This essay examines the legal reforms in nineteenth-century Iran that laid the foundation for the legal modernization that culminated in the Constitutional Revolution (1906–11). Central to these changes was the demand for modern law (qānūn), that is, a decisive shift from shariʿa-based jurisprudence toward a legal framework anchored in the concept of the nation–state and the formation of a new concept of law, or European-style codified law. This transition provides an analytical lens through which to examine the roots of the rise of the modern nation–state in Iran.
I engage with writings by Qajar statesmen who called for legal modernization as a remedy for Iran’s perceived socioeconomic decline. These statesmen championed administrative reforms known as Tanzimat (lit. “re-ordering”), a term adopted from contemporary Ottoman reforms that subsequently shaped Iran’s own Tanzimat discourse. Central to the Iranian Tanzimat was the emergence of the theory of codified law, with several codes ratified, to regulate the actions of public officials.Footnote 1
Although the term “Tanzimat” was shared with the Ottoman reforms, there are significant differences between the Iranian and the Ottoman Tanzimat. The Ottoman Tanzimat comprised a series of state-led reforms implemented between 1839 and 1876, aimed at modernizing the Ottoman administrative system through enactment of legal codes and institutional reforms.Footnote 2 These reforms emphasized equality before the law for all Ottoman citizens and introduced several European-style codifications. In contrast to these state-led reforms, the Iranian Tanzimat reflected a bottom-up approach to reform, in which a group of public intellectuals who also served as statesmen wrote treatises with the purpose of introducing a modern concept of law as a remedy for the decline they perceived in society. Eventually this movement led to the enactment of codified law by the state in the nineteenth century.
I situate my discussion of the Iranian Tanzimat against broader scholarly discussions of the significance of the spread of European models of legal codification that influenced Muslim societies in Egypt, the Ottoman Empire, and India.Footnote 3 Scholarship on legal reforms in Muslim-majority states during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries generally takes one of two major approaches. The first generally views codification as being in conflict with the foundational features of shariʿa. Proponents of this view include Wael Hallaq, who views codification as a colonial rupture incompatible with traditional jurisprudence; Aharon Layish, who asserts that “codification reflects a process of detachment from the sharīʿa”; and Joseph Schacht, who depicted the enactment of the Ottoman Civil Code in the nineteenth-century Ottoman Empire as a secularizing instrument shaped by European legal influence.Footnote 4
The second approach argues that the legal reforms of the nineteenth century, including those based on the concept of qānūn, represent continuity within the framework of shariʿa governance. One of the most important examples of this approach is Samy Ayoub’s study of the relationship between premodern shariʿa and its transformation into positive law in the nineteenth-century Ottoman civil code, the Mecelle (Ar. Majalla). Ayoub observes that the enactment of the Mecelle did not constitute an “epistemic break” from premodern shariʿa. Rather, he situates this project of codification within the existing doctrinal genres of the Ḥanafī legal school.Footnote 5 Ayoub further notes that the drafters of the Mecelle did not claim that the codification of Ottoman civil law was inspired by Western legal models.Footnote 6
As another important example of this second approach, studies of qānūn in premodern contexts have shown that this term was widely employed in Islamic governance to denote administrative and regulatory norms long before the emergence of modern legal codification.Footnote 7 One of the major instances of state involvement in regulation is Ottoman dynastic law, known as Kanunname, which served to regulate state authority over the population, comprising “written laws, edicts and legal compilations.”Footnote 8 The use of qānūn was not a novel development of the nineteenth century but rather a continuation of its widespread application in the premodern period.
My argument in this essay is twofold. First, I contend that Qajar statesmen proposed Iran’s own approach to modernization of law based on the concept of the Tanzimat by advocating reforms grounded in qānūn. Tanzimat was not merely a term coined to describe Ottoman reforms in the nineteenth century; it also was used to refer to the less widely recognized legal reforms undertaken in nineteenth-century Iran. These reforms aimed to regulate the conduct of public officials and to impose legal constraints on monarchical authority. Here, I emphasize how the concept of the Tanzimat shaped a coherent reformist discourse in Qajar Iran.
Second, this paper demonstrates that the Iranian experience suggests a third perspective in this scholarly debate on the significance of the possible influence of the European codification movement on law in Muslim majority states, allowing us to reevaluate the relationship between shariʿa and codification. In the Iranian case, qānūn, which came to refer to codified law, was neither a colonial imposition nor a continuation in the framework of shariʿa, nor was it simply dynastic legislation supplementary to shariʿa. In Qajar Iran, codification was developed by statesmen familiar with European techniques of legislation, who nevertheless did not see it as antithetical to shariʿa.
Furthermore, the Iranian reformists’ advocacy for qānūn represented the introduction of the rule of law as the foundational principle of government. This shift marked a transitional moment in Iran’s reform trajectory, opening new horizons for the evolution of its legal system during the nineteenth century. This approach to codification was introduced by Qajar statesmen familiar with European legislative techniques, including Mirza Shafiʿ al-Din Qazvini (fl. 1840s–50s), Mirza Malkum Khan (d. 1908), Yusuf Khan Mustashar al-Dawla Tabrizi (d. 1895), and Husayn Khan Mushir al-Dawla (d. 1881), whose writings will be analyzed.
