One of the most important issues that is currently being discussed in society is determining the boundary of “civil disobedience” with law-breaking, legalism, and the religious term “oppression”. The attention to this issue has led to the question of the relationship between ethics and law, justice and ethics, or in a religious perspective, the interaction or conflict between religion and law, which has been defined as the basis for legislation and has been given a special position.

One of the principles of legal theory, especially in the field of epistemology and philosophy of law, is attention to the general ethics of society. What is always the fundamental challenge for humanity in this regard is the practical difficulties of implementing ethical principles in political and social systems. For example, if the phrase “an unjust law is not a law” is accepted by activists and actors in society, such as lawyers, sociologists, media professionals, politicians, etc., what is the responsibility of this part of society in the face of an unjust law? Are they allowed to disobey and not enforce an unjust law? Will there be any political and social turmoil if such a thing were to happen?

Based on this issue, natural law theorists attempted to reform the aforementioned theory. Individuals such as Thomas Aquinas, an Italian philosopher and Christian theologian, proposed the theory that “unjust law is a form of violence” and declared that the criterion for the fairness of a law is the public interest and the welfare of society. Other theorists have put forth the theory of “intermediate law” and wrote, “If an unjust law is enacted in a democratic and just system, it must be followed and there is no place for disobedience to these laws.” In contrast, supporters of the positivist school considered the only condition for the validity of laws to be their proper enactment. In other words, supporters of this school stated, “What obligates citizens to obey the law is the validity of that law, which is derived from the legislative assembly, so for a rule to be considered a law, it is sufficient for the proper procedures of law-making to be followed.” However, it is possible that

The reality is that today’s world, under the title of the world of communications, is in need of ethics as much as it needs laws with a defined scope and proper enforcement guarantees, so that citizens can engage in their own well-being and social relationships under the shadow of the rule of law. It is clear that this difficult task will face greater challenges in the face of increased authority. The answer to this fundamental question is: “What is the duty if citizens collectively agree to the unjust or unethical decisions of the ruling power?” The simplest answer is: “It is necessary to establish a pillar or authority within the ruling body that monitors the reactions of society towards decisions and resolutions that are perceived as unjust by the majority, because the foundation of rights, as the rules governing personal relationships, is based on good morals and public order. Therefore, the norms and ethical values of each society, as the elements that make up customary law, have always been a rich source of legal rules in different eras of

In the definition of crime, what is considered the main criterion and basis for defining punishable behavior is violation and disrespect towards moral values and public order. With this introduction, it is clear that respect for accepted values of society, in contrast to behaviors that violate this respect, is considered a crime and its punishment has been determined. The Imamite jurisprudence often refers to the society’s reaction towards punishing criminals. The society’s response to committed crimes has always been considered as one of the constitutive elements of the physical behavior of criminals in Imamite jurisprudence and Islamic criminal law. In the definition of crimes such as “corruption on earth” and “warfare”, we see that causing fear and creating disturbance in society is considered as one of the elements of defining a crime. Paying attention to public opinion and maintaining order in society is of such importance that the criminal legislator has considered disturbing public opinion as an independent crime deserving punishment.

With this introduction, it should be noted that sometimes in dealing with women, various excuses are used, such as the rule of murder in the desert (Article 630 of the Islamic Penal Code) or honor killings – such as the murder of a woman in Ahvaz by her husband and brother-in-law in Bahman 1400, which caused public outrage and violated the moral values and public order of society. This raises the question of whether that man has committed a crime and transgression? In other words, for example, does the behavior of the Ahvazi man only come down to beheading a woman in order to use the request for retribution or non-retribution of the victim’s family as a criterion for attributing the crime to that person, or has that man committed a crime and transgression? Although some may consider this interpretation contrary to the principle of narrow interpretation of laws in favor of the accused, these two advanced principles of criminal law are in line with the rights of

The question arises as to whether in behaviors similar to the murder of the Ahvazi woman or the father who cut off his daughter’s head with an axe, or similar cases of these crimes that have apparently disrupted the order and tranquility of society, are only the guardians of the law allowed to make decisions about them? Does their behavior not fall under the category of the crime of “rebellion”?

Who can ignore the women and girls who have become fearful and anxious guests of this scene every day? Are the guardians of the woman whose head was cut off the same parents who are always praised as the guardians of the victim? Or are the guardians of such a victim the Iranian society itself? Although gender bias is undesirable, it must be acknowledged in this particular issue that all Iranian women, just like the victim, have inherent rights that have been violated by such actions.

***

It should be emphasized that the legal term of “injustice” has a complex meaning and its use to justify severe punishments leads to deviation from principles of justice and human rights. Therefore, it is necessary to properly define the scope of injustice and issue rulings in accordance with the general ethics of society.