When disobedience becomes a duty

  When disobedience becomes a duty

Thomas Jefferson, a prominent figure in the establishment of the United States, said, "If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so." Yes, you heard right—he is obliged to do so. When faced with an unjust law, it becomes the duty of a person to defy it. Failure to do so would mean neglecting their obligation. In ancient Greece, speaking out against rulers was forbidden, but Socrates challenged this norm by posing thought-provoking questions. Consequently, he was presented with two choices: to cease his questioning and comply or face death. Socrates, a respected philosopher, opted for the second option and refused to obey the unjust law of the time. Just as it is a duty to comply with just laws, it is also a duty to disobey unjust laws. Laws become unjust when they benefit only a specific portion of society while harming others. They are unjust when they are selectively enforced against the weaker while protecting the stronger. Laws also qualify as unjust when they serve to protect rulers and oppress the subjects. Additionally, when the principle of "might is right" becomes prevalent, laws become unjust. Therefore, when laws become unjust, it becomes the duty of people to disobey and resist them on any ground whatsoever.

 

 Thomas Hobs' point of view

In his theory of the social contract, Thomas Hobbes, a renowned political philosopher, argued that it was justified for subjects to revolt against a sovereign who failed to safeguard their lives and property. According to Hobbes, the primary responsibility of the sovereign is to protect the lives and property of citizens, and as long as this duty is fulfilled, the ruler is entitled to enjoy their authority. Just laws, in Hobbes' perspective, are those designed to ensure the protection of citizens' lives and property. However, when laws prove incapable of fulfilling this purpose, they are deemed unjust, and it becomes the duty of the subjects to engage in a revolt against the ruler or the law.

John Lock's point of view

John Locke, a notable proponent of representative democracy, emphasized in his theory of the social contract that the representatives of the people bear the responsibility of safeguarding the inherent rights of the citizens, which encompass the rights to life, liberty, and property. According to Locke, if the governing authority neglects its duty to protect these fundamental rights of the people, the rulers lose both moral and legal legitimacy to govern. This indicates that when a government fails to uphold the inalienable rights of its citizens, it becomes necessary for the people to defy such governance.

 

Thomas Jefferson's point of view

Thomas Jefferson, one of the founding fathers of the United States of America, clearly said, "If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it; he is obligated to do so." He clearly stated that disobedience to the law became a duty when the law ceased to be just. Justice can never be compromised, and when the law fails to provide justice, it becomes the duty of the subject to disobey it.

 

Prophet Muhammad's (PBUH) point of view

Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) said, "Uttering truth in the presence of an unjust ruler is the highest form of Jihad." The saying of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) conveys a clear message: one should not fear speaking the truth in the face of an unjust ruler. When the ruler and laws themselves become unjust, the act of standing up against such rulers and laws through truthful expression becomes the most elevated form of Jihad.

 

Hazrat Abu Bakar's (RA) point of view

 Hazrat Abu Bakkar (RA), the second Caliph of Islam, addressed the general public with the following statement: "Follow my commands as long as I adhere to the teachings of Allah and His Prophet. However, if I ever disobey Allah and His messenger, then you are not obligated to obey me." In this declaration, the ruler Abu Bakar grants the people the right to resist and rebel against him in the event that he strays from the path of just laws prescribed by Allah and His messenger, Prophet Muhammad (SAW).

 

Hazrat Ali's (RA) point of view

Hazrat Ali RA, the fourth caliph of Islam, conveyed a significant statement: "Society can endure with infidelity, but not with injustice or tyranny." Hazrat Ali RA's message to Muslims is evident: while it may be acceptable for non-believers to govern a Muslim society, injustice can never be justified under any circumstances. Imam Ali's message emphasizes that one should not engage in a revolt against a ruler or law solely due to their disbelief, but rather one must rise against an unjust ruler and unjust laws regardless of the circumstances.

The arguments presented above clearly indicate that no form of injustice should ever be accepted under any circumstances. When the governing laws fail to safeguard the fundamental rights of the people and the ruler acts unjustly, it becomes the duty of individuals to resist, as well as their right to revolt, and it becomes the responsibility of every citizen to engage in disobedience. While every action can be justified, injustice cannot. Hence, it is the obligation of every citizen to raise their voice against injustice. The Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) once said, "Whoever of you sees an evil, let him change it with his hand; and if he is not able to do so, then [let him change it] with his tongue; and if he is not able to do so, then with his heart—and that is the weakest of faith." This command by the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) applies not only to Muslims but to all individuals, urging them to oppose and prevent evil. Initially, one should try to physically intervene, and if that is not possible, then one should speak out against it. And if even that is not feasible, then one should oppose it internally. Conversely, when the law is fair and the ruling is just, it becomes the primary duty of every citizen to obey the law and the rulers. Those who disobey a just law must face the consequences, as disobedience to a just law is equivalent to terrorism. Therefore, individuals must comply with the law as long as it remains just, and when it turns unjust, citizens have a duty to disobey it.

Kamran Khan Advocate

Kamranlucky210@gmail.com

 

 

 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

"Love is moral even without legal marriage, but marriage is immoral without love." - Ellen Key

"Love is moral even without legal marriage, but marriage is immoral without love." - Ellen Key   Ellen Key, a renowned Swedish feminist writer, expressed this quotation, emphasizing the significance of love in the context of relationships between individuals, particularly within and outside the institution of marriage. The quote underscores the moral and ethical dimensions of these relationships. Society often considers the legal aspect of relationships as the basis for their morality, even if they may actually be immoral. Conversely, relationships that may not conform to legal standards can still possess moral values. Ellen Key's message conveys that love is the fundamental element in relationships between men and women. When love is present, the relationship is moral, regardless of its legal status. Conversely, any relationship, even a legally recognized marriage, devoid of love, is immoral. One of the supporting arguments for this viewpoint stems from nature. All...
Read more

Permanent hatred & love lead to slavery

  Permanent hatred & love lead to slavery While addressing the farewell ceremony, he advised his nation and said, "The nation that indulges towards another a habitual hatred or habitual fondness is in some degree a slave." (Washington's Farewell Address, 1796.) Washington cautioned his nation against forming permanent alliances or enemies, emphasizing the need to rely on emergent situations instead. He was well aware of the repercussions that arise from habitual animosity and affection. At the time, his nation had just emerged from centuries of slavery and colonial rule, having recently gained independence as the United States of America, with Washington serving as its 1st president. He provided a roadmap for the nation to follow, and adherence to this roadmap ultimately propelled America to become a global superpower. In contrast, nations that pursued an emotion-driven policy witnessed a significant decline in their respective countries. This article will thoroug...
Read more

Faultlines in Pakistan's political culture

  Faultlines in Pakistan's political culture Pakistan's political system has never, not even momentarily, seen a smooth evolution. Pakistan has had ongoing political crises since its inception on the world map, which was then followed by economic, judicial, and constitutional problems. The political culture of Pakistan has certain fault lines that lead to political crises, and unless these fault lines are acknowledged, discussed, and rectified, the political system cannot be altered. Major fault lines in Pakistani political culture include the lack of ideological politics in the country, the lack of internal democracy in the so-called political parties, the legacy of dynasties, the lack of national political parties and a divided house, the practice of revenge politics, polarized politics with populist political leaders and the practice of US vs. THEM, the blame game with propaganda politics, the civil-military divide, the strong establishment and weak judiciary, controlled m...
Read more