A Reflection on the "Foundation of Law" in Light of Various Approaches to Religious Epistemology

Document Type : Research Article

Author

Assistant Professor, Department of Jurisprudence and Law, Faculty of Humanities, Shahid Motahari University, Tehran, Iran.

Abstract

‌ ∴ Introduction ∴ ‌
The study delves into the fundamental aspect of legal systems—the foundation of law—and its crucial role in shaping legal norms. Grounded in the unique sociocultural context of contemporary Iran, the research embarks on a comprehensive analysis of the interplay between legal perspectives and religious knowledge. While conventional discussions on the foundation of law often revolve around legal theories, this study, informed by the prominence of religion and its influence on Iranian society, investigates the role of "religious epistemology" as the guiding force behind legal doctrines.
‌ ∴ Research Question ∴ ‌
The pivotal inquiry centers on the degree of autonomy governments possess in promulgating laws and whether there exist predetermined guidelines and criteria governing the enactment of laws. In essence, the research explores the foundational basis upon which legal systems are established and the factors influencing the imposition of legal norms by the state. This prompts a critical examination of the autonomy of governments in lawmaking and the need for compliance with predetermined standards to confer credibility and legitimacy upon enacted laws.
‌ ∴ Research Hypothesis ∴ ‌
Two distinct perspectives emerge in response to the aforementioned question:
     On one hand, proponents of the natural law school argue that laws must align with natural, rational, and just principles, with human beings serving as discoverers or interpreters of these inherent laws. Legitimacy and obligation, according to this view, are rooted in the congruence of laws with reality and justice, regardless of governmental recognition.
     On the other hand, adherents of the positivist perspective contend that legal rules are mere products of human will and governmental imposition. In this paradigm, the legitimacy and obligation of laws are solely contingent upon governmental endorsement, rendering the alignment with reality or justice irrelevant. The hypothesis posits that the clash between these perspectives has given rise to two prominent legal schools: natural law and positivism.
‌ ∴ Methodology & Framework, if Applicable ∴ ‌
The research employs a comparative analytical approach, juxtaposing the natural law and positivist viewpoints to assess their impact on the foundation of law within the Iranian legal context. Drawing on both legal philosophy and Islamic jurisprudence, the study navigates the divergent paths taken by legal scholars who either lean towards integrating Islamic principles with natural law or assert the primacy of positivism. The methodology involves a critical review of legal literature and a nuanced examination of the evolving discourse in Iranian legal philosophy. The framework of analysis encompasses an exploration of the intersections and tensions between these two schools of thought, emphasizing their implications for the Iranian legal system.
     This article endeavors to contribute to the nuanced understanding of the foundation of law in the Iranian legal landscape, shedding light on the philosophical underpinnings that shape the enactment, legitimacy, and obligation of laws. The exploration of these themes within the context of natural law and positivism offers valuable insights into the multifaceted nature of legal thought in Iran and its intersection with religious epistemology.
‌ ∴ Results & Discussion ∴ ‌
The culmination of this investigation into the foundation of law in the Iranian legal landscape yields three predominant perspectives that intersect and clash within the broader context of religious epistemology.
     The first perspective challenges the role of religion as the foundation of law, emphasizing the incongruence between modern societal values and legal principles derived from religion. It questions the legitimacy of a legal system rooted in religious doctrine, suggesting that legal norms should exclusively stem from human reason and societal norms. However, this perspective faces theoretical weaknesses, particularly in its reluctance to engage with the philosophical foundations of the New Western thought.
     The second perspective, while recognizing the significant role of religion in the Iranian legal system, seeks to reinterpret fundamental rights such as freedom and equality within the framework of religious doctrines. Though practically similar to the first perspective, it attempts a theoretical reconciliation by extracting modern legal principles from religious foundations. Nevertheless, it faces profound theoretical challenges, lacking a robust theoretical basis within Western philosophy.
     The third perspective, chosen by the author, confronts the foundational principles of New Western philosophy and critically examines the conditions under which modern rights, such as autonomy, can emerge. This perspective delves into the mechanism through which religion acts as the source of legal principles and analyzes its relationship with modern rights. In this approach, the coexistence of reason and religion is emphasized, with human access to universal truths facilitated by both intellect and faith. This perspective places a renewed emphasis on the intrinsic role of Sharia as the foundation of law, tackling practical challenges and reconciling the clash between reason, societal norms, and religion in the realm of law.
‌ ∴ Conclusion ∴ ‌
In conclusion, the inquiry into the foundation of law in Iran, with a focus on religious epistemology, brings to light the complexity of perspectives within the Iranian legal discourse.
     The examination of three distinct approaches highlights the ongoing struggle to reconcile the relationship between law and religion. While the first two perspectives grapple with theoretical and practical challenges in aligning religious doctrines with modern legal principles, the third perspective seeks a harmonious coexistence of reason and faith. Emphasizing the intrinsic role of Sharia as the bedrock of legal principles, this perspective proposes nuanced solutions to the practical challenges posed by the evolving dynamics of society, demonstrating a dynamic synthesis of religious and modern legal thought. This study contributes to the broader understanding of the intricate interplay between law, religion, and philosophy in shaping legal frameworks, specifically within the unique context of the Iranian legal system.

