POLITICAL QUARTERLY

POLITICAL QUARTERLY

DELIBERATIVE DEMOCRACY AND SHI’I JURISPRUDENTIAL THEORY OF NA’INI INVESTIGATION OF AN EPISTEMOLOGICAL POSSIBILITY FOR APPROACHING FORM A RIGHT-DUTY BASED SHI’A JURISPRUDENCE TO THE DELIBERATIVE DEMOCRACY

Document Type : Research Paper

Author
Abdolmajeed Moballeghi
Assistant Professor, ISCA (Islamic Science & Culture Academy), Iran
10.22059/jpq.2016.57939
Abstract
This paper investigates the possibility of attending to Iran’s constitutional Shi’I jurisprudence as a perspective for approaching toward deliberative democracy. It claims there is an epistemological potentiality where it is possible to think of the theory of deliberative democracy from a specific Islamic Shi’i jurisprudential theory stated by Mirza Mohammad Hossein Na’ini (1890-1939) during the Iranian constitutional revolution (1905–1911). It focuses on some epistemological similarities between Shi’a jurisprudential theory of Na’ini and Habermas understands of deliberative democracy. The paper argues that both theories rely on a method that systematically centralize “justice” and “freedom” as main pillars of a framework by which they define a conceivable, and consequently, an acceptable law-based ideal society. The paper results even though these disciplines are different in describing their final and ideal society still this approach is worthwhile, since it provides us with an epistemological possibility and, based on that, with a methodological chance to think of an Islamic jurisprudence theory as a background for approaching to a version of deliberative democracy.
Keywords
constitutional jurisprudence
deliberative democracy
Freedom
Justice
Na'ini

  1. الف) فارسی و عربی

    1. قرآن کریم.
    2. ابراهیم، حیدرعلی (1386)، «ندای دموکراسی در اسلام -ندایی به شورا و دموکراسی در اندیشۀ اسلامی معاصر-»، اطلاعات حکمت و معرفت، ترجمۀ مجید مرادی، ش 5.
    3. حسنی، سید محمدرضا؛ علیپور، مهدی (1382)، «حوزۀ نجف؛ داشته‌ها و بایسته‌ها»، پژوهش و حوزه، ش 16.
    4. سلیمانی، جواد (1383)، «مبانی و ممیزات نظام مشروطه در رسالۀ سیاسی میرزائی نائینی»، آموزه، ش 5.
    5. فیرحی، داوود (1390)، آخوند خراسانی و امکانات فقه مشروطه، چکیده مقالات کنگرۀ بین‌المللی بزرگداشت آخوند خراسانی، قم: نشر پژوهشگاه علوم و فرهنگ اسلامی. (همچنین قابل دسترس در: http://www.feirahi.com/?article=172 (7/6/2012))
    6. لوئیس، برنارد (1382)، «اسلام و مردم‌سالاری لیبرال»، بازتاب اندیشه، ترجمۀ سعید حنایی کاشانی. ش 38.
    7. مرعشی، سید حسن‌محمد (1373)، «حق و اقسام آن از دیدگاه‌های مختلف فقهی و مکتب‌های حقوقی»، حقوقی دادگستری، ش 10.
    8. مقیمی، غلامحسین؛ شریعت‌مدار جزایری، سید نورالدین (1379)، «حقوق سیاسی مردم در اندیشۀ سیاسی نائینی»، علوم سیاسی، ش 10.
    9. میراحمدی، منصور (1384)، اسلام و دموکراسی مشورتی، تهران: نشر نی.
    10. نائینی، محمدحسین (1382)، تنبیه‌الامه و تنزیه‌المله. قم: بوستان کتاب، تصحیح سید جواد ورعی.

     

    ب) لاتین

    1. Anton, Donald K. and Shelton (2011), Dinah. Environmental Protection and Human Rights. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    2. Baxter, Hugh (2011). Habermas: The Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy. Stanford: Stanford University Press. 
    3. Benhabib, Seyla (1996). Democracy and Difference: Contesting the Boundaries of the Political. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1996.
    4. Bohman, James and Rehg, William (1997). Deliberative Democracy: Essays on Reason and Politics. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
    5. Campbell, Tom and Ackary Stone, Adrienne Sarah (2003). Protecting Human Rights: Instruments and Institutions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    6. Chan, Sylvia (2002). Liberalism, Democracy, and Development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    7. Crossley, Nick (2005). Key concepts in critical social theory. London: SAGE.
    8. Cunningham, Frank (2002).Theories of Democracy: A Critical Introduction. London: Routledge.
    9. Dani Anis, Ahmad, De Haan, Arjan (2008). Inclusive States. Social Policy and Structural Inequalities. Washington, D.C.: World Bank e-Library.
    10.  David Joshua Kahane (2009), Deliberative Democracy in Practice. UBC Press.
    11. Gabardi, Wayne (2001). Negotiating Postmodernism. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
    12. Gutmann, Amy and Thompson, Dennis (2004). Why deliberative democracy? Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.
    13. Habermas, Jürgen (1991). The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
    14. Johnson, Geneviève Fuji (2008).Deliberative Democracy for the Future: The Case of Nuclear Waste Management in Canada; Volume 29 of Studies in Comparative Political Economy and Public Policy). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
    15. K. Yin, Robert (2010). Qualitative Research from Start to Finish. Guilford: Guilford Press.
    16. Meiksing Wood, Ellen (1995). Democracy against Capitalism: Renewing Historical Materialism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    17. Puybaret, Eric (Illustrator) (2008). Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Italy: United Nations Publications.
    18. Rawls, John (1999). A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
    19. Rawls, John (2001). Justice as fairness: a restatement. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
    20. Rosenfeld, Michel and Arato, Andrew (1998). Habermas on Law and Democracy: Critical Exchange. Berkeley: University of California Press.
    21. Rostbøl, l Christian F. (2008), Deliberative Freedom: Deliberative Democracy as Critical Theory. Albany: SUNY Press.
    22. Scheuerman, William E. (2004). Liberal Democracy and the Social Acceleration of Time. Baltimore, Md.: JHU Press.
    23. Smith, G. w. (2002). Liberalism: Ideas of freedom. London: Rutledge.
POLITICAL QUARTERLY
Volume 46, Issue 2
Summer 2016
Pages 423-439

  • Receive Date 04 September 2012
  • Revise Date 05 July 2016
  • Accept Date 11 June 2013