Abstract

Two major transformations in the constitutional history of the Islamic Middle East are examined with reference to Iran. Two snapshots sketch the consequences of the reception, respectively, of the Turko-Mongolian since the first half of the fifteenth century, marked the reconciliation of Turko-Mongolian and Islamic law, and of the legal framework of the international system of modern nation-states in the nineteenth century. The turning point from the Turko-Mongolian to the modern legal transplantation is the collapse of the last Turko-Mongolian empire in world history – that of Nāder Shah (1736-1747). It was followed by half a century of internecine tribal warfare from which Iran emerged as a state forced to adopt Western law in the century-long course of its defensive modernization against imperialist pressure that resulted in the inception of legal modernization. Se analizan dos grandes transformaciones de la historia constitucional del Medio Oriente islamico, con referencia a Iran. Dos radiografias bosquejan las consecuencias de la recepcion, respectivamente, de los turco-mongoles a partir de la primera mitad del siglo XV –marcando la reconciliacion del derecho turco-mongol e islamico– y del marco juridico para el sistema internacional de los modernos Estados-nacion en el siglo XIX. El punto de inflexion del trasplante turco-mongol al derecho moderno es la caida del ultimo Imperio Turco-Mongol de Nāder Shah (1736-1747). Siguio medio siglo de guerras internas entre tribus, de las cuales emergio Iran como un Estado obligado a adoptar el derecho occidental en el curso de un siglo de su modernizacion defensiva contra las presiones imperialistas, lo cual dio como resultado el comienzo de la modernizacion juridica. Available from: https://doi.org/10.35295/osls.iisl/0000-0000-0000-1069

Highlights

  • There are at least two watersheds in the constitutional history of the Muslim world in the past millennium: the reception of Turko-Mongolian law in the fourteenth-early fifteenth centuries, and the reception of European constitutionalism in the nineteenth and early twentieth

  • The subject of this essay in the latter great transformation, a comparative, historical glance at the former transformation does not seem inappropriate as it offers a comparative historical perspective from which to view the beginnings of legal modernization in Iran

  • The Great Yasa of Chinggis Khan (d. 1227) became the law of the Turko-Mongolian military/ruling caste and leaving the Persian/Tajik subject class to their own devices under supervision of the native viziers. This dual legal system continued to prevail under the Il-Khanids – the Mongol rulers of Iran (1256-1350s) who annexed Anatolia in early fourteenth century

Read more

Summary

Introduction

There are at least two watersheds in the constitutional history of the Muslim world in the past millennium: the reception of Turko-Mongolian law in the fourteenth-early fifteenth centuries, and the reception of European constitutionalism in the nineteenth and early twentieth. With Timur, as the Muslim restorer of Chinggis Khan’s world order who styled his puppet Chinggizid king the Pādshāh-e Eslām, the Sharia and the Yasa coexisted, roughly as the sacred law of the subject population and the state law of the ruling elite of the nomadic Turko-Mongolian empire (Manz 1988, 111-112) the Yasa lost its Mongol connotations in the fifteenth century, and, in the forms of yāsāq and yasaq-nāma, came to common use as code of law. In the second quarter of the eighteenth century, Nāder Shah Afshār (1736-47), attempted to downplay Shiism and bring the political and legal structure of his ephemeral nomadic empire of conquest closer to that of the Ottoman empire This last nomadic Turko-Mongolian empire of conquest in world history collapsed with the death of his founder in 1747, and the developmental path of politicolegal dualism in Iran was indelibly marked by the growing power of its Shiite hierocracy. Even more the Iranian Constitution of 1906-7 renders the legislative power as the power to make the Qanun, muqannena, adopted Montesquieu’s idea of the separation of power via the Belgian Constitution of 1831, and completely ignored Mostashār’s idea of God’s sovereignty, logically and correctly transferring sovereignty from the king to the nation without dragging in God

The Qajar Dual Legal Order
Growth of the State Law and Privatization of the Waqf
The People of Iran as Subjects of the State during Legal Modernization
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.