Chronology of Legal Reform (May 1911– June 1940)

A PPENDIX I

Second Majles (November 15, 1909– December 24, 1911) May 12, 1911 (Jamadi Avval 12, 1329q) Registration of Documents Law (replaced by the law of April 11, 1923). June 6, 1911 (Jamadi Dovvom 8, Examination Law for Members of the Adlieh 1329q) July 18, 1911 (Rajab 21, 1329q) Law of the Establishment of the Judiciary, the Shari‘a Courts and Justices of Conciliation (Qanun-e tashkilat-e adlieh va mahazer-e shari‘ va hokam-e solhieh; referred to in the book as the “organic code”). October 4, 1911 (Shavval 10,1329q) Imperial rescript (farman) establishing the Ministry of Justice. November 10, 1911 (Dhu’l Qada Law of the Principles of Civil Trials (Qanun- e 1329q) osul- e mohakemat- e hoquqi). Parts of this law were amended by the laws of June 23, 1923; the special powers granted by the law of February 17, 1927; and the laws of March 20, 1928, January 1, 1929, March 17, 1930, June 24, 1930, and November 17, 1931. No Majles: December 25, 1911– December 5, 1914 August 22, 1912 (Ramadan 9, 1330q) Law of the Principles of Criminal Trials (Qanun- e osul- e mohakemat jaza’i); passed by decree after closure of Second Majles. (continued )

Source, except where otherwise stated: Majles- e Shawra- ye Islami, “Samaneh- ye Qavanin va Moqararat,” available at http://rc .majlis .ir/ fa/ law. Accessed March 2009. This website is an electronic version of the Majmu’eh- ye Qavanin- e Majles- e Shawra. It is particularly useful for its annotations, indicating when a law was revised or repealed. I began this table for my own reference in order to negotiate the changes in calendar and sometimes discrepant dates in the secondary sources. I am grateful to Anna Enayat for her help with date conversions and translations of the titles of laws. Apart from the 1911 Registration of Docu- ments Law, all laws in this period are described as “temporary,” either in their titles or in their final article. To avoid confusion, the description has been omitted in this chronology. The law codes of the period sometimes had cumbersome names. I have included the Persian title only where the law is of particular importance historically or there may be ambiguity in its translation. 194 Chronology of Legal Reform (May 1911– June 1940)

Third Majles: December 6, 1914–December 14, 1915 March 21, 1915 (Jamadi 5, 1 1333q) Penal Code (Qanun- e jaza‘). Bill presented to Majles judiciary commission whose review remained incomplete by the time the Majles closed in December 1915. July 7, 1915 (Sha‘ban 24, 1333q) Law Concerning Commercial Courts. No Majles (December 15, 1915– June 20, 1921) February 27, 1917 (5 Jamadi Avval The ‘Orfi Penal Code (Qanun- e mojazat- e ‘orfi) 1335q) promulgated by decree. Fourth Majles: (June 21, 1921– June 20, 1923) July 13, 1922 (Saratan 21, 1301) Law for the Examination of Judges and Officials of the Judiciary (replaced by the law of March 1928). August 19, 1922 (Asad 27, 1301) Law Concerning Appeals against Rulings of the Shari‘a Courts (replaced by the law of February 10, 1926). August 26, 1922 (Sonboleh 3, 1301) Law Governing the Establishment of District Conciliation Courts (solhieh- ye nahieh) and Revising Certain Articles of the 1911 Law of the Principle of Civil Trials. December 2, 1922 (Qaws 10, 1301) Press Law. March 20, 1923 (Hawt 28, 1301) Renewal of Temporary Law on Juries of December 2, 1922. April 11, 1923 (Hamal 21, 1302) Property and Document Registration Law (replaces law of May 12, 1911; replaced by the law of February 10, 1930). April 15, 1923 (Hamal 25, 1302) Law for the Employment of Judges in the Adlieh Courts (replaced by the law of March 20, 1928). June 22, 1923 (Jawza 31, 1302) Law Granting Permission to Appoint a Commission to Draft a Penal Code While the Majles Is in Recess. June 23, 1923 (Jawza 32, 1302) Law Concerning the Jurisdiction of Justices of the Peace in the 1911 Code of Civil Procedure (replaced by the law of September 17, 1939). Fifth Majles (February 11, 1924–February 10, 1926) February 14, 1925 (Bahman 25, 1303) Commercial Code (Qanun- e tejarat). March 29, 1925 (Farvardin 9, 1304) Trademarks Law (replaced by the law of June 23, 1931). January 13, 1926 (Day 23, 1304) Public Penal Code (Qanun- e mojazat- e ‘omumi). February 3, 1926 (Bahman 14, 1304) Law for the Establishment of Commercial Courts (amendment of the law of July 7, 1915). Both laws were nullified by the Law of the Acceleration of Court Procedures, June 24, 1930. February 3, 1926 (Bahman 14, 1304) Law of the Disciplinary Court for Judges (replacement of articles 23– 26 of law of April 15, 1923). February 10, 1926 (Bahman 21, 1304) Law Governing Appeals against Rulings of the Shari‘a Courts (replaced by the law of December 1, 1931). (continued ) Chronology of Legal Reform (May 1911– June 1940) 195

Ministry of Justice of Ali Akbar Davar, February 9, 1927– September 16, 1933 [Sixth Majles July 11, 1926– August 13, 1928] February 10, 1927 (Bahman 20, 1305) Dissolution of the judiciary. February 17, 1927 (Bahman 27, 1305) Law Granting Permission to Revise the 1911 Law of the Establishment of the Judiciary, and the 1923 Law Concerning the Employment of Judges. April 27, 1927 (Ordibehesht 6, 1306) New judiciary inaugurated. February 11, 1928 (Bahman 21, 1306) Public Property Registration Law and the Passage of Time (Qanun- e sabt- e ‘omumi- ye amlak va morur- e zaman). March 20, 1928 (Esfand 28,1306) Law for the Employment of Judges and Members of the Prosecutors’ Offices (replaces July 13, 1922 Examination law and April 15, 1923 Employment of Judges law). March 20, 1928 (Esfand 29, 1306) Arbitration Law. May 10, 1928 (Ordibehesht 20, 1307) Civil Code (Qanun- e madani), Book 1. July 7, 1928 (Tir 27, 1307) Law of the Principles of the Establishment of the Judiciary (Qanun- e osul- e tashkilat- e adlieh); replaces the 1911 Law of the Establishment of the Judiciary (Organic Code). July 10, 1928 (Tir 30, 1307) Law of Military Tribunals. January 1, 1929 (Day 11, 1307) Law Amending Articles of the Code of Civil Procedure Concerning the Referral of Litigation to the Shari‘a Court (replaced by the law of December 1, 1931). January 10, 1929 (Day 20, 1307) Law for the Establishment of a Penal Tribunal for State Employees. February 2, 1929 (Bahman 13, 1307) Law for the Establishment of Notary’s Offices. February 5, 1929 (Bahman 16, 1307) Law Concerning the Disciplinary Tribunal for Judges. February 28, 1929 (Esfand 9, 1307) Supplementary Law on the Criminal Offenses of State Employees. March 31, 1929 (Farvardin 11, 1308) Amendment to the Arbitration Law. June 4, 1929 (Khordad 14, 1308) Law Concerning the Shari‘a Courts. June 23, 1929 (Tir 2, 1308) Law Concerning the Statute of Limitations and Immoveable Property. October 3, 1929 (Mehr 11, 1308) Property and Document Registration Law (replaced law of April 11, 1923). February 10, 1930 (Bahman 21, 1308) Property and Document Registration Law (replaced law of October 3, 1929). June 24, 1930 (Tir 3, 1309) Law Concerning the Acceleration of Procedure in the Courts (Qanun- e tasri’- e mohakemat; replaces 1915 and 1925 laws on commercial courts and certain articles concerning conciliation courts). (continued ) 196 Chronology of Legal Reform (May 1911– June 1940)

[Sixth Majles July 11, 1926– August 13, 1928] (continued ) July 15, 1930 (Tir 24, 1309) Law Concerning Justices of the Conciliation Courts. July 23, 1930 (Mordad 1, 1309) Law Amending Articles 367–377 of the 1912 Law of the Principle of Criminal Trials. April 28, 1931 (Ordibehesht 7, 1310) Law Revising Article 207 of the Public Penal Code. May 20, 1931 (Ordibehesht 29, 1310) Law on Juries. June 23, 1931 (Tir 1, 1310) Law Concerning Trademarks and Patents. July 19, 1931 (Tir 27, 1310) Supplementary Articles of the Public Penal Code. July 25, 1931 (Mordad 2, 1310) Companies Registration Law. August 15, 1931 (Mordad 23, 1310) Marriage Law. August 1, 1931 (Mordad 9,1310) Law Concerning the Shari‘a Courts. December 1, 1931 (Azar 9, 1310) Law Concerning the Shari‘a Courts. March 14, 1932 (Esfand 23, 1310) Law for the Registration of Properties and Documents. May 3, 1932 (Ordibehesht 13, 1311) Commercial Code (Qanun- e tejarat). May 31, 1932 (Khordad 10,1311) Amendment to the 1912 Code of Criminal Procedure (revising articles 38, 40, 41, 48, 57, 59, 79, and 128– 130). October 4, 1932 (Mehr 12, 1311) Supplementary Amendment to the 1912 Code of Criminal Procedure. September 9, 1933 (Shahrivar 18, 1312) Amendment to articles 435– 436 and 464 of the 1912 Code of Criminal Procedure. Ministry of Justice of Mohsen Sadr, September 18, 1933– October 16, 1936 September 20, 1933 (Shahrivar Amendment to Articles 207– 214 of the Public Penal 29,1312) Code. September 24, 1934 (Day 3, 1313) Religious Endowments Law. February 9, 1935 (Bahman 20, 1313) Arbitration Law. September 12, 1935 (Shahrivar 20, Legal Representation Law (replaced by the law of 1314) January 25, 1937). February 16, 1935 (Bahman 27, 1313) Civil Code, Book 2. and March 12, 1935 ( Esfand 21, 1313) October 6 and 31, 1935 (Mehr 13 and Civil Code, Book 3. Aban 8 1314) Ministry of Justice and Premiership of Ahmad Matin- Daftari October 18, 1936– October 25, 1939 and October 26, 1939– 24 June 1940 December 27, 1936 (Day 6, 1315) Amendment to Sections of the 1928 Law of the Principles of the Establishment of the Judiciary. January 25, 1937 (Bahman 5, 1315) Legal Representation Law (replaces Chapter 2 of the 1928 Law of the Establishment of the Judiciary). June 5, 1937 (Khordad 15, 1316) Law Concerning Notary Public Offices. October 2, 1938 (Mehr 10, 1317) Amendment to Various Articles of the Property Registration Laws of March 14, 1932 and March 6, 1934. (continued ) Chronology of Legal Reform (May 1911– June 1940) 197

October 18, 1936– October 25, 1939 and October 26, 1939– 24 June 1940 (continued ) December 19, 1939 (Azar 27, 1318) Code of Civil Procedure (Qanun- e a’in- e dadrasi- ye madani). Replaces the 1911 code and all amendments thereof. June 23, 1940 (Tir 2, 1319) Law Concerning Non- Litigious Affairs (Qanun- e omur- e hasbi). A PPENDIX II

Miscellaneous Court Statistics, March– June 1932 (Farvardin- Khordad 1311)

Date Court Number of cases Tehran March– April, Farvardin High Criminal Court 14 April– May, Ordibehesht High Criminal Court 3 Court of Appeal, first branch 8 Court of Appeal, fifth branch 21 Court of Appeal, fourth branch 18 May– June, Khordad Court of Appeal, first and fourth branches. 103 Court of Cassation, first branch 59 March– July, Court of Conciliation, fifth branch 314 Farvardin- Tir Tabriz April– May, Ordibehesht Court of First Instance, second branch (civil 15 cases) Court of First Instance, third branch (civil cases) 10 Court of First Instance (criminal cases) 56 May– June, Khordad Court of First Instance, second branch (civil 15 cases) Court of First Instance (conciliation appeals) 44 Court of First Instance (criminal cases) 43 Qom April– May, Ordibehesht Court of First Instance (conciliation appeals) 15 Court of First Instance (civil cases) 16 May– June, Khordad Court of First Instance (criminal cases) 5 (continued ) 200 Miscellaneous Court Statistics, March– June 1932

Date Court Number of cases Arak May– June, Khordad Court of First Instance (civil cases) 5 Court of First Instance (criminal cases) 11 Court of First Instance (conciliation appeals) 20 Qazvin May– June, Khordad Court of First Instance (civil cases) 31 Court of First Instance (criminal cases) 22 Court of First Instance (conciliation appeals) 25 Yazd May– June, Khordad Court of First Instance (criminal cases) 17 Court of First Instance (civil cases) 8 Court of First Instance (conciliation appeals) 3 Malayer March– April, Farvardin Court of First Instance (civil cases) 9 Court of First Instance (conciliation appeals) 5 April– May, Ordibehesht Court of First Instance (criminal cases) 11 Court of First Instance (civil cases) 6 May– June, Khordad Court of First Instance (civil cases) 3 May– June, Khordad Court of First Instance (criminal cases) 7 May– June, Khordad Appeals from Conciliation Courts 3 Esfahan March– April, Farvardin High Criminal Court of Esfahan 3 Verdicts of Esfahan Appeal 28 Court of Appeal 24 April– May, Ordibehesht Verdicts of Esfahan Appeal Court sent for 14 Cassation May– June, Khordad High Criminal Court of Esfahan 2 Verdicts of Esfahan Appeal Court sent for 20 Cassation Court of Appeal (civil cases) 29 Court of Appeal (criminal cases) 8

Source: MRVA, various issues 2/7/1932– 3/8/1932. Notes

Introduction

1. Ashraf (2007). 2. Holmes (2003): 49. 3. Katouzian (2003): 84. 4. The term “Islamicate” was coined by Marshall Hodgson, who used it to refer not only to the “religion, Islam itself, but to the social and cultural complex historically associated with Islam and Muslims, both among Muslims themselves and even when found among non- Muslims.” Hodgson (1974): 59. 5. Fukuyama (2005): 80. 6. Ibid.: 32. 7. Carothers (2006a): 7. 8. See Floor (1977, 1983, 2009a, and 2009b). An older contribution in English is chapter 6 of Banani (1961). 9. A recent contribution that provides an overview of this period but takes a very different approach from my own is Mohammadi (2008). 10. On Egypt, see Rutherford (2009). On the Ottoman Empire, see Berkes (1998) and on the contemporary legal system in Turkey, Shambayati (2008). 11. Cronin (2010): 81. 12. For example, Banani (1961): 68–84; Floor: (2009a and 2009b); Abrahamian (1999): 25; Arjomand (1989): 66. 13. Hall quoted in Berman (1993): 290. 14. Ibid. 15. Indeed it has been argued that the natural law and positivist traditions are not mutually exclusive but should be seen as existing on a spectrum “with the most uncompromising version of constitutive natural law at one end and the hardest of hard positivism at the other . . . [V]arious intermediate positions are possible, through for example, the evalua- tive versions of natural law and soft positivism” (McLeod 2003: 27). The work of Ronald Dworkin can be seen as an attempt to reconcile natural and legal positivism. See Brook (2007): 513. 16. Chang (2006): 2. 17. There are broadly three approaches to studying institutions in social theory: rational- choice institutionalism, historical institutionalism and sociological institutionalism. For a more comprehensive account of historical institutionalism and how it differs from the other two approaches, see Pierson and Skocpol (2002): 693– 721. 18. Rutherford (2009): 27. 19. Steinmo (2009): 169. 20. Ibid. 21. Olin Wright (2010): 279. 202 Notes

22. Ibid. 23. Gerber (1994): 6. 24. Fukuyama (2012): 251. 25. Ibid. 26. Plant (2010): 22. 27. Fukuyama (2012): 254. 28. Ibid.: 257. 29. Novak (2000): 108. 30. The nature of the relationship between formal and informal institutions is increasingly seen as vital to the establishment of the rule of law. See Schmeidl (2011): 149–72; and Helmke and Levitsky (2006), especially chapters 10, 11 and 12. 31. Cotterell (1992): 44– 45. 32. Poggi (1978): 93. 33. Brown (1997): 5. 34. Peletz (2002): 38. 35. Brown (1997): 236. 36. Quoted in ibid.: 8. 37. Zakaria (1997): 2. 38. Ibid.: 2–3. 39. Ibid. 40. Holmes (1995): 15. 41. See Avineri and de Shalit (1992) for articles by the leading protagonists in this debate. 42. Hunt and Wickham (1994): 63. 43. For good accounts of Marx’s critique of liberal legality and the ideas of the Critical Legal Studies movement, see Douzinas and Greary (2005): 203– 27 and 227– 83. 44. Collins (1982): 62. 45. Jaysuriya (1999a): 4; Root and May (2008): 304. 46. Most notably in the work of de Soto (2001). 47. Root and May (2008): 310– 11. 48. Ibid.: 311. 49. Euben and Zaman (2009): 129. 50. Feldman (2008). 51. El- Fadl (2007): 186. 52. Crone (2004): 280. 53. Hallaq (2009): 507. 54. Rosen (2000): 153– 76. 55. Tamanaha (2004): 119. 56. Kuran (2009): 79. 57. Ibid. 58. Freeden (1991): 7. 59. Mayer (2007): 54. 60. Zubaida (2003): 53. 61. Quoted in Martin (2005): 10. 62. Gheissari (1998.): 27. 63. Islamoglu (2004): 5. 64. Douzinas and Greary (2005): 140. 65. Legal instrumentalism views law as a tool to achieve desired social objectives. See Tama- naha (2004): 79. 66. Jaysuriya (1999a): 12. 67. Ibid. Notes 203

68. Ibid. 69. Gozzi (2007): 125. 70. Ibid. 71. Cited in ibid.: 13. 72. Gheissari (2010): 72. 73. Ginsburg (2000): 829– 56. 74. Jaysuriya (1999b): 180. 75. Rosen (2006): 40. 76. Tamanaha (2004): 57; Glenn (2000): 205– 10. 77. Tamanaha (2004): 57. 78. Hale (2000): 262. 79. Rosen (2000): 55. 80. Ginsburg and Moustafa (2008): 18– 19. 81. Feldman (2008): 122. 82. Ginsburg and Moustafa (2008): 5. 83. Ibid. 84. Ibid.: 6. 85. Ibid. 86. Quoted in Ibid. 87. See Lee (2007). 88. Ibid.: 238. 89. Barros (2003): 188. 90. Tamanaha (2004): 92. 91. Ibid.: 112. 92. Holmes (2003): 49. 93. Reynolds quoted in Tamanaha (2004): 92. 94. Orts (2000). 95. Tamanaha (2004): 95. 96. Barros (2003): 191. 97. Ibid: 190. 98. Ibid. 99. Ibid.: 191. 100. Ibid.: 192. 101. Tamanaha (2004): 122. 102. Barros (2003): 193. 103. Hirschl (2004): 108. 104. Bingham (2010): 85. 105. Ibid. 106. Ibid.: 88. 107. Ibid.: 87. 108. Herzig (2007): 64. 109. Ibid. 110. Parvin (2006). 111. http:// rc .majlis .ir/ fa/ law. Accessed February 2009. 112. Bastani- Parizi (1979), in a biography of Moshir al- Dawleh, has little of note to say about his role in judicial reform. 113. The edition used here includes Kasravi’s memoir of his early life, published as Zendegani- ye Man va Dah Sal dar Adlieh (1941). Born in 1890, Kasravi was a prominent intellectual and historian of the Constitutional Revolution. First recruited to the judiciary in 1919, Kasravi became a highly respected and independent judge in the 1920s. After 204 Notes

resigning his position in 1932 following disputes with the executive, he became a lawyer. Radically modernist and rationalist in outlook, he was fiercely critical of Shi‘i orthodoxy and a strong advocate of secular modernization. He was assassinated (in a courtroom) by the Feda’ian- e Islam in 1946. 114. Republished as a book in 1985. Born in 1872, Sadr al-Ashraf was a cleric from a family of sayyeds in Mahallat. He was appointed to the state judiciary in early 1908, but because of his role in the interrogation of constitutionalists, he was captured after the suppression of the Majles in June 2008 and was forced to resign after the constitution was restored in September 1909. He was reappointed in 1912. Sadr was tradition- alist in outlook and skeptical of the secularization of the judiciary but progressed to become a member of the Supreme Court in 1919 and minister of justice from 1935– 37. Questions have been raised about the reliability of at least some parts of his account, which I have tried to use with due care. See Anvar (2002). I thank Dr. Ali Anvar for bringing this article to my attention. 115. Ahmad Matine-Daftary (1896–1971) was born to a leading divani family. He was among the first graduates of the School of Law in 1922 and in 1928 was sent to Paris to study the French legal system. During the same period, he completed a doctoral thesis at the University of Lausanne. He returned to Iran in 1931 and was immediately appointed undersecretary of the Ministry of Justice. I have also consulted a series of short memoirs he wrote, which have been assembled as a book by Baqer Aqeli (Matin- Daftari 1991). 116. Rusta’i (1996): 11– 19.

