عنوان مقاله [English]
Abstract: The victory of Constitutional Movement marks a new age in the history of political thought in Iran. This historic event was not merely the breakout of developments in political and social scene, rather, it contained innovated conceptual elements from the beginning that upon necessity instigated reactions by two groups of ulema and religious jurists in agreement or disagreement with it. Sheikh Fazlollah Nouri was one of the religious jurists who supported the movement in the beginning but later changed his mind and rose in opposition of the Constitutional Movement. This paper intends to answer the key question of: What was behind Sheikh Fazlollah Nouri’s opposition to the Constitutional Movement, and on what basis did he rule on the illegitimacy of the movement? This paper hypothesizes that his opposition to the Constitutional Movement was not in defense of tyranny, but in defense of the authority of Sharia or religious law, that he thought had been neglected. On this basis, he had insisted on enforcement of religious law from the beginning due to his strong belief in Sharia and the fundamentals of Islamic jurisprudence as well as his system of religious traditions. He thought the Islamic law was to be enforced after the victory of Constitutional Movement. However, with the advancement of the movement and with the surfacing of the differences in the legislative duties and responsibilities of the Consultative Assembly, and the degree of the interference in or supervision of the jurists on legislation and in such issues as representation of constituencies, equality and freedom, led the Sheikh come to the conclusion that the new foundation had nothing in common with his theoretical and religious fundamentals. In the meantime, the canonical interpretation of the religious constitutionalists could not overcome his fundamental opposition to the movement.