Scholarly literature on Iran characterizes the nineteenth century as a period marked by a growing awareness of Western progress, which prompted Iranian intellectuals and politicians to call for reform.Footnote 9 As Ashraf notes, although Iran was never formally colonized, “it was not immune to European imperialism,” as European powers sought influence and domination within the country.Footnote 10 The consequences of military conflicts, notably the Russo-Persian wars of 1804–13 and 1826–28, which resulted in territorial losses in the Caucasus, and the Anglo-Persian War (1856–57), which lead to the loss of Herat to Britain, heightened the urgency of reformist aspirations to confront socioeconomic decline.Footnote 11 Concurrently, administrative and military modernization efforts led by the Qajar crown Prince Abbas Mirza (d. 1833) and chief minister Amir Kabir (d. 1852) laid foundations for systemic change.Footnote 12
Abbas Amanat characterizes the Qajar era, particularly under the reign of Nasir al-Din Shah (r. 1848–96), as a critical period for the adoption of Western-style modernity.Footnote 13 According to Amanat, the significance of this era lies in Iran’s initial encounters with modern technologies, including steamships and telegraphy, and the introduction of global commodities such as sugar and tobacco, as a result of which “Iranians came to learn more about the world beyond their familiar frontiers.”Footnote 14 The Iranian encounter with modernity has been characterized by Jabbari as an effort “to valorize the present moment as a break with tradition.”Footnote 15 Scholars typically explain the growing demands for modernization in nineteenth-century Iran as part of a broader movement toward formation of a nation–state, a process reflected not only in political thought but also in a flourishing of literary culture and the emergence of a vibrant press. The proliferation of newspapers and periodicals played a crucial role in disseminating modern ideas and fostering public awareness of political and social transformations.Footnote 16
The nineteenth century is identified by historians of modern Iran as a formative period in Iran’s evolution into a modern nation–state.Footnote 17 Nasir al-Din Shah’s initiatives in the domains of land reform, public education, welfare programs, and border security exemplify these endeavors toward the formation of a nation–state.Footnote 18 A pivotal moment in Nasir al-Din Shah’s inclination toward reform occurred after his visit to Ottoman Iraq in 1870–71, and following his first journey to Europe in 1873. His exposure to Western technological and administrative advancements coupled with his familiarity with the Ottoman Tanzimat influenced his decision to pursue reforms aimed at modernizing Iran and strengthening central authority.Footnote 19
Qajar statesmen played a decisive role in making the monarch more amenable to these reforms. Mirza Malkum Khan and Husayn Khan Mushir al-Dawla, in their writings, emphasized the significance of the Ottoman Tanzimat period as well as European progress. At the same time, Qajar intellectuals such as Mirza Fath ʿAli Akhundzadah (d. 1878) and Mirza Aqa Khan Kermani (d. 1896), as discussed by Zia-Ebrahimi, promoted “dislocative nationalism,” unprecedented before the nineteenth century, which advocated a return to an idealized pre-Islamic Iranian past.Footnote 20
Central to the reformist agenda in Iran and to the rise of Iranian nationalism was the development of the concept of qānūn. As I further elaborate, the understanding of qānūn by Qajar statesmen in these texts embodies two distinct meanings, both departures from the Qajar legal tradition. First, qānūn denotes positive law, in which the state emerges as the exclusive source of legislative authority, explicitly excluding customary and religious norms. Under the traditional Qajar legal system, authority was divided between the monarchy’s jurisdiction over customary domain and the religious domain under the Shiʿi ulama. This dual authority was reflected in the Qajar judicial system and the coexistence of shariʿa and ʿurfī (customary) courts, each governing within its respective domain.Footnote 21 Following the revival of ijtihād (independent legal reasoning) in late eighteenth-century Shiʿi thought, the ulama wielded considerable influence over the lawmaking process.Footnote 22 However, mid-nineteenth-century Qajar reformists called for the adoption of qānūn to position the state as the ultimate legislative authority.Footnote 23
Second, qānūn, or codified law, reflects a European technique of legislation that transformed legal traditions beyond Europe. An examination of the Qajar treatises reveals that Iranian legal modernization echoed essential features of European codified law, such as simple language, systematic arrangement, numerically ordered sections, and state-centric legislative authority, which led to codification of statutes. Qajar treatises on modernization point to the advent of a new legal ethos that emphasized the centrality of the rule of law, which necessitates public knowledge of legal norms and predictability in the application of punishments.
The concentration of power in the hands of the monarch was a primary concern for statesmen like Malkum Khan and Yusuf Khan Mustashar al-Dawla Tabrizi, who advocated for a system of checks and balances to regulate the authority of public officials. Mid-nineteenth-century Iran witnessed the initial development of constitutional ideas aimed at limiting royal power several decades prior to the Constitutional Revolution. Additionally, the reformists began to articulate a hierarchical legal framework within which the constitution was positioned as the supreme law of the land.
The legal system of nineteenth-century Qajar Iran has attracted significant scholarly attention. Farmāns (imperial decrees), petitions, statutory law, and court rulings are key sources that scholars have examined to elucidate the state’s engagement with the law during this period. Assef Ashraf emphasizes the significance of farmāns and petitions for understanding Qajar administrative practices, focusing specifically on how these documents circulated and informed provincial governance.Footnote 24 Petitions from local populations to provincial governors and the monarch, for example, offer insights into the ways in which local concerns influenced state decision-making processes.Footnote 25 However, Ashraf does not offer a detailed analysis of the content of these petitions, and it is difficult to determine precisely which domains attracted state intervention. Additionally, he does not situate farmāns and petitions within the context of newly emerging codified laws, which represented the state’s expanding involvement in legal affairs.
Farzin Vejdani highlights the emergence and significance of Qajar codified law, particularly following the 1860s. Focusing on the codification of criminal law, Vejdani observes that, in contrast to shariʿa rulings, imperial decrees, statutes, and administrative manuals are backed by state enforcement. Examining the military code of 1865 and the penal code of 1879, he explains how the Qajar state delineated punishments in relation to shariʿa. Significantly, Vejdani situates these codification efforts within the broader framework of Islamic jurisprudence, arguing that state involvement with legislative matters was justified by the principle of ḥisba, which refers to the principle of commanding right and forbidding wrong, legitimizing state intervention in legislative matters.Footnote 26 Contrary to the argument that codified law primarily emerged in the framework of shariʿa as an extension of the Islamic principle of commanding right and forbidding wrong, I demonstrate that this form of lawmaking was heavily influenced by European legislative methodologies, although without colonial imposition.
The Qajar Tanzimat: The Rise of the Concept of Codified Law in Qajar Iran
In the nineteenth century, Qajar statesmen proposed reforms designed to restructure the state’s bureaucracy and to regulate the actions of public officials. The Qajar reformists adopted the term “Tanzimat” from Ottoman administrative discourse, using it in their treatises to articulate their vision of necessary administrative and legal reforms.