Chapter 1

1. Quoted in Zibakalam (1999): 362. 2. For example, Malkam Khan, Qanun, no. 1, February 1890. 3. The term “Westoxification” (gharbzadegi) was first used by the philosopher Ahmad Far- did and then popularized by the writer Jalal Al-e Ahmad to criticize nineteenth and early twentieth century intellectuals like Malkam Khan whom he accused of cultural imperialism. Vahdat (2002): 114. 4. Arjomand (1989): 24. 5. Amanat (1997): 1; Arjomand (1989): 21. 6. Arjomand (1989): 25– 26. 7. Ibid.: 23. 8. The term “constitution” is used here in the broadest sense of the word. Neither the shari‘a nor the circle of justice was a constitution in the modern sense, which usually includes restraints in the form of a bill of rights and institutional procedures for secur- ing their observance. Nevertheless, each could be characterized broadly as a constitution defined as “a frame of government or political order: a set of rules which organize, but do not restrain the exercise of power.” Crone (2004): 281. 9. The Islamic concept of ‘adala is essentially based on Persian and Greek conceptions of justice as the maintenance of the mean or “just middle.” See Al- Azmeh (1997): 128. 10. For a discussion of theories of Persian kingship, see Sohrabi (1999): 253– 89. 11. Martin (1989): 10– 12. 12. Ibid. 13. Amanat (1997): 6. 14. Quoted in Afary (2005): 342. 15. Although for the most part Ottoman sultans found ways of controlling senior clerics and bending them to the sultans’ will, there were occasions when the sultan was removed Notes 205

from power for violating the shari‘a. Colin Imber notes that senior legal figures played a major role in the removal of both Mustafa I and Ibrahim, in both cases citing violation of the shari‘a as the justification. Imber (2002): 321. 16. Martin (2005): 13. 17. The term “hierocracy” literally means rule by religious authorities. The Shi‘i ulama clearly did not “rule” in the nineteenth century, but following Arjomand I have used the term since neither “clergy” nor “church” convey the appropriate sense of religious authority and power that the ulama possessed. Arjomand (1989): 7. 18. Algar (1969). 19. Amanat (1997): 8. 20. For example, Martin (1989); Bayat (1982); Amanat (1997); Arjomand (1989). 21. Amanat (2009): 182. 22. Martin (1989): 13. 23. Amanat (2009): 184. 24. Ibid.: 153. 25. Arjomand (1989): 14. 26. Ashraf and Banuazizi (1992). 27. Ibid. 28. Mallat (2007): 37. 29. Zubaida (2003): 14. 30. Ibid. 31. Hallaq (2009): 120; Dahlen (2003): 84. 32. For an interesting discussion of the various meanings of ‘aql, see Gleave (2000): 188– 219. Note some varieties of qiyas were also accepted by Shi‘i jurists. See the discussion in Dahlen (2003): 86. 33. Hallaq (2009): 120, Dahlen (2003): 84. 34. Dahlen (2003): 85. 35. Zubaida (2003): 184; Cole (1983): 36. 36. Zubaida (2003): 184. 37. Coulson (2001): 117. 38. The main tradition establishing the judicial authority of the ulama is the Tradition of Ibn Hanzala, which has been the subject of much discussion since it was used by Khomeini to justify government by the faqih. However it has been subject to multiple interpreta- tions. See the discussions in Eliash (1979), Enayat (1982), Momen (1984), Sachedina (1988), and Akhavi (2007). 39. Calder (1979): 107– 8. 40. Arjomand (2005): 29. 41. Heern (2010): 51– 52. 42. Arjomand (2005): 29. As a practical example of this distinction between “jurist” and “just believer,” Arjomand cites a deed endowment from Yazd dated Shavval 1220 (1805– 1806), which authorizes the “fully qualified mojtahed” to appoint an administrator should the founder’s line come to an end. If there was no such jurist in Yazd, the power to appoint an administrator devolved upon the “learned and just among the believers.” 43. Floor (1983): 117. 44. Floor (2009a). See also Amin (2003): 338– 41. 45. Amanat (2009): 185. 46. Schneider (2005): 92. 47. Martin (1989): 8; Al- e Davud (2005): 184– 85. 48. Floor (1983): 113; Floor (2009a). 49. Ashraf and Banuazizi (1992a). Werner (2000): 237. 206 Notes

50. Werner (2000): 237. 51. Ibid.: 32. 52. Zubaida (2003): 45. 53. Floor (1983): 113; Kasravi (1941): 154– 56. 54. Floor (1983): 114. 55. Halm quoted in Dahlen (2003): 100. 56. Nobuaki (2003): 107– 10. 57. Ibid. For another example of nasekh va mansukh, see Martin’s account of the legal dispute surrounding the marriage of one of Malek al-Tojjar’s slaves, Haji Bashir Khan, to the daughter of Aqa Mohammad Rahim, who was a free woman. Martin (2005): 170– 83. 58. Al- e Davud (2005). 59. Ibid. 60. Floor (1983): 114. 61. Schneider (2005): 93. 62. Shafti was the author of a treatise called The Incumbency of the Hodud upon the Mojtaheds during the Occultation of the Imam. Fischer (1990): 123. 63. Ibid. 64. Sadr (1985): 157– 58. 65. Quoted in Werner (2000): 238. 66. Zubaida (2003): 48. 67. Ibid.: 51. 68. Amin (2003): 389. 69. Quoted in Werner (2000): 235. 70. In Islamic law, crimes are dealt with under three main headings: hadd, qesas and ta‘zirat. The hadd offenses constitute the core of Islamic penal law. These are crimes that are punished by “divine right” and are therefore fixed and specified in the Quran and the Sunna. Their distinguishing feature is that they are violations of the claims of God (haqq allah) and not the claims of men (haqq al-nass ), which apply to private persons. The hadd crimes are theft, banditry, unlawful sexual intercourse, an unfounded accusation of unlawful sexual intercourse, drinking alcohol, and apostasy. Although the hadd punishments were designed to protect the public interest, the strict rules of evidence attached to them made it very difficult to obtain a conviction. Thus most crimes were, in practice, prosecuted under the third category of crimes recognized in the shari‘a called ta‘zir. This meant that the ‘orfi authorities came to enjoy virtually unlimited powers to act as they pleased, without feeling the need to be bound by juristic rules. See Imber (1997): 210; and Peters (2008): 7. 71. Floor (1983): 115. 72. Mostawfi (1964): 100; Sadr (1985): 55. 73. Sadr (1985): 55. 74. The legal process that, after the murder by bandits in early 1903 of Khomeini’s father, Mostafa, a mojtahed landowner, also demonstrates the control the ‘orf authorities main- tained in qesas. For a vivid account, see Moin (2009): 7– 11. Schneider (2005): 94– 96; and Sadr (1985): 55 provide further examples. 75. Adamiyat (1972): 180; Motamed (1946), 43– 44. 76. Afary (1996): 343. 77. Quoted in Floor (1983): 126. 78. Quoted in Abrahamian (1999): 21. 79. Floor (1983): 115. 80. Katouzian (1998): 12. 81. See, primarily, Lambton (1953). See also Najmabadi (1987). Notes 207

82. Sait and Lim (2006): 57. Nomani lists eight categories in recent centuries: common peasants’ land; state lands; conditional land rights (iqta or tuyul); unconditional land rights (soyurqal), crown lands, private lands including large landed estates as well as small peasant properties; awqaf; and tribal pastures. Quoted in Najmabadi (1987): 43. 83. Lambton (1953): 139. 84. Katouzian (2003): 39. 85. Lambton (1953): 139, 153– 54. 86. Ibid.: 152. 87. Ibid.: ix. 88. Ibid.: 155, 236. 89. The exact nature of private ownership has always been disputed among Islamic jurists. Technically speaking, in Islamic law, all property belongs to God, but this has not, however, precluded the recognition of private property. See Sait and Lim (2006): 11– 12. 90. Werner (2003): 65. 91. Hakimian (1997). 92. Katouzian (2006): 2. 93. Lambton (1953): 187. 94. Floor (2009a): 24; Aslanian (2006): 383– 402. 95. Floor (1998): 68– 70; Gilbar (2008): 640– 41. 96. Gilbar (2008): 657. 97. Ibid.: 655–56. 98. In addition to examples quoted by Gilbar, see Ashraf (1980): 126– 33. 99. Issawi (1983): 3– 4. 100. Ibid. 101. Gilbar (2008): 656. 102. See, besides Gilbar’s article, Adamiyat and Nateq (1977): 299–371; Mahdavi (1999): 91– 92. 103. Summarized from Adamiyat and Nateq (1977): 315– 23. 104. Gilbar (2008): 657. 105. Adamiyat and Nateq (1977): 329– 30. 106. Amin (2003): 409– 10. 107. Gilbar (2008): 658– 60. 108. Ibid.: 661. 109. Ibid.: 661–65. 110. Lambton (1987): 291– 92; and Lambton (1991). 111. Amanat (1997): 414. 112. Adamiyat (1955; 1972); Bakhash (1978); Nashat (1982); and Algar (1972). 113. Floor (1983): 118. 114. Adamiyat (1955): 310. 115. According to Adamiyat, Amir Kabir believed that the central government should not interfere in the decisions of the courts whether ‘orf or shar‘. Ibid.: 309. 116. Adamiyat (1955): 309; Algar (1969): 131– 32; Floor (1983): 119. 117. Adamiyat (1955): 311– 12. 118. Bakhash (1978): 84. 119. For example, by Damghani (1978): 29. 120. Ibid.; Bakhash (1987): 84. 121. Amin (2003): 421– 22. 122. Bakhash (1978): 84. 123. Ibid: 45–47. 124. Ibid.: 86– 87; Adamiyat (1972): 174– 75. 208 Notes

125. Adamiyat (1972): 175– 76. 126. Ibid.: 178–79. 127. Bakhash (1978): 87; Nashat (1982): 54– 55. 128. Bakhash (1978): 87. 129. Ibid. 130. Adamiyat writes that a handwritten copy of the law in Mostashar al- Dawleh’s archive has corrections to the text that show the authors’ concern to avoid offending the fundamen- tals of the shari‘a and the political system. For example, majles- e qanun (which implies a legislating body) was changed to vezarat- e ‘adlieh. Also the phrase “vaz- e qanun”/ legislation (which is forbidden in the shari‘a) was changed to “vaz- e qa‘edeh”/establishing regulations. Adamiyat (1972): 176. 131. Ibid. 132. See Bakhash (1978: 112– 19) for a good account of this episode. 133. Werner (2003): 37. 134. Damghani (1978): 121– 49; Al- e Davud (2005). 135. Mohammad Taher Ahmadi (1999). Floor mentions similar decrees in 1880, 1882, and 1892, all ephemeral. Floor (1983): 124– 25. 136. Bakhash (1978): 89. 137. Floor (1983): 123, 125; Damghani (1978): 44. De Monteforte remained in Tehran until 1890. Although his code paid lip service to the shari‘a, in its preamble it divided crimes into three categories based on European criminal jurisprudence: janayat (grievous crimes), jonheh (crimes), and khalaf (misdemeanors). It included articles on insulting the monarch, on forgery, on crimes and misdemeanors against the state and religion, on insulting state officials, on adultery and underage sex, and on theft. There were no rules of procedure and it seems that De Monteforte would often sit as the judge in the police court in Tehran. 138. Schneider (2005): 86, quoting Mostawfi I (1964): 92– 93. 139. On the circumstances, see Amanat (1997): 375–83 and Adamiyat (1972): 78–80. Nei- ther author mentions the 1860 mazalem court. 140. Amanat (1997): 393– 94. 141. Nashat (1982): 52. 142. Sohrabi (1999): 263. 143. Several examples of rulings by the Sanduq- e Edalat, two from September and November 1875, have been published by Mohammadi (1977), who records that a large number of petitions, as yet unstudied, were registered by the institution but gives no dates. 144. Rescript of 14 Moharram 1299/December 6, 1881. Ibid.: 9. 145. Schneider (2005): 89. The same petitions were studied by Adamiyat and Nateq (1977: 377) but focusing on the picture the petitions provide of the problems of ordinary people, around two- thirds were from peasants and the rest from artisans and laborers. 146. Ibid.: 97. 147. Ibid.: 87. 148. Schneider (2005): 89. 149. Feldman (2010): 61– 68. 150. Ibid.: 68–70. 151. Fukuyama (2011): 215. 152. Colas (2007): 52. 153. Inalcik (1973): 77. For more analysis of this issue, see Fukuyama (2011), chapters 14 and 15. 154. Zubaida (2003): 108– 9. 155. Hallaq (2009): 219. Notes 209

156. Ibid. 157. Ibid. 158. Colas (2007): 53. 159. Lewis (1961): 124. 160. For more on the comparison between Ottoman and Qajar rule, see Sohrabi (2011): 287– 335, and Enayat (2011): 89– 94. 161. See Amanat (1997): 415. 162. Ibid. 163. Mann (1986): 109– 36. 164. Mallat (2007). Also, as noted by Habermas, “There can be no rule of law without recourse to the means of force held in reserve as the guarantee of political domination” (2006: 130). 165. On the late Qing legal system, see Bernhardt, Huang and Anton Allee (1994). On the Ottoman legal system, see Inalcik (1973); and Imber (2002).

Chapter 2

1. Enayat (2005): 166. 2. Katouzian views the Tobacco Revolt as the first political movement of its kind in Iran because, although there were economic interests at stake, (a) society challenged the state on a specific political issue; (b) it was an attack on arbitrary government, not just the arbitrary ruler; and (c) it succeeded in reversing an arbitrary decision without the complete destruction of the regime itself (Katouzian 2003: 134–35). For this reason it was a deviation from previous revolts which tended to be over the price and supply of food and other material and economic interests rather than the reform or revolution of a “system.” See Zubaida (2009): 64. 3. Gheissari and Nasr (2006): 25. 4. Ibid.: 30. 5. Azimi (2008): 42. 6. Ibid. 7. Mallat (2007): 121. 8. Fathalizadeh (2007). 9. Amanat (1992). 10. Gheissari (1998): 15; Bayat (1982): 133. 11. Amanat (1992). 12. Kamali-taha (1973). 13. Bakhash (1978): 7– 8. 14. Ibid.: 318. 15. Jean Bodin, for example, believed that by “creating institutions, assigning responsibilities and inculcating aims constitutions can boost the power of the monarch.” Holmes (1995: 101) also points out that by restricting the arbitrary powers of government officials, the constitutional separation of powers can “under the right conditions, increase the state’s capacity to focus on specific problems and mobilize collective resources for common purposes.” 16. Quoted in Vahdat (2002): 33. 17. Ibid.: 30–36. Vahdat characterizes this dualism in Malkam’s thought in the Hegelian language of “positivist and universalizable subjectivity.” 210 Notes

18. Ibid.: 30– 36. There are other examples including a pamphlet entitled Neda- ye ‘Edalat presented to Mozaffar al-Din Shah on the occasion of his third journey to Europe in the summer of 1905. Cf. Algar (1972): 74. 19. See Adamiyat (1961): 141– 43 for a summary of Malkam’s writings on judicial reform. 20. Ibid.: 136–37. 21. See the translation of Mostashar al- Dawleh’s original text by Seyed- Ghorab and McGlinn (2007). 22. Adamiyat (1961): 134– 35. 23. Amanat (1992): n.p. 24. Gilbar (2008): 668. See also Gilbar (1977): 275– 303; and Afshari (1983): 133– 55. 25. Habl al- Matin, June 18, 1902. 26. Bakhash (1978): 314. 27. Parvin (2002). 28. Cf. Ashraf (1959): 118–19; and Torabi-Farsani (2010): 121, who contends that the merchants used their record in the constitutional movement to actively negotiate their disproportionate representation in the Majles. 29. Ashraf (1980): 120– 21. 30. Damghani (1978): 194. 31. Sayyed Jamal wrote a pamphlet on these themes titled Lebas al- taqva (Attire of Virtue). 32. Habl al- Matin, January 11, 1904. 33. Damghani (1978): 196. 34. The Omumi affair was raised on several occasions in the first Majles. For an example of the confusion over the meaning of “liability,” see Mozakerat, October 5, 1907. The first stages of the inconclusive judicial investigation are reported in Mohakemat, various issues from August 30, to December 1907 and March 29, 1908. 35. Afshari (1983): 150. 36. Torabi- Farsani (2010): 126– 29. 37. Arjomand (1989): 180. I have modified Arjomand’s typology. He adds a fourth group of “staunch traditionalists” made up of older mojtaheds who refused all novelty and eventually joined Nuri’s anticonstitutional protest. 38. Martin (1989): 125. 39. Quoted in Edalatnejad (2009): 85. 40. Martin (1989): 125. 41. Ibid.: 127. 42. Arjomand (1989): 180. 43. Martin (1989): 123. 44. Sharif- Kashani (1983), 1: 210, quoted in Amanat (1992). 45. Bayat (1991): 55– 58. 46. Arjomand (1989): 182– 83. 47. Mobarakian (1998): 372– 74; 391– 92; 405– 8; 413– 14. 48. Arjomand (1989): 182– 84; Bayat (1991): 254– 55; Gheissari (1998): 139; Mobarakian (1998): 391– 92. 49. Arjomand (1989): 183. 50. Mamaqani (1956): 75. 51. Ibid.: 83. 52. Amanat (1997): 8. 53. Quoted in Ashraf (2007). Ara’ez and tazallomat both denote petitions against injustice. They were used simultaneously in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries for petitions to the shah or governors for the redress of injustice, and for petitions to courts to initiate legal proceedings. Notes 211

54. Quoted in Martin (1993). 55. Ashraf (2007). 56. Sohrabi (1999): 265– 66. 57. Ashraf (2007). 58. Ibid. Ashraf quotes Tabataba’i’s response to a demand for clarification of the movement’s aims from Shaykh Fazlollah during the clerical bast at Qom, which took place at the same time as the bast at the British Embassy. 59. Ibid. 60. Kermani (1978): 274–84. Nazem al-Islam reproduces the complete text and records that the law was translated from Ottoman sources by Momtaz al- Dawleh. 61. Martin (1989): 82. 62. Sohrabi (1999): 265. 63. Ibid: 267. 64. Ibid. 65. Afary (2005): 345. 66. Afary (1996): 66. 67. See Arjomand (2003) and Afary (2005). Other constitutions were drawn upon or consulted, including the Bulgarian and the French. Arjomand, Afary, and, in a much earlier work, Adamiyat provide a discussion of the logic behind these choices. 68. Adamiyat (2535sh): 408. See also Gheissari (2011): 74. 69. Ibid.: 409– 10. Adamiyat points out that only fragmented records have survived. 70. Afary (1996): 101. 71. Afary (2005): 345; Martin (1989): 117– 23. 72. Martin (1989): 118– 19. 73. Ibid. In practice, the clerical board convened only for a brief period in the second Majles. Nonetheless the conformity of legislation to the shari‘a, and particularly legislation concerning the judiciary, was a persistent source of conflict. The full- blown institution envisaged by Nuri is the forerunner of the Council of Guardians in the Constitution of the Islamic Republic. 74. Afary (1996): 109. 75. Summarized from Afary (2005) and Amir Arjomand (2003). 76. Afary notes that the Ottoman constitution had nothing that compared to Articles 1 and 2 of the Iranian Supplementary Fundamental Law. The Imperial Rescript of 1856 recognized the equality of subjects before the law “without distinction of class and religion.” Furthermore, Article 11 of the Ottoman Constitution stated that Islam (not specifically Sunni Islam professed by the majority) was the state religion. This article was followed by a provision whereby the state would “protect the free exercise of faiths professed in the empire.” Afary (2005): 354– 55. 77. See, for background, Arjomand (2003) and Afary (2005). In this section I have used and expanded Afary’s comparison of the Supplement with the text of the Belgian constitution. The English is based on E. G. Browne’s translation modified to highlight Persian terminology that distinguishes between state/Adlieh/’orf courts on the one hand and shar‘ courts on the other. The differences are sometimes obscured in Browne’s original (Browne 2006: 372–84). A complete Persian text of the Supplement is available at http:// www .fis - iran .org/ fa/ resources/ legaldoc/ iranconstitution. Accessed October 2007. 78. The term hoquq- e siasieh, meaning “political rights” or laws pertaining to the domain of the state, roughly the equivalent of public law, is used interchangeably with ‘orf in the official discourse of the period. 79. The repetition here does not occur in the Belgian constitution. In his 1910 textbook on constitutional law, Mansur al-Saltaneh Adl comments that these two articles were 212 Notes

inserted “to bring an end to the old situation in which any head of a state office, or any powerful person, or even a farash of the government would try people and issue and carry out rulings which were based on no source other than his personal tastes and prejudices.” Adl (1910): 365. 80. Two other articles of the Supplement, both taken from the Belgian text, extended the function of the Court of Cassation: first, to the trial of ministers whose offense was, by an earlier Article (69), to be declared by the Majles or the Senate, and second, to “arbitration in cases of disputes as to the limits of the functions and duties of the different departments of government” (Article 88). 81. Majles, May 28, 1911. 82. Martin (1989): 140 and Lahidji (1989): 151. 83. Significantly, in his book on the first Majles, Adamiyat describes the outcome of conflict over the judicial clauses of the Supplement as a “recognition of the ‘orfi judicial system” but does not expand. Adamiyat (1976): 421. 84. Najmabadi (1998): 122 quotes an article critical of the dual legal system published in Majles newspaper on December 7 and 8, 1907. But its author was a member of the Tiflis branch of the Social Democrats. See also on this point Afary (2005): 355– 56. 85. The judicial prerogatives of governors were also rescinded in the “Law for the Establish- ment of Provincial Governments and Executive Regulations for Governors” of Decem- ber 14, 1907. 86. Martin (1989): 139, quoting British Legation correspondence dated October 10, 1907. Because parliamentary debate on the supplement was in private, there is some confusion over whether reports of resistance from moderate clerics in this period were in response to the Supplement or the Judiciary Law. Dawlatabadi (1958: 150) records that Behba- hani was forced to agree to the Supplement by threats from the radical anjomans. See Lahidji (1989): 151. 87. Adamiyat (1976): 421. Adamiyat cites private correspondence between Mostashar al- Dawleh and the constitutionalist Tabrizi mojtahed Siqat al-Islam in Sha‘ban 1325q (Sep- tember/October 1907). 88. Martin (1989): 139, quoting British Legation correspondence dated October 10, 1907. 89. Ibid; Dawlatabadi (1958) 2: 150. 90. Mozakerat, March 30, 1907; and Mohakemat,October 14, 1907. 91. Mozakerat, May 23, 1907, June 2, and June 8, 1907. 92. Mozakerat, October 11, 1907. 93. Mozakerat, March 18, 1908, and May 30, 1908. 94. Martin (1989): 152– 53, quoting Dawlatabadi (1958): 2: 214. 95. Ibid.; Bayat (1991): 218. 96. Mozakerat, May 30, 1908. 97. Ibid. 98. Ibid. 99. From various issues of Mohakemat, June 1907 to June 1908. Sadr (1985: 174) also mentions a divan- e tamiz, or “Court of Cassation,” but there is no record that such a court was established. 100. A royal farman of Shavval 1325q/November 1907 appointing Sedq al-Molk as president of the criminal court placed both felonies (janayat) and crimes (jonheh) in its jurisdiction, and stipulated that its judgments be based both on the shari‘a and on ‘orf law (qanun- e siasat). Mohakemat, March 31, 1908. 101. Mohakemat, June 24, 1907. The Sadr al- Mamalek was the traditional title of the senior official of the divankhaneh. See Mostawfi (1964), 1: 92 for a history. 102. Mohakemat, September 16, and December 6, 1907; January 19 and April 11, 1908. Notes 213

