عنوان مقاله [English]
Much has been done to uphold interaction between Islamic jurisprudence (Fiqh) and modern state since the Constitutional Period in Iran. Davood Feirahi has categorized these efforts in two theoretical scenarios, i.e. Nayeeni’s theory and Imam Khomeini’s theory – in the fields for which there is no text. He argues that unlike the West and the Sunni school of thought which attain democracy through natural law and consultation respectively, the path of democracy opens to Shia school of thought only through fields for which there is no text. His contemplations during the last decade of his honorable life had convinced him that Shia jurisprudence itself possesses huge capacities for making a distinction between religious rule and authoritarianism - religious despotism – in case we assume rights, not duty or religious obligation, as the starting point for Jurisprudence and embark on exploring sources of rights, honoring humans’ free will in establishment of a religious governance. Democracy is indeed established where rights of people is officially recognized. Based on such idealization, he worked hard for years to show that Jurisprudence could be interpreted in some other ways to avoid tendency toward authoritarianism. The idea resulted in authoring a few books recently, “Jurisprudence and Politics”, “Jurisprudence and Party Governance” in particular, both depicting elements of such project. Based on the above, the principal question of this paper is this that “What capacities did Feirahi find in Islamic jurisprudence, by virtue of which, to present a democratic narration of religious state. A review of his works and the experience of presence in his classes show that he studies traditional Jurisprudence not from the point of religious duty, but from the point of rights. Introducing origins of rights in Jurisprudence, he provides proof for democratic narration of the religious governance. His method was based on historiography and Ijtihad (independent reasoning by an expert in Islamic law) but our methodology in this paper resorts to precise explanation of his clarifications in understanding jurisprudential propositions.