The Ottoman Tanzimat (1839–76) involved a series of reforms in which the state initiated the modernization of the military and civil services and the enactment of several legal codifications.Footnote 27 In 1839, the Ottoman state enacted the charter known as the Gülhane Hatt-ı Şerif (Noble Edict of the Rose Chamber), guaranteeing citizenship rights to all Ottoman subjects, irrespective of religious affiliation. The Tanzimat era concluded with the promulgation of the Ottoman constitution (Kânûn-ı Esâsî) in 1876. The Ottoman Tanzimat reforms sought to institutionalize the rule of law by ensuring the equal protection of all citizens. Central to these reforms was an effort to transcend religious distinctions, replacing the traditional divide between Muslims and dhimmī communities with a unified concept of Ottoman citizenship, according to which individuals were accorded equal status and legal recognition irrespective of religious affiliation.Footnote 28 The promulgation of several codified laws was a crucial step toward shaping the modern Ottoman nation–state. These codes include the criminal code of the late 1840s and early 1850s, the codification of land and commercial laws in the 1850s, the civil code (Mecelle) enacted between 1869 and 1876, and the procedural law for courts established in 1879.Footnote 29
The Ottoman term “Tanzimat” was adopted by Qajar statesmen and featured prominently in their reformist treatises. In the Iranian context, Tanzimat came to signify a period characterized by demands for comprehensive political and legal reform. Qajar statesmen, such as Mirza Malkum Khan and Husayn Khan Mushir al-Dawla, who were familiar with the Ottoman Tanzimat and in direct contact with leading Ottoman reformers, played a central role in articulating and promoting Tanzimat in Iran. Furthermore, recent archival scholarship has brought to light new information regarding the intellectual and diplomatic connections between Qajar statesmen and their Ottoman counterparts. Malkum Khan’s letters and telegrams, published by Hasan Hazrati, reveal that he maintained close ties with prominent figures of the Ottoman Tanzimat, including Mehmed Fuad Paşa (d. 1869), Mehmed Emin Âli Paşa (d. 1871), and Midhat Paşa (d. 1883).Footnote 30 Similarly, Husayn Khan Mushir al-Dawla, through his twelve-year diplomatic mission in Istanbul, developed close personal relationships with Midhat Paşa, Fuad Paşa, and Âli Paşa, and had detailed knowledge of the Ottoman Tanzimat reforms.Footnote 31
In a significant contribution to the history of law in modern Iran, Dawud Feyrahi characterizes the nineteenth-century reformist movements as Iran’s Tanzimat era during the preconstitutional period (Pīshā-Mashrūṭah). According to Feyrahi, the Iranian Tanzimat reflected the monarch’s desire to modernize the state bureaucracy while preserving the essential structure of absolute monarchy. At this time, he argues, the reforms did not aim to establish a constitutional state; rather, the monarch remained positioned above and beyond the constraints of the rule of law.Footnote 32 Feyrahi notes that the Qajar king’s aspiration for administrative reform commenced with the abolition of the office of ṣadr-i aʿẓam (grand vizier) in 1276/1859–60 following the dismissal of Mirza Agha Khan Nuri. The dissolution of this influential position, which previously held substantial executive authority, led Nasir al-Din Shah to restructure the executive branch by establishing separate ministries and legislative advisory councils. Two significant quasi-legislative bodies were established in 1859–60: the Majlis-i Shūrā-yi Dawlatī (State Consultative Council) and the Maṣlaḥat Khānah (House of Public Interest). The Majlis-i Shūrā-yi Dawlatī, comprising several ministerial representatives, inherited the executive functions of the grand vizier, although its decisions required the monarch’s approval. The second institution, the Maṣlaḥat Khānah, was tasked with advising the monarch.
In 1871, Nasir al-Din Shah established the Dār al-Shūrā-yi Kubrā-yi Dawlatī (Supreme State Council), a legislative assembly serving as an early prototype of the Iranian parliament. With the creation of these consultative and quasi-legislative councils, authority was distributed among ministers and advisory councils, laying the institutional foundations for Iran’s first parliament in 1906.
In addition to the establishment of legislative councils during the Tanzimat era, a significant aspect of these reforms was transformation of the conceptualization of law to a European-inspired model of codification. Contrary to Feyrahi, I maintain that the Qajar Tanzimat sought explicitly to introduce modern law through codification. Indeed, the concept of law advocated by Qajar reformists closely paralleled the method of codification dominant in nineteenth-century Europe. Notably, these reformist texts elaborated on the relationship between positive law (qānūn) and shariʿa.
The term “Tanzimat,” as used in the writings of Qajar reformists such as Malkum Khan, referred to policies designed to counteract the monarchy’s concentration of power. Consequently, they advocated Tanzimat reforms emphasizing the separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches of government. However, a key distinction between the Iranian and Ottoman experiences of the Tanzimat lies in the explicit emergence of constitutional discourse among Iranian reformist statesmen. Although the Ottoman caliphate’s authority largely remained intact following Tanzimat reforms, Qajar intellectuals actively theorized ways to limit and balance monarchical power. As exemplified in the treatises Yek Kalemeh (One Word) and Qānūn (Law), the rule of law became central to reformist thought. Drawing on the Western legal tradition, the principle of the rule of law, characterized primarily by opposition to arbitrary governance, became a cornerstone of reformist thought. This principle required legal rules to be clearly established and publicly known prior to the imposition of punishments.
The Ottoman experience of the Tanzimat served as a model for Qajar statesmen; nonetheless, it also exemplified a failed attempt at reform—one that ultimately fell short of its objectives. This failure offered a cautionary tale for the Qajar monarchy, signaling that delaying necessary reforms could lead Iran toward a similar fate. Malkum Khan, Iran’s ambassador to England, highlights this concern:
The Ottoman state has fallen considerably behind the contemporary advancements of its time, demonstrating such profound incompetence and ignorance that it has effectively foreclosed all paths to reform. Consequently, the Western powers have withdrawn their support, enabling Russia to exploit the empire’s decline and initiate its dismantlement. At this point, no intervention can salvage the Ottoman state, as both the Sultan and his statesmen have neglected critical opportunities for reform over the preceding decade, rendering the situation irredeemable.Footnote 33
However, the Iranian and Ottoman experiences of Tanzimat converge on their shared adoption of European-inspired codified law within the broader framework of nineteenth-century modernization. The efforts of Qajar statesmen to implement Tanzimat reforms invite a reassessment of the established understanding of Ottoman–Qajar relations. Traditionally characterized as long-standing rivals, particularly after Safavid Iran’s adoption of Shi’ism in the sixteenth century, the Qajar appropriation of the Tanzimat concept illustrates significant Ottoman influence and underscores the extent of intellectual exchange between the two states.Footnote 34 For both Qajars and the Ottomans, the Tanzimat era signaled a profound transformation in legal traditions, especially by the shift toward European modes of codification. Ultimately, both legal systems experienced substantial reconfiguration as part of the broader global codification movement emanating from Europe.Footnote 35
The Influence of Global Codification on the Qajar Legal System
Qajar statesmen advocated the adoption of qānūn to regulate state affairs in response to the demands of modernity. The term qānūn became synonymous with codified law, reflecting the broader influence of the European codification movement on the Iranian legal system throughout the nineteenth century.
Codification was a fundamental element in the modernization of European law during the late eighteenth and throughout the nineteenth century.Footnote 36 Originating in the eighteenth century, codification profoundly reshaped the European legal tradition over the subsequent century and a half.Footnote 37 The impact of this movement extended beyond Europe, ultimately becoming a global phenomenon. Duncan Kennedy identifies three waves of conceptual and institutional transformations in Western law, each of which diffused globally. These waves of globalization include the rise of classical legal thought (1850–1914), socially oriented legal thought (1900–68), and neoformalism (1945–2000). Kennedy terms this initial phase (1850–1914) the globalization of classical legal thought, characterized primarily by the adoption of codification as the dominant legislative technique in Europe. Under classical legal thought, law was perceived as a coherent system with a strong internal structure.Footnote 38 According to Kennedy, although law was globalized through direct imposition in colonial contexts, the experience of noncolonized legal systems, such as that of the Ottoman Empire, reflected instead a “forced opening” to Western legal methods of legislation.Footnote 39
Legal historians and comparative law scholars frequently attribute the predominance of codification in the European legal tradition to the conceptualization of legal reasoning as a scientific enterprise. Scientific approach to law emerged because the codification method necessitated the systematic organization and coherence of legal norms, aligning legal practice with contemporary scientific practices.Footnote 40 As Avi Rubin observes, the development of legal codes was “based on the positivist zeitgeist of the nineteenth century,” inspiring state officials to initiate extensive projects of “social engineering.”Footnote 41
The statesmen Yusuf Khan Mustashar al-Dawla Tabrizi and Malkum Khan were influenced by European legal traditions. Perhaps the most significant aspect of this influence was the shift in legal authority from the ulama to the centralized state. Consequently, the reformists aimed to establish positive law—and thereby the state—as the ultimate source of legal legitimacy and authority. A positivist approach to law and defining the state as the ultimate source of lawmaking had been a salient feature of legal reform in Europe. According to Hayek, whereas natural law was not “invented,” legislation is a later invention in human history and the product of deliberate lawmaking.Footnote 42 According to Jeremy Waldron, legislation in the Western legal tradition refers to the practice of lawmaking by the state whereby laws are made, changed, or repealed deliberately by the formal processes dedicated to that task.Footnote 43 It was precisely this understanding of legislation that was at the heart of the Qajar treatises.