103. Sadr (1985): 141. Sadr says his own appointment was in 1326q (beginning February 16, 1908). 104. In June 1908, Qazi Ardaqi was executed in the Bagh-e Shah, a few days after Malek al- Motakallemin, Sur Esrafil, and Sayyed Jamal, by forced consumption of strychnine. (Dawlatabadi 1958, 2: 340–41). Before the Constitutional Revolution, he had charge of the first modern school established in Qazvin. See Zoka (n.d.). 105. Mohakemat (April 8, 1908) notes that “through many years he has held positions in the Adlieh and Department of Commerce.” 106. Mozakerat, July 16, and August 1, 1907. 107. Khaterat va Khatarat quoted in Bayat (1991): 217. The practice is illustrated in 13 rulings by the Adlieh’s civil courts issued between April and May 1907 and published in MKVD (“Gushe’i az tarikh- e mohakemat dar Iran,” nos 172– 89, Spring 2001– Spring and Summer 2005). 108. Mozakerat, May 30, 1908. 109. Mozakerat, August 1, 1907, quoted in Adamiyat (1976): 407. See for another example of such a debate Mozakerat, March 20, 1908. 110. See, for an account, Najmabadi (1998): 176– 77; and Adamiyat (1976): 393, 404– 5. 111. Other examples are the trial of the motavalli- bashi of Qom, Prince Sayf al-Dawleh, and of Malek al- Tojjar and the Omumi company. See Mohakemat, various issues. 112. The regulations were approved by the Directoire in September for use pending the promulgation of permanent codes by the Second Majles. See Ettehadieh (2004) 2: 32– 33. 113. Mozakerat, March 19, 1910. See also Adl (1910): 372–73. Adl’s brief outline of the judiciary, which must have been written just before or soon after the Second Majles was convened, records fewer courts of the first instance. 114. According to Adl (1910): 372. The jurisdiction of the solhieh courts under the temporary regulations was for cases up to 150 tomans. Their rulings were final in cases up to twenty tomans, but any above that could be appealed in a court of the first instance. Adl also writes in 1910 that in some provincial centers Adlieh heads had created an appeal court on their own initiative, but these did not have a “particularly sound basis” (1910: 377). 115. Majles, April 17, 1911. 116. Majles, September 23, 1911. For other references to the role of the Ministry of Justice in this period, see Mozakerat, July 15; August 14; August 26; and September 20, 1910. 117. Majles, May 16, 1911. 118. See on the situation in Shiraz, Bastani- Parizi (2006), and in Sabzevar, two accounts quoted in Amin (2003): 504– 7. 119. Mozakerat, August 14, and September 20, 1910. 120. Adl al-Molk became a judge in one of the civil courts of the first instance. Alavi (1984): 137. 121. Ibid.: 65–6. Sharaf al-Molk was the Democrat son of the cleric Ali Hakami (a representative of the tollab in the first Majles). 122. Ibid.: 46–47. 123. Sadr (1985): 207. 124. Mobarakian (1998): 369–70; and Khajenuri (1961): 11, who confirms that Davar was recruited through his Democrat connections. 125. Sadr (1985): 174–75. Sadr’s reference may be to Nasrollah Khan Moshir al-Dawleh, who was the first minister of justice after the Revolution, or his son who took the title and became minister of justice for two weeks in mid- October 1907, just after his father’s death. Or it may simply be a lapse of memory over who in fact introduced the regulations. 126. Najmabadi (1998): 101– 2. 214 Notes

127. By that time, 70 issues had been published, mostly on a weekly or twice- weekly basis, reporting, in all, on 28 cases. Many column inches of the paper are devoted to verbatim records of the judge’s examination of the accused during the trial. 128. Najmabadi (1998): 177. 129. Ibid.: 101–18. 130. Ibid.: 104. 131. Ibid. 132. Ibid. 133. Zubaida (2003): 127. 134. Mozakerat, August 14, 1907. 135. Majles, December 6, 1910. 136. Najmabadi (1998): 107. 137. Ibid.: 106. 138. Quoted in ibid.: 109. 139. Reported in Mohakemat, various issues from March 6 to May 28, 1908. 140. Afary (1996): 138. 141. Ajudani (1997): 96. 142. Mohakemat, May 28, 1908. 143. Ibid. 144. Bayat (1991): 223. 145. Mohakemat, June 13, 1908. 146. Najmabadi (1998): 126– 27. 147. Mohakemat, May 13, 1908. 148. Ibid. 149. There is a large body of literature on the subject. For an illuminating account, see Afary (1996). 150. According to Sa’idi Sirjani (1992), this law “was more libertarian than any subsequent press law in Persia, but at the time the most extreme reformers and journalists had hoped for more, some even implying that it represented a ‘return to the former repressive conditions.’” 151. Ibid. 152. Quoted in Afary (1996): 136. 153. Mohakemat, 25 (n.d. but end of November 1907). 154. See Mohakemat, December 6, 1907, and Sa’idi Sirjani (1992). Ruh al-Qodos was executed six months later at the Bagh- e Shah. 155. The paper had been published as a daily in Tehran starting April 29, 1907, and during the lesser autocracy, for a short while from Rasht. 156. Except where otherwise stated, this account is from Kuhestaninezhad (2001): 22– 23. 157. Iran- e Naw, June 4, 1910. Other members of the court were Aqa Mirza Hasan, Nasrol- lah Taqavi, Mo’tamen al-Molk, Momtaz al-Dawleh, Mo’tamed Khaqan, Naser al-Islam, Sardar Mohyi, Fazel Khalkhali, and Mirza Ali Akbar Khan. 158. For the jury in the original hearing, see Iran- e Naw, April 23, 1910. 159. Iran- e Naw, June 4, 1910. 160. Poggi (1978): 105. 161. See Zubaida (2003): 128 on the emergence of public law in the Ottoman Empire; and see Gheissari (2010): 70– 71 on the concept of public law in Iran. 162. Zubaida (2003): 125. 163. The legal theorist Hans Kelsen defined the grundnorm as the most fundamental and basic legal norm on which a constitution is based. Kelsen argued that in a successful revolution the grundnorm is transformed, thus forming a legitimate basis for enforcement in Notes 215

the courts of the law of the revolutionary government. In the 1950s and 1960s, courts in Uganda, Pakistan, and Southern Rhodesia explicitly considered the relevance of Kelsen’s theory to the situation in which judges who had been appointed under the ancien regime had to deal with laws enacted by a revolutionary regime. McLeod (2003): 91.

Chapter 3

1. Bayat (2010): 188– 89. 2. Afary (1996): 284– 87. 3. Gheissari and Nasr (1998): 33. 4. Ansari (2007): 29. For a reassessment of the Agreement, which argues that Vosuq al- Dowleh’s diplomacy was not in fact a failure, see Bast (2004): 260– 79. 5. Algar (1989). 6. Sharif- Kashani, quoted in Lahidji (1989): 152. 7. Taqizadeh (1990): 152– 55. 8. Martin (1993). 9. Sharif- Kashani (1984) 2: 535. 10. In May, the Majles had appointed a special commission to look into the complaints. After 40 days of hearings, it reported back on July 1, 1910 (Mozakerat, May 14, 1910, July 1, 1910). 11. Sharif- Kashani (1984) 2: 505. 12. Text available at Faqih- Haqqani (n.d.). 13. Mozakerat, August 14, 1910. 14. Mozakerat, December 2, 1910. 15. Mozakerat, November 2, 1910. A new Adlieh commission elected on October 15 consisted of Moshir al-Dawleh; the democrats Sulayman Mirza and Shaykh Ebrahim Zanjani; Sayyed Nasrollah Taqavi; Shaykh al-Ra’is Afsar; Momtaz al-Dawleh; and Sadr al- ’Ulama. 16. “Nezamnameh Dakheli- ye Majles- e Shawra- ye Melli.” December 29, 1910. http:// tarh .majlis .ir/ ?ShowRule&Rid =DFC73B09– DFBB - 460B - 9FF2– C22F508BBD76. Accessed January 2010. 17. Mozakerat, March 10, 1911; Forughi (2010): 42– 43. 18. Mostawfi II (1964): 210. 19. Mobarakian (1998): 73– 75; Amini (n.d.). 20. Mobarakian (1377): 507– 9. Mobarakian reproduces a short autobiography written by Modarres for Etela’at (October 4, 1927) when he was around 60. 21. Sharif- Kashani (1362) 2: 535. 22. Jahanbakhsh (1989): 165. See the conclusion (159– 71) to this short political biography for an illuminating elaboration of Modarres’s political outlook. Jahanbakhsh does not touch on his role in legal affairs. 23. Sadr (1985): 212– 13. 24. Mozakerat, October 21, 1921. 25. Since it was promulgated while parliament was in recess, this law was not published in the Majmu’e- ye Qavanin. A copy is kept in the Majles library registered as 28243. An electronic copy is available on the Samaneh- ye Qavanin va Moqararat website, available at http:// rc .majlis .ir/ fa/ law. Accessed February 2010. 26. Mozakerat, April 30, 1911. 27. “Organic code” is the English translation of the French “code organique” sometimes rendered in English as “law of establishment.” 216 Notes

28. Forughi (2010): 43. 29. Matin- Daftari (1930): 118. 30. Ibid.: 119. 31. This account is based on ibid.: 119– 20, and the text of book 2 of the organic code. 32. Ibid.: 120 and text of the law. 33. Article 29 has been misinterpreted to mean that “the shari‘a courts could only review the cases that were referred to them by the primary courts” (Mohammadi 2008: 64). The article is, in fact, vague. It reads, “Since the courts of the first instance of each locality must refer their shari‘a matters to a shari‘a court of the same locality, the shari‘a courts in a given locality are obliged to deal with shari‘a matters referred to them by the courts of the first instance of the same locality.” Furthermore, under the provisions of the Law of the Principle of Civil Trials, parties to a moshtarak case could only opt for an Adlieh court if both consented! 34. Matin- Daftari (1945): 65. 35. Ibid. 36. Ibid.: 158. 37. Sadr (1364): 213. See also Kasravi (1320): 151– 53. 38. Note to Moshir al- Dowleh’s signature, Qanun- e Mohakemat- e Jaza’i. 39. The 1808 French Code D’Instruction Penale was not revised until 1958. 40. The note to Moshir al- Dowleh’s signature records that articles 416– 429 were “proposed by the commission.” 41. Majles, April 17, 1911. 42. Sharif- Kashani (1984) 3: 648– 49. 43. Ibid.: 656–57. 44. Majles, April 17, 1911. 45. Majles, May 28, 1911; May 30, 1911; and June 11, 1911. On June 11, 59 Adlieh staff signed an open letter accusing the government of not paying their salaries in the hope that those who were against its “current policies” would tire of the situation and leave. See also Sharif- Kashani (1984) 3: 648– 49. 46. For a complete text, see Majles, June 25, 26, and 28, 1911. 47. Majles, July 9, 1911. 48. Majles, June 28, 1911, reports that the examination law was drafted with Modarres’s cooperation. The following quotes from the law are translated from this same source. 49. Majles, July 6, 1911. 50. Sharif- Kashani (1984) 3: 656– 57. 51. Ibid.: 753–54. 52. Alavi (1984): 106. 53. Mobarakian (1998): 78– 79. 54. Majles, September 4, 1911. 55. Mozakerat, June 22, 1923. 56. Majles, September 23, 1911. 57. For background to the political events of this period, see Ettehadieh (1992): 18– 80. 58. Floor (1983): 131. 59. Enayat (2011): 348–53, Appendix 2: “Senior Members of the Judiciary of Clerical Ori- gin, 1908– 1926.” These biographical notes are based mainly on Mobarakian (1998); Aqeli (2001); and Mojtahedi (1948). 60. Sadr (1985): 207, 215; Golsha’ian (1963): 619; Mobarakian (1998): 381– 84. 61. Mobarakian (1998): 93– 98, 377– 78; Sadr (1985): 271. 62. Ettehadieh, ed. (1996): xvii– xviii. 63. Mobarakian, 1998: 88– 90; 91– 92. Notes 217

64. Majles, April 17, 1911; Kasravi (1941): 93– 94. 65. Sadr (1985): 214. 66. The reluctance of the clerics to join an official shari‘a court system is often remarked. See, for example, Mozakerat, November 2, 1922. Iran, December 8, 1922, reports that a budget for the year 1303/1924– 25 had been allocated for the official shari‘a courts “in the hope that they will convene.” The exception to this pattern is the Special Criminal Court, which was established as a state court in 1917 (see later references for further detail). Differences in view over which court system was most heavily used over the period are hard to assess. Matin- Daftari, presumably referring to the situation in the early 1920s, writes that most civil disputes continued to be referred to the shari‘a courts and that litigants often used Article 147 manipulatively, since cases could be dragged out for longer and referred to another mojtahed if one party did not get the desired result (1945: 130). 67. Kasravi (1941): 151–53; Sadr (1985: 213) records that Moshir al-Dawleh had compro- mised with Modarres on this point with great reluctance. 68. The first in a series of populist and clerical agitations during the early 1920s, “exploited and sometimes triggered by politicians for their own ends.” Cronin (2005): 50. 69. Kasravi (1941): 151; Mostawfi (1964) 2: 375; Golsha’ian, quoted in Amin (2003): 511. 70. Mostawfi (1964) 2: 375. 71. Kasravi (1941): 151– 53, 172. 72. For a copy of this document, see Tafreshi (1991): 29– 53. 73. Mostawfi (1964) 2: 374. In October 1913, Mornard had withheld Adlieh salaries result- ing in a protest and temporary closure of the Tehran courts. See Tehrani (2000): 958– 59. 74. Mozakerat, May 21 and June 22, 1915. Between 1912 and 1914 the annual budget of the Adlieh had been 130– 140,000 tomans, to which 120,000 was added in 1916 to finance provincial expansion. 75. For Vosuq’s government and the politics of this period, see Katouzian (1989): 89–187. For the simultaneous expansion of the Gendarmerie, see Cronin (2006): 45– 68. 76. Taymurtash’s budget was presented and debated in two Majles sessions: January 31, 1922, and February 28, 1922 (Mozakerat). 77. A larger budget (484,727 tomans) had, according to Taymurtash, been allocated for 1921– 22 (1300). 78. Kasravi (1941): 121. 79. The Mazandaran appeal court, where Kasravi had his first job, was closed as part of this retrenchment. He remarks, probably unfairly, that it was closed because senior officials of the justice ministry needed the money to underwrite their salary increases. Kasravi (1941): 121. 80. Mostawfi (1964) 2: 374. 81. Moshir al-Dawleh reversed the proportions traditionally paid by the successful and unsuccessful parties in late 1909. Mozakerat, December 6, 1909. 82. Mozakerat, January 31, 1922. 83. Ibid. 84. Ibid. 85. The organogram is reproduced in Floor (1983): 138– 39. The document records that the Adlieh had a budget of 700,000 tomans in this year, probably an error. For Davar’s plan, see chapter 4. The only Adlieh court to be established/revived between these two dates was in Khuzestan by a 1924 mission headed by Kasravi (1941: 184– 238). 86. Information on recruitment methods during this phase is fragmentary. It seems, however, that senior Tehran judges were sent with a small cadre of experienced personnel to establish the provincial estinaf regions. Sadr al-Ashraf, for example, was posted to Rasht 218 Notes

in mid- 1919 accompanied by five others. The mission stayed on for several months leav- ing an appeal court recruited from the “second rank” ulama of Rasht, and ebteda’i courts staffed by judges “trusted by the people” (Kasravi 1985: 236–38). Kasravi was recruited in September 1919 when Rokn al- Molk Sadri was sent on a similar mission to establish the Tabriz appeal court region (Kasravi 1941: 93– 94). Further study is needed before it can be concluded that this was the general pattern and why it broke down. 87. Kasravi (1941): 145. 88. In Qazvin he met an Amin- e Solh, a mollah who claimed he had never read a page of the law (qanun), yet had issued judgments for years without passing any contrary to the law. Kasravi wondered how Solh could know that his judgments conformed to a law he had not read. Also in Qazvin Kasravi met Molla Baqer, a member of the provincial court who begged exemption from exams as follows: “I have been a preacher [va’ez] and in Tehran have preached sermons to four or five thousand people at once. Yet as soon as there is talk of exams I lose myself and my tongue gets tied.” To Kasravi, this was quite simply an excuse since Molla Baqer knew nothing of feqh and osul, or Arabic, let alone the law (qanun). A year later in 1924, after he returned from a difficult mission to establish a judiciary in Khuzestan, he was angered to discover that Molla Baqer had been appointed as a prosecutor in Mashhad and promoted to a higher judicial rank (1941): 180, 250– 52. 89. See, for example, the long and interesting debate on the problems of the Adlieh on Octo- ber 24, 1921, particularly the intervention of Mohaqqeq al- Ulama. (See also remarks by Modarres in Mozakerat, February 21, 1922). 90. Kasravi (1941): 146, 163. 91. Aqeli (1998): 193. 92. Kasravi (1941): 179– 80. 93. Zubaida (2003): 183. 94. Forughi (2010): 8– 9. 95. Majles, September 23, 1911. 96. Tafreshi (1991): 29– 53. Perny’s proposal is reproduced in full in Persian on page 66. 97. Ibid.: 56; and Mobarakian (1998: 24) put the monthly budget of the school at 15,524 tomans. It is clear from the text of Perny’s proposal that this was the annual allocation (in 1914 a budget of 186,288 tomans per annum would have been lavish indeed). 98. Minutes of the meeting reproduced in Tafreshi (1991): 64. 99. Mobarakian (1998): 24. 100. On the law curriculum of the School of Political Science, see Tafreshi (1991): 56. 101. Iran, November 17, 1918; Tafreshi (1991): 56. 102. Matin- Daftari (1991): 47– 48. 103. Steiner (2002): 191. 104. In 1920 the use of such part- time lecturers, central to Perny’s plan of combining the experience of knowledgeable Iranian jurists with that of the French professors, was opposed by the state auditing commission, which threatened to withdraw remuneration for Taqavi and Ameri on the grounds that their employment violated Article 164 of the organic code. This article forbade judges from taking up other public positions. Perny had to reason vigorously to keep the lecturers. Iran. SAM: 297015885. 105. SAM: 297017077. 106. Modern legal education was not confined to Tehran during this period. In 1923, a group of scholars campaigned for a law school in Tabriz and pleaded for a budget with the Director of Education of Azarbayjan. They were refused because funds were short and the Tehran school was thought sufficient for the time being. Nonetheless, the group decided to go ahead and run the school as a private establishment. It opened on June 2, Notes 219

1924, with a curriculum which included Iranian history, economics, geography, jurisprudence, history of Roman law, state law, criminal law, civil and criminal procedure, administrative law, international law, financial law, forensic medicine, political economy, statistics, and the principles of prison administration. SAM: 297017084. 107. FO 371/3681, July 1919, Curzon to Derby. For an account of French policy in Iran and the difficulties faced by the government’s French advisers, see Habibi (2004). 108. Iran (July 20, 1922) listed the names of the school’s first graduates. Most are recogniz- ably from old divani families. Very few actually went on to be employed in the judiciary. Those who did were recruited in the second half of the 1920s by Davar. 109. Tafreshi (1991): 59. 110. “Qanun- e emtehan- e hokam va saheban- e manaseb va ajza va mostakhdemin- e ‘Adlieh,” July 13, 1922, article 33. 111. Ibid. 112. For a short biography, see Davarpanah (2008). 113. Mozakerat, February 21, 1922. 114. Ibid. 115. Ibid. 116. Shaykh al- Islam confused the criminal procedure code with the organic code, as references in his speech to the “commission kharej az majles” and to the “Special Criminal Court” indicate. Modarres’s signature on the criminal procedure code is translated. 117. Mozakerat, February 24, 1922. 118. Ibid. 119. I am greatly indebted to Professor Hossein Modaressi Tabataba’i for explaining the dis- tinctions made by Modarres between qezavat and ordinary judging. 120. On the demonstrations of 1923, see Cronin (2005). 121. Mozakerat, June 22, 1923. Such negative takes on Perny’s role were not unusual among nationalist intellectuals. See also Kasravi (1941): 251– 52. For a Majles debate on the record of Perny, in which Modarres defends him on the grounds that he had been less harmful than other foreign advisers, see Mozakerat, April 26, 1925. 122. Forughi (2010): 44. 123. By this principle, which is designed to protect the individual against the arbitrary and unwarranted intrusion of the state, no act can be considered a crime unless it is clearly defined in legislation that also states the penalty (Habibzadeh 2006: 33–45). See also Peters (2008): 103. 124. Peters (2008): 103. 125. Mosaddeq (1979): 21, 50– 51. 126. Ibid. 49. 127. For similar arguments in the Ottoman context, see Peters (2008): 103– 4. 128. Peters (2008): 103. An Iranian example is an essay on the development of European criminal jurisprudence by Nosrat al- Dawleh written during his three- month detention in Qasr prison in 1930. See Farmanfarma (1986): 121– 68. 129. Mozakerat, March 28, 1915. 130. Modarres was, nominally, the leader of this faction in the Third Majles but is said to have regretted the alliance. See on the Hay’at and its position, Ettehadieh (1992): 105–11. Ettehadieh points out that nearly a third of the Third Majles deputies were from a clerical background but, as in the Second Majles, were divided in their political allegiances and outlook. 131. Mozakerat, March 28, 1915. 132. Ibid. 133. Ibid. 220 Notes

