must check our anger before it checks us. Justice pursued unjustly becomes another form of harm.”
He leaned closer.
“Our Prophet ﷺ said: Help your brother, whether oppressor or oppressed. The companions asked, ‘How do we help the oppressor?’ He replied: ‘By restraining him from oppression.’ That is your task: to intervene, but with method, with proportion, with clarity. Justice is a duty, but not a licence to burn the house down.”
Yusuf left the mosque with something new: a sense that his fire was real and valuable, but it needed a frame.
The texts’ compass: what Islam asks of us in real time
Islam does not ask the believer to be less just; it asks for justice pursued justly. The Qur’an places two beams across this bridge.
- Beam one: Justice is a command.
“O you who believe! Be persistently standing firm in justice, witnesses for Allah—even if it be against yourselves or parents and relatives.” (Q 4:135, Abdel Haleem, 2004)
“Do not let hatred of a people cause you to swerve from justice. Be just; that is nearer to mindfulness (taqwā).” (Q 5:8, Abdel Haleem, 2004)
- Beam two: Ultimate justice is Allah’s, but calibrated earthly justice is delegated to us.
The Qur’an confirms that Allah does not wrong even “the weight of an atom” (Q 4:40), and that every act will be accounted for (Q 99:7–8). Yet it simultaneously establishes qisāṣ (lawful retribution) and diya (compensatory arrangements) to protect life and deter harm, placing enforcement within legitimate authority (Q 2:178–179; 17:33; 5:45, Abdel Haleem, 2004). This is not vigilante moralism; it is a trust to be administered with due process.
Islam then raises the ceiling with ihsān
“The recompense of an evil is an evil like it; but whoever forgives and makes reconciliation—his reward is with Allah.” (Q 42:40; see also 42:43; 16:126, Abdel Haleem, 2004)
Permission to seek redress remains; elevation through forgiveness is offered where it prevents further harm and heals the social fabric. The Sunnah operationalises the grammar of justice:
- Help your brother—oppressor or oppressed. The Prophet ﷺ explains: help the oppressor by restraining himfrom oppression (al-Bukhārī, 1997, no. 2444).
- No harming and no reciprocating harm. This hadith can be heard as a legal maxim: proportion and non-escalation anchor remedies (Ibn Mājah, 2007, nos. 2340–2341; Mālik, 1989, 31.13).
- Due process and evidence. The burden of proof is on the claimant; oaths are required only when evidence cannot be produced (Muslim, 2007, no. 1711; al-Bukhārī, 1997, no. 2529).
Threaded together, the message is crisp: Stand up, but stand up well. Seek redress within limits, through proper channels, with proportion, impartiality, and a real bias towards reconciliation—unless reconciliation increases harm.
The intersection : where the fire meets the frame
Once you see both beams, a workable framework appears. Lets call it a portfolio of response.
Not every injustice requires the same tempo or tool. Islam’s command to stand firm is constant (Q 4:135; 5:8); the method is contextual. ADHD’s action-bias gives energy; a designed process gives discipline. In practice, the framework has four elements.
1) Regulate to deliberate
You cannot reason with a body in a sprint. Two “physiological sighs” (double inhale, slow exhale) or 90–120 seconds of slow nasal breathing can reduce arousal enough to bring prefrontal control online (Gross, 2015; Keng et al., 2011). In Islamic language: collecting yourself is part of adab (proper conduct). Your aim is not to cool the value; it is to cool the haste.
2) From adjectives to evidence
Shift from “retaliatory” to “sequence suggests potential reprisal: [dates, documents].” The Qur’an’s warning to avoid being swerved by hatred (Q 5:8) is not a ban on moral clarity; it is a prohibition on unreliable method. Precision is a form of piety.
3) Reversible steps first
The Qur’an honours equivalence (Q 16:126; 42:40) and lifts forgiveness. In organisational life, reversible steps (private counsel, pilot fixes, mediated reviews) often function like “forgiveness with scaffolding”: they prevent harm while keeping dignity intact. When reversible steps fail, escalation remains—now with a record of proportional attempts.
4) Escalation ladder with witness to fairness
The Prophet ﷺ didn’t reward disruptive zeal; he established evidentiary process to prevent zeal from becoming oppression. Document, timestamp, and route your claims through proper forums. This is not bureaucratic cowardice; it is taqwā in practice.
Returning to Yusuf: a second try under guidance
After his first misfire, Yusuf rewrote his rulebook. He pinned a card above his desk: Trigger → Meaning → Arousal → Options → Action → Review
- Trigger: “Unfair.”
- Meaning: “Allah commands justice; my duty is to pursue it well.”
- Arousal: breathe and buy 24 minutes.
- Options: Justice A3 with reversible first step.
- Action: smallest effective move by proper channel.
- Review: did it reduce harm and increase future fairness?