The structure of authority in nineteenth-century Iran was based on a division of power between the religious authority of the ulama and the temporal authority of the Qajar monarchy. Nevertheless, the ulama played a crucial role in legitimizing the Qajar state. This legitimation was articulated through religious discourse, as the ulama referred to the king as the “shadow of God” on earth.Footnote 44
The ulama exercised authority over the formulation of law through the method of ijtihād and presided as judges in shariʿa courts. According to Willem Floor, the jurisdiction of these shariʿa courts primarily encompassed civil cases.Footnote 45 By contrast, the jurisdiction of the state included customary courts extending to matters affecting state authority or threats to public order, such as rebellion, robbery, and drunkenness.Footnote 46 The rise of codification in the nineteenth century was designed to restructure this two-part legal system—divided between shariʿa and customary courts—by introducing positive law (qānūn), and thereby establishing the state as the ultimate lawmaking authority.
These treatises were also noteworthy for their understanding of the relationship between positive law and shariʿa. Although the primary demand of the reformists was the adoption of positive law, they did not perceive modern legislation as inherently opposed to shariʿa or to the authority of religious scholars. Rather, their objective was to demonstrate that, although codified law has distinctive features that set it apart from shariʿa, these differences did not undermine the legislative authority of the ulama.
An examination of Qajar-era legal treatises reveals that several characteristics of codified law are evident in the writings of Qajar statesmen, who presented codified law as the foundation of reform. Drawing upon analyses of French, German, Austrian, and Swiss codes, Gunther Weiss has identified several defining features of codification: (1) authority; (2) completeness, encompassing statutes that are exclusive, gapless, and comprehensive; (3) systematic structure; (4) reform-oriented nature; (5) promotion of national legal unification; and (6) simplicity.Footnote 47 It is not necessary for statutes to demonstrate all these features to be recognized as codified law.
A salient feature of legal codification is the unification of rules in a national legal system. Codification is often used to attain legal and political unity.Footnote 48 Uniformity as the result of codification was highlighted by the enactment of the French Civil Code, which was drafted after Napoleon seized power and enacted it in 1804. This code reflected the ideas of the French Revolution, one of which was that law was a nationalistic project.Footnote 49 All French people were the citizens of France and were equally subject to the same laws. This new idea of law would replace the traditional view, which was based on the diversity of customary laws of different provinces. By excluding various customary and religious norms and establishing codified law as the uniform law of the nation, modern codification consolidated national unity.Footnote 50
Simplicity of language to facilitate communication with and comprehension by the public is another feature of codification. As Weiss points out, one may ask, “To whom is a codification addressed?” The audience for law is ordinary people.Footnote 51 The simplicity of the language of rules was regarded as a reflection of republicanism, which demands that “the people should be ruled by laws that they themselves would approve and understand.”Footnote 52 The ideal codified law has clear provisions, accessible to both nonexperts and ordinary citizens.
To satisfy the criterion of coherence, rules should not be repetitive, and they must be organized under general sections. Modern legal codes are also complete sets of rules on specific subjects. As noted by Weiss, the feature of completeness contains three elements that are interwoven with distinct implications for the legal system.Footnote 53 Completeness as a feature of codification demands that codes are the exclusive source of lawmaking in a legal system.Footnote 54 The goal is the abolishment of the plurality of legal sources. Another reflection of comprehensiveness is the totality of legal authority of the state over the law. In this context, codification may cover broad fields, including criminal law, family law, and civil law.Footnote 55
The Qajar-era treatises underscore the imperative to adopt modern legal structures as the basis for reform. As I will demonstrate, the specific features of codification gradually became central to the Iranian Tanzimat, introduced incrementally as statesmen progressively engaged with the principles underlying codified legislation. The compatibility of this new understanding of law with shariʿa was another significant concern of Qajar reformists. Indeed, they did not regard the ulama as an obstacle to legal modernization but rather sought to integrate their authority within the broader framework of the Tanzimat.
Mirza Shafiʿ al-Din Qazvini’s Qānūn and the Foundations of the Modern Rule of Law
In the nineteenth century, amid reformist currents within Iranian society, a pioneering treatise by Mirza Shafiʿ al-Din Qazvini was written in which he articulated the causes of Iran’s decline, particularly its economic deterioration, and proposed modern law as the remedy. Despite its significance, this treatise has received limited scholarly attention. Although little is known about the author’s life, details within the treatise itself suggest that he was a contemporary of Amir Kabir, to whom he initially presented his reform proposals.Footnote 56 It is plausible that Qazvini was himself a Qajar statesman. His treatise, Qānūn, laid out a comprehensive series of reforms identified explicitly as tanzimat, grounded in meticulous analysis of Iran’s socioeconomic decline. The treatise merits attention, not only for its rare and detailed account of nineteenth-century Qajar economic history but also for its contributions to Iranian legal historiography.
Qānūn is a foundational text for the discourse on legal modernization in Qajar Iran. It describes Qazvini’s innovative conceptualization of the state as the exclusive authority, which possesses a legitimate monopoly on the use of violence, particularly concerning the implementation of punishments.Footnote 57 He lays the groundwork for establishing the rule of law in Iran by introducing core principles, such as the predictability of punishments and the uniform enforcement of legal standards by the state. It is no coincidence that the treatise bears the title Qānūn, as its structure mirrors some features of European codified law, systematically arranged into numbered sections with distinct headings. Although presented in an inchoate form, Qazvini’s treatise marks a critical initial step toward codification in Iran. Many of his proposed reforms emerge directly from his understanding of Iran’s economic conditions.