134. Mozakerat, November 2, 1922. See also September 27, 1915, where Modarres mentions that he was working on the code. 135. Mozakerat, October 24, 1921. 136. Mozakerat, November 2, 1922. 137. Mozakerat, October 24, 1921. See also November 2, 1922. 138. Qanun- e Jaza’i- ye ‘Orfi (Tehran, February 1919): 115. 139. Ibid. 140. Mozakerat, October 24, 1921. For examples of prosecutions under the secular penal code, see Iran, November 24 and 27, 1921; December 5 and 9, 1921; March 8, 1922; July 22, 1922; and October 16, 1922. Iran (July 18, 1922) reported a qesas ruling by the Special Criminal Court showing that the court was operating at that time. The victim’s father was pressing for enforcement but the prosecutor of the estinaf had taken the position that the Adlieh criminal court should issue a sentence based on the ruling of the shar‘ court. The Adlieh court had however taken the position that the shar‘ ruling was adequate and a second ruling would be outside its jurisdiction. Because of this conflict, the prosecutor had asked the Ministry of Justice for clarification. 141. Mozakerat, June 21, 1923. 142. In late 1923 Mosaddeq made an attempt to persuade Haji Aqa Jamal Esfahani not to oppose the criminal code. He argued that the new law would be applied only to foreign nationals. But Aqa Jamal refused to compromise because, he said, “it’s going to leak.” When Mosaddeq explained that the absence of such a code would mean the persistence of extraterritorial rights for European powers, Aqa Jamal responded “to hell with it.” Katouzian (1990): 20– 22. 143. I am indebted to Hedayat Matine- Daftary for this information. 144. In two parts on January 13 and January 27, 1926. For an account of the unrest in Tehran during this period, see Cronin (2005). Kasravi notes sustained clerical protests in the summer and autumn of 1923 occasioned by the expulsion of Shi’a ulama from Iraq in which Zanjan targeted the Adlieh (Kasravi 1941: 169– 74). 145. As part of the shari‘a “hat” woven in to the law, article 207 provided that sodomy (lavat) and illegal sexual intercourse (zena) were punishable by death “on condition that they are proven in accordance with shari‘a regulations.” There are no recorded prosecutions under this article, which was repealed on May 8, 1931. 146. Matin-Daftari (1930): 174. The effect of articles 416–29 of the Code of Criminal Proce- dure was modified under Davar’s special powers on August 13, 1927, by a single article law that declared offenses for which punishments are provided in the Public Penal Code to be exclusively in the jurisdiction of the secular courts. The articles were formally repealed on April 28, 1931. 147. Ibid. 148. Namely, when a person has committed several offenses, consecutive sentences are not imposed and the court pronounces the severest of the penalties available for one of the individual offenses. 149. Matin- Daftari (1930): 175. 150. Ibid.: 176–77. 151. Sedghi (2007): 145. 152. Floor (1983): 132. According to Forughi (2010), the term zolmieh was coined by “people of influence” who perceived the judiciary as inimical to its interests and used it spread propaganda against the institution. 153. Mohsen Sadr, “Tarikhcheh-ye Dadgostari-ye Iran” in Majalleh- ye Hoquqi- e Vezarat- e Dadgostari, nd: 75– 81. Notes 221 Chapter 4

1. For a perceptive, if brief, comment on the decline of clerical power in this period, see Azimi (2008): 71. 2. Gheissari and Nasr (2006): 38. 3. Azimi (2008): 77. 4. Gheissari and Nasr (2006): 41. 5. Arjomand (1989): 67. 6. Ibid. 7. Azimi (2008): 108. 8. Ibid. 9. Ibid. 10. Dahlen (2003): 146. 11. Mosaddeq (1988): 160– 61. The article was published on December 23, 1914. 12. Ahmad Matin- Daftary, Nasrollah Entezam, and Ali Motamedi. 13. Dahlen (2003): 146– 47. 14. Ibid.: 147. 15. Jalal Abdoh (1871–1956), the son of Shaykh Mohammad Abdoh, was educated at the Tehran Law School and recruited to the judiciary under Davar, who sent him to France to study for a doctorate. On his return he held various senior positions in judiciary. 16. Matin- Daftari (1930): 202– 3. 17. Abdoh (1937): 15. 18. On the capitulations, see Zirinsky (2003): 81– 99; Matin- Daftari (1930); Mosaddeq (1914); Nouraei (2009). 19. Nouraei (2009): 153. 20. Katouzian (1990): 10– 11. 21. Mosaddeq (1988): 252. 22. Mobarakian (1998): 369– 70; Khajeh- Nuri (1961): 11. 23. For a reprint of Davar’s article and an account of the trial, see Kuhestaninejad (2001): 26. 24. Aqeli (1994). 25. Davar (nd). 26. Quoted in Kuhestaninejad (2001): 293– 99. 27. Quoted in Bayat (1993): 116– 33. 28. Ibid. 29. Katouzian (1998): 287. 30. The February 10 dissolution was of the central judiciary. Provincial judiciaries were dis- solved on March 4. 31. Law of April 15, 1923. 32. Mozakerat, February 15, 1927. 33. Davar’s proposal differed from the system introduced in the Second Majles, which was still in effect in the late 1920s since it involved the executive putting new laws into effect experimentally before taking them to parliament’s legal commission. 34. Reprinted in Aqeli (1993): 141– 44. 35. Ibid. 36. Three drafting commissions are mentioned in the sources. One, formed in March 1927, was presided over by Moshir al-Dawleh and consisted of Adl, Shari‘atzadeh and Sadr al- Ashraf (Sadr 1985: 289). A second, convened to revise the 1911 organic code and the employment law for judges, was composed of Mohammad Abdoh Borujerdi, Moham- mad Reza Vojdani, Sayyed Mohammad Fatemi Qomi, Hasan Falsafi (Sharaf al-Molk), 222 Notes

Issa Aliabadi, and Shaykh Asadollah Mamaqani (Matin- Daftari 1930: 178). For the third (civil law) commission, see later description. 37. Golsha’ian (1942): 612– 13. 38. It has been suggested that the new judiciary was expensive given the country’s fiscal capacity. See, for example, Katouzian (1989): 316. But the 1927 injection of “seed money” aside, budget projections from the early 1930s suggest that, thanks to surplus income from the property registry, the judiciary was by this time more or less able to pay for itself. See, for example, budget projections for 1932/33 in MRVA, April 10, 1932. 39. Mozakerat, June 9, 1927. 40. On June 9, 16, and 19, 1927. Preagenda speeches are not recorded in the Majles proceedings. For a complete text see Aqeli (1993): 144– 60. 41. For the existing, weak, disciplinary court for judges, see Kasravi (1941): 252– 53; and Chapter 5. 42. The draft of the code is not available, but provision was made for the employment of four foreign advisers/inspectors (moftesh) in a supplementary budget law for the Adlieh approved by the Majles on April 10, 1927 (Mozakerat, April 10, 1927). 43. Mobarakian (1998: 495), who suggests that Davar had contemplated a civil code based on European law but was dissuaded by Sadr. Bahrami-Ahmadi (2004), repeats this asser- tion but says that Davar changed his mind on Mosaddeq’s intervention. Neither author provides a reference, and I have been unable to find confirmation of this point. 44. Mozakerat, May 1, 1927. 45. Ibid. 46. Zirinsky (2003): 92. 47. See Golsha’ian (1942): 629 for an account of the long hours and hectic activity of the last weeks of the special powers. 48. Mozakerat, October 25, 1927. 49. See Golsha’ian (1942): 619. Davar’s reference is to protests that began in spring 1927 and continued intermittently through the year. Though reflecting a wave of popular discontent primarily over conscription, the protest failed to enlist the backing of the clerical establishment in Qom and fizzled out after the death of its leader Aqa Nurollah in December. According to a British report, in December the shah nonetheless agreed to a number of the protestor’s conditions, including the “reintroduction of small religious courts dealing with personal status, the administration of oaths etc which had been newly centralized in the Central Court of Justice by the ministry of justice” (Cronin 2007: 75–78). In fact the reforms had not, at this point, touched the shar‘ courts and it would be another year before legislation was passed, in stages, to restrict their jurisdiction and numbers. 50. On relations between the ulama and state in this period, see Azimi (1989): 71. 51. There is much confusion over the procedural codes in existing English-language accounts. Some sources incorrectly record that a new civil procedure code was introduced in 1927 (e.g., Floor 1999b) The reference is perhaps to a simplified manual of the 1911 code drawn up in this period as an aid to new judges, which did not have the status of a law. Floor (1999b) appears to further confuse the provisions of the July 1928 replacement of the 1911 organic code with a civil procedure code. A new civil procedure code was drafted in the early 1930s and taken to the Majles on two occasions but rejected. Finally, on December 28, 1936, a commission was formed under Matin- Daftari to revise the draft in the light of post- 1928 experience. The new consolidated code became law on December 19, 1939, and remained in force until 1954 (Matin-Daftari 1945: 13). A new penal code was not even contemplated in this period let alone drafted “using as a model Notes 223

the penal code of fascist Italy,” as erroneously recorded by Banani and repeated several times in subsequent work (1961: 74). 52. Ibid.: 164–66. 53. Ibid.: 173–74. Clerics who were not part of the old judiciary appointed to senior positions by Davar included Asadollah Mamaqani (Court of Cassation, branch 1); Moham- mad Baqer Olfat, the ascetic and scholarly son of the powerful Aqa Najafi Esfahani (Court of Cassation, branch 2); and Sayyed Abdolrasul Puyan, a pupil of Khorasani, from the family of Sayyed Kazem Yazdi, who was made head of the Fars judiciary. Mobarakian (1998): 391– 92, 393– 96, 413– 14. 54. Kasravi (1941): 255– 56. 55. Sadr (1985): 292. 56. Aqeli (1993): 190– 91. 57. Golsha’ian (1942): 629 provides a vivid account of the intensive 24-hour work that went on in the days before the special powers ran out. 58. The law also introduced an eleven-rank hierarchy in which each rank would earn 25 percent more than the rank below. Minimum pay was separately fixed at 50 tomans per month, double the levels of remuneration before 1927, but still lower than Davar had hoped for. See Mozakerat, December 18, 1927, for a long debate on judge’s pay. Davar had argued for larger increases between the ranks. 59. Aqeli (1993): 187. 60. Faghfoory (1993): 308. See also Matin Daftari (1991): 127. 61. Matin- Daftari (1945): 159. 62. Ibid.: 159–60 and “Qanun-e Eslah-ye Qesmati az Qanun-e Osul-e Tashkilat,” Decem- ber 27, 1936. Matin-Daftari explains that the convoluted expression of the 1936 amendment, and the requirement for further examination, was to deal with criticism from parliament of “unqualified” people continuing to serve as judges. Faghfoory and Akhavi, and following them other authors, see this law as the “completion of the secularization of the judicial system” (Faghfoory 1993: 284; Akhavi 1980: 39). See also Mohammadi (2008): 102. The significance of the 1936 law was, however, symbolic. In practice it was not until 1955 that recruitment to the judiciary was restricted to those with a law degree. 63. Matin- Daftari (1991): 91. 64. Ibid.: 162. 65. Islamoglu (2004): 21. 66. Damghani (1993). 67. Ibid. 68. Although there is no unanimity on whether offenses can be prosecuted indefinitely in Islamic law, only Hanafite doctrine explicitly recognises a statute of limitations. See Peters (2008): 11. 69. Matin- Daftari (1959): 70– 71. 70. Qanun- e Tashkil- e Dafater- e Rasmi, February 2, 1929, Article 1. 71. Ibid. 72. Aqeli (1993): 185, who provides lists for Tehran. The same pattern was evident in the provinces. See Akhtar (2009); Shahsavarani (2004): 191– 200. 73. Damghani (1993). Damghani overlooks the provisions for establishing notaries offices in the laws of 1929 and 1930. In fact the provisions of the relevant chapter of the law of March 17, 1932, are no different to those of the 1929 law. 74. June 5, 1937. 75. For example, in order for a notary’s office to be recognized as “first class,” the law required one year less of active experience as a notary for degree holders than it did for mojtaheds (Law Concerning Notary Public Offices, June 5, 1937, Art. 8). 224 Notes

76. Aqeli (1993): 185– 86. 77. Law Amending Certain Articles of the Civil Procedure Code Concerning the Referral of Litigation to the shar‘ Court, January 1, 1929. 78. Law Concerning the Shari‘a Courts, December 1, 1931. 79. By a law introduced on August 19, 1922, secular courts had already acquired appellate jurisdiction over the verdicts of the religious courts in cases defined as moshtarak. 80. This section is based on the long preface to the first edition of Ahmad Matin- Daftari’s widely used textbook of civil procedure A’in Dadrasi Madani va Bazargani (Tehran, 1945) and his thesis La Suppression des capitulations en Perse (Paris, 1930). These stand as the classic analysis of the court system after the 1927 dissolution. I have tried to add comparisons between Davar’s plan for the court system, as announced on April 27, 1927, and later lists of courts and personnel. For 1308/1929–30, see Aqeli (1993): 174– 84. For a list of senior judicial personnel and court heads in 1937, see Matin- Daftari (1991): 128–32. All references to the situation in 1929 and 1937 are drawn from these sources unless otherwise stated. The court names were Persianized in 1939 but to avoid confusion I have here kept largely to the old Ottoman-derived names. See Rusta’i (1996), cited in the Introduction. 81. Matin- Daftari (1945): 37. The appointment of one of the four appeal court judges as an investigative judge (‘owzv- e mohaqqeq) responsible for studying and reporting on the file was abolished. In practice, however, one of the three judges would take responsibility for the investigation of the case. 82. April 27, 1927, speech. Aqeli (1993): 140. 83. Later transferred to Kermanshah. Matin- Daftari (1991): 131. 84. Article 37, 1928, organic code. 85. Aqeli (1993): 174. 86. All first instance courts, even in outlying towns, were attached to a specific “appeal court region.” 87. Although heavily used courts could have “alternate” members, if a new branch could not be created, as happened, for example, in Kermanshah. See Aqeli (1993): 184. 88. In 1922 jurisdiction had already been extended “in view of the large number of small disputes, the huge size of the country, and the lack of resources,” from 250 to 400 tomans so that the solhiehs could deal with disputes previously in the sole jurisdiction of first instance courts. Also at that time, two new layers were added to the solhieh system: district solhiehs (solhieh-ye navahi), which dealt with cases valued at no more than twenty tomans, and solhiehs with unlimited jurisdiction (solhieh-ye namahdud), which where there was no first instance court, could act in their place. (The concept of solhieh courts with unlimited jurisdiction was dropped after 1928.) Verdicts of the district solhiehs and verdicts valued at up to 35 tomans from other solhiehs were not subject to appeal; otherwise appeals could be taken to the nearest first instance court. The 1922 law also authorized the minister of justice to create solhiehs with powers to try minor criminal offenses (Matin-Daftari 1930: 182). The law of June 23, 1923, governing solhieh procedure in civil cases remained in effect until 1939. Matin- Daftari (1945): 49. 89. Aqeli (1993): 179. 90. Matin- Daftari (1945): 47. 91. Ibid., 52– 56, by the law of June 24, 1930. 92. In Persian known as mostashars, a translation of the French conseillers. Mostashars were senior judges who were full members of the bench. 93. Matin- Daftari (1991): 129. 94. As, for example, in June 1910, to hear the appeal in the case of the editor of Habl al- Matin (see Chapter 2). Notes 225

95. Sadr (1985): 271. Sadr became a member of the Supreme Court in 1921. 96. For examples of Supreme Court judgments of from 1918, see Zarini (2008): 43– 48. 97. Forughi (2008): 337– 38. 98. Kasravi (1991): 250. 99. Ibid. 100. Matin- Daftari (1945): 99. 101. Ibid.: 100. 102. The procedural framework for this was given a statutory basis in article 576 of the 1939 civil procedure code, further elaborated in 1949. For more information, see the third edition of Matin Daftari’s A’in- e Dadrassi (1961): 100–110. Barry Inlow provides a picture of its working in the 1960s describing the two circumstances under which the court would effectively make law: “i) If any branch of the Supreme Court takes a view contrary to the opinion taken by another branch on a similar case then an extraordinary meeting of the General Assembly of the Supreme Court is called and the matter is put to a vote. ii) If the lower courts clash over a particular law the Attorney General calls a meeting of the General Assembly and the matter is decided by vote.” Inlow (1970): 551. 103. Matin- Daftari (1945): 98– 100. 104. As an example of the type of conflict that may arise, Matin- Daftari cites the first chapter of the first book of the 1911 Law of the Principle of Trials that deals with conflicts between courts which are under the ministry of justice and authorities other than the judiciary. 105. To these were added, by Article 271 of the Military Procedure Code of December 26, 1939, appeals against the rulings of the military courts giving the civilian judiciary some measure of control over the military courts. 106. Matin- Daftari (1945): 263. 107. Pursuant to articles 236, 237 and 240 of the 1911 organic code. See also, Bar Associa- tion Union (1965); Matin- Daftari (1945): 263– 64. 108. Ibid.: 264. 109. Ibid. 110. Davar quoted in Anon, Tarikhcheh, n.p. 111. Matin- Daftari (1945): 267 and Sajjadi (n.d.) Sajjadi acknowledges that this article on the history of the councils of the Bar Association is based on a lost work by Qavam al- Din Majidi. 112. Matin- Daftari (1945): 268. 113. Abdoh (1937): 21. For numerous examples of malpractice and delay in civil disputes in Iran during the 1920s, see FO 371/12293. 114. There are several contemporary references to Fatemi’s text. See, for example, Shayegan (1996): 42 (Shayegan’s Hoquq- e Madani was first published in 1941); Forughi (2010): 44 (first published in Persian in 1937). 115. Forughi (2010): 44. 116. Na’ini (2009a): 906– 7. Na’ini quotes the relevant passages from Fatemi’s original in full. 117. Ibid. Mobarakian (1998: 493) refers to a commission of the exactly the same composi- tion in 1915 but provides no reference. 118. Na’ini (2009a): 906– 7. 119. Ibid.: 909–10. 120. Shayegan (1996): 42–43. The commission for Book Two included Taqavi, Sadr, Adl, Matin- Daftari, Ameri, Fatemi, Abdoh, Afjeh’i, and Mamaqani. 121. Na’ini (2009b): 339. 226 Notes

122. The text set for the 1922 Examination Law (article 14) was the Shara’e‘. Kasravi (1941: 146) records that he felt disadvantaged as a candidate because at his madrasseh he was taught the Lam‘a which he went on to use as his reference in the courts. 123. Shayegan (1996): 42– 43. 124. Mobarakian (1998): 495– 96. 125. Shayegan (1996): 42– 43. For further details on sources, see Gheissari (2010): 75. 126. Hallaq (2009): 448. 127. Amin (2003): 541– 542. 128. See Lambton (1953), chapter 9, for a detailed analysis of land law in the civil code that underlines the lack of innovation. 129. Hallaq (2009): 469. 130. Article 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure modifies this by stating that the courts will not recognize contracts that are detrimental to the public interest or to moral principles. 131. Mallat (2007): 105. According to Tigar and Levy: “[C]ontracts to do something in the future are called executory and are used in all modern commercial transactions. Before this, Roman law, like early Anglo- Saxon law and other early legal systems, had recognized only executed contracts meaning those that involve face-to- face agreements with an exchange of the property occurring at the moment the deal was made and according to a prescribed form.” Quoted in Messick (2003): 722. 132. Article 214 of the Civil Code reads: The object of a contract must be some property or act which both parties agree to deliver or execute. 133. Mallat (2007): 256. 134. Yeganeh (1991). 135. By contrast, the introduction of registration of marriage and divorce in 1931, prior to the promulgation of book 2 of the civil code in 1935, was praised by modernists who saw it as improving the rights of women who were regularly abused under the traditional system. See interesting contemporary references quoted in Rostam- Kolayi (2003): 283– 84. 136. Shayegan (1996): 42. 137. Zubaida (2003): 134. 138. Torabi- Farsani (2005): 475. 139. Ibid.: 478. 140. Ibid.: 480. 141. Malllat (2007): 318. 142. Amin (1986): 112. 143. Matin- Daftari (1930): 170. 144. Matin- Daftari (1945): 74. 145. Abdoh (1989): 126. 146. FO 371/12293, Shiraz, May 1927, Chick to Clive. 147. For a summary of company registration figures for 1310– 1315 (1931/32– 1935/36), see Yekta’i (1973): 184. 148. Amin (1988): 93. 149. Ibid.: 94. 150. Ibid. 151. Ibid. 152. For example, Ansari (2007): 57; and Zirinsky (2007). Notes 227 Chapter 5

1. Fukuyama (2004): 79. 2. Katouzian (1998): 333. 3. Kasravi (1941): 294. 4. Regulations published by the judiciary on April 20, 1932, required heads of courts to supply regular statistics of their activities. The information reflects early responses to this order from a small proportion of the courts. It was published in the official journal of the Ministry of Justice from July 2 of that year (MRVA, July 2, 1932, and various issues to August 3, 1932). 5. Brown (1997): 240. 6. Bingham (2010): 89. 7. Ibid. 8. Kleinfeld (2006): 42. 9. Ibid. 10. Root and May (2008): 322. 11. Golub (2006): 120. 12. Kleinfeld (2006): 39. 13. Mozakerat, July 1, 1910. 14. Kasravi (1941): 178–79. Throughout the period from 1923 to 1925, Kasravi makes references either to conducting examinations on behalf of the Ministry of Justice or to preparing his junior colleagues for examination. 15. Majles, September 23, 1911. 16. Mozakarat, October 24, 1921. 17. Aghababoff (1927): 146– 56. 18. Qanun-e mohakemeh-ye entezami-ye qozat, February 3, 1926. Disciplinary procedures against judges had previously been the responsibility of the High Consultative Council (Majles- e Moshavereh- ye ‘Ali) of the Ministry of Justice (see later citations). 19. Kasravi (1941): 252. 20. Ibid.: 252–53. 21. Ibid. 22. FO 371/12293, Tabriz, May 4, 1927, Gilliat- Smith to Clive. 23. FO 371/12293, Kermanshah, May 2, 1927, Consul Cowan to Clive. 24. Mozakarat, October 24, 1921. 25. Bell et al. (1998): 123. 26. Aghababoff (1927): 147. 27. Golsha’ian (1963): 642– 46. 28. Matin- Daftari (1930): 182. 29. Ibid.: 185. 30. Ibid. 31. MRVA, July 2, 1932. 32. Matin- Daftari (1991): 366. 33. Kasravi (1341): 291– 95. 34. Meshed Consular Diary No 10 FO 371/15342 (1928). 35. Ibid. 36. FO 371/15342, Lascelles to Henderson, August 20, 1931. 37. See Floor (2009b) for examples; and Matin- Daftari (1991): 366. 38. Islamoglu (2004): 28. “The Great Transformation” is the term used by Karl Polanyi (2001) to refer to transition of European civilization from the preindustrial to the indus- trial stage and in particular the “breakthrough” of the market in Britain. 228 Notes

