Islamic Constitutionalism in Theory and Practice: The Case of Islamic Republic of Iran

This article explores the theoretical and practical dimensions of Islamic constitutionalism, questioning its feasibility within modern state frameworks. It first examines two major perspectives in legal thought on the compatibility of Islamic principles with constitutional values. The first viewpoint, represented by scholars like Kamali and Quraishi-Landes, argues that Islam inherently supports principles like democracy, rule of law, and the separation of powers. The second perspective, advocated by El-Fadl, Hamoudi, and Emon, highlights fundamental differences, suggesting that Islamic law is often incompatible with Western constitutionalism. The article suggests that perspectives on Islamic and Western constitutional compatibility may oversimplify the unique philosophical foundations of Islamic governance. In contrast, a more nuanced approach highlights the deep-seated tensions between pre-modern Islamic concepts and modern constitutional frameworks, which are illustrated in the Iranian case. The article then analyses Iran as a case study, focusing on the 1979 Islamic Revolution and the Iranian Constitution. Through an in-depth examination of the "velayat-e faqih" concept, it explores the interplay between Islamic doctrine and state governance. Ultimately, the article suggests that Islamic governance in Iran has transformed from a religious doctrine into a form of modern political ideology, where Sharia functions more as a state tool than a constitutional foundation.