Qazvini’s treatise, initially composed during the tenure of Amir Kabir, the reformist grand vizier of Nasir al-Din Shah, captured the prevailing spirit of reform in Iran during Amir Kabir’s vizierate. At the time of its composition, reformist ideals had gained momentum under Amir Kabir’s leadership, prompting Qajar statesmen to solicit recommendations intended to strengthen the state and enhance public prosperity.Footnote 58 According to Qazvini, the primary purpose of his treatise was to introduce a comprehensive reform plan, identified as Tanzimat, directly to Amir Kabir.
His understanding of criminal law was consistent with European ideas about the rule of law, articulated by nineteenth-century constitutional theorists such as Albert Venn Dicey (d. 1922).Footnote 59 Dicey emphasized the necessity of the predictability of punishments and the uniform application of legal rulings by the state. Qazvini’s recommendations represented a shift toward a legal framework designed to strengthen the state’s legislative authority, particularly in criminal law, a development crucial to the emergence of a unified national legal system.
At the core of the Tanzimat reform plan was the modernization of criminal law. State involvement in criminal law was not unprecedented, as the adjudication of criminal cases traditionally fell under the jurisdiction of customary courts whose judges were appointed by the Qajar state. What was novel, however, was the introduction of a European-inspired approach to the rule of law, which emphasized the predictability of legal punishments. According to Qazvini, the Qajar monarch, Nasir al-Din Shah, adhered strictly to a policy of “no mercy” for the crimes of homicide and theft, both punishable by death.Footnote 60 Yet, Qazvini contended, inconsistent implementation of punishments undermined the ability of offenders to anticipate the consequences of their actions. He added that the European model of criminal law rested upon the uniform enforcement of punishments, such that criminal sanctions were clearly predictable to potential offenders.Footnote 61
Qazvini advanced a significant step toward establishing a national legal system by elaborating on the necessity of the centralization of adjudication in Qajar Iran. This approach required that shariʿa courts operate under the direct supervision of the state. According to Qazvini, members of the ulama were frequently implicated in violating legal norms themselves, and their judicial rulings lacked uniformity and were often contradictory. Consequently, he proposed that the state must supervise judicial proceedings held in shariʿa courts.Footnote 62
By defining the state as the primary source of legal authority, Qazvini confronts the potential conflict with the traditional authority of the ulama. To mitigate this tension, he refrains from granting full legislative authority to the state, and he limits the state’s jurisdiction to the realm of ḥisba, in which the government has the authority to criminalize offences that pose a threat to public safety and state order.Footnote 63
Qazvini analyzed the many factors underlying Iran’s decline in the early nineteenth century. The central issues he identified were the absence of industrial expertise, insufficient capital investment, and a scarcity of bread, which contributed to political instability.Footnote 64 Qazvini also was concerned about public health, especially diseases introduced by pilgrims returning from the hajj. He critiqued the elaborate rituals used to welcome these pilgrims (mass gatherings and animal sacrifices), which in his assessment intensified existing public health issues. Qazvini also critiques the administrative practices of the Qajar monarchy, focusing on the state’s methods of revenue collection, which he identifies as a significant contributor to Iran’s decline. He identifies three types of land holdings: khāliṣah (state owned), toyul (fiefdom), and waqf. He argues that revenues from state-owned lands should be the primary source of state income.Footnote 65 He also condemns the conduct of state-appointed deputies in urban areas who, rather than safeguarding the populace, contribute to the deterioration of the cities under their jurisdiction. Economic hardship and widespread poverty, he argues, are impediments to Iran’s development, noting, for example, that one-third of the population subsists below the poverty line, and another third relies on unskilled occupations such as selling soup or participating in devotional practices associated with dervish life. The remaining segment consists predominantly of aristocrats, merchants, and the ulama.Footnote 66 As a remedy for widespread economic decline, Qazvini proposes the establishment of a national taxation system alongside modernization of the legal framework.
Qānūn made a pivotal contribution to the early development of the rule of law in nineteenth-century Iran. The treatise chronicles the narrative of decline, with particular emphasis on economic deterioration. It is one of the earliest Persian works to adopt the systematic structural features of European codification, with clearly numbered and titled sections. However, Qazvini also employs frameworks from shariʿa, such as ḥisba, when defining the legislative authority and regulatory scope of the state. Qānūn marks a significant moment of articulating the demand for a modern nation–state framework of law, foregrounding legislative authority and emphasizing the modernization of criminal law.
Mirza Malkum Khan: Visionary of a Persian Tanzimat
Perhaps no Qajar statesman has received greater scholarly attention among Qajar historians than Mirza Malkum Khan (d. 1908), also known as Malkum Khan-i Qanuni.Footnote 67 This prominence is largely due to his involvement in intellectual circles within the Ottoman Empire, his engagement with Ottoman Tanzimat reformists, and his role as ambassador to England. Additionally, he founded the newspaper Qānūn, published in London from 1890 to 1898, in which he emerged as a prominent critic of Nasir al-Din Shah, whom he held responsible for the failure of reform initiatives in Iran. Of particular significance for this study is Malkum Khan’s central role in introducing and advocating Tanzimat reforms in Qajar Iran.
Malkum Khan was one of the major voices of reform in mid-to-late nineteenth-century Iran. Born into an Armenian Christian family, Malkum Khan was the first coherent advocate of Westernization in Iran, expressed in a series of treatises in which he called for the adoption of European institutions, including modern law.Footnote 68 Following the Anglo-Persian War and its disastrous outcome for Qajar Iran, Malkum Khan presented this series of treatises to the Qajar king and called for the political and administrative reforms, or what he called Tanzimat.
Previous scholarship on Malkum Khan emphasizes the impact of Ottoman Tanzimat reforms on his thought, highlighting his use of the term “Tanzimat” and his proposals to rectify Iran’s decline.Footnote 69 Recent scholarship has recognized Malkum Khan’s innovative approach to legal reform, especially the codification of criminal law. Nonetheless, these innovations are often treated as a continuation of traditional Islamic jurisprudential doctrines, such as commanding right and forbidding wrong and the concept of siyāsa (the discretionary power of the ruler).Footnote 70 In fact, as I shall demonstrate, Malkum not only adapted traditional frameworks but also introduced novel elements drawn from legal positivism as well as key characteristics of European codified law.
The series of treatises authored by Malkum Khan from the mid-nineteenth century onward signal the centrality of modern law to his reform agenda. In one of his earliest legal treatises, Kitābchah-yi Ghaybī (The Code Inspired by the Unseen World), also known as Daftar-i Tanẓīmāt (The Book of Tanzimat), written between 1858 and 1859, he defined Tanzimat in relation to reforms targeting the monarchy’s unchecked concentration of power. The principle of the separation of powers became a foundational element in his vision of Tanzimat.Footnote 71 Malkum excluded legislative power from the authority of the king and called for the establishment of a legislative branch, Majlis-i Tanẓīmāt (the Assembly of Reforms), with the authority to promulgate laws, and which must be a separate branch from the institution that implements laws, the executive branch.Footnote 72
The political order in which this separation of powers was implemented was known as hukūmat-i muʿtadil, that is, a state governed by checks and balances.Footnote 73 The establishment of the Meclis-i Âli-i Tanzimat (High Council of Reform) in 1853 under the leadership of Âli Paşa was a significant component of the Tanzimat initiatives in the Ottoman Empire.Footnote 74 This development highlights another key point of Ottoman influence on Qajar Iran, the institutionalization of reform through formal councils dedicated to legal transformation.