39. Ibid.: 4. 40. Matin- Daftari (1930): 15. 41. Lambton (1953): 188– 89. 42. Ibid. 43. Kasravi (1941): 300– 1. 44. Sadr (1985): 293– 94. 45. Hakimian (1997). 46. Lambton (1953): 185– 86. 47. Matin- Daftari (1991): 124– 25; Safa’i (2004): 24– 26. 48. Fischer (1990): 133. 49. Lambton (1953): 289. 50. Fischer (1990): 133. 51. Cronin (2007): 162. 52. Ibid.: 146. 53. Ibid.: 151. 54. Ibid. 55. Ibid.: 101, 109. 56. FO 371/16953/E1869/1101/34. Cited in ibid.: 170. 57. Mundy and Smith (2007): 7. 58. Ibid. 59. Amin (2003): 633. 60. Katouzian (1998): 319. 61. See, however, accounts of missions sent by the judiciary to deal with registration disputes in Arak. Sadr (1985): 293– 95; and Kasravi (1941): 302– 6. 62. Amidi- Nuri (2002): 213– 14. 63. Katouzian (1998): 320. 64. Amin (2003): 633. 65. For details, see ibid. 66. Arjomand (1989): 70. 67. Moustafa (2007): 222. 68. As Moustafa has shown, the Supreme Constitutional Court has been a key institution in safeguarding property rights in Egypt (2007: 229). Although this was not established until 1979, its predecessor, the Majles al-Dawla, was established in 1946. Brown (1997): 70. 69. Vojdani (n.d.): 23. 70. Aghababboff (1927): 147. 71. Ibid. 72. Ibid.: 148. 73. MRVA, March 30, 1932. 74. Ibid., April 13, 1932. 75. Ibid., April 19, 1932. 76. By Iranian law creditors had the power to demand detention in the case of a unpaid debt. The detention order was issued by the State Registry. 77. Mallat (2007): 288. 78. This principle was drawn from a hadith on the illegality of doing harm and the need to repair it irrespective of provenance, fault, negligence, or intent by the author of the harm. Mallat (2007): 288. 79. Schayegh (2005): 837– 61. 80. Ibid.: 858. Notes 229

81. Lombroso’s theory was popular among Iranian doctors and lawyers at the time. Davar, in his textbook Penal Law, which was on the reading list for students at the Tehran Law School, referred to Lombroso as initiating a “revolution in thought” (enqelab- e ‘elmi). 82. As Schayegh shows, Shari‘atzadeh was attempting to persuade the judge that the Public Penal Code implicitly recognized the concept of the natural- born criminal but failed because the code was based on the pre-Lombroso notion of free will and full criminal responsibility. 83. Schayegh (2005): 861. 84. Kleinfeld (2006): 48. 85. Haugen and Boutros (2010): 3. 86. Schayegh (2005): 859. 87. Political Studies and Research Institute (2006). 88. Ibid. There were 66 police commands outside Tehran in 1924. 89. Millspaugh (1925): 72. 90. Abrahamian notes that the police prison in Mashhad, with a capacity of 200– 300, was reported in autumn 1928 to have 900 prisoners; Tehran’s prisons, which were designed for 400 inmates, held more than 1000 by the late 1920s (1999: 27). 91. Document reproduced in Sa‘dat al- Hosayni (1991): 51. 92. Ibid.: 44. 93. Abrahamian (1999): 27. See also Sa‘dat al-Hosayni (1991: 45), which describes terrible conditions in Tehran’s three older prisons and some of the modern facilities at Qasr. 94. Sa‘dat al- Hosayni (1991): 44– 45. 95. The population in 1935 was about 13.52 million (Bahrier 1971: 26). Based on the permanent prison population, the incarceration rate in 1978, just before the Islamic Revo- lution, was 25 per 100,000 (Madani, Sa’id. 2006. “The Evolution of Prisoners’ Rights from the Constitutional Revolution to the Present Day,” E’temad- e Melli, November 7). In the 2000s, it averaged 230 per 100,000. In 2004–2005, according to a United Nations report, the incarceration rate for the permanent and transient prison population together “represents 490 prisoners per 100,000 of the population, which places the country among the six countries of the world with the highest incarceration rates.” United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, “Drug and Crime Situation in Iran,” 2007. I am grateful to Anna Enayat for these references. 96. Mehrdad Amanat (1987). 97. The summary account that follows is taken from Amidi-Nuri (2002): 129–36 and Kas- ravi (1941): 276– 77. 98. For a biography, see Mobarakian (1998): 397. 99. Bingham (2010): 92. 100. Ginsburg and Moustafa (2008): 15. 101. Mozakerat, September 8, 1910. 102. Adl (1910): 365– 66. 103. Sadr (1985): 215– 19 and 219– 20. 104. The council was created by an imperial rescript of October 4, 1911 (Majles, October 25, 1911). Information about the council is fragmentary. 105. See references in Chapter 2. See also Sadr (1985: 238–40, 246–47) describing the situation in Rasht, under military law at the time of the Kuchek Khan rebellion, and Kasravi (1941: 184– 238) describing the resistance of Shaykh Kha‘zal to his mission to establish a branch of the Adlieh in Khuzestan. 106. Kasravi (1941): 322. 107. Abrahamian (1973): 271– 75. 108. FO 371/13059, Meshed Consular Diary, December 1927. 230 Notes

109. Guarnieri (2003): 225. 110. Aqeli (1988): 21– 25. 111. Quoted in Abdoh (1989): 31. 112. Quoted in Aqeli (1993): 200. 113. Cronin (2007): 189. I am grateful to Dr. Cronin for highlighting this point. 114. Barros (2003): 192. 115. See on this affair Cronin (2007): 172, 174, 180. Cronin quotes a British Foreign Office despatch of February 23, 1928, that following Puladin’s execution, Ha’im was “handed over to civil courts.” However, US diplomatic correspondence suggests that he in fact remained in the custody of the military authorities: “As to what has transpired since Ha’im’s arrest, there is again general agreement as to the facts. He has for the past five years been continuously in custody, frequently brought before the military tribunal for retrial or further questioning.” Hart, dispatch 998 (891.00/1537), December 30, 1931, quoted in Majd (2001): 170. 116. Qanun-e Mohakemat-e Nezami, 21/7/1928. See article 59 and articles 200–4, 221, 244, 249, 253, 255–59. The code also incorporated a very restricted range of due process rights and some of the procedural rules laid down in the 1912 criminal procedure code. For example, defendants were entitled to a defense counsel, though only from military personnel; verdicts could be appealed, though only within 48 hours and only to a higher military court. 117. Rezun (1981): 176–77. According to Rezun, of the 27 actually indicted in this trial, 4 were sentenced to death while the rest received prison terms to 15 years. In all, 100 were rounded up and sentenced to prison in connection with the Agabekov revelations. 118. Eight were executed and all but four of the rest were sentenced to harsh prison sentences. For a detailed and perceptive account of this affair, see Cronin (2007): chapter 7, “The Politics of Terror.” 119. Aqeli (1998): 283– 86. 120. Taymurtash’s first trial, for alleged corrupt dealings with the National Bank for which he was sentenced to 3 years and a fine, was in camera. His second, for receipt of a bribe from Haji Amin al-Tojjar Esfahani on account of an opium monopoly, was open to the public and reported in detail. For an account, see Qezavat, Tir 1381 (2002). See also Aqeli (1998): 296–331. The five-year sentence was for the bribe from Amin al-Tojjar and under the nonaccumulation rule was the sentence that was applied in practice. 121. Amin (2003): 556. 122. Sadr (1985): 352– 53. 123. Musavizadeh I (2001): 389. Polemicists after 1942 claimed thousands of arbitrary arrests. 124. Ibid.: 338. 125. For an account of this period, see Azimi (1989). 126. Sadr (1985): 321; Mozakerat, December 30, 1947, reprinted in Matin- Daftari (1991): 361– 79. 127. Musavizadeh I (2001): 325– 47. 128. See, for example, Sadr (1985): 324. 129. Mozakerat, December 30, 1947. 130. Ibid. 131. Amin (2003): 556. 132. Mokhber-al- Saltaneh (1965): 386. Other sources claim that Vojdani and Foruhar were also present at this meeting. See references quoted in “Akharin Defa’-e Nosrat al- Dawleh,” Qezavat, Aban and Azar, 2002, and “Ray-ye Divan-e ‘Ali-ye Tamiz va Khat- erati az Mahkum,” Qezavat, Day and Bahman, 2002. Notes 231

133. Aqeli (1998): 283– 86. Aqeli gives no source for this anecdote but the pattern is con- sistent with other accounts of the strategies Davar used to accommodate the shah’s demands while not being seen to interfere directly with judges. 134. Prison sentences pursuant to the 1931 law were in solitary. But in practice the fifty- three served their sentences in communal wards allocated to them at Qasr prison. See Maleki (1978): 312– 18. 135. By the law of May 20, 1931, political cases were to be tried by the high criminal court in the presence of a five- man jury. 136. Abdolali Lotfi Larijani (b.1879) was the son of Shaykh Lotfollah, a source of emulation who died when Larijani was young. He studied feqh with Akhund Khorasani and was his representative in the affairs of Iran during the Constitutional Revolution. He became a member of the Committee for National Defense in the First World War. Lotfi was recruited to the judiciary in 1918 by Nosrat al-Dawleh and served in the courts of first instance and the conciliation courts (solhieh). After 1927 he was appointed head of the temporary courts created during the dissolution of the judiciary. Thereafter, he took up appointments, in succession, as head of Branch 4 of the Tehran appeal court, head of the criminal branch of the Supreme Court, and head of the Khorasan judiciary. Mobarakian (1998): 89. 137. Amidi-Nuri (2002: 346) says Aqayan’s license to practice was withdrawn. According to Bozorg Alavi, a warning was issued (Amin 2003: 584). 138. Amidi- Nuri (2002): 343– 46. 139. Amin (2003): 584. 140. Quoted in Sadr al- Ashrafi (2003). 141. Abrahamian (1999): 65. 142. Ibid.

Epilogue

1. Gheissari and Nasr (2006): 47. 2. Ibid. 3. Amin (2003): 622– 24. 4. Abdoh (1989): 163– 64. 5. Amin (2003): 639. 6. Abrahamian (1999): 85. 7. Ibid.: 86. 8. Ibid. 9. Amin (2003): 639. 10. Abrahamian (1999): 88. Some members of the Supreme Court also questioned the legitimacy of the 1931 law. 11. Gheissari and Nasr (2006): 48. 12. This summary of Mosaddeq’s reforms is based on Amin (2003): 642– 43. 13. Sadeghi Sajjadi (n.d.). 14. Arjomand (1989): 70. 15. Interview with Hedayatollah Matine- Daftary, April 6, 2010. 16. Ansari (2007): 173. 17. Amin (2003): 659. 18. Ibid. 19. Ibid.: 663. 20. Ibid. 232 Notes

21. Butler and Levasseur (1976): 19– 22. 22. Ibid. 23. Tayarani (2003): 8– 11. 24. Ebadi: (2006): 23. 25. For example, Power (1975): 277– 92 and Baldwin (1973): 492– 504. 26. In 1973 there were only around 3,500 lawyers in Iran (one for every 10,000 people compared with one for every 650 in the United States at the time). The shortage outside Tehran was particularly acute. For example, there were only around 100 in the whole of Fars province and in the city of Shahrud there was said to be one lawyer in a town of 50,000 inhabitants. Power (1975): 281. 27. Butler and Levasseur (1976): 70. Baldwin also comments on the relative quality of legal education and judicial personnel in Iran during the early 1970s (Baldwin 1973: 501). In the quote, Levasseur is referring to a number of reforms that were made to the system of criminal procedure in 1974, which, among other things, gave the public prosecutor more discretion in initiating a prosecution. Previously the prosecutor had been bound by the principle of the the “legality of prosecutions” by which he had to initiate a prosecution each time an offense had been committed irrespective of whether the victim of the crime had filed a complaint. This reform meant that the prosecutor was not bound to prosecute every crime and could use his discretion to waive minor offenses and misdemeanors (Butler and Levasseur 1976: 58–58). Levasseur also mentions that the justice minister appointed a commission in 1974 to consider adopting elements of the adverse- rial system used in common law criminal procedure in order to better defend the rights of defendants though these proposals seem never to have seen the light of day (Ibid.: 63– 64). 28. Ebadi (2006): 30. 29. The decisions of the military court could only be reviewed with the permission of the shah. After the 1953 coup only one case was allowed cassation, Mosaddeq’s case, when the judges were clearly under duress and harassment. 30. Hilbink (2008): 102– 32. 31. According to Inlow, writing in 1970, “The lowest grade on the Supreme Court was grade 8. The highest was 11. The salary of the former was 3,500 tomans per month ($460– 540— roughly the equivalent of a professor’s salary in the US. The highest grade pay was 5,000 tomans per month or $670 US dollars). The president of the Supreme Court had an unnamed allowance in addition to his salary” (1970: 552). 32. Guarnieri (2003): 235. 33. Hilbink (2008): 118. 34. Power (1975): 283. 35. For example, studies by Epp (1998) cited in Ginsburg and Moustafa (2008): 20. 36. Guarnieri (2008): 235. 37. Power (1975): 282.

Conclusion

1. As noted by Jaysuriya (1999: 7) in connection with the form of capitalism that devel- oped in Asian countries such as Indonesia. 2. Borujerdi (2003): 148. 3. Holmes (1995): 20. 4. Martin Shapiro explains that “a ‘right’ of appeal is a mechanism providing an independent flow of information to the top on the field performance of administrative Notes 233

subordinates.” This may explain why authoritarian regimes who have little regard for civil liberties often preserve the right of appeal. In this way, as Shapiro explains, courts play fundamental political functions by acting as avenues “for the upward flow of information and for the downward flow of commands.” (Shapiro quoted in Ginsburg and Moustafa 2008: 140). The process of appeals was instrumental in centralizing the power of the state in eighteenth- century France. Madsen and Dezalay (2002): 196. 5. As famously noted by E. P. Thompson (1975) and later Harold Berman (1990). 6. Azimi (2008): 97. 7. Singapore is sometimes cited as an exception to this pattern: an authoritarian state with an effective, efficient, and reliable judicial system. The rule of law may be robust in Singapore but it is, however, clearly a “thin” version, largely confined to the economic sphere. As Gordon Silverstein observes: “Singapore provides a brisk reminder that one can have a thin rule of law, build a stable and prosperous nation on a robust economy, and never veer too close to a full blown Lockean-liberal system with firm limits on government governed by a strict separation of powers a la Montesquieu” (Silverstein 2008: 73– 102). For a discussion of the importance of the wider political and economic system in nurturing the rule of law, see Weinghast (2009): 28– 53. 8. Stephenson (2006): 199. This point has also been observed in connection with the Span- ish judiciary under Franco and the Chilean judiciary under Pinochet. The notion of “firewalls” between different sectors of a legal system challenges the view in some of the rule of law literature that due process in ordinary civil and criminal cases can act as a “Trojan horse” in authoritarian regimes and eventually institute a more substantive rule of law in which executive authorities are willing to subordinate themselves to the law. 9. Hirschl (2004): 109. 10. On the legal system in Pakistan, see Lieven (2011): 86– 97; and Lau (2010): 423. 11. As Fukuyama has argued, one of the most important variables in determining the success of institution building is domestic demand for institutional reform. Fukuyama (2004): 47. 12. Gheissari (2010): 70. 13. Charles Taylor (2007: 172–75) defines the “social imaginary” as “that common understanding which makes possible common practices, and a widely shared sense of legitimacy.” As Taylor relates, this kind of transition occurred in the great founding revolutions of the modern age such as the French and American revolutions. 14. See Arjomand (1998): 184– 191. 15. Giffel and Amanat (2010): 12. 16. Amanat (2009): 7. 17. Arjomand (1989): 83. References

Primary Sources

ARCHIVES

France. Archive du Ministère des Affaires étrangères, Archive diplomatiques. Paris. Great Britain. Foreign Office, Political Departments: General Correspondence from 1906 (FO 371). Iran. Majles- e Shawra- ye Islami, Samaneh- ye Qavanin va Moqararat. Electronic archive available at http:// rc .majlis .ir/ fa/ law. Iran. Sazman-e Asnad- e Melli. Tehran. Iran. Mozakerat- e Majles- e Shawra- ye Melli. 1906– 1928 (1st– 6th sessions)

JOURNALS AND NEWSPAPERS

Ganjineh- ye Asnad Habl al- Matin Iran Iran- e Naw Mahnameh- ye Kanun Majalleh- ye Rasmi- ye Vezarat- e ‘Adlieh Majalleh- ye Kanun- e Vokala- ye Dadgostari- ye Iran Majles Mohakemat Qanun Qezavat

ABBREVIATIONS

EIr Encyclopedia Iranica, online edition, New York, 1996– . GA Ganjineh- ye Asnad IJMES International Journal of Middle East Studies MRVA Majalleh- ye Rasmi- ye Vezarat- e ‘Adlieh MKVD Majalleh- ye Kanun- e Vokala- ye Dadgostari- ye Iran Mozakerat Mozakerat- e Majles- e Shawra- ye Melli FO Great Britain, Foreign Office SAM Sazman- e Asnad- e Melli 236 References References

Abdoh, Jalal. 1937. L’Elémente psychologique dans les contrats suivant la conception iranienne. Paris. ———. 1989. Chehel sal dar safar, qaza’i, siasi, diplomasi: Khaterat- e Doktor Jalal Abdoh. Tehran. Abrahamian, Ervand. 1973. “Kasravi: The Integrative Nationalist of Iran.” Middle Eastern Studies 9 (3): 271– 75. ———. 1982. Iran between Two Revolutions. Princeton, NJ. ———. 1999. Tortured Confessions: Prisons and Public Recantations in Modern Iran. London. Abrams, Philip. 1982. Historical Sociology. Shepton Mallet, UK. Adamiyat, Fereydun. 1955. Amir Kabir va Iran. Tehran. ———. 1961. Fekr- e azadi va moqaddameh- ye nehzat- e mashrutiyat. Tehran. ———. 1972. Andisheh- ye taraqqi va hokumat- e qanun. Tehran. ———. 1976. Ideolozhi- ye nehzat- e mashrutiyat- e Iran. Tehran. Adamiyat, Fereydun, and Nateq, Homa. 1977. Afkar- e ejtema’i va siasi va eqtesadi dar asar-e montasher nashodeh- ye dawran- e Qajar. Tehran. Adl (Mansur al-Saltaneh), Mirza Mostafa Khan. 1910. Hoquq-e Asasi. Tehran. Afary, Janet. 1996. The Iranian Constitutional Revolution: Grassroots Democracy, Social Democ- racy, and the Origins of Feminism. New York. ———. 2005. “Civil Liberties and the Making of Iran’s First Constitution.” Comparative Stud- ies of South Asia, Africa and the Middle East 25 (2): 341– 59. Afshari, Mohammad Reza. 1983. “The Pishevaran and Merchants in Pre- capitalist Iranian Society: An Essay on the Background and the Causes of the Constitutionalist Revolution.” IJMES 15: 133– 55. Aghababoff, Raphael. 1927. “Les lois et les institutions législative en Iran.” Archive du Ministère des Affaires étrangères, Archive diplomatiques, Paris 386/1, April 1919– October 1927. Ahmadi, Mohammad Taher. 1999. “Eslahha- ye Sepahsalar.” GA 47. Ajudani, Mashallah. 1997. Mashruteh- ye irani va pish- zamineh- ye nazarieh- ye velayat- e faqih. London. Akhtar, Mohammad Ali. 1999. “Tarikhcheh- ye hoquq- e sabt dar Iran.” Mahnameh- ye Kanun. Day. Accessed June 2010. http:// www .notary .ir/ documents/ document/ 13022/ 13027/ portal .aspx. Alavi, Abu’l Hasan. 1984. Rejal- e ‘asr- e mashrutiyat. Edited by I. Afshar. Tehran. Al- e Davud, Sayyed Ali. 2005. “Bargi az tarikh- e sabt- e asnad dar Iran.” MKVD 184, 185: 56– 68. Algar, Hamed. 1969. Religion and the State in Iran, 1785– 1906. Berkeley, CA. ———. 1972. Mirza Malkum Khan, A Biographical Study in Iranian Modernism. Berkeley, CA. ———. 1982. “Abdallah Behbahani.” EIr 1 (2): 190– 93. ———. 1989. “Mohammad Behbahani.” EIr 4 (1): 96– 97. Amanat, Abbas. 1992. “Constitutional Revolution (i) Intellectual Background.” EIr 6 (2): 163– 76. ———. 1997. Pivot of the Universe: Nasir al- Din Shah Qajar and the Iranian Monarchy 1831– 1896. Berkeley, CA. ———. 2009. Iranian Shi‘ism and Apocalyptic Islam. London. Amanat, Mehrdad. 1987. “Ayrom, Mohammad Hosayn Khan.” EIr 3 (2): 152–53. Amidi- Nuri, Abu’l- Hasan. 2002. Yaddashtha- ye yek ruznameh- negar. Tehran. Amin, Sayed Hasan. 1986. Commercial Law in Iran. Glasgow. ———. 1988. Commercial Arbitration in Iranian and Islamic Law. Glasgow. ———. 2003. Tarikh- e hoquq- e Iran. Tehran. References 237