So when the travel policy change hit, he took his 24-minute pause, filled the A3 with data, and sought a 20-minute meeting with the sponsor. He opened by steel-manning the sponsor’s position: “I recognise the budget pressure and your constraint to prioritise billable work.” Then he laid out the harm map, and proposed a pilot that tied travel to learning milestones with three explicit measures. The sponsor agreed, partly because there was a face-saving way to trial it and partly because Yusuf’s proposal did not impugn motive—only impact.
Later that quarter, a different injustice surfaced: a senior manager publicly belittled an older staff member’s accent. This time, Yusuf stepped in within seconds. He said, calmly, “I’m sure that wasn’t your intention, but the comment came across as dismissive of a colleague’s voice. Let’s restate the point without reference to accent.” The manager back-pedalled; after the meeting, Yusuf checked in with the colleague, documented the incident, and flagged it for the manager’s coach. Why the different tempo? Because ongoing harm was live in the room; immediate interruption prevented damage, and the follow-through honoured process. Same principle, different application.
The friend who once said, “Tone matters,” stopped him by the lifts that week. “That was tidy,” she said. “You kept dignity intact.” Yusuf smiled. It felt clean again—this time in the bone-deep way.
Where forgiveness fits – without letting harm grow
Forgiveness in Islam is not sentimental; it is strategic and sacred. The Qur’an offers a ladder: retaliation at equivalence is permitted, forbearance and reconciliation are often better (Q 42:40–43; 16:126), and vengeance beyond equivalence is prohibited. In the workplace, seeking reconciliation can stop cycles of defensiveness and unlock genuine course-correction. But forgiveness is not passivity. If harm is ongoing, if the vulnerable remain exposed, or if the wrongdoer is unrepentant and empowered, then pursuing formal remedy is closer to duty than to option (Q 4:135; 5:8; 17:33).
The hadith “Help your brother, oppressor or oppressed” clarifies the ethics: you aid an oppressor by restrainingoppression (al-Bukhārī, 1997, no. 2444). In policy terms: coach, set boundaries, escalate when necessary. In spiritual terms: you free your heart from rancour even while you tighten controls on behaviour. This dual move—firm on harms, soft on hearts—is the Prophetic middle path.
ADHD as an asset, when channelled
The modern workplace is often risk-averse, excessively procedural, and slow to course-correct. People with ADHD frequently bring moral speed, pattern detection, and a tolerance for friction that, when disciplined, can be catalytic. The discipline requires design.
- Implementation intentions (“If I feel urgent unfairness, then I complete the A3 and seek a second set of eyes before any public escalation”) reliably reduce impulsive behaviour (Gollwitzer, 1999).
- Two-key rule: no high-stakes send without one trusted reviewer.
- 24-minute rule: one Pomodoro between trigger and public move—spend it gathering facts, naming the value, and writing the ask.
- Foundations: medication adherence if prescribed, sleep, movement, and protein-forward meals—each reduces volatility and improves inhibitory control (Barkley, 2015; Shaw et al., 2014).
These are not betrayals of courage; they are how courage survives the next three meetings.
A practical playbook (lived, not laminated)
- Name it (quietly): “Unfairness detected; my duty is to pursue justly.”
- Downshift: two sighs; 90 seconds of slow breath.
- A3 the facts: evidence, harm map, options, preferred path, escalation ladder.
- Reversible step: private counsel with a concrete, measurable, time-bound proposal.
- Write to be adopted: avoid motive attribution; focus on impacts and outcomes.
- Escalate with witness: document attempts, cite policy and values, route through proper channels.
- Close the loop: debrief with allies; if reconciliation opens, take it. If patterns persist, widen the circle with care.
- Spiritual alignment: make duʿāʾ for all involved, including your own heart; recite the verse that anchors impartiality (Q 5:8). The point is not to ritualise your inbox; it is to yoke your method to your creed.
Complications that sharpen judgement
What if the institution is the oppressor?
The Qur’an still asks for justice without transgression (Q 5:8; 16:126). Whistleblowing may be necessary; consult both legal counsel and trustworthy scholars steeped in maqāṣid al-sharīʿa (the higher objectives of the law) to minimise collateral harm. Be prepared to accept worldly costs; the prophetic tradition does not promise comfort—only clarity.
What if you misread the signal?
Apologise promptly and proportionately. The hadith literature records the Prophet ﷺ accepting apologies and preferring reconciliation where sincere. Precision includes precision in repair.
What if forgiveness is asked but safety is not guaranteed?
Islamic forgiveness is not a tool to pressure victims back into harm. The “no harm, no reciprocating harm” maxim draws a bright line (Ibn Mājah, 2007). Forgiveness without safety is not ihsān; it is negligence wrapped in piety’s language.
Returning to the drumbeat
Justice remains a drumbeat. For Yusuf, the beat is now synchronised with a metronome. He still feels the heat rise. He still has days where he wants to flip a table. He also has a method, a dhikr of sorts—breath, facts, reversible step, fair escalation. His colleagues notice that his interventions are oddly calming even when they sting. Hana’s promotion comes through six months later; the travel pilot becomes policy.
