Reviewing the Concepts of "Sharia" and "Law" according to Sheikh Fazlollah Nuri and Mirza-ye Naini

The complex interplay between Islamic jurisprudence (Fiqh) and law in Iranian society, particularly since the Islamic Revolution of 1979, has sparked intense debates among intellectuals. In navigating legislative impasses within the legal system of the Islamic Republic of Iran, understanding the historical evolution and essence of concepts related to Sharia and law becomes paramount. The historical study of the relationship between these two institutions is integral to comprehending the trajectory of Iranian law and the evolution of Imamia jurisprudence.
     The focus of this study revolves around the perspectives of Sheikh Fazlollah Nuri (1843-1909) and Mirza-ye Naini (Muhammad Hussain Naini) (1860-1936), two pivotal jurists during the Iranian Constitutional Revolution [Asr-e-Mashrooteh] in Iran. Positioned on opposite ends of the Sharia-oriented intellectual spectrum, Sheikh Fazlollah Nuri represents those who question the legitimacy of law, while Mirza-ye Naini embodies those who acknowledge the necessity of law within the framework of Sharia. The uniqueness of this exploration lies in dissecting the assumptions these jurists held regarding Sharia and law, shedding light on the mental constructions that shaped their perspectives.

Research Question:

This research aims to delve into the theories of Sheikh Fazlollah Nuri and Allameh Naini, unraveling their assumptions regarding the concepts of "Sharia" and "Law." The central questions guiding this study include: What are the nuanced readings of Sheikh Fazlollah Nuri and Allameh Naini concerning the institutions of 'Sharia' and 'Law'? How do these readings contribute to conceptualizing the relationship between these two institutions in their views?

Research Hypothesis:

Formulating a comprehensive understanding of the assumptions held by Sheikh Fazlollah Nuri and Mirza-ye Naini regarding Sharia and law requires a nuanced exploration of their respective intellectual frameworks. The hypothesis posited is that Sheikh Fazlollah Nuri, as a representative of the spectrum questioning the legitimacy of law, might emphasize the precedence and superiority of Sharia over legal constructs. On the other hand, Mirza-ye Naini, as a proponent of acknowledging the role of law, is likely to present a perspective that harmonizes the two institutions.

Methodology & Framework, if Applicable:

To address the research questions and test the hypothesis, a componential approach will be employed. Unlike the traditional flow analysis approach, which tends to be reductionist, the componential approach allows for the identification of distinct thoughts and their conflicts within the intellectual frameworks of Sheikh Fazlollah Nuri and Mirza-ye Naini. This method acknowledges the possibility of individuals belonging to multiple thought components rather than being confined to a single flow.
     The study will critically examine existing literature, focusing on the methodologies adopted by previous researchers who have explored the opinions of Constitutional Sharia-oriented individuals. This research distinguishes itself by proposing a new framework that offers a deeper understanding of the relationships between Sharia and law based on the intellectual contributions of Sheikh Fazlollah Nuri and Mirza-ye Naini.
     In the subsequent sections, the article will scrutinize the scope of Sharia as perceived by these jurists, addressing the ongoing debate regarding whether the differences among Sharia-oriented individuals are fundamental or minor. Additionally, a positive exploration of the concept of law for Sheikh Fazlollah Nuri and Mirza-ye Naini will be presented, shedding light on the divergent yet interconnected perspectives of these two influential figures during the Iranian Constitutional Revolution.

Interpretation of the Scope of Sharia: An in-depth analysis of Sheikh Fazlollah Nuri and Mirza-ye Naini's perspectives on the scope of Sharia reveals a nuanced understanding that challenges conventional interpretations. While initial comparisons suggest conflicts, the shared foundations of Imamia jurisprudence among these jurists blur the lines of contention. The assertion that Sheikh Fazlollah Nuri holds a maximalist view of Sharia, contrasting with Mirza-ye Naini's minimalist stance due to the separation of customary and Sharia jurisdictions, lacks substantial evidence. The semantic differences between these two jurists regarding the scope of Sharia appear to be minimal, indicating a convergence in their interpretation of Sharia's principles.
     Conceptualization of Law as the Locus of Conflict: The crux of the divergence between Sheikh Fazlollah Nuri and Mirza-ye Naini lies in their conceptualization of law (Codified Law). Sheikh Fazlollah Nuri perceives law as a substantial, comprehensive entity that contradicts Sharia, leading him to reject the law as a modern concept. His viewpoint aligns with the broader understanding of the "incompatibility between Sharia and law" ideology. In stark contrast, Mirza-ye Naini integrates the law into traditional societal structures, viewing it as consistent with Sharia and not a separate, non-religious entity. His perspective positions the law as a formal interpretation reflecting religious rulings in the legal domain, highlighting a compatibility between Sharia and law.

This research sought to reevaluate the theories of Sheikh Fazlollah Nuri and Mirza-ye Naini regarding Sharia and law during the Constitutional Era in Iran. The examination focused on two crucial aspects: the interpretation of the scope of Sharia and the conceptualization of the law. Within the ideological backdrop of the era, the study positioned the opinions of these two jurists under the overarching ideologies of "incompatibility between jurisprudence and law," "Sharia-oriented thinking," and "collectivism."
     Regarding the interpretation of the scope of Sharia, the research found that semantic differences between Sheikh Fazlollah Nuri and Mirza-ye Naini were minimal, challenging the commonly held belief of maximalist and minimalist views. Both jurists, rooted in Imamia jurisprudence, shared foundational principles of Sharia, mitigating potential conflicts in their interpretations.
     The conceptualization of law emerged as the focal point of disagreement between the two jurists. Sheikh Fazlollah Nuri rejected the law as a modern, comprehensive entity incompatible with Sharia, aligning with the broader narrative of incompatibility. In contrast, Mirza-ye Naini perceived the law as an integral part of traditional societies, deeming it consistent with Sharia and serving as an expression of religious rulings in the legal domain.
     In essence, while Sheikh Fazlollah Nuri and Mirza-ye Naini both identified as Sharia-oriented thinkers, their divergence lay in their understanding of the law. Sheikh Fazlollah Nuri's rejection of the law paralleled the incompatibility ideology, while Mirza-ye Naini's integration of the law within religious frameworks resonated with the collectivist perspective. This nuanced exploration contributes to a more nuanced understanding of the intellectual landscape during the Constitutional Era in Iran, shedding light on the intricate relationship between Sharia and law as perceived by these influential jurists.