Another significant proposal advanced by Malkum Khan pertained to the locus of legal authority. Under the influence of nineteenth-century legal positivism, Malkum argued that law should be exclusively a product of state authority.Footnote 75 In Kitābchah-yi Ghaybī (The Code Inspired by the Unseen World), also known as Daftar-i Tanẓīmāt (The Book of Tanzimat), he laid the conceptual foundation for defining qānūn as positive law.Footnote 76 A central feature of this treatise was its identification of the state as the ultimate source of legal authority. Malkum Khan defined qānūn as “a command issued by the state to protect the public interest, applicable equally to all members of society.”Footnote 77 This definition distinguishes the concept of law from traditional interpretations rooted in shariʿa. Here, the source of law was unequivocally the state, and in its modern meaning law would be applicable equally to all subjects.
At the end of this treatise, Malkum Khan drafts a model constitution that outlines the duties of public officials. In this constitution, the ruler possesses absolute power, and the structure of government is an absolute monarchy. Article 5 asserts that the authority to legislate and execute the laws belong to the king. Nonetheless, the king can delegate the authority of legislation to the Majlis-i Tanẓīmāt and the authority to execute laws to the council of ministers.Footnote 78 According to this constitutional model, the law reflects the monarch’s will, but it must also preserve the public benefit (ṣalāḥ-i ʿāmmah). Regarding the enactment of laws, Majlis-i Tanẓīmāt has the authority to enact laws based on a majority vote, although any law must be approved and signed by the king.
This model constitution was one of the first documents in the Persian language to enumerate the features of modern law in the form of codification. Malkum Khan asserts that the language of enacted statutes must be Persian, and statutes must be written in clear and concise language. Codified laws must be published in the official gazette, with each section of the code given a clear title and number. If any of these conditions is absent, the law is not enforceable; Malkum Khan defines these features as the conditions of legal validity.Footnote 79 The enumeration of the features of law in this treatise indicates that the prevalent conception of law emerging in nineteenth-century Iran was qānūn, modern statutory law.
Majlis-i Tanẓīmāt is another work in which Malkum Khan calls for reform by promoting the rule of law and the enactment of modern statutes.Footnote 80 In Majlis-i Tanẓīmāt, he asserts that the starting point for reform in Iran must be Tanzimat, that is, the regulation of the affairs of government. He states, “The difference between Asia and the West is the type of governance: the miracle of progress in the West rests in governance by law, and the backwardness in Asia is due to governance based on the will of the king.”Footnote 81 In the West development is the result of “governance in which the duties of public officials are determined by law”; different sections of the government work in harmony with each other.Footnote 82 Here Malkum Khan provides an important step toward defining the idea of limited government. Although this suggests that the monarch remains above the law, the authority of public officials is regulated by the rule of law.
Although Majlis-i Tanẓīmāt does not mention the role of a constitution in the system of governance, it enumerates the features of the codified law. This treatise describes how, in the European method of codification, rules must be distinguished by separate numbers, and each section must have a clear title, making it more accessible to administrative officials.Footnote 83
For Malkum Khan, legal modernization was connected to the codification of criminal law. In his Kitāb-i Qānūn (The Book of Law), Malkum posited that the establishment of state order (intiẓām-i dawlat) required a codified penal law that regulated the administration of punishments by state authorities.Footnote 84 He acknowledged that statutory law, enacted by state institutions, was an innovation of Iranian legal tradition, and asserted that the absence of such statutory legislation constituted a fundamental shortcoming in Iran’s governance structure.Footnote 85 He pointed to widespread misunderstandings of the concept of modern law among Qajar officials, emphasizing that laws must derive their legitimacy from the legislative apparatus of the state (dastgāh-i qānūn).Footnote 86
Malkum Khan provides a penal code entitled Qānūn bar Darajāt-i Tanbīh (Code of Degrees of Punishments), which diverges markedly from the conventional categorization of Islamic penal law. Vejdani notes that this code is a partial translation of the French Penal Code of 1810.Footnote 87 Nonetheless, the Qānūn bar Darajāt-i Tanbīh stipulates that any provision contradicting the precepts of shariʿa is null and void. This provision offers important insight into Malkum’s attempt to navigate the complex relationship between positive, state-enacted law and Islamic jurisprudence.
Although Malkum Khan took an important step in introducing the structural features of codified law, he did not view his legal reform proposal as antithetical to shariʿa. It is clear that he did not portray the ulama as opponents of progress or as impediments to modernization. His perspective on reformism, particularly his advocacy for adopting the rule of law, was not antagonistic toward religion, and he did not regard the ulama as obstacles to his reform initiatives. In a letter dated 1293/1876, Malkum commended the monarch for his efforts over two decades to implement reforms, notwithstanding the opposition of certain Qajar administrators who argued that Iran had adhered to traditional governance methods for three millennia and should continue doing so indefinitely. They also asserted that the proposed reforms were incompatible with Islamic principles and would not be accepted by the broader population.
Malkum Khan challenged the opposition of the ulama to modernization efforts, stating:
What kind of fool would claim that setting up telegraph lines or organizing a postal service is against Islamic law? What blasphemy is greater than asserting that the people of Iran must be deprived of the benefits of railroads because Islamic scholars and the Iranian people oppose such progress? It is as clear as daylight that jurists and the public are among the most enthusiastic proponents of the railroad and will continue to be so.Footnote 88
As Algar notes, Malkum Khan’s favorable attitude toward Islam was tactical, intended to instrumentalize religion in the service of Western-style reforms.Footnote 89 Influenced by both Ottoman legal reforms and European law, Malkum Khan advanced a vision of legal reform, centered upon codification, that represented a critical development in the trajectory toward establishing the rule of law in nineteenth-century Iran.
A Novel Approach to the Rule of Law: The Roots of Constitutionalism in the Qajar State
Yek Kalemeh (One Word) by Mirza Yusuf Khan Mustashar al-Dawla Tabrizi (d. 1895) represents a pioneering articulation of constitutional thought in nineteenth-century Iran. Written in Paris between 1868 and 1870, this work proposed governance based on rule of law as an alternative to the unconstrained absolutism characteristic of the Nasiri era.
