A Comparative Study of the Methodology of Shiite and Sunni Political Jurisprudence

Abstract

Methodology is the main foundation of science, production, and solving national and international problems. In the epistemological space of Islam, Shiite and Sunni schools, with monotheistic approaches, have significant capacities in developing political jurisprudence and providing political solutions, but systematic comparative studies on the methodology of their political jurisprudence have been less frequent. This applied research, with a descriptive nature and a comparative approach, using a library method, with the aim of comparing and matching methods, answers the question of how the methods of explanation and inference of Shiite political jurisprudence are analyzed in comparison to Sunni ones? By extracting and analyzing the components, inference tools, and methods used, the results show that Shiite political jurisprudence based on the Imamate, with its evidence-based characteristics, timing, jihadi thinking, and non-compromise with the arrogant, is the answer to society's endless problems. In contrast, Sunni political jurisprudence, based on the caliphate and believing in the limitation and finality of rulings in the face of the endless problems of society, while depriving itself of the Imamate, accepts ijtihad based on personal taste and opinion as a substitute for the accepted text, using analogy, istihsan, and personal opinion, sometimes leading to the blockage of ijtihad from reliable sources, inconsistency in understanding political tasks, and compromise with the arrogant and oppressive. By clarifying methodological foundations, this research helps facilitate inferences on new issues and the formulation of political and governmental frameworks based on the principles of Imamate, and provides a roadmap for comparative studies.

Keywords: comparison, methodology, political jurisprudence, Shia, Sunni.َ