Comparative Study of the Legitimacy of Disobedience of Tyrant Rulers in the Political Jurisprudence of Shi’ah and Sunnite

A comparative approach towards the issues and the jurisprudential instructions in view of diverse religions can lead to the elucidation of the different and similar aspects along with the advent of the weak and strong points of each view. One of the significant issues being disagreed upon among the jurisprudential religions is the matter of civilly disobeying the tyrant ruler. The acceptance or rejection of this issue has a great impact on the political – social alterations of Islamic societies. According to the political thought of Shi’ah, it is essential to disobey the tyrant ruler. This issue has led to the development of movements as well as assertive actions against the internal dictatorship and tyrant rulers such as the initiation of Islamic Revolution in Shiite societies.
On the contrary, in the Sunnite political jurisprudence, this disobedience is considered a forbidden and reproached matter. In spite of the existence of a variety of opposite ideas among the Sunnite jurisprudents, this idea is dominant due to the historical reasons.
This interpretation is a hindrance towards the development of Revolution and the extended political fights against the internal dictatorship in Sunnite societies.
 This article is to study the issue of civil disobedience through a jurisprudential view together with a comparative approach