The older staff member whose accent was mocked begins to chair meetings more often. The senior manager slips once, corrects himself, and later thanks Yusuf privately: “I still disagree with you about a few things,” he says, “but I never have to guess whether you’re aiming at people or patterns.”
Yusuf smiles. He has managed, imperfectly, to carry fire to the altar without burning down the tent.
Conclusion: holding the ember and the mirror
Two truths stand side by side. First, some of us are wired to feel justice as heat. That heat is not a flaw; it is a gift that has carried prophets and reformers across centuries. Second, heat alone is not guidance. Islam hands us a frame—stand firm, be impartial, prefer repair, never transgress—and psychology hands us a toolkit—buy time, broaden options, regulate before you advocate. The mature path is to marry the fire to the frame.
If you recognise yourself in Yusuf, the next experiment is small and concrete: craft your own Justice A3, write your two implementation intentions, and place one verse above your desk—the one that keeps your compass true: “Be just; that is nearer to mindfulness.” Attend to what changes in your body, your emails, and your outcomes as you practise this pairing. The spark will not dim. It will learn to illuminate.
Summary of outtakes
- Synthesis: ADHD can intensify justice sensitivity and speed up action through reduced inhibition, delay aversion, and emotion dysregulation (Barkley, 2015; Sonuga-Barke, 2002; Shaw et al., 2014). Islam commands believers to uphold justice with impartiality and due process, while elevating reconciliation when it prevents further harm (Q 4:135; 5:8; 42:40–43; 16:126; Muslim, 2007).
- Method: Regulate first, move from adjectives to evidence, prefer reversible steps, and escalate with witness to fairness. This aligns psychological best practice with Qur’anic and Prophetic guardrails.
- Outcome: Fire becomes light. The believer’s justice instinct is preserved, disciplined, and made more effective in messy, modern institutions.
Invitation
Craft a personal Justice A3 and two implementation intentions; anchor them with your ethical guardrails. Observe how your responses change as you practise the pairing of fire and frame.
This is my simple starter template. Download it, use it, change it, improve it and I would love to hear all about it.
References
- Abdel Haleem, M. A. S. (Trans.). (2004). The Qur’an. Oxford University Press. (Q 2:178–179; 4:40; 4:135; 5:8; 5:45; 16:90; 16:126; 17:33; 42:40–43; 99:7–8).
- Aquino, K., & Reed, A. (2002). The self-importance of moral identity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(6), 1423–1440. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.83.6.1423
- Al-Bukhārī, M. ibn Ismāʿīl. (1997). Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī (M. M. Khan, Trans.). Dar-us-Salam. (Hadith nos. 2444 “Help your brother…”, 2529 on evidentiary principle).
- Barkley, R. A. (2015). Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder: A handbook for diagnosis and treatment (4th ed.). Guilford Press.
- Bunford, N., Evans, S. W., & Wymbs, F. (2015). ADHD and emotion dysregulation among children and adolescents. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 18(3), 185–217. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10567-015-0187-5
- Carver, C. S., & Harmon-Jones, E. (2009). Anger is an approach-related affect. Psychological Bulletin, 135(2), 183–204. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013965
- Gollwitzer, P. M. (1999). Implementation intentions: Strong effects of simple plans. American Psychologist, 54(7), 493–503. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.54.7.493
- Gross, J. J. (2015). Emotion regulation: Current status and future prospects. Psychological Inquiry, 26(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2014.940781
- Ibn Mājah, M. ibn Yazīd. (2007). Sunan Ibn Mājah (N. al-Khattab, Trans.). Darussalam. (Hadith nos. 2340–2341: “No harming and no reciprocating harm”).
- Keng, S.-L., Smoski, M. J., & Robins, C. J. (2011). Effects of mindfulness on psychological health: A review. Clinical Psychology Review, 31(6), 1041–1056. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2011.04.006
- Mālik ibn Anas. (1989). Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ (A. A. al-Tarjumānī, Trans.). Diwan Press. (Book 31, Hadith 31.13: “No harm”).
- Muslim, I. al-Ḥajjāj. (2007). Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim (N. al-Khattab, Trans.). Darussalam. (Hadith no. 1711: burden of proof and oath).
- Nigg, J. T. (2017). Annual research review: Self-regulation and executive functioning for developmental psychopathology. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 58(4), 361–383. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.12675
- Schmitt, M., Baumert, A., Gollwitzer, M., & Maes, J. (2010). The Justice Sensitivity Inventory. Social Justice Research, 23(2–3), 211–238. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-010-0115-2
- Shaw, P., Stringaris, A., Nigg, J., & Leibenluft, E. (2014). Emotion dysregulation in ADHD. American Journal of Psychiatry, 171(3), 276–293. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.2013.13070966
- Sonuga-Barke, E. J. S. (2002). Psychological heterogeneity in ADHD: A dual pathway model. Behavioural Brain Research, 130(1–2), 29–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-4328(01)00432-6