Amini, Mohammad Mehdi. n.d. “Pirnia, Hasan.” Daneshnameh- ye Jahan- e Islam. Accessed May 2007. http:// www .encyclopaediaislamica .com/ madkhal2 .php?sid =2944. Ansari, Ali. 2007. Modern Iran: The Pahlavis and After. London. Anvar, Sayyed Abdollah. 2002. “Yek rajal az mian- e rejal.” Jahan- e Ketab, Khordad and Tir. Aqeli, Baqer. 1993. Davar va Adlieh. Tehran. ———. 1998. Taymurtash. Tehran. ———. 2000a. “Tarikh- e adlieh va mashahir- e an.” Dadgostar 1 (Khordad). ———. 2000b. “Davar va Ta’sis- e Adlieh.” Dadgostar 3 (Aban and Azar). ———. 2001a. “Nazarat-e entezami-ye qozat va nemuneh-ye ara-ye mahakem-e entezami.” Dadgostar 4 (Bahman and Esfand). ———. 2001b. Sharh- e hal- e rejal- e siasi va nezami- ye mo‘aser- e Iran. 2nd ed. Tehran. ———. 1994. “Davar, ‘Ali- Akbar.” EIr 7 (2): 133– 35. ———. 2005. “Davar va ta‘sis- e Adlieh.” Aftab, August 3. Arjomand, Said Amir. 1988. “Ideological Revolution in Shi‘ism.” In Said Amir Arjomand, ed., Authority and Political Culture in Shi’ism, 178– 213. Albany, NY. ———. 1989. The Turban for the Crown: The Islamic Revolution in Iran. New York. ———. 2003. “The Constitutional Revolution (iii). The Constitution.” EIr 6 (2): 187– 92. ———. 2005. “Political Ethic and Public Law in the Nineteenth Century.” In Robert Gleave, ed., Religion and Society in Qajar Iran. London. ———. 2010. After Khomeini. New York. Ashraf, Ahmad. 1980. Mavane‘- ye tarikhi- ye roshd- e sarmayadari dar Iran. Tehran. ———. 2007. “Molahezati dar bareh- ye enqelab- e mashruteh.” Iran Nameh 3 and 4 (23). Accessed October 2008. http://www .fis - iran .org/ fa/ irannameh/ volxxiii/ reflections - constitutional - revolution. Ashraf, Ahmad, and Ali Banuazizi. 1992a. “Class System v. Classes in the Qajar Period.” EIr 5 (6): 667– 72. ———. 1992b. “Class System vi. Classes in the Pahlavi Period.” EIr 5 (7): 677– 91. Aslanian, Sebouh. 2006. “Social Capital, ‘Trust’ and the Role of Networks in Julfan Trade: Informal and Semi-formal Institutions at Work.” Journal of Global History 1: 383– 402. Avineri, Shlomo, and Avner de Shalit, eds. 1992. Communitarianism and Individualism. Oxford. Azimi, Fakhreddin. 1989. Iran: The Crisis of Democracy: 1941– 53. London. ———. 2008. The Quest for Democracy in Iran: A Century of Struggle against Authoritarian Rule. Cambridge, MA. al- Azmeh, Aziz. 1997. Muslim Kingship. London. Bahrami-Ahmadi, Hamid. 2004. “Tarikhcheh-ye tadvin-e qanun-e madani.” Faslnameh- ye Pajuheshi Daneshgah- e Imam Sadeq, no. 24 (Winter). Bahrier, Julian. 1971. Economic Development in Iran, 1900– 1970. Oxford. Bakhash, Shaul. 1978. Iran, Monarchy, Bureaucracy and Reform under the Qajars, 1858– 1896. London. ———. 1983. “Center- Periphery Relations in Nineteenth Century Iran.” Iranian Studies 1 and 2. Baldwin, Gordon B. 1973. “The Legal System of Iran.” International Lawyer 7 (2): 492– 504. Banakar, Rezal, and Max Travers, eds. 2002. An Introduction to Law and Social Theory. Oxford. Banani, Amin. 1961. The Modernization of Iran: 1921– 1941. Stanford, CA. Bar Association Union. 1965. Tarikhcheh-ye kamel-e vekalat dar Iran. Republished electroni- cally by the Bar Association Union. Summer 2001. Accessed May 2004. http:// www .irbar .com/ law - articles - database/ 3980/ 3996. Barros, Robert. 2003. “Dictatorships and the Rule of Law: Rules and Military Power in Pino- chet’s Chile.” In Maravall and Przeworski, eds., Democracy and the Rule of Law: 188– 220. 238 References

Bast, Oliver. 2004. “Putting the Record Straight.” In Touraj Atabaki and Eric Zurcher, eds., Men of Order: Authoritarian Modernization under Ataturk and Reza Shah. London: 260– 79. Bastani- Parizi, Ebrahim. 1979. Talash-e azadi: Mohit-e siasi va zendegani-ye Moshir al-Dawleh Pirnia. Tehran. ———. 2006. “Kongreh’i dar Oxford.” Etela‘at. September 18, 2006. Bayat, Kaveh. 1993. “Andisheh-ye siasi-ye Davar va ta‘sis-e dawlat-e modern dar Iran.” Goft- o- Gu 2: 116– 33. Bayat, Mangol. 1982. Mysticism and Dissent: Socioreligious Thought in Qajar Iran. Syracuse, NY. ———. 1991. Iran’s First Revolution: Shi‘ism and the Constitutional Revolution of 1905–1909 . New York. ———. 2010. “The Rowshanfekran in the Constitutional Period.” In Martin and Chehabi, eds., The Iranian Constitutional Revolution: 165– 92. Bell, John, Sophie Boyron, and Simon Whittaker. 1998. Principles of French Law. Oxford. Berman, Harold J. 1983. Law and Revolution: The Formation of the Western Legal Tradition. Cambridge, MA. ———. 1993. Faith and Order: The Reconciliation of Law and Religion. Grand Rapids, MI. Bernhardt, Kathryn, Phillip Huang, and Mark Anton Allee. 1994. Civil Law in Qing and Republican China. Stanford, CA. Bierne, P., and R. Quinney, eds. 1982. Marxism and Law. New York. Bingham, Tom. 2010. The Rule of Law. London. Borujerdi, Mehrdad. 2003. “Triumphs and Travails of Authoritarian Modernization in Iran.” In Cronin, ed., The Making of Modern Iran: 152– 60. Brook, Thom. 2007. “Between Natural Law and Legal Positivism: Dworkin and Hegel on Legal Theory.” Georgia State University Law Review 23 (3): 513– 60. Brown, Nathan. 1997. The Rule of Law in the Arab World. Cambridge. Browne, Edward. 2006. The Persian Revolution. Washington, DC. Butler, William J., and Georges Levasseur. 1976. Human Rights and the Legal System in Iran. Geneva. Calder, Norman. 1979. “Judicial Authority in Imami Shi‘i Jurisprudence.” British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies 6 (2): 104– 9. Carothers, Thomas, ed. 2006a. Promoting the Rule of Law Abroad: In Search of Knowledge. Washington, DC. ———. 2006b. “The Rule of Law Revival.” In Carothers, ed., Promoting the Rule of Law: 3– 15. Chang, Ha Joon. 2002. Kicking Away the Ladder. London. ———. 2006. “Understanding the Relationship between Institutions and Economic Develop- ment: Some Key Theoretical Issues.” United Nations University, World Institute for Devel- opment Economics Research. Discussion Paper No. 2006/5: 1– 12. Colas, Alejandro. 2006. Empire. Cambridge. Cole, Juan, R. 1983. “Imami Jurisprudence and the Role of the Ulama: Morteza Ansari on Emulating the Supreme Exemplar.” In Nikki R. Keddie, ed., Religion and Politics in Iran. New Haven, CT: 33– 46. Collins, Hugh. 1982. Marxism and Law. Oxford. Cotterell, Roger. 1992. The Sociology of Law. London. Coulson, Noel J. 2001. A History of Islamic Law. Edinburgh. Crone, Patricia. 2004. Medieval Islamic Political Thought. Cambridge. Cronin, Stephanie, ed. 2003. The Making of Modern Iran: State and Society under Reza Shah: 1921– 41. London. References 239

———. 2005. “Popular Protest, Disorder, and Riot in Iran: The Tehran Crowd and the Rise of Riza Khan, 1921–1925.” International Review of Social History 50 (2): 167– 201. ———. 2006. “Iranian Nationalism and the Government Gendarmerie.” In Touraj Atabaki, ed., Iran and the First Word War: The Battleground of the Great Powers. London: 45– 68. ———. 2007a. “Resisting the New State: The Rural Poor, Land and Modernity in Iran, 1921– 1941.” In Stephanie Cronin, ed., Subalterns and Protest: History from Below in the Middle East and North Africa. London: 141– 71. ———. 2007b. Tribal Politics in Iran: Rural Conflict and the New State, 1921–1941 . London. ———. 2010. “The Constitutional Revolution, Popular Politics and State-Building in Iran.” In Martin and Chehabi, eds., The Iranian Constitutional Revolution: 81– 98. Dahlen, Ashk P. 2003. Islamic Law, Epistemology and Modernity: Legal Philosophy in Contem- porary Iran. London. Damghani, Ahmad Mahdawi. 1993. “Daftar- e Asnad- e Rasmi.” EIr 6 (6): 563– 64. Damghani, Mohammad Taqi. 1978. Sad sal pish az in. Tehran. Davar, Mirza Ali Akbar Khan. n.d. “Qanun-e jaza.” In Dorus- e kelas- e qaza’i. Textbook of the Faculty of Law. Tehran. Davarpanah, Hormuz. 2008. “Taddayon, Sayyed Mohammad Birjandi.” EIr. Accessed January 2009. http:// www .iranicaonline .org/ articles/ tadayyon - sayyed - mohammad - birjandi. Dawlatabadi, Yahya. 1958. Tarikh- e mo‘aser ya hayat- e Yahya. 4 vols. Tehran. Demorgny, Gustave. 1913. Essai sur l’administration de la Perse. Paris. de Soto, Hernando. 2001. The Mystery of Capital: Why Capitalism Triumphs in the West and Fails Everywhere Else. London. Destrée, Annette. 1976. Les fonctionnaires belges au service de la Perse 1898– 1915. Leiden. Douzinas, Costas, and Adam Greary. 2005. Critical Jurisprudence: The Political Philosophy of Justice. Oxford. Ebadi, Shirin. 2006. Iran Awakening. New York. Edalatnejad, S. 2009. “Shi‘ite Tradition, Rationalism and Modernity: The Codification of the Rights of Religious Minorities in Iranian Law (1906–2004).” PhD diss., Free University of Berlin. El- Fadl, Khaled. 2007. The Great Theft: Wrestling Islam from the Extremists. New York. Eliash, Joseph. 1979. “Misconceptions Regarding the Juridical Status of the Iranian Ulama.” IJMES 10: 9– 25. Elster, Jon, and Rune Slagstad. 1989. Constitutionalism and Democracy. Cambridge. Enayat, Anna. 1976. “The Problem of Imperialism in Nineteenth-Century Iran.” Review of Iranian Political Economy and History 1 (1) December. Enayat, Hadi. 2011. “Law, State and Society in Iran: From the Qajars to the Pahlavis.” PhD diss., Birkbeck College, University of London. Enayat, Hamid. 2005. Modern Islamic Political Thought. London. Ettehadieh, Mansureh. 1982. Paydayesh va tahavvol- e ahzab- e siasi mashrutiyat. Dawra- ye avval va dovvom- e Majles- e Shawra- ye Melli. Tehran. ———. 1992. Ahzab- e siasi dar Majles- e Sevvom. Tehran. ———. 1993. “Constitutional Revolution v. Political Parties of the Constitutional Period.” EIr 6 (2): 199– 202. ———. 2004. Abdol Hosayn Mirza Farmanfara: Zamaneh va karnameh-ye siasi va ejtema’i. 2 vols. Tehran. Euben, Roxanne, and Mohammad Qasim Zaman, eds. 2009. Princeton Readings in Islamist Thought: Texts and Contexts from Banna to Bin- Laden. Princeton, NJ. Faghfoory, Mohammad. 1993. “The Impact of Modernization on the Ulama in Iran, 1925– 1941.” Iranian Studies 26 (3– 4): 277– 312. 240 References

Faqih-Haqqani, Musa. n.d. “Sattar Khan Sardar-e Melli.” IICHS. Accessed May 2009. http:// www .iichs .org/ index .asp?id =139&doc _cat =1. Farmanfarma, Firuz Mirza. 1986. Khaterat-e Mahbas. Edited by M. Ettehadieh and S. Sa‘dvandian. Tehran. Fathalizadeh, Ali. 2007. “Vazheh- ye qanun va vorud- e an beh hoquq- e Iran.” MKVD 8 (Summer). Feldman, Noah. 2008. The Fall and Rise of the Islamic State. Princeton, NJ. Fischer, Michael J. 1990. “Legal Postulates in Flux: Justice, Wit and Hierarchy in Iran.” In Daisy H. Dwyer, ed., Law and Islam in the Middle East. New York: 117– 45. Floor, Willem. 1977. “Bankruptcy in Qajar Iran.” Zeitschrift der Morgenlandische Gesellschaft 127: 61– 76. ———. 1983. “Changes and Developments in the Judicial System of Qajar Persia (1800– 1925).” In Clifford E. Bosworth and Carole Hillenbrand, eds., Qajar Iran. Political, Social and Cultural Change 1800– 1925. Edinburgh: 113– 147. ———. 1998. A Fiscal History of Iran in the Safavid and Qajar Periods: 1500–1925 . New York. ———. 2009a. “Judicial and Legal Systems iv. Judicial System from the Advent of Islam through the 19th Century.” EIr. Accessed January 2010. http://www .iranicaonline .org/ articles/ judicial - and - legal - systems - iv - judicial - system - from - the - advent - of - islam - through - the - 19th - century. ———. 2009b. “Judicial and Legal Systems in the Twentieth Century.” EIr 15 (2): 204– 15. Forughi, Mohammad Ali. 2010 (1937). “The History of Modernization of Law.” Trans. Manouchehr Kasheffi. Journal of Persianate Studies 3: 31– 45. Persian original reprinted in M. Bagherzadeh, ed. 2008 as “Hoquq dar Iran.” Maqalat- e Forughi. Tehran. Freeden, Michael. 1991. Rights. Buckingham, UK. Fukuyama, Francis. 2005. State- Building: Governance and World Order in the Twenty- First Cen- tury. London. ———. 2012. The Origins of Political Order: From Pre-Human Times to the French Revolution. London: Profile Books. Fuller, Lon. 1969. The Morality of Law. New Haven, CT. Gerber, Haim. 1994. Law, State and Society in Islam: Ottoman Law in Comparative Perspective. Albany, NY. Gheissari, Ali. 1998. Iranian Intellectuals in the Twentieth Century. Austin, TX. Gheissari, Ali, and Vali Nasr. 2006. Democracy in Iran: History and the Quest for Liberty. New York. ———. 2010. “Constitutional Rights and the Development of Civil Law in Iran, 1907– 1941.” In Martin and Chehabi, eds., The Iranian Constitutional Revolution: 69– 80. Giffel, Frank, and Abbas Amanat, eds. 2010. Shari‘a: Islamic Law in the Contemporary Context. Stanford, CA. Gilbar, G. 1997. “The Big Merchants in the Iranian Constitutional Revolution of 1906.” Asian and African Studies 11 (3): 275– 303. ———. 2008. “The Rise and Fall of the Tujjar Councils of Representatives in Iran, 1884–85.” Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 51: 655– 56. Ginsburg, Tom. 2000. “Does Law Matter for Economic Development? Evidence from East Asia.” Law and Society Review 34 (3): 829– 56. Ginsburg, Tom, and Tamir Moustafa. 2008. Rule by Law: The Politics of Courts in Authoritarian Regimes. New York. Gleave, Robert, ed. 2000. Inevitable Doubt: Two Theories of Shi‘i Jurisprudence. Leiden, Netherlands. Glenn, H. Patrick. 2000. Legal Traditions of the World. New York. References 241

Golsha’ian, Abbasqoli. 1963. Yaddashtha’i chand rajeh beh Marhum Davar. Vol. 11, Yaddashtha- ye Doktor Qasem Ghani. London. Golub, Stephen. 2006. “A House without a Foundation.” In Carothers, ed., Promoting the Rule of Law: 105– 37. Gozzi, Gustavo. 2007. “Rechstaat and Individual Rights in German Constitutional History.” In Pietro Costa and Danilo Zolo, eds., The Rule of Law: History, Theory and Criticism. Dordrecht, Netherlands. Guarnieri, Carlo. 2003. “Courts as Instruments of Horizontal Accountability.” In Maravall and Przeworski, eds., Democracy and the Rule of Law: 223– 41. Habermas, Jurgen. 2006. The Divided West. Cambridge. Habibi, Mariam. 2004. Interface France- Iran 1907– 1938: Une diplomatie voilée. Paris. Habibzadeh, Mohammad Jafar. 2006. “Nullum Crimen, Nulla Poena Sine Lege: With an Approach to the Iranian Legal System.” International Journal of Punishment and Sentencing 2 (1): 33– 45. Hakimian, Hamid. 1997. “Economy viii. In the Qajar Period.” EIr 8 (2) 138– 43. Hale, Christopher A. 2000. “The Civil Law Tradition and Constitutionalism in Twentieth Century Mexico: The Legacy of Emilio Rabassa.” Law and History Review 18 (2) Summer: 258– 95. Hallaq, Wael B. 2009. Shari‘a: Theory, Practice, Mutations. New York. Haugen, Gary, and Victor Boutros. 2010. “And Justice for All: Enforcing Human Rights Law for the World’s Poor.” Foreign Affairs, May– June. Heckman, James, Robert Nelson, and Lee Cabatingan, eds. 2009. Global Perspectives on the Rule of Law. London. Heern, Zackery, M. 2010. Shi‘i Law and Leadership: The Influence of Mortaza Ansari. Saar- brucken, Germany. Helmke, Gretchen, and Steven Levitsky, eds. 2006. Informal Institutions and Democracy: Lessons from Latin- America. Baltimore, MD. Herzig, Edmund. 2007. “The Commercial Law of the Julfa Armenians.” In Sushil Chaudhury and Keram Kevonian, eds., Les Armeniens dans le commerce asiatique au debut de l’ere mod- erne. Paris: 63– 81. Hilbink, Lisa. 2008. “Agents of Anti-Politics: Courts in Pinochet’s Chile.” In Ginsburg and Moustafa, eds., Rule by Law, 102– 32. Hirschl, Rad. 2004. Towards Juristocracy: The Origins and Consequences of the New Constitu- tionalism. Cambridge, MA. Hodgson, Marshall. 1974. The Venture of Islam. Chicago, IL. Holmes, Stephen. 1995. Passions and Constraints: On the Theory of Liberal Democracy. Chicago, IL. ———. 2003. “Lineages of the Rule of Law.” In Maravall and Przeworski, eds., Democracy and the Rule of Law: 19– 62. Hunt, Alan, and Gary Wickham. 1994. Foucault and Law: Towards A Sociology of Law as Governance. London. Imber, Colin. 1997. Ebu’s- su’ud: The Islamic Legal Tradition. Stanford, CA. ———. 2002. The Ottoman Empire. London. Inalcik, Halil. 1973. The Ottoman Empire: The Classical Age 1300– 1600. New York: Praeger. Inlow, Barry. 1970. “The Supreme Court of Iran.” Osgoode Hall Law Journal 8: 549– 57. Islamoglu, Huri, ed. 2004. Constituting Modernity: Private Property in the East and West. London. Issawi, Charles. 1983. “Iranian Trade 1800– 1914.” Iranian Studies 16 (3– 4): 229– 41. ———. 2006. The Economic History of the Middle East and North Africa, 1800–1914 . London. Jahanbakhsh, Forough. 1989. “Sayyid Hassan Mudarris (1870– 1938).” MA Thesis, McGill University. 242 References

Jamalzadeh, M. A. 1917. Ganj- e Shayegan ya Owza’- e Eqtesadi- ye Iran. Berlin. Jaysuriya, Kanishka. 1999a. “Introduction: A Framework for the Analysis of Legal Institutions in East Asia.” In Kanishka Jaysuriya, ed., Law, Capitalism and Power in Asia: The Rule of Law and Institutions. London: 1– 27. ———. 1999b. “Corporatism and Judicial Independence within Statist Legal Institutions in East Asia.” In Kanishka Jaysuriya, ed., Law, Capitalism and Power in Asia: The Rule of Law and Institutions. London: 173– 204. Kamali- taha, Manuchehr. 1973. Andisheh- ye qanunkhahi dar Iran sadeh nunzdah. Tehran. Kasravi, Ahmad. 1941. Zendegani- ye man va dah sal dar Adlieh. Tehran. Katouzian, Homa. 1990. Mossadeq and the Struggle for Power in Iran. London. ———. 1998. State and Society in Iran: From Constitution to the Rise of the Pahlavi State. London. ———. 2003. Iranian Politics and History. London. Keddie, Nikki. 1999. Qajar Iran and the Rise of Reza Khan 1796– 1925. Costa Mesa, CA. Khajenuri, Ebrahim. 1961. Bazigaran- e ‘asr- e tala’i. Tehran. Kia, Mehrdad. 1994. “Constitutionalism, Economic Modernization and Islam in the Writings of Yusef Khan Mostashar od- Dowleh.” Middle Eastern Studies 30 (4): 741– 77. Kleinfeld, Rachel. 2006. “Competing Definitions of the Rule of Law.” In Carothers, ed., Pro- moting the Rule of Law: 21– 75. Kuhestaninejad, Ma‘sud. 2001. Asnad-e dadgahha va hay’atha-ye monsefeh az enqelab-e mashrutiyat ta enqelab- e Eslami. Tehran. Kuran, Timar. 2009. “The Rule of Law in Islamic Thought and Practice: A Historical Perspec- tive.” In Heckman, Nelson, and Cabatingan, eds., Global Perspectives on the Rule of Law: 71– 90. Lahidji, Abdolkarim. 1989. “Constitutionalism and Clerical Authority.” In Arjomand, ed., Authority and Political Culture: 133– 58. Lambton, Ann K. S. 1953. Landlord and Peasant in Persia. London. ———. 1987. “The Persian ‘Ulama and Constitutional Reform.” In Ann K. S. Lambton, ed., Qajar Persia. London: 277– 300. ———. 1991. “Maতkama 3. Iran.” In Encyclopaedia of Islam. 2nd ed. 6: 11– 22. Lau, Martin. 2010. “Shari‘a and National Law in Pakistan.” In Jan Michiel Otto, ed., Shari‘a Incorporated: A Comparative Overview of the Legal Systems of Twelve Muslim Countries in Past and Present. Leiden: 373– 432. Lee, Ching Kwan. 2007. Against the Law: Labour Protests in China’s Rustbelt and Sunbelt. Berke- ley, CA. Lewis, Bernard. 1961. The Emergence of Modern Turkey. Oxford. Lieven, Anatole. 2011. Pakistan: A Hard Country. Harmandsworth. Madani, Sa’id. 2006. “The Evolution of Prisoners’ Rights from the Constitutional Revolution to the Present Day.” E’temad- e Melli. November 7. Madsen, Mikael R., and Dezalay, Yves. 2002. “The Power of the Legal Field.” In Banakar and Travers, eds., Law and Social Theory, 189– 204. Oxford: Hart. Mahdavi, Shireen. 1999. For God, Mammon, and Country. Boulder, CO. Majd, Mohammad Gholi. 2001. Great Britain and Reza Shah: The Plunder of Iran, 1921– 1941. Gainesville, FL. Makdisi, John A. 1999. “The Islamic Origins of the Common Law.” North Carolina Law Review 77 (5): 1635– 39. Maleki, Khalil. 1978. Khaterat- e siasi. Tehran. Mallat, Chibli. 2007. An Introduction to Middle Eastern Law. Oxford. Mamaqani, Asadollah. 1956. Din va shu’un va tarz- e hokumat dar madhab- e shi‘a. Tehran. References 243

