Document Type : Academicm and Research
Authors
1
Ph.D. Candidate in Quran and Hadith Sciences, Semnan Branch, Islamic Azad University, Semnan, Iran
2
Assistant Professor, Department of Qur’anic Sciences and Hadith, University of Quran and Hadith, Faculty of Qur’anic Sciences, Shahroud, Iran
3
Assistant Professor, Department of Fiqh and Fundamentals of Islamic Law, Semnan Branch, Islamic Azad University, Semnan, Iran
10.22091/ptt.2025.13743.2505
Abstract
Freedom of expression and the right to voice opinions, particularly in criticizing political authority, are among the central issues in Islamic political thought. The Qur’an, through verses such as “Their affairs are [decided] by mutual consultation among them” (Shura 38) and “Let there be a group among you who enjoin what is right” (Āl ʿImrān 104), emphasizes social participation and accountability in governance. However, Shi‘a and Sunni exegetes have interpreted the limits of this freedom differently. Using a descriptive–analytical and comparative approach, this study examines classical and contemporary Qur’anic commentaries to explore these perspectives. The findings show that Shi‘a exegetes, drawing on the doctrines of Imamate and al-amr bi’l-ma‘rūf wa’n-nahy ʿan al-munkar (enjoining right and forbidding wrong), regard criticism of rulers as both a right and a religious duty. Sunni exegetes, based on bayʿah and communal welfare, accept the legitimacy of criticism but within the bounds of public interest and social harmony. A comparative analysis indicates that the Shi‘a tradition prioritizes justice and opposition to tyranny, while the Sunni view stresses unity and the prevention of discord. Integrating both perspectives offers a balanced model of responsible critique that upholds justice while safeguarding social stability.
Keywords
Main Subjects
)
Send comment about this article