It is obvious that the law has the ultimate authority in settling disputes, and everyone has the right to depend solely on its provisions for protecting him/herself and their personal recognized interests. However, there might be circumstances in which the legislator leaves the door open to approaching immoral endeavours through his provided legislative solutions. Consequently, this will put the judiciary authority in an awkward position of having to determine between maintaining the apparent literal interpretation of the text and perpetrating a morally prohibited guilt and confronting the provisions of the law. Therefore, the objective of this study is to assess the nature of individuals behaviours in connection with their pure legality, and their legality despite being immoral, so that appropriate regulations might well be developed to govern personal activities, and to remove legal protection that such unethical rules may provide to forestall and combat injustice, prejudices, and immoral legal activities. The research concluded that the judiciary must fulfill its obligation in respect with abandonment of any immoral legal rules that seem to be legislated. Farther, the courts should follow the right-based interpretation of laws and look at the textual rules from the perspective of a reasonable and wise man, in order to give the texts reasonableness instead of stripping the law of its rationality.
mahmood et al. (Fri,) studied this question.