Mann, Michael. 1986. “The Autonomous Power of the State: Its Origins, Mechanisms and Results.” In J. A. Hill, ed., States in History. London: 109– 36. Maravall, José Maria, and Adam Przeworski, eds. 2003. Democracy and the Rule of Law. New York. Mardin, Serif. 1994. “Religion and Secularism in Turkey.” In Albert Hourani, Phillip S. Khoury, and Mary Wilson, eds., The Modern Middle East: A Reader. Berkeley, CA: 347–75. Martin, Vanessa. 1989. Islam and Modernism: The Iranian Revolution of 1906. London. ———. 1993. “Constitutional Revolution II: Events.” EIr 6 (2): 176– 87. ———. 2003. “Mudarris, Republicanism and the Rise to Power of Riza Khan, Sardar Sipah.” In Cronin, ed., The Making of Modern Iran: 67– 80. ———. 2005. The Qajar Pact: Bargaining, Protest and State in Nineteenth-Century Persia. London. Martin, Vanessa, and Houchang Chehabi, eds. 2010. Centennial of the Iranian Constitutional Revolution. London. Matin- Daftari (Matine- Daftary), Ahmad. 1930. La suppression des capitulations en Perse. Paris. ———. 1945. A’in- e dadrasi- ye madani va bazargani. Tehran. ———. 1959. “Sayri dar towsehe-ye qanungozari dar Iran.” Lecture delivered at the Mehragan Club of the Teachers’ Union. Majalleh- ye Hoquqi 3, 4, 5, Khordad, Tir, and Mordad. ———. 1979: “Sarnevesht- e yek qarn- e talash barayeh ijad- e yek nezam- e qaza’i- ye mostaqel.” Majalleh- ye Jami‘at- e Hoquqdanan- e Iran 27 (November): 10– 23. ———. 1991. Khaterat- e Yek Nakhostvazir. Edited by Baqer Aqeli. Tehran. Mayer, Ann Elizabeth. 2007. Islam and Human Rights: Tradition and Politics. Boulder, CO. McLeod, Ian. 2003. Legal Theory. London. Messick, Brinkley. 1996. The Calligraphic State. Berkeley, CA. ———. 2003. “Property and the Private in a Shari‘a System.” Social Research 70 (3): 711– 34. Millspaugh, A. C. 1926. Mobarakian, Abbas. 1998. Chehrehha dar tarikhcheh- ye nezam- e amuzesh- e ‘ali- ye hoquq va ‘adlieh- ye novin. Tehran. Mohammadi, Ali Akbar- Khan. 1997. “Nazari beh gozareshha- ye sanduq- e ‘edalat dar ahd- e nasseri.” GA 27 and 28 (Autumn and Winter): 10– 19. Mohammadi, Majid. 2008. Judicial Reforms and Reorganization in 20th Century Iran: State- Building, Modernization and Islamization. New York. Moin, Baqer. 1999. Khomeini: Life of the Ayatollah. London. Mojtahedi, Mehdi. 1948. Rejal- e Azarbayjan dar ‘asr- e mashrutiyat. Tehran. Mokhber- al- Saltaneh Hedayat, Mehdi Qoli. 1965. Khaterat va khatarat. 2nd ed. Tehran. Mosavizadeh, J., ed. 2001. Mohakemeh: Reza Shah dar barabar- e tarikh. 2 vols. Tehran. Mosaddeq (Mossadegh), Mohammad. 1980. Mosaddeq va masa‘el- e hoquq va siasat. Tehran. ———. 1987. Khaterat va ta‘amollat. Edited by Iraj Afshar. Tehran; translated by S. H. Amin and H. Katouzian as Musaddiq’s Memoirs. London, 1988. ———. 1914. La Testemant dans le droit L’Islam suivant la conception Chiite. Paris; Persian translated as Madarek- e hoquq- e Islami va vasi‘at dar mazhab- e Shi‘i. 1923. Tehran. Mostashar al- Dawleh, Yusef Khan. 2007. Yak kalima. In A. A. Seyed- Gohrab and S. McGlinn, trans., The Essence of Modernity: A Study of Mirza Yusof Khan Mostashar ad- Dowla Tabrizi’s Treatise on Law (Yak Kalima). Amsterdam. Mostawfi, Abdollah. 1964. Shahr-e zendegani-ye man ya tarikh-e ejtema’i va edari-ye dawreh-ye Qajar. 3 vols. Tehran. Mottahedeh, Roy. 1985. The Mantle of the Prophet: Politics and Religion in Iran. New York. Motamed, Mahmud. 1946. Sepahsalar- e ‘azam. Tehran. Moustafa, Tamir. 2007. The Struggle for Constitutional Power: Law, Politics and Economic Devel- opment in Egypt. New York. 244 References

Mundy, Martha, and Richard Saumarez Smith. 2007. Governing Property, Making the Modern State: Law, Administration and Production in Ottoman Syria. London. Na’ini, Ahmad Reza. 2009a. “Naqsh-e Reza Khan dar tadvin-e qanun-e madani.” Payam-e Baharestan, Spring: 904–29. ———. 2009b. “Naqsh-e komisionha-ye qanun-e madani dar tanzim-e mavad-e in qanun.” Payam- e Baharestan, Autumn: 324– 52. Najmabadi, Afsaneh. 1987. Land Reform and Social Change in Iran. Cambridge, MA. ———. 1998. The Story of the Daughters of Quchan: Gender and National Memory in Iranian History. Syracuse, NY. Nashat, Guity. 1982. The Origins of Modern Reform in Iran, 1870– 1880. Urbana, IL. Nateq, Homa. 1993. Bazarganan dar dad va setad ba Bank- e Shahi va Regi- ye Tanbaku. Paris. Nazem al- Islam Kermani. 1978. Tarikh- e bidari- ye Iranian. Tehran. Nobuaki, Kondo, ed. 2003. Persian Documents: Social History of Iran and Turan in the Fifteenth and Nineteenth Centuries. London. ———. 2003. “The Vaqf of Ustad Abbas—Rewrites of the Deeds in Qajar Iran.” In Kondo Nobuaki, ed., Persian Documents: 106– 28. Nouraei, Morteza. 2009. “Kargozar.” EIr 15 (5): 558– 60. Novak, William. 2000. “Law, Capitalism and the Liberal State: The Historical Sociology of James Willard Hurst.” Law and History Review 18 (1): 97– 145. Olin Wright, Erik. 2010. Envisioning Real Utopias. London. Orts, Eric W. 2000. “The Rule of Law in China.” Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law 33 (January). SSRN. Accessed July 2004. http://ssrn.com/abstract=260070. Parvin, Nassereddin. 2002. “Habl al- Matin.” EIr 11 (4): 431– 34. ———. 2006. “Iran Newspapers.” EIr 13 (5): 480– 83. Peletz, Michael. 2002. Islamic Modern: Religious Courts and Cultural Politics in Malaysia. Princ- eton, NJ. Peters, Rudolph. 2008. Crime and Punishment in Islamic Law. Cambridge. Pierson, Paul, and Theda Skocpol. 2002. “Historical Institutionalism in Contemporary Politi- cal Science.” In Ira Katznelson and Helen V. Milner, eds., Political Science: State of the Discipline. New York: 693– 721. Plant, Robert. 2012. The Neo-liberal State. Oxford. Poggi, Gianfranco. 1978. The Development of the Modern State: A Sociological Introduction. London. Polanyi, Karl. 2001. The Great Transformation: The Political and Economic Origins of our Time. Boston, MA. Political Studies and Research Institute. 2006. “Peydayesh-e Nazmieh dar Iran.” Dowran 1. March 21, 2006. Accessed October 2008. http:// www .dowran .ir/ show .php?id =37084080. Power, Richard W. 1975. “Some Comments on Law Related Problems in Iran.” Saint Louis University Law Journal 19: 277– 92. Rejali, Dariush. 1994. Torture and Modernity: Self, Society and State in Modern Iran. Westview, CO. Rezai, Hassan. 2002. “The Iranian Criminal Justice under the Islamization Project.” European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law and Criminal Justice 10 (1): 54– 69. Rezun, Miron. 1980. “Reza Shah’s Court Minister: Taymurtash.” IJMES 12: 119– 37. ———. 1981. The Soviet Union and Iran. Boulder, CO. Ringer, Monica. 2001. Education, Religion, and the Discourse of Cultural Reform in Qajar Iran. Costa Mesa, CA. Root, Hilton, and Karen May. 2008. “Judicial Systems and Economic Development.” In Gins- burg and Moustafa, eds., Rule by Law: 304– 325. Rosen, Lawrence. 2000. The Justice of Islam. New York. References 245

———. 2006. Law as Culture. Princeton, NJ. Rostam-Kolayi, Jasamin. 2003. “Expanding Agendas for the ‘New’ Iranian Woman.” In Cro- nin, ed., The Making of Modern Iran: 164– 89. Rusta’i, Mohsen. 1996. “Vazhegan- e ‘adlieh: mosavvab- e Farhangestan- e Iran, 1314– 1320.” GA 22 (Spring and Summer): 11– 19. Rutherford, Bruce. 2009. Egypt after Mubarak: Liberalism, Islam and Democracy in the Arab World. Princeton, NJ. Sa‘dat al- Hosayni, Maryam. 1991. “Zendan va zendani dar Iran.” GA (Autumn and Winter). Sadeghi Sajjadi, Mehran. n.d. “Dawrehha- ye hay’at- e modireh- ye Kanun- e Vokala- ye Dadgostari- ye Markazi.” Bar Association Union. Accessed January 2010. http:// www .iranbar .org/ pt127 .php. Sadr, Mohsen (Sadr al- Ashraf). 1985. Khaterat- e Sadr al- Ashraf. Tehran. ———. n.d. “Tarikhcheh-ye dadgostari-ye Iran.” In Majalleh- ye Hoquqi- e Vezarat- e Dadgostari. Sadr al-Ashrafi, Z. 2003. “Khatereh’i dar bareh-ye zendeh-yad Sayyed Ahmad Kasravi Tabrizi.” Darang 11 (March– April). Safa’i, Ebrahim. 2004. Duktur Ahmad Matin- Daftari. Tehran. Sa‘idi Sirjani, Ali Akbar. 1992. “Constitutional Revolution, vi. The Press.” EIr 6 (2): 202– 12. Sait, Siraj, and Hilary Lim. 2006. Land, Law and Islam. London. Schayegh, Cyrus. 2005. “Serial Murder in Tehran: Crime, Science, and the Formation of Mod- ern State and Society in Interwar Iran.” Comparative Studies in Society and History 47 (4): 836– 62. Schmeidl, Susanne. 2011. “Engaging Traditional Justice Mechanisms in Afghanistan: State Building Opportunity or Dangerous Liason?” In Whit Mason, ed., The Rule of Law in Afghanistan: Missing in Inaction. Cambridge: 149– 71. Schneider, Irene. 2005. “Religious and State Jurisdiction during Nasir al-Din Shah’s Reign.” In Robert Gleave, ed., Religion and Society in Qajar Iran. London: 84– 109. Sedghi, Hamideh. 2007. Women and Politics in Iran: Veiling, Unveiling and Reveiling. Cambridge. Seyed-Ghorab, Ali Asghar, and Sen R. M. McGlinn. 2007. The Essence of Modernity: Mirza Yusuf Khan Mustashar ad- Dowla Tabrizi’s Treatise on Codified Law (Yek Kalama). West Lafayette, IN. Shahsavarani, H. 2004. “Yadi az payehgozaran- e Sazman- e Sabt- e Asnad va Amlak- e Iran va Sardaftaran- e Asnad- e Rasmi.” Mahnameh- ye Kanun, Shahrivar and Mehr, 191– 200. Shambayati, Hootan. 2008. “Courts in Semi-Democratic/Authoritarian Regimes: The Judi- cialization of Turkish (and Iranian) Politics.” In Ginsburg and Moustafa, eds., Rule by Law: 283– 303. Shapiro, Martin. 2008. “Courts in Authoritarian Regimes.” In Ginsburg and Moustafa, eds., Rule by Law: 326– 336. Sharif-Kashani, M. M. 1983. Vaqe‘at-e ettefaqiyeh dar ruzegar. Edited by M. Ettehadieh and S. Sa‘dvandian. Tehran. Shayegan, Ali. 1996 (1941). Hoquq- e madani. Tehran. Sheikholeslami, Reza. 1971. “The Sale of Offices in Qajar Iran.” Iranian Studies 4: 104– 18. ———.1997. The Structure of Authority in Qajar Iran, 1871– 1906. Atlanta, GA. Silverstein, Gordon. 2008. “Singapore: The Exception That Proves Rules Matter.” In Ginsburg and Moustafa, eds., Rule by Law: 73– 101. Skocpol, Theda. 1984. Vision and Method in Historical Sociology. Cambridge, MA. Sohrabi, Nader. 1999. “Revolution and State Culture: The Circle of Justice and Constitution- alism in Iran.” In George Steinmetz, ed., State/Culture: State- Formation after the Cultural Turn. Ithaca, NY: 253– 85. ———. 2011. Revolution and Constitutionalism in the Ottoman Empire and Iran. New York. Steiner, Eva. 2002. French Legal Method. Oxford. 246 References

Steinmo, Sven. 2009. “Historical Institutionalism.” In Della Porta Donatella and Michael Keating, eds, Approaches and Methodologies in the Social Sciences: A Pluralist Perspective. Cambridge: 118– 38. Stephenson, Matthew. 2006. “A Trojan Horse in China.” In Carothers, ed., Promoting the Rule of Law: 191– 217. Tadayyonpur, Mansureh, ed. 1995–1999. Asnad- e rawhaniat va majles. 4 vols. Tehran. Tafreshi, Majid. 1991. “Madarres-e ‘ali-ye hoquqi va ‘olum-e siasi dar Iran az ebteda ta ta‘sis-e daneshgah- e Tehran.” GA 1 (Spring): 29– 53. Tamanaha, Brian. 2004. The Rule of Law: History, Politics, Theory. Cambridge. Taqizadeh, Sayyed Hasan. 1989. Zendegi-ye tufani, Khaterat-e Sayyed Hasan Taqizadeh. Edited by I. Afshar. Tehran. Tavakoli-Targhi, Mohammad. 2001. Refashioning Iran: Orientalism, Occidentalism and Histo- riography. New York. Tayarani, Behruz. 2003. Mohakemat- e siasi dar Iran. Tehran. Taylor, Charles. 2007. A Secular Age. Cambridge MA. Tehrani (Katuzian), Mohammad Ali. 2000. Moshahedat va tahlil-e ejtema’i va siasi az tarikh-e enqelab- e mashrutiyat- e Iran. Tehran. Thompson, Edward. P. 1975. Whigs and Hunters: The Origins of the Black Act. New York. Torabi- Farsani, Sohayla. 2005. Tojjar, mashrutiyat va dawlat- e modern. Tehran. ———. 2010. “Merchants, Their Class Identification Process, and Constitutionalism.” In Martin and Chehabi, eds., The Iranian Constitutional Revolution: 117– 31. Tsadik, Daniel. 2003. “The Legal Status of Religious Minorities: Imami Shi‘i Law and Iran’s Constitutional Revolution.” Islamic Law and Society 10 (3). United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. 2007. “Drug and Crime Situation in Iran.” Vahdat, Farzin. 2002. God and Juggernaut: Iran’s Intellectual Encounter with Modernity. Syra- cuse, NY. Vojdani, Mirza Mohammad Reza Khan. n.d. “Osul-e mohakemat-e jaza’i.” In Dorus- e Kelas- e Qaza’i. Tehran. Walcher, Heidi A. 2008. In the Shadow of the King: Zill al-Sultan and Isfahan under the Qajars. London. Weinghast, Barry. 2009. “Why Developing Countries Prove So Resistant to the Rule of Law.” In Heckman, Nelson, and Cabatingan, eds., Global Perspectives on the Rule of Law: 28– 53. Werner, Christophe. 2000. An Iranian Town in Transition: A Social and Economic History of the Elites of Tabriz, 1747– 1848. Wiesbaden. ———. 2003. “Formal Aspects of Qajar Deeds of Sale.” In Nobuaki, Persian Documents: 13– 49. Yeganeh, Naser. 1991. “The Civil Code.” EIr 5 (6): 648– 50. Yekta’i, Majid. 1973. Tarikh- e dara’i- ye Iran. Tehran. Zakaria, Fareed. 1997. “The Rise of Illiberal Democracy.” Foreign Affairs (November): 22– 43. Zaman, Muhammad Qasim. 2002. The Ulama in Contemporary Islam: Custodians of Change. Princeton, NJ. Zarini, Hosayn. 2006. “Rad- e pa- ye mashruteh dar bayegani- ye raked- e qoveh- ye qaza’ieh.” Tarikh- e mo‘asser- e Iran 38 (Summer): 157– 74. ———. 2008. “Ray- e Divan ‘Ali- ye Tamiz dar bareh- ye qatl- e Mirzadeh Eshqi.” GA 71 (Autumn): 43–58. Zibakalam, Sadeq. 1378. Sonnat va Modernism. Tehran. Zirinsky, Michael. 1992. “Imperial Power and Dictatorship: Britain and Rise of Reza Shah, 1921– 1926.” IJMES 24: 639– 63. ———. 2003. “Reza Shah’s Abrogation of the Capitulations.” In Cronin, ed., The Making of Modern Iran: 81– 99. References 247

Zoka, Yahya. n.d. “Asef al- Dawleh, Mirza Saleh Khan.” Darat al- Mo’aref- e Bozorg Islami. Accessed February 2008. http:// www .cgie .org .ir/ shavad .asp?id =130&avaid =248. Zubaida, Sami. 2003. Law and Power in the Islamic World. London. ———. 2009. “Political Modernity.” In Mohammad Khaled Masud, Armando Salvatore, and Martin Van Bruinessen, eds. Islam and Modernity: Key Issues and Debates. Edinburgh: 57– 90. Index

Abdoh, Jalal, 117– 18, 140, 170, 176 Anjoman of Guilds, 67– 68 Abdoh Borujerdi, Shaykh Mohammad, 95, Ansari, Shaykh Mortaza, 26, 29, 136 136, 221n15 Anvar, Sayyed Ya‘qub, 99, 103, 109, 121 Abrahamian, Ervand, 3, 163 Aqayan, Alexander, 172 Adamiyat, Feraydun, 40, 41 Aqeli, Bagher, 125, 130 Adamiyat society, 68 ‘aql (reason), 27 ‘adl, ‘adala. See justice Arani, Taqi, 172– 73, 176, 190 Adl, Mostafa (Mansur al- Saltaneh), 77, 95, Araqi, Hajji Mohsen, 94, 153 99, 109, 165, 169, 184 Arbab Jamshid, 140 Afary, Janet, 63 arbitration, 37, 47, 96, 125, 140– 41, 156, Afghani, al- . See Asadabadi, Jamal al- Din 178, 181, 189 Afjeh’i, Sayyed Mohammad Reza, 112, 136 Ardaqi, Qazi, 69–70, 76, 213n104 Afshari, Mohammad Reza, 57 Aristotle, 18 Afshar- Yazdi, Mahmud, 168 Asadabadi, Jamal al- Din, 50 Agabekov, Georges, 169 As‘adi, Mohammad Vali, 169, 176 Aghababoff, Rafael, 20, 150, 157 Asef al- Dawleh, 72– 73, 74 Akhbari school, 26 Ashraf, Ahmad, 61 Akhtar, 55 Ashtiani, Mirza Ja‘far, 94 Alamuti, Nur al- Din, 178– 79 Assar, Sayyed Kazem, 136 Alavi, Bozorg, 173 Austria, 42, 52, 162 Al- e Davud, Sayyed Ali, 32 Ayn al- Dawleh, 61 Algar, Hamed, 25 Ayrom, General Mohammad Hosayn, 163, Aliabadi, Issa, 95, 136 169 Amanat, Abbas, 30, 39, 46, 191 Azarbayjan, 97, 98, 130 Ameri, Javad, 95, 116 Azod al- Molk, 59, 75, 77, 80 Amidi Nuri, Abu’l Hasan, 155, 164, 172, 177 Amin, Sayyed Hasan, 3, 141, 181 Babis, 26, 37, 45, 67 Amin al- Dawleh, 60 Badr, Naser al- Dawleh, 102 Amin al- Soltan, 58 Bagh- e Shah, 71 Amin al- Zarb, Mohammad Hasan, 37, 63, 67 Bakhash, Shaul, 41– 42 Amin al- Zarb, Mohammad Hosayn, 139 Bakhtiari tribe, 150, 154 Amini, Ali, 179 Bar Association, 133– 34, 178, 188 Amir- Ala’i, Shams al- Din, 177 Barros, Robert, 38 Amir Kabir, 25, 39– 40, 51 Bayat, Kaveh, 121 Anjoman- e Sa‘adat, 50 Bayat, Mangol, 59, 83 250 Index

