Role of Injustice in Jurisprudential Inference

Justice and injustice are two influential and highly debated issues in human schools of thought. One key discussion in this regard, is the role the concept of injustice can play in the procedures related to inference of the religious rules. This paper intends to clarify the role of injustice in this procedure. Based on the dictionaries, especially those belonging to the immediate post-Revelation period, injustice means “trespassing limits”. It also means the same in religious texts, the Holy Quran in particular. On this basis, in jurisprudential inference, injustice takes place whenever one trespasses the limits specified by the legislator. The valid limits in jurisprudence are the same specified by the legislator as well as the rational and common limits based on which the legislator has set the limits or avoided prohibition. Consequently, injustice is a criterion at work throughout the totality of jurisprudence and legal inference. Two major roles have been considered for injustice: First, in cases where attribution of something or reasoning is in incompatibility with general guidelines of Sharia law, it can restrict reason or dissuade the case. Second, it can serve as a proof of judgment in jurisprudential ramifications and newly raised issues.