The Reflection of Jurists’ Conceptual Disagreement with Law in the Constitutional Period on the Process of Political Development in Contemporary Iran

The purpose of the present study is to survey the ups and downs of the process of political development in contemporary Iran with respect to the different jurisprudential views about new concepts held by jurists in the Persian constitutional period. Relying on sociological, historical, and exegetical study methods, this research seeks to answer what impact the jurisprudential views about law held by jurists in the constitutional period had on the political development of contemporary Iran. The results showed that jurists’ disagreement with the concept of law in the constitutional period led to their opposite theoretical and practical decisions due to their obligation to religious rules and the instability of peaceful talks in that time. Their opposition through jurisprudential binding Fatawas, sanctification of some acts as being religious, and negation of the counteracts had an immense effect on the political behavior of Iranians such that it caused social, political, and legal segmentation as well as violent reactions among Iranians. Such inflexible gaps in Iran during the constitutional period definitely paved the way to move toward achieving essential criteria in the process of political development.