نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی
نویسنده
استادیار گروه معارف اسلامی دانشگاه کاشان، کاشان، ایران
چکیده
کلیدواژهها
عنوان مقاله [English]
نویسنده [English]
In the history of contemporary political jurisprudence in Iran, Sheikh Fazlollah Nouri’s confrontation with the constitutional law has been a focal point of deep and controversial debates. The present study aims to explain and analyze his jurisprudential foundations in addressing the constitutional law. The theoretical framework of this research is based on the absolute sovereignty of divine Sharia. Sheikh Nouri regarded any legislation enacted independently of Sharia by the parliament as an innovation in lawmaking, deeming it haram (prohibited) and invalid; hence, he opposed the primacy of human-made legislation. Based on the principle of nafy-e-sabeel, he considered absolute equality contrary to the superiority of Islam and restricted freedom according to Sharia norms to prevent corruption and the weakening of religion. The pinnacle of these jurisprudential principles was Sheikh Nouri’s insistence on the supervisory role of jurists over parliamentary enactments, which led to the inclusion of the second principle in the constitutional law amendment. This supervision served as a guarantee for the conformity of laws with Sharia and prevented legal secularization. Finally, Sheikh Nouri’s concerns over colonial influence and Westernization, perceived as potential corruption and threats to Islamic identity and independence, reinforced his jurisprudential deductions. Using principles such as daf‘ al-maslahah (prevention of harm), jalb al-manfa’at (promotion of benefit), preservation of the dignity of Muslims, and sadd al-dhari‘ah (blocking the means of corruption), he adopted a firm stance against imported concepts. This study, with an analytical-jurisprudential approach and precise reference to primary jurisprudential sources, provides a comprehensive picture of Sheikh Fazlollah Nouri’s ijtihadi approach to confronting the constitutional law.
کلیدواژهها [English]
)