The significance of Yek Kalemeh lies in its definition of the constitution’s role within the Iranian legal order, clarifying the limitations it imposed on the monarch and public officials, and articulating a clear hierarchy of legal authority in which the constitution occupies the highest position. Yek Kalemeh also provides a detailed exposition of law that reflects the distinct features of codified law. Notably, it is the first Persian-language work to address the distinctions between codified law and shariʿa. Written decades before the Constitutional Revolution, the book lays the intellectual groundwork for constitutionalism, not only by introducing new Persian terminology related to limited government and the protection of fundamental rights, but also by articulating the principle that the monarch is subject to the rule of law.
Mustashar al-Dawla was a prominent Qajar statesman and diplomat, who worked as a counsel in Tarakhan, Moscow, Petersburg, and Tbilisi. In 1867, he was appointed chargé d’affaires, and it was at this time that he wrote Yek Kalemeh.Footnote 90 Mustashar al-Dawla began the book by describing how, while on diplomatic missions in European nations, he was impressed by the discipline of the army, the prosperity, the growth of arts and sciences, and the freedom of ordinary people.Footnote 91 Observing that prosperity in Europe was “a hundred times greater than in Russia” inspired him to write a book about the requirements for modernization in Iran.Footnote 92
Mustashar al-Dawla argued that progress in Iran was slowed by the fact that the Iranian elites focused only on industrial progress, such as the production of steamboats and the telegraph. By contrast, industrialization in Europe stemmed from something more fundamental in his view, an aspect of modernization that too often had been neglected by Muslim reformists, who focused on the material dimensions of progress.Footnote 93 He identified the key to the prosperity of Western civilization, including industrial progress, as “one word”: qānūn, or positive law.Footnote 94
Yek Kalemeh was the foundational text for the development of constitutional theory in Iran. Unlike the earlier treatises that exempted the monarch from the jurisdiction of modern law, Yek Kalemeh advanced the principle that no one was above the law, not even the king, who must be held accountable for his actions. He asserted that all individuals, “from king to beggar, subjects and soldiers,” were equally bound by the law.Footnote 95 Yek Kalemeh rejected the conceptualization of law as a personal discretion exercised by public officials, emphasizing its critical function in constraining arbitrary rule and preventing abuses of power. Yek Kalemeh may be regarded as the earliest articulation of the concept of limited government—or a constitutional state—in Iranian political thought.Footnote 96
The term that is used in Yek Kalemeh for constitution is niẓāmnāmah-yi ḥukūmat, as well as the French word constitution (Persian: kunstītūsiyun).Footnote 97 The hierarchy of rules by which the constitution takes precedence over statutory law is a crucial aspect of modern constitutional thought.Footnote 98 As Grimm notes, statutes are valid provided that they do not contradict the constitution. In the Qajar legal system, in which the word of the king stood above any regulation, Mustashar al-Dawla was searching for a mechanism to establish a hierarchy of rules. He asserted that the constitution embodied the essence and unchanging spirit of all codes, meaning that the lower statutes could not contradict the constitution.Footnote 99
Mustashar al-Dawla uses the French word loi to describe “positive law,” which he distinguishes from shariʿa. He defines qānūn as the product of the state’s command, which should reflect the collective will of the people and not merely the opinion of one Muslim jurist.Footnote 100 In Islamic law, a fatwa (legal opinion) reflects only the opinion of a specific mujtahid. Mustashar al-Dawla argues that the diversity of opinions (ikhtilāf) among jurists and legal schools does not have a place in a modern system of lawmaking, because only a single opinion on each legal matter can be included in modern legal codes.Footnote 101
Another difference between qānūn and shariʿa according to Mustashar al-Dawla is that qānūn must be free of contradictions. By contrast, he notes, the books on Islamic substantive law do not have coherent opinions because they often include strong and weak opinions in a particular legal school (madhhab), which at times contradict each other.Footnote 102
The third difference between shariʿa and qānūn is the linguistic clarity and simplicity of modern legislation. Mustashar al-Dawla stipulates that modern statutes should be comprehensible to ordinary people.Footnote 103 By contrast, the legal reasoning of Muslim jurists is complex and assumes familiarity with uṣūl al-fiqh (jurisprudence), the hadith, the Qurʾan, Arabic grammar, and logic.
The dichotomy between temporal and religious domains constitutes another difference between shariʿa and modern law. According to Mustashar al-Dawla, modern law deals only with worldly matters, and religious matters are outside the authority of lawmakers.Footnote 104 This distinction excludes religious matters, which constitute a considerable part of the fiqh manuals, from the scope of parliamentary authority. The reason for the exclusion of religious matters from the domain of modern law is that lawmakers should regard the subjects of the law as citizens of the state, and not as followers of a particular religion.Footnote 105 If the state chooses to codify part of shariʿa, such as ritual practices, it discriminates against non-Muslim citizens.Footnote 106 Accordingly, Mustashar al-Dawla defines the state’s legislative authority as belonging to the domain of politics, distinct from that of religion.
The fifth difference between shariʿa and modern law is that modern codes include customary rules that do not have the weight of law unless they are codified by the state.Footnote 107 By contrast, in the Islamic legal tradition, customary norms comprise a significant portion of legal rules; however, these customs typically remain oral and are not codified. The absence of codification creates conditions conducive to the arbitrary exercise of authority by public officials. Conversely, in modern legal systems, customary law can be formally recognized and integrated into statutory law.Footnote 108
Yek Kalemeh does not merely advocate the imitation of European practices to modernize the Qajar legal system. Indeed, Mustashar al-Dawla opposes the idea that Iranians must rely on the translation of European codes.Footnote 109 Rather, he envisions the ideal legal system for Iran as one in which legal codes include both the rulings of Islamic jurisprudence and the principles of European legal codes. The ideal system of law, according to Mustashar al-Dawla, would encompass both “the most respected books of Islam that are available, and all the codes of civilized governments.”Footnote 110 These codes should be presented to the learned people and be signed by the king for them to take the form of law.Footnote 111
Mustashar al-Dawla did not perceive the novel concepts of constitutionalism and codification as contradictory to the fundamental principles of shariʿa. Indeed, he translated certain parts of the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (enacted in 1789) to prove that the foundations of French constitutional thought were consistent with the Qurʾan and hadith.Footnote 112 What is striking about his analysis here is his use of the Qurʾan, hadith, and fiqh works by al-Shaykh al-Tusi (d. 1067) and Shaykh ʿAli al-Karaki, known as al-Muhaqqiq al-Thani (d. 1534), to demonstrate the compatibility of Islamic principles with the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen.Footnote 113 This view was criticized by secular reformists such as Mirza Fath ʿAli Akhundzadah (d. 1878) on the grounds that it attempted to enforce conformity between shariʿa and European legal principles.Footnote 114
Yek Kalemeh laid the foundation for the emergence of the principles of modern constitutionalism, including the call for legal restraints on the political power of the king and the equality of everyone before the law. It also provided a hierarchy of rules in which the constitution was the source for validity of other statutes. According to Mustashar al-Dawla, qānūn was positive law, and it possessed the features of codification, including the state as the exclusive source of legal authority, comprehensiveness, and unification of rules.
