نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسنده

• سید سعید موسوی اصل

استادیار بخش حقوق جزا و جرم‌شناسی دانشکده حقوق و علوم سیاسی، دانشگاه شیراز، شیراز، ایران

چکیده

طرح قانون جدید در ‌‌ایران با صورت‌های مختلفی در تاریخ معاصر معرفی شده است که در ‌‌این میان دو رویکرد تأثیرگذار، دیدگاه‌های مستشارالدوله و میرزای نائینی هستند. مستشارالدوله فراتر از انتقال ترجمه‌‌ای صرف مواد قانونی خارجی، به شرایط پیشینی تحقق قانون در ‌‌ایران توجه داشته است و مبتنی بر روح قانون جدید که ‌‌از نظر وی در اصول حقوق بشر فرانسه متجلی شده است، ‌‌به‌دنبال بازخوانی مواد شرعی در پرتو عقل جدید است. از طرف ‌دیگر میرزای نائینی با تلاش در راستای بازخوانی فکر مشروطه در چارچوب سنت قدمایی، ‌‌به ‌صورت‌بندی قانون در تابعیت از شرع می‌پردازد و با استمداد از ظرفیت‌های اجتهاد فقهی، مفاهیم جدید را ذیل عقل سنتی تقویم می‌نماید. به نظر می‌رسد که مستشارالدوله با درکی از عقل جدید و عبور از اقتضائات عقل قدیم، به ‌‌تأسیس قانون نظر دارد و ‌‌به‌دنبال انتقال از شرع به قانون است و حال آنکه میرزای نائینی مبتنی بر سنت قدمایی و بدون التزام به اقتضائات عقل جدید، ‌‌به‌دنبال صورت‌بندی قانون مبتنی بر دستگاه فکر شرعی است، بنابراین قانون را تابعی از شرع می‌داند.

کلیدواژه‌ها

• قانون
• مستشارالدوله
• میرزای نائینی
• عقل جدید
• عقل قدیم

موضوعات

• حقوق عمومی

عنوان مقاله [English]

Formulating the Concept of Modern Law in Iran: A Comparative Analysis of Mirzai Naini’s and Yousuf Khan Mostashar al-Dowleh’s Approaches

نویسنده [English]

• Seyyed Saeid Mousavi asl

Assistant Professor, Department of Criminal and Criminalogy, Faculty of Law and Political Science, Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran

چکیده [English]

Introduction

The establishment of modern law in contemporary Iran has been a major concern for many intellectuals and religious scholars. In this context, Mirzai Naini and Yousuf Khan Mostashar al-Dowleh approached the issue of law from two distinct intellectual perspectives. This raises an important question: How did they formulate the concept of modern law according to their respective approaches? This question becomes even more significant when considering that Mostashar al-Dowleh engages with modern concepts rooted in Western culture with minimal regard for ancient traditions, while Mirza Naini, despite his strong religious commitment and defense of the jurisprudential approach, pays considerable attention to modern concepts. Given this, examining the fundamental differences in their approaches—particularly how each thinker balances ancient traditions with modern ideas—is essential for understanding the evolution of Iranian thought in the face of modernity and the establishment of law in the contemporary era. This article aimed to explore how law was conceptualized at the intersection of tradition and modernity in the perspectives of these two thinkers and on what foundations their differing formulations were based. To address this question, the study first examined Mostashar al-Dowleh’s approach to the conceptual formulation of modern law, followed by an analysis of Mirza Naini’s perspective. Finally, the analysis highlighted the defining characteristics and dimensions of each approach.
 

Literature Review

Concerning the research on the concept of modern law in Iran, notable Persian-language contributions include A Reflection on Iran: A Theory of the Role of Law in Iran by Seyed Javad Tabatabai (2013), Old Concepts and Modern Thought by Hossein Abadian (2009), and The Concept of Law in Contemporary Iran: Pre-Constitutional Developments  by Davoud Feirahi (2020). However, the scholarly literature has not yet dealt with the rereading and analysis of the approaches of modern intellectuals and Sharia-oriented scholars on the subject of law from the standpoint of philosophy of law. In other words, the conceptual formulation of modern law in contemporary Iran is shaped by the epistemological background of thinkers who have addressed this issue. The frameworks emerged from their efforts deserve a systematic comparison.

Materials and Methods

The present study used the citation analysis method and an analytical approach with a focus on the philosophy of law.
  

Results and Discussion

Mostashar al-Dowleh was one of the first Iranian intellectuals to propose a plan for the transition from the traditional Sharia-based legal system to modern law. He played a pivotal role in advancing the rule of law in Iran. In the introduction to his treatise One Word, before addressing French public law or the principles of the 1789 Declaration of Human Rights, Mostashar al-Dowleh highlights five key differences between the Book of Sharia and the Book of Law. At the same time, he identifies fundamental points that lay the groundwork for the transition from the traditional Sharia system to modern law. In One Word, Mostashar al-Dowleh emphasized that the enduring essence of those legal codes, the very soul of all French laws, consisted of nineteen items, as printed at the beginning of the code. Thus, his primary objective in translating the French public law codes was to emphasize the spirit of the codes and the soul of French laws, believing that understanding these core principles was essential for establishing the rule of law in Iran. While Mostashar al-Dowleh sought to reinterpret the traditional legal system through the lens of modern reason and concepts, Mirza Naini approached law from within the framework of the traditional Sharia. Naini aimed to define the scope of law in accordance with Sharia-based jurisprudence (fiqh) and its traditional rationality. According to Feirahi (2015), Naini’s Tanbih al-Ummah represents a jurisprudential school that provides a foundation for the religious expression of modern concepts. Feirahi argues that Naini’s engagement with modern concepts, including law, was deeply rooted in constitutionalist thought. However, Naini operated within the jurisprudential tradition of Shia scholars (mujtahids), where traditional religious concerns remained central. His interpretation of constitutional concepts was therefore shaped by the spirit of religion. Consequently, Naini’s approach to law was not influenced by modern reason or modern political thought.
 

Conclusion

Mostashar al-Dowleh and Mirza Naini were contemporaries who approached the formulation and establishment of law in contemporary Iran from two distinct intellectual perspectives. In the context of the transition from Sharia to modern law, Mostashar al-Dowleh proposed his framework by emphasizing the principles of French human rights—considering them the spirit of modern law— and reinterpreting Sharia provisions in light of those principles. By advocating for the concept of law as self-governing and asserting the primacy of national acceptance over all government rulings, he demonstrated his awareness of the requirements of modern reason while simultaneously engaging with traditional thought in light of modern reason. In this sense, he exhibited both an understanding of and a commitment to the prerequisites of law in light of modern reason. In contrast, Mirza Naini not only disregarded the requirements of modern reason in his conception of law but also sought to formulate the law entirely within the system of Sharia. His approach involved reinterpreting the law within the system of religious thought, hence in light of the tradition. Although both thinkers were concerned with establishing a foundation for modern law in contemporary Iran, their approaches were fundamentally different. Mostashar al-Dowleh’s perspective led to a rereading of traditional concepts through the lens of modern reason, whereas Naini’s approach aimed to digest and integrate modern concepts into the system of Sharia.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

• Law
• Mostashar Al-Dowleh
• Mirza Naeini
• Modern Reason
• Old Reason