نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی
عنوان مقاله English
نویسندگان English
The Constitutional Movement’s victory and the establishment of a rule-based order generated deep tensions among jurists whose interpretations of the Sharʿ and constitutional governance diverged significantly. The widening gap between distinct hermeneutic orientations—rooted respectively in differing readings of the religious tradition and the rationality of political modernity—intensified with the adoption of the Constitution, preventing any settlement of these disputes. Jurists’ positions during this period were not simple reiterations of inherited norms; rather, they expressed interpretive reconstructions of the tradition shaped by specific jurisprudential premises and methodological choices. Their reasoning, directed toward responding to emerging political circumstances, relied on distinctive principles of legal theory and modes of engaging the canonical texts. This interpretive posture formed the basis of their conceptualization of political authority in the modern era. This study analyzes the category of understanding—especially religious understanding—and the factors producing its plurality in jurists’ encounter with political modernity during the Constitutional era. Drawing on hermeneutic theories and particularly Hirsch’s account of valid interpretation, the study argues that the diversity of religious understanding stems from two core elements within the process of legal derivation: the methodological framework of jurisprudence and the identification of the subject under examination. While the relationship between jurisprudence and politics has received attention, the issue of religious understanding in relation to political modernity during this era remains underexplored. Addressing this lacuna clarifies the multiplicity of religious interpretations of political modernity and provides a foundation for assessing these understandings in ways that can inform strategic approaches to future political transformations.
کلیدواژهها English
