KMAN Publication Incorporation Interdisciplinary Studies in Society, Law, and Politics 3060-5687 4 Serial Number 13 2025 04 01 Managerial Responsibility in Cooperation with Oppression: A Jurisprudential and Legal Analysis Based on the Time of Occurrence and Its Consequences Managerial Responsibility in Cooperation with Oppression: A Jurisprudential and Legal Analysis Based on the Time of Occurrence and Its Consequences 206 218 10.61838/kman.isslp.4.2.19 EN Journal Article 2025 01 03 <p><a href="https://journalisslp.com/index.php/isslp/Oppression is one of the greatest human challenges, with its negative effects being perceptible not only on individuals but also on society as a whole. In fact, many of the problems and calamities that befall individuals and societies stem from oppression. A key subject in Shi’a political jurisprudence is the prohibition of cooperating with oppressors and assisting them, which is emphasized as a means to counter oppression and social corruption. Managerial responsibility concerning cooperation with oppressors is of great significance from this perspective, as managers, being in positions of decision-making and supervision, may directly or indirectly play a role in the occurrence of oppression. Therefore, examining the responsibility of managers in cooperation with oppression from the standpoint of the time of occurrence (before, during, or after the act) and the jurisprudential and legal consequences of such cooperation is essential. This study aims to analyze the different forms of cooperation in oppression based on the time of occurrence and to examine its ruling from the perspective of Imami jurisprudence and legal principles using a descriptive-analytical method. The findings indicate that cooperation with a tyrannical ruler, particularly when it strengthens an oppressive government, is prohibited. Even in cases where such cooperation does not directly reinforce a tyrannical regime, certain jurisprudential arguments still deem it unlawful. Additionally, the punishment of an accomplice in Islamic law, as an instance of a‘ānat ‘alā al-ithm (assistance in sin), is examined, demonstrating that if the legal and jurisprudential conditions are met, the accomplice must also be held accountable. These analyses underscore that managers must take responsibility for any form of cooperation with oppression, and in cases where they have assisted oppressors, they must be held accountable according to jurisprudential and legal principles.">Oppression is one of the greatest human challenges, with its negative effects being perceptible not only on individuals but also on society as a whole. In fact, many of the problems and calamities that befall individuals and societies stem from oppression. A key subject in Shi’a political jurisprudence is the prohibition of cooperating with oppressors and assisting them, which is emphasized as a means to counter oppression and social corruption. Managerial responsibility concerning cooperation with oppressors is of great significance from this perspective, as managers, being in positions of decision-making and supervision, may directly or indirectly play a role in the occurrence of oppression. Therefore, examining the responsibility of managers in cooperation with oppression from the standpoint of the time of occurrence (before, during, or after the act) and the jurisprudential and legal consequences of such cooperation is essential. This study aims to analyze the different forms of cooperation in oppression based on the time of occurrence and to examine its ruling from the perspective of Imami jurisprudence and legal principles using a descriptive-analytical method. The findings indicate that cooperation with a tyrannical ruler, particularly when it strengthens an oppressive government, is prohibited. Even in cases where such cooperation does not directly reinforce a tyrannical regime, certain jurisprudential arguments still deem it unlawful. Additionally, the punishment of an accomplice in Islamic law, as an instance of a‘ānat ‘alā al-ithm (assistance in sin), is examined, demonstrating that if the legal and jurisprudential conditions are met, the accomplice must also be held accountable. These analyses underscore that managers must take responsibility for any form of cooperation with oppression, and in cases where they have assisted oppressors, they must be held accountable according to jurisprudential and legal principles.</a></p> https://journalisslp.com/index.php/isslp/article/download/231/500