Keywords

Main Subjects


  1. The Holy Quran.
  2. Alīdūst, Abū-al-Qāsem (1401 SH). Maṣāder-e Feqh (ʿAql va ʿOrf) [Sources of Jurisprudence (Reason and Custom)]. 4th ed., Markaz-e Bīn-al-Melalī-ye Tarjome va Našr-e al-Moṣṭafā (ṣallī-Allāh ʿalayh va āl-e-h) [in Persian].
  3. Āqā-Mehdūī, Aṣḡar and Kāẓemī, Sayyed Moḥammad-Ṣādeq (1399 SH). Kolīyāt-e Feqh-e Sīāsī [Generalities of Political Jurisprudence]. 1st ed., Entešārāt-e Pažūhešgāh-e Ḥoze va Dānešgāh [in Persian].
  4. Arasṭā, Moḥammad-Javād (Summer 1400 SH). Negāhī be Ḥoqūq-e ʿOmūmī dar Eslām [A Look at Public Law in Islam]. 1st ed., Našr-e Mokṯ Andīše [in Persian].
  5. Aṣḡarī, Moḥammad (Summer 1382 SH). Mādde dar Falsafe-ye Dekārt [Matter in Descartes’ Philosophy]. Majalle-ye ʿAllāme [Allameh Journal], No. 5, pp. 88-104 [in Persian].
  6. Dāneš-Pažūh, Moṣṭafā and Ḵosrošāhī, Qodrat-Allāh (1390 SH). Falsafe-ye Ḥoqūq [Philosophy of Law]. 11th ed., Qom: Moʾasseṣe-ye Āmūzešī va Pažūhešī-ye Emām Ḵomeynī (raḥmat-Allāh ʿalayh) [in Persian].
  7. Dāneš-Pažūh, Moṣṭafā (1400 SH). Kolīyāt-e Ḥoqūq-e Eslām [Generalities of Islamic Law]. 2nd ed., Entešārāt-e Pažūhešgāh-e Ḥoze va Dānešgāh va Dānešgāh-e ʿOlūm-e Eslāmī Reżavī [in Persian].
  8. Dāvarī Ardakānī, Reżā (1374 SH). Falsafe Čīst? [What is Philosophy?]. Tehrān: Pažūhešgāh-e ʿOlūm va Farhang-e Eslāmī [in Persian].
  9. Fīraḥī, Dāvūd (1399 SH). Mafhūm-e Qānūn dar Īrān-e Moʿāṣer (Taḥavolāt-e Pīš-amšrūṭe) [The Concept of Law in Contemporary Iran (Pre-Constitutional Developments)]. 1st ed., Tehrān: Našr-e Nī [in Persian].
  10. Ḥosayn-Zāde, Moḥammad (1390 SH). Darāmādī bar Maʿrefat-Šenāsī va Mobānī-ye Maʿrefat-e Dīnī [An Introduction to Epistemology and the Foundations of Religious Knowledge]. 4th ed., Entešārāt-e Moʾasseṣe-ye Āmūzešī va Pažūhešī-ye Emām Ḵomeynī (raḥmat-Allāh ʿalayh) [in Persian].
  11. Jaʿfarī-Tabār, Ḥasan (1388 SH). Falsafe-ye Tafsīrī-ye Ḥoqūq [Interpretive Philosophy of Law]. 1st ed., Tehrān: Sahāmī Entešār [in Persian].
