The outlin and reasons of the transformation of the Iranian Shia Ulamas ‘s notion from Ma’mouleh to constitution monarchy

With the rise of the Safavid government, Shiite scholars had to theorize this institution of monarchy in political jurisprudence. However, the lack of an exemplar and the inconsistency of the model of monarchy with some theological thoughts of Shiites was considered a challenge in this practice. Eventually, by maintaining the theological foundations, believing that any type of government in the occultation era is usurped, they compromisingly came to terms with the monarchy concept and considered it necessary. In this model, the Sultan, a divine gift, was at the head of the society and should never be disobeyed. Although during the constitutional period, some scholars were in favor of the continuation of this idea, some Shiite jurists considered some of the components of the Ma'mouleh monarchy to be the source of Iran's economic and political crises. They proposed a law-bound sultan in their written works and statements, which openly challenged some of the components of the Ma'mouleh monarchy. This article, with a descriptive-analytical method and based on library sources, especially the political treatises of Iranian scholars, aims to answer the question "What factors have caused the change in the discursive approach of Shia scholars regarding the monarchy?". First, the discourse of the Ma'mouleh monarchy with its components and also the background of thinkers' interest in this discourse is analyzed. Then the discourse of constitutional monarchy along with its components is dissected. Since the turning of the discourse requires the weakening of the previous discourse and the existence of an alternative discourse in the second stage, in the end, the change of the economic context and the inefficiency of the Ma'mouleh monarchy and the flaw in this discourse is explained, and also the simultaneousness of this flaw which is accompanied by the existence of alternative governance, that is the conditional monarchy is discussed. Therefore, these two data together include the reasons and factors of this discursive turn of the leading scholars. This change of discourse was therefore important for the leading scholars, which was a necessary introduction to the fundamental reforms of the government in Iran.