The Era of Tanzimat-i Hasanah and the Promulgation of Codified Law
The nineteenth century witnessed the publication of several treatises advocating the necessity of reform; however, these calls did not initially persuade the Qajar monarch, Nasir al-Din Shah, to enact codified laws. A turning point in the trajectory of legal reform occurred during the shah’s 1870–71 visit to Ottoman-controlled Iraq, where he encountered the legal codifications introduced as part of the Tanzimat reforms in the Ottoman Empire. Although the primary purpose of his journey was to visit the Shiʿi shrines, a key symbol of Qajar religious legitimacy, this trip facilitated a closer relationship between the Qajar court and the Shiʿi ulama. More importantly, it exposed Nasir al-Din Shah to the administrative and legal transformations underway in the Ottoman Empire, and to the potential advantages of codified law and institutional reform.
During the Nasir al-Din Shah’s visit to Iraq, the Ottoman governor of Iraq, Midhat Paşa (d. 1883), presented the advantages of the Tanzimat reforms to the Qajar king.Footnote 115 Along with his first trip to Europe in 1873, Nasir al-Din Shah’s visit to Iraq appears to have encouraged the Qajar monarch to adopt a series of reforms aimed at restructuring the state’s administrative framework. Due to his desire to maintain his absolute power, however, these reforms did not last long.
The period between 1871 and 1880 marked the last series of attempts at administrative reform in Qajar Iran during the reign of Nasir al-Din Shah. These reforms took form under the influence of the Ottoman Tanzimat and were led by Mirza Husayn Khan Mushir al-Dawla (d. 1881), known as Sipahsalar (Commander in Chief). Mirza Husayn Khan Mushir al-Dawla held important administrative posts in the 1870s, including minister of justice, minister of war, minister of foreign affairs, and chief minister. Due to his diplomatic service in Istanbul, as well as his close friendship with key figures in the Tanzimat movement such as Fuad Paşa and Âli Paşa, he envisioned Tanzimat-inspired reforms emphasizing institutional transformation within the Qajar administrative structure.Footnote 116 His vision of reform included changing the ministry divisions, creation of a centralized judiciary, and modernization of Iran’s military.Footnote 117
In 1875 Mirza Husayn Khan Mushir al-Dawla drafted and promulgated a statutory law, Kitābchah-yi Tanzimat-i Ḥasanah-yi Dawlat-i ʿIlliyah wa Mamālik-i Maḥrūsah-yi Irān (the Tanzimat Code for the Administration of Iran’s Protected Territories). This legal code has not yet received substantial scholarly attention. At the beginning of the Tanzimat-i Ḥasanah code, Mushir al-Dawla asserted that it was drafted at the request of Nasir al-Din Shah. The main purpose of this code was to regulate the administrative affairs of the state. It covered issues such as reformation in the tax system (Article 1–15), the mandate of military service (Article 16–28), the function of the Tanzimat Assembly and other ministries of the state (Article 29), the administration of endowments (Article 34), and the obligations of provincial governors (Article 47).
After Nasir al-Din Shah’s second trip to Europe in 1878, the fundamental differences he perceived between Europe and Iran made him reluctant to implement the project of modernization. The Reuter concession of 1872 between the Qajar state and a British tradesman by the name of Reuter was a total fiasco, giving Reuter a monopoly over the use of natural resources in Iran. After this incident, Mirza Husayn Khan Mushir al-Dawla’s place in the Qajar court became insecure. In November 1881, he died (or was murdered) in Mashhad, where he was serving as the trustee of the shrine of Imam Rida. His death marked the end of the last attempt by a major stateman to bring about legal reforms in nineteenth-century Iran.
Conclusion
In this article, I have analyzed reformist treatises and codified laws from nineteenth-century Qajar Iran, focusing on the pivotal role of modern law as an instrument of reform. These treatises signaled a critical shift in the locus of legal authority from Shiʿi jurisprudence to state-centric legislation. In these treatises, the term qānūn is not used in the traditional sense of law as a supplement to shariʿa within the context of siyāsa, but rather, it denotes a new concept of codified law influenced by European techniques of legislation. This shift unfolded gradually, culminating in the rise of codified laws in nineteenth-century Iran, and provided important context for the enactment of the first Iranian constitution and the establishment of parliament in 1906. The specific developments included the consolidation of the state’s exclusive authority to impose and enforce punishment and the uniform application of penal sanctions, as advanced by Mirza Shafiʿ al-Din Qazvini; the introduction of European-style codification and the conceptualization of law as positive law (as a command issued by the state), articulated by Mirza Malkum Khan; elaborations on the relationship between codified law and shariʿa by Yusuf Khan Mustashar al-Dawla Tabrizi, including the question of their compatibility, as well as the introduction of constitutionalism as a mechanism to check and balance monarchical power; and the formal promulgation of legal codes under the Tanzimat reforms implemented by Ḥusayn Khān Mushīr al-Dawla.
Overall, the term qānūn, as used in these treatises, reflects elements of European codified law, including the establishment of the state as the ultimate source of legislative authority, systematization of law, coherence, and linguistic simplicity. This reconceptualization of law represented a significant step toward defining qānūn as national law, shifting authority away from the ulama to the state, and ensuring uniform applicability to all subjects.
The emergence of codified law in Iran constitutes a case study of the broader global codification movement that impacted legal systems across many Muslim-majority societies in the nineteenth century. The rise of codification in Iran did not occur as a direct result of colonial influence or external European pressure, nor should it be viewed merely as a continuation of shariʿa concepts such as siyāsa; rather it emerged primarily through indigenous initiatives led by Qajar statesmen familiar with European codification. The shift toward defining qānūn as codified law was gradual, with Qajar statesmen playing a significant role in introducing features of codified law into the Persian language and opening new horizons for legal reform. In particular, the Ottoman Tanzimat profoundly influenced statesmen who viewed the Sunni Ottoman state as an inspirational model for legal reform. Indeed, many Qajar statesmen maintained close contact with Ottoman Tanzimat reformers, which facilitated the adoption of the term “Tanzimat” in Qajar political and legal discourse.
Some Qajar statesmen regarded the unchecked absolutism of the Qajar monarchy as the primary obstacle to effective reform. Advocating the separation of powers and extending the rule of law to encompass royal authority, these reformers laid the intellectual groundwork for constitutional governance in Iran. At the conclusion of the Qajar Tanzimat period, the monarchy still retained absolute authority and remained beyond the rule of law, but these reformist efforts reshaped the conceptual landscape of Iranian law. Ultimately, this transformation influenced the Constitutional Revolution of 1906, which changed the political structure of Iran from absolute monarchy to constitutional governance.
Acknowledgments
I would like to thank the Iran Colloquium at Yale University, the Middle East Beyond Borders Workshop at Harvard University, and Mirjam Künkler for providing opportunities to present this work and for their valuable feedback.
Open access