  12. Javādī Āmolī, ʿAbd-Allāh (1392 SH). Šarīʿat dar Āyīne-ye Maʿrefat (Barrasī va Naqd-e Nazarīye-ye Qabẓ va Basṭ-e Teʾorīk-e Šarīʿat) [Sharia in the Mirror of Knowledge (Study and Criticism of the Theory of Contraction and Expansion of Sharia)]. Našr-e Esrā [in Persian].
  13. Jāvīd, Moḥammad-Javād (1397 SH). Makāteb-e Falsafī-ye Ḥoqūq [Philosophical Schools of Law]. 1st ed., Tehrān: Ḵorsandī [in Persian].
  14. Kātūzīān, Nāṣer (1382 SH). Rābeṭe-ye Feqh va Ḥoqūq [The Relationship between Jurisprudence and Law]. Nāme-ye Mofīd [Mofid Letter], No. 43, pp. 187-200 [in Persian].
  15. Kātūzīān, Nāṣer (1385 SH). Naqš-e ʿAdālat dar Tafsīr-e Qānūn [The Role of Justice in the Interpretation of Law]. Majalle-ye Dāneškade-ye Ḥoqūq va ʿOlūm-e Sīāsī [Journal of Faculty of Law and Political Science], No. 72, pp. 361-383 [in Persian].
  16. Kātūzīān, Nāṣer (1393 SH). Moqaddame-ye ʿElm-e Ḥoqūq [Introduction to the Science of Law]. 97th ed., Tehrān: Sahāmī Entešār [in Persian].
  17. Mīr-Aḥmadī, Manṣūr (1392 SH). Molāḥeẓātī bar Čāleš-hā-ye Feqh-e Sīāsī [Observations on the Challenges of Political Jurisprudence]. 1st ed., Pažūhešgāh-e Farhang va Andīše-ye Eslāmī [in Persian].
  18. Moṭahharī, Mortażā (1380 SH). Eslām va Moqtażāyāt-e Zamān (Volume 2) [Islam and the Requirements of Time]. 12th ed., Entešārāt-e Ṣadrā [in Persian].
  19. Mūsavī Asl, Sayyed-Saʿīd and Manṣūr-Ābādī, ʿAbbās (Autumn and Winter 1394 SH). Taḥavol-e Mafhūmī-ye Qānūn-e Ṭabīʿī Zīl-e Sobžektīvīte-ye Dekārtī [The Conceptual Transformation of Natural Law under Cartesian Subjectivity]. Majalle-ye Ḥoqūq-e Ḵoṣūṣī [Journal of Private Law], Vol. 12, No. 2, pp. 205-231 [in Persian].
  20. Naṣīrī, Moṣṭafā (1399 SH). Taʾṯīr-e Roykarde-hā-ye Ensān-Šenāsī bar Sīāsat-e Jenāyī bā Tākīd bar Ensān-Šenāsī-ye Eslāmī va Ensān-Šenāsī-ye Eṯbātī (Resāle-ye Doktorī Defāʿ-Šode dar Dāneškade-ye Ḥoqūq-e Dānešgāh-e Tehrān) [The Influence of Anthropological Approaches on Criminal Policy with Emphasis on Islamic Anthropology and Positive Anthropology (PhD Thesis Defended at the Faculty of Law of Tehran University)] [in Persian].
