Comparing status of Justice in Imimieh fiqh and laws of Islamic Republic of Iran

The legislator, the relying on first-hand resources, and then using valid ijtihad and, in the absence of clear reasons, taking into account the position of the supreme leader in issuing sentences enacts the rules for the enforcement in the community. This action takes place in a legal way. It is well-known that justice is considered as the default of Islamic law and creeds. But among the laws extracted from the jurisprudential ijtihad or the legal authority, there is seen possibility for the law not being really resolving the case, which is a normal possibility that has changed the rules over the last forty years. Perhaps some laws that were once considered Islamic are opposed to the contemporary justice and cannot be implemented.The claim that laws may be unfair will be justified with the conformity of laws with Islamic law, and a sacred and unchangeable attitude to laws may prevent criticism and opposition from laws by individuals or judicial courts. But changing the rules and the practical and empirical feasibility of the existence of laws that oppose justice and fairness reinforces the critique of the law. This article, considering the research style of the jurists in dealing with the resources and the necessity of ijtihad, while explaining the necessity of justice in the laws, according to the Islamic principles on justice, makes it possible to invoke justice and opposition to unfair laws in a reasonable process. Examples of interpretation contrary to the rules in the judicial process prove this hypothesis.