---

Legitimacy of law deals with rational justification of people's allegiance to the law in civilized societies. In other words, given that the "rule of law" is observed in the society, there is a need to answer some important questions, and "what is the basis on which people in modern societies follow the law?, "Why we should obey the law"?, and "What are the justified reasons to legitimate law"? Schools of thought have tried to answer these questions based on their perspective about being, cognition and value. In this essay, we tried to answer the above questions from Islam´s and Max Weber’s point of views. I argue, on the one hand, that Weber’s approach can not properly justify allegiance to law because it considers legitimacy as legality. On the other hand, Islamic attitude points out to the source of legislation right that comes from Allah. So the citizens under Islamic rules feel strong moral (Sharia) obligations to respect law.    

---

   Abstract      Dispute among different persons is conducted when either every one of them allege independent interest in proceeding subject, or when numerous plaintiffs and defendants having common interest allege or defend action.  Phrase “Inseparable judgment” includes dispute among the plaintiffs and defendants having common interest. “Indispensable claim” is a kind of dispute among the persons having common interest; but there is only this relation among the defendants. Because in this kind of dispute, all of the defendants must be complained. Article 74 of Civil Procedure is observer on inseparable claim. This paper discusses the concept and kinds of disputes among different persons from a comparative aspect. The approach of Iranian civil procedure in this matter is considered as an important subject that needs to be discussed by adopting convenience rules from foreign law.      
* Corresponding author’s e-mail:khalilahmadi56@gmail.com