  21. Pārsānīā, Ḥamīd (Spring 1390 SH). Falsafe-ye Ḥoqūq-e Bašar az Dīdgāh-e Āyat-Allāh Javādī Āmolī [Philosophy of Human Rights from the Perspective of Ayatollah Javadi Amoli]. Majalle-ye Ḥekmat-e Esrā [Wisdom of Esra Journal], No. 7, pp. 130-146 [in Persian].
  22. Rāseḵ, Moḥammad (1386 SH). Modernīte va Ḥoqūq-e Dīnī [Modernity and Religious Law]. Nāme-ye Ḥoqūqī [Legal Letter], No. 2, pp. 3-26 [in Persian].
  23. Ṣadr-al-Motaʾallehīn, Moḥammad-ebn-Ebrāhīm (Mollāṣadrā) (1366 SH). Al-Šavāhed al-Robūbīya (Javād Moṣleḥ, Translator and Interpreter). Tehrān: Soroš [in Persian].
  24. Šahābī, Mehdi (1388 SH). Az Ḥoqūq-e Sonnatī tā Ḥoqūq-e Modern; Tʾamolī dar Mobānī-ye Neẓām-e Ḥoqūqī [From Traditional Law to Modern Law; A Reflection on the Foundations of the Legal System]. Nāme-ye Mofīd [Mofid Letter], No. 76, pp. 69-90 [in Persian].
  25. Ṭabāṭabāʾī, Moḥammad-Ḥosayn (1374 SH). Tafsīr al-Mīzān (Sayyed-Moḥammad-Bāqer Mūsavī Hamadānī, Translator). 5th ed., Qom: Daftar-e Entešārāt-e Eslāmī Jāmeʿe-ye Modarresīn-e Ḥoze-ye ʿElmīye-ye Qom [in Persian].
  26. Ṭāleb-Zāde, Sayyed-Ḥamīd (1381 SH). Negāhī be Mobānī-ye Mā-Baʿd-al-Ṭabīʿat-e Erāde [A Look at the Metaphysical Foundations of Will]. Faslnāme-ye Falsafe-ye Dānešgāh-e Tehrān [Journal of Philosophy of Tehran University], Nos. 6 and 7 [in Persian].
  27. Ṭāleb-Zāde, Sayyed-Ḥamīd (Spring and Summer 1381 SH). Negāh-e Ḡarbī va Mobānī-ye ʿElm-e Jadīd az Dīdgāh-e Mārtīn Hāydegger [The Western View and the Foundations of the New Science from the Perspective of Martin Heidegger]. Majalle-ye Farhang [Culture Journal], Nos. 41 and 42, pp. 9-38 [in Persian].
  28. Van Hoecke, Mark (2002). Law as Communication, Oregon, Hart press.
  29. Varaʿī, Sayyed Javād (1396 SH). Dars-Nāme-ye Feqh-e Sīāsī [Political Jurisprudence Coursebook]. 1st ed., Pažūhešgāh-e Ḥoze va Dānešgāh [in Persian].
  30. Zāreʿī, Moḥammad-Ḥosayn (1394 SH). Goftār-hā-ī dar Ḥoqūq-e ʿOmūmī-ye Modern Ḥākemīyat-e Qānūn Demokrāsī [Discourses on Modern Public Law Rule of Law Democracy]. 1st ed., Tehrān: Ḵorsandī [in Persian].
  31. Zīā-Šahābī, Parvīz (1391 SH). Darāmādī Pedīdāršenāsāne be Falsafe-ye Dekārt [A Phenomenological Introduction to Descartes’ Philosophy]. Tehrān: Hermes [in Persian].