Bayle, Pierre, 186 constitutionalism, 7, 11, 15, 16, 50, 55, 57, Behbahani, Sayyed Abdollah, 58, 60, 61, 63, 58, 61, 73, 76, 79, 80, 81, 114, 116, 66– 67, 68– 69, 85– 86, 94 172, 178, 185 Behbahani, Sayyed Ahmad, 121 constitutional movement, 1, 12, 13, 18, 49, Behbahani, Sayyed Ali, 94, 124 50, 51– 60; demands of, 60– 62. See Behruz, Mostafa, 102 also bureaucrats and statesmen; clerics; Belgium/Belgians, 55, 62, 64, 65, 97, 129, intellectuals; merchants 136 Constitutional Revolution, 1, 12, 19, 20, Bentham, Jeremy, 13 27, 28, 29, 42, 48, 49– 51, 93; law Berman, Harold, 4, 13 and, 51– 60, 64– 66, 67– 72, 72– 79, Bombay, 41, 55 146, 158, 165, 172, 177, 183, 184– 85, Borujerd, 73 190– 91 Borujerdi, Asghar Qatel, 160 Coulson, Noel J., 28 Borujerdi, Shaykh Mohammad Abdoh. See Council of Merchant Representatives, 37– Abdoh Borujerdi, Shaykh Mohammad 38, 55, 56 Brown, Nathan, 3, 7, 146 Court of Cassation. See Supreme Court/ bureaucrats and statesmen (reformist), 38– Court of Cassation 42, 50, 51– 52, 54, 56, 60, 62– 63, 66, criminal law. See penal law 68, 100 Cronin, Stephanie, 3, 154, 168 Burgess, Edward, 33 Curzon, Lord George Nathaniel, 34, 113 customary law (‘orf), 4, 6, 20, 25, 30, 33, 37, Calcutta, 55 38– 40, 43, 47, 53, 54, 57– 58, 67, 72, capitalism, 8, 117, 185 79, 106; status of (in Shi‘i legal theory), capitulations, 8, 20, 105– 6, 115, 116, 118, 28–29, 80. See also jurisdictions; mazalem 119, 123– 24, 141, 142, 149, 163, 167, courts; merchants: merchants’ law 168, 183, 184, 186, 187 Chile, 15, 170, 181 Dadgar, Hosayn (Adl al- Molk), 71 China, 14; legal rights discourse in, 15– 16; Dahlen, Ashk, 117 legal system during Qing dynasty, 47; Damghani, Ahmad Mahdawi, 128 under Mao, 17 Dar al- Fonun, 51, 119 civil code, 94, 105, 118, 122, 128, 134– 39 Dargahi, Colonel Mohammad, 163– 64 civil procedure code (Qanun- e osul-e Dashti, Ali, 155 mohakemat- e hoquqi, 1911), 88, 89, Davar, Ali Akbar, 3, 4, 20, 60, 72, 96, 99, 90, 91, 96, 121, 125, 130; (Qanun- e 102; biography and outlook, 118, 119– a’in- e dadrasi- ye madani, 1939), 125 21; dissolution of judiciary, 121– 25 clerics (ulama): in nineteenth century, passim; and independence of judiciary, 25– 26, 28– 29, 30– 33, 38– 39, 46– 47, 167– 68; as reforming minister of 183; in Constitutional Revolution, justice, 110– 16 passim, 121– 36 passim, 50, 57– 60, 60– 62, 63, 66– 69, 77, 80; 141– 43, 146, 149– 51 passim, 152, 1910– 1924, 85– 88, 89, 90– 91, 92– 93, 153, 155, 163, 164, 171, 177, 178, 94– 95, 96– 97, 99– 100, 103– 4, 106– 7, 183– 87 passim; secularization agenda, 108– 9, 110– 11, 132, 135– 36; under 122, 124, 125– 26, 129– 30, 167 Reza Shah, 121, 124, 126, 127, 128– Democrat Party, 71– 72, 77, 83, 85, 86, 92, 30, 143, 149. See also jurisdictions; 93, 94, 95, 96, 103, 119, 147 mojtaheds; shari‘a courts de Monteforte, Count, 42, 208n137 Comte, Auguste, 52 Demorgny, Gustave, 94, 148 constitution (1906– 1907), 15, 57, 62– 64, de Reuter, Baron Julius, 42 70, 71, 74, 77, 79– 80, 85, 90, 104, Descartes, 5 133, 142, 148, 165, 168, 184, 185; Diba, Abdol Hosayn, 169, 170, 171, 176 judicial clauses, 64– 66 Dworkin, Ronald, 8, 9 Index 251

Ebadi, Shirin, 180, 181 Gilbar, Gad, 38 ‘edalatkhaneh (house of justice), 1, 12, 48, Ginsburg, Tom, 3 60– 62, 67, 79, 80– 81, 165, 181 Golsha’ian, Abbasqoli, 116, 122, 124, 150 Egypt, 7, 8, 49, 95, 137, 146, 156, 181, 190 Great Britain, 7, 9, 20, 36, 40, 42, 50, 51, Ehtesham al- Saltaneh, 67, 73 52, 58, 60, 61, 62, 84, 99, 102, 111, Engel, David, 20 113, 119, 139, 141, 145, 149, 150, England. See Great Britain 154, 162, 167, 189; and capitulations, Eravani, Shaykh Mohammad Reza, 136 118, 149; legal system of, 5, 7, 13, 23 Esfahan, 32, 38, 50, 87, 95, 97, 130 Guarnieri, Carlos, 182 Esfahani, Abolhasan, 86 Esfahani, Aqa Jamal, 87, 96, 108 Habl al- Matin, 55, 56, 77 Esfahani, Aqa Najafi, 87 Ha’eri, Sayyed Ali, 86 Esfahani, Jamal al- Din, 56 Ha’erizadeh, Sayyed Abolhasan, 126 Esfahani, Shaykh al- Islam, 103, 108 Ha’im, Samuel, 168– 69 Ettehadieh- ye Tojjar, 139 Hall, Jerome, 4 examination laws, examinations (for judges), Hallaq, Wael B., 137 92– 93, 99, 100, 102– 5, 121, 124, 126, Halm, Heinz, 31 127 Hamadan, 32, 97, 131, 154 Hart, H. L. A., 13 Farmanfarma, Abdol Hosayn Mirza, 67, 69, Hay’at, Ali, 177 70, 72, 73, 74, 85 Hay’at- e Modireh (Directoire), 50, 71 Farrokhi Yazdi, Mohammad, 170, 176 Hayek, Friedrich, 5– 6 Fars, 97, 98, 130 Hedayati, Mohammad Ali, 178– 79 Fatemi Qomi, Sayyed Mohammad, 95, 102, Helli, Abdol Karim, 102– 3, 104, 136 132, 135– 36 Herzig, Edmund, 19 feqh, 28, 63, 93, 95, 96, 99, 100, 102, 103, Hilbink, Lisa, 181 117, 118, 122, 147, 191; in civil code, Holmes, Stephen, 16, 186 132, 135, 137, 138, 139 Hosayni, Mir Abd al- Fatah, 29 First World War, 60, 84, 94, 114, 120, 121, 128, 139, 162 Firuzkuhi, Shaykh Ali Baba, 102, 131, 136 Imam Jom‘eh Kho’i, 86, 94 Floor, Willem, 3, 37 Imperial Bank of Persia, 55, 84 Forughi, Mohammad Ali (Zokat al- Molk), imperialism (influence on legal reform), 7–8, 89, 91, 100, 101, 102, 105, 110, 114, 12, 184, 185, 186. See also capitulations 116, 120, 133, 135, 136, 184, 186; Indonesia, 14 biography, 95; minister of justice, intellectuals, 2, 10, 41, 48, 50, 51– 54, 56, 94, 95, 106– 7; president of Court of 63, 114, 120 Cassation, 95, 132 Iran- e Naw, 119 France, 36, 41, 52, 95, 121; legal system, Isfahan. See Esfahan 14– 15; as model of legal reform, 1, 7, Islamieh company, 56 23, 54, 91, 102, 107, 109, 120, 126, Istanbul, 41, 55, 59, 67 129, 130, 131, 132, 136, 137, 140, Italy, 160, 167, 182 142, 150, 157, 167, 182; professors/ advisors from, 94, 101, 102, 148, 166 Ja‘far al- Sadeq, Imam, 27, 60, 137 Fukuyama, Francis, 6 Japan, 8, 15 Javan, Mohammad, 59 Garakani, Shams al- Ulama, 95, 132 Jayasuriya, Kanishka, 13 Ghazali, Abu Hamid al- , 25 Jellinek, Georg, 13 Gheissari, Ali, 13, 115 judiciary, state (Adlieh): concept of a secular Gilan, 97 judiciary, 104, 108, 190; 252 Index judiciary, state (continued ) in discourse Khomeini, Ayatollah Ruhollah, 29, 191 of constitutionalism, 1, 18, 29, Khorasan, 71, 72, 73, 85, 97, 98, 101, 130, 51, 52, 53, 56, 58, 61– 62, 68, 69; 158, 159 independence of, 8, 65, 110, 164, Khorasani, Akhund Mohammad Kazem, 58, 166, 167, 168, 172, 175– 76, 177, 59, 63, 87 179, 186, 187, 188; “judiciary law,” Khorasani, Soltan al- Ulama, 77 66– 69, 70, 86; in nineteenth century, Kianpur, Gholam Reza, 180– 81 33– 34, 39, 40, 41– 43, 44, 45– 46; after Kianuri, Shaykh Mehdi, 72, 94 1907– 1911 Constitutional Revolution, Kianuri, Zia al- Din, 126 64– 65, 69– 70, 71– 72, 72– 73, 74– 76, Kulayni, Mohammad b. Ya‘qub, 27 77– 79; after 1911, 19, 20, 51, 90, Kuran, Timur, 11 92– 93, 94, 95, 96, 97– 99, 101, 103, 110– 11, 147, 165, 166; after 1927, 3, Lambton, Ann K. S., 35, 37, 38– 39, 152, 154 12, 20, 60, 111, 114, 118, 121– 22, law enforcement. See police; prisons; 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 129– 33, 142, punishments 151, 157, 163, 166, 167; relations with lawyers, 31, 118, 133– 34, 135, 146, 149, the executive, 14, 164, 165, 170, 171, 157, 160– 61, 172, 176, 177, 178, 180, 173, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 186, 181, 188 187. See also examination laws Lee, Ching Kwan, 15– 16 judiciary (Adlieh) commission of parliament, legality, 2, 4, 5; etatiste conception of, 12–13, 19, 67, 69, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 95, 16, 53, 113, 121, 128, 138, 166, 183, 103– 4, 106, 107, 125, 133 185, 186, 187; liberal conception of, jurisdictions, ‘orf (state) and shar‘ (religious), 7– 12, 53, 128, 138, 166, 183, 185, 186 25, 30– 35, 38– 39, 42, 64– 69, 80, 89, legal positivism, 4, 12–14, 116, 117, 182, 90– 91, 96– 97, 105, 106, 107, 108– 9, 186, 201n15 111, 117, 119, 122, 129– 30, 141, 143, Locke, John, 22, 186 158– 59, 183, 190– 91 Lombroso, Cesare, 120, 160 justice: circle of justice, 24, 25, 46; Lotfi, Shaykh Abdolali, 59, 172, 177, 231n136 conflicting perceptions of, 1, 10, 11, 12; Islamic conception of, 10, 11, 12, 24. Mahallati, Shaykh Asadollah, 103, 191 See also ‘edalatkhaneh (house of justice) Maitland, Frederick William, 6, 12 Majalleh- ye ‘Elmi, 116 Kant, Immanuel, 8 Majalleh- ye Rasmi- ye Vezarat- e ‘Adlieh Kashan, 40 (Official Gazette of the Ministry of Kashani, Sayyed Hasan, 78 Justice), 150, 151, 152, 158, 159 Kashani, Shaykh Mohammad Ali, 136 Majles. See parliament Kasravi, Ahmad, 20, 96, 97, 99– 100, 126, Majles (newspaper), 19, 93 132, 146, 148– 49, 150– 51, 152– 53, Majlesi, Mohammad Baqer, 12 155, 166, 172, 176; biography, 203n113 Majmu‘eh- ye Hoquqi, 127, 132 Katouzian, Homa, 43, 51 Malcom, Sir John, 30– 31, 33 Kaveh, 120 Malek al- Motakallemin, 70 Kelsen, Hans, 13, 80 Malek al- Tojjar, Haj Kazem Aqa Malek, 56, 57 Kermani, Aqa Khan, 52, 55 Maleki, Mehdi, 160 Kermani, Majd al- Islam, 72, 76 Maleki, Reza, 176 Kermani, Mirza Reza, 50 Malkam Khan, 2, 10, 41, 51, 52– 54, 55, 58, Kermani, Nazem al- Islam, 61 60, 76, 79, 81, 184, 185, 186 Khalatbari, Arsalan, 176 Mallat, Chibli, 160 Khalkhali, Qasem, 132 Mamaqani, Shaykh Asadollah, 59– 60 Kharaqani, Nur al- Din, 77 Mann, Michael, 46 Kha‘zal, Shaykh, 161 Mansur, Ali, 169 Index 253

Maraghe’i, Zayn al- Abedin, 52 on Davar’s 1927 dissolution, 122– Mard- e Azad, 120– 21 23; judicial reform under, 177– 78; marriage registration, 129, 189 and secular penal code, 105– 6, 109; Martin, Vanessa, 24, 58, 61 writings on law, 116– 17, 118 Marx, Karl, 5, 51, 172 Mosavat, Mohammad Reza, 71, 119 Matin- Daftari (Matine Daftary), Ahmad, 7, Moshar al- Saltaneh, 92 20, 109, 116, 117– 18, 132, 140, 150, Moshaver al- Molk, 62, 69 186; biography, 204n115; as minister Moshir al- Dowleh, Mirza Hasan Khan of justice, 125, 126– 27, 128, 129, 134, (Pirnia), 4, 20, 49, 71, 72, 83, 85, 153, 170– 71, 172 95, 97, 98, 99, 110, 111, 119, Mayer, Ann Elizabeth, 11 184; biography, 87; and 1911 first mazalem courts, 12, 32, 33, 42– 43, 45, 62, dissolution of the judiciary, 92– 94, 70, 80, 173 121; and 1911– 1912 procedural Mazandaran, 103 codes, 86– 87, 88, 89, 91; and 1922 Mazandarani, Abdollah, 58, 63, 66 retrenchment policy, 99, 100, 102– 3, Mecelle, 44, 136, 137 104, 121; and School of Law, 101, 102; merchants, 45– 46, 48, 62, 70, 71, 78, 114, and secular penal code, 106, 108– 9 138, 139, 140, 141, 152, 154, 156; in Mostashar al- Dawleh, Mirza Yusef Khan, 2, constitutional movement, 47, 50, 51, 10, 41, 52, 54– 55, 79, 184 61; and legal reform, 10, 15, 31, 55– Mostashar al- Dawleh Sadeq, 62, 68, 81– 82 57, 184; merchants’ law, 28, 36– 38 Mostawfi, Abdollah (Mostawfi al- Mamalek), military code, military courts,162, 163, 97, 109 168–69, 170, 175–77, 178, 187, 188, Mo’tamen al- Molk, Mirza Hosayn (Pirnia), 230n116 87, 102 Millspaugh, Arthur, 114, 115, 123, 162 Moustafa, Tamir, 3, 156 Mirza Javad Mojtahed, 38, 45 Mozaffar al- Din Shah, 47, 50, 62, 135 Mo’ayyed al- Mamalek, 70 Mundy, Martha, 154– 55 Modarres, Sayyed Hasan, 86, 96, 100, 106, Muslim Brotherhood, 10 121, 130; background and outlook, 87– 88; imprisonment and murder, 161, 170, 176; role in legal reform, 88– Na’ini, Mirza Reza Khan, 91, 95– 96 89, 91, 92, 103– 4, 105, 107, 108, 109, Na’ini, Mohammad Hosayn, 58– 59 111, 128– 29, 190– 91 Najaf, 26, 32, 59, 63, 85, 86, 191 Mohakemat, 19, 69, 72– 73, 75– 77, 158 Najmabadi, Afsaneh, 73, 74, 88, 156 Mohaqqeq al- Dawleh, 62 Nariman, Mahmud, 177 mojtaheds, 26, 27– 28, 29, 30, 31– 32, 40, Naser al- Molk, 78, 84 41, 45, 47, 52, 60– 61, 63, 64, 68, 69, natural law tradition, 4, 8, 13, 201n15 74, 75, 76, 88, 90, 91, 93, 94– 95, 96, Nayyeb Hosayn Kashi, 71 97, 99, 100, 104, 106, 107, 110, 111, Nayyer al- Molk, 171 116– 17, 124, 128, 129– 30, 135, 138, Nazmieh. See police 142, 143, 190. See also clerics; shari‘a Nobuaki, Kondo, 31– 32 courts; Shi‘ism Nosrat al-Dawleh (Firuz), 95, 114, 161, 169, Mokhber al- Molk, 62 171, 176, 184, 185; minister of justice, Mokhber al- Saltaneh (Hedayat), 68, 69, 70, 171 101; and Qanun- e Jaza’i- ye ‘Orfi, 107 Mokhtar, General Rokn al- Din, 163, 169, Nuri, Aqa Khan, 40 170, 171, 176 Nuri, Shaykh Fazlollah, 50, 57– 58, 63, 80, Momtaz al- Dawleh, 67 87, 88, 94, 126 Montesquieu, 8, 11, 23, 186 Mosaddeq (Mossadegh), Mohammad, 8, Omumi company, 56– 57 119, 134; on capitulations, 105– 6; Osuli school, 26, 27, 29, 39 254 Index

Ottoman Empire, 2, 10, 19, 20, 23, 24, 25, Puyan, Sayyed Abdolrasul, 59 33, 36, 43– 46, 47, 49, 51, 52, 53, 61, 62, 67, 107, 119, 136, 137, 154, 189 Qajar, Ahmad Shah, 50, 166 Qajar, Fath Ali Shah, 24, 32, 39 Pahlavi, Mohammad Reza Shah, 155, 175, Qajar, Mohammad Ali Shah, 69, 70, 71, 72, 179, 181– 82, 188 77, 83 Pahlavi, Reza Shah, 3, 4, 14, 20, 84, 87, Qajar, Mohammad Shah, 39 98, 109, 121, 142, 162, 166, 185, Qajar, Naser al- Din Shah, 23, 25, 34, 39, 187; accumulation of land, 155– 56; 42, 45, 50, 68, 69 and state building, 113– 16; support Qajar dynasty, 8, 24– 25, 26, 30, 31, 32, 37, for legal reform, 118, 122, 124, 183; 39, 42, 46, 49– 50, 62, 70, 77, 115, tyranny of, 161, 168– 73, 175– 76, 187 183, 185, 187 Pahlavi Endowment, 156 Qanun (newspaper), 52, 53, 55 parliament (Majles): first (October 7, 1906– qanunnamehs, 2, 44 June 23, 1908), 50, 55– 56, 62– 69, Qaragozlu, Baha’ al- Din, 176 70– 71, 76; second (November 15, Qavam al- Saltaneh (Ahmad Qavam), 96– 97, 1909– December 24, 1911), 3, 15, 50, 108, 114 51, 71, 83– 86, 87– 91 passim; third Qom, 26, 60, 124, 159 (December 6, 1914– December 14, Qomi, Mirza Zayn al- Abedin, 86 1915), 97, 106– 7; fourth (June 21, 1921– June 20, 1923), 98, 99, 103– 5, Radical Party, 120 107, 108– 9, 120; fifth (February 11, Rasa, Baqer, 59 1924– February 10, 1926), 109, 119; Rasulzadeh Enqelabi, 77 sixth (July 11, 1926– August 13, 1928), rights, 18, 54, 81, 138, 186, 188, 190; due 121– 24 process rights, 18, 79, 81, 91, 105, penal law, 42, 44, 51, 67, 81, 88, 89, 122, 156– 61, 179, 180; equality before 91, 105, 106– 7, 111, 142; and the law, 11– 12, 54, 58, 61, 63, 74– 75, capitulations, 105– 6, 116, 119; 79, 80, 85, 138, 147; property rights, Islamic, 206n70; Qanun- e Jaza’i- ye 7, 18, 35– 38, 47, 64, 127– 28, 137, ‘Orfi (1917), 96, 107– 8, 119; Qanun- e 152– 56, 184, 185, 188, 189– 90 mojazat- e ‘omumi (1926), 108– 10, Rokn al- Molk (Sadri), 96 120, 125, 132, 161, 162– 63 Rosen, Lawrence, 10, 14 Perny, Adolf, 20, 91, 94, 95, 97, 101, 102, Ruh al- Qodos, 77 105, 123, 166 rule by law, 3, 16– 18, 186, 187 Peters, Rudolf, 105 rule of law, 1– 3, 6, 8– 11, 13, 15– 16, 18, 46, Philippines, 15 49, 51– 54, 66, 76, 80, 101, 105, 115– Pierson, Paul, 4– 5 16, 118, 145– 48, 152, 156, 158, 161, police (Nazmieh), 8, 18, 42, 109, 131, 150, 163–64, 166, 175, 177–79, 183, 184, 158, 160, 161– 62, 163– 64, 167, 168, 186, 187, 190; conditions for realizing, 169– 71, 173, 175– 76, 180, 187, 188 188; critiques of, 9; dilemmas of, 187; Pollock, Frederick, 6 Islam and, 10– 12; lawyers and, 180 prisons, 75, 124, 162– 63 Russia, 3, 20, 24, 50, 51, 52, 53, 55, 56, 73, property registration, 32, 33, 36, 37, 42, 44, 83– 84, 87, 94, 107, 113, 118, 119, 45, 91, 102, 122, 125, 127, 128– 29, 121, 131, 162, 169 142, 143, 151, 152– 55, 189 Prussia, 13 Sa‘d al- Dawleh, 62 Puladin, Colonel Ahmad, 168 Sadiq- e Hazrat, 62 punishments, 7, 8, 25, 29, 33, 34– 35, 46, Sadr, Kazem, 164 47, 53, 69, 75, 76, 78, 91, 105– 6, Sadr, Mohsen (Sadr al- Ashraf), 20, 32, 34, 107– 8, 109– 10, 159, 160, 162– 63 72, 76, 88, 91, 111, 136, 153, 159, Index 255

166, 190; biography, 204n114; as Shuster mission, 84 minister of justice, 125, 126, 134; on Singapore, 14, 17 1911 codes, 88, 96 Skocpol, Theda, 4 Sadr Hajj-Sayyed-Javadi, Ahmad, 179 Sobh- e Sadeq, 70 Safavid dynasty, 12, 25– 26, 30, 31, 33 Sohrabi, Nader, 61, 62 Salar al- Saltaneh, 32, 69 Sorayya, 55 Salar Mofakhkham, 73 Soviet Union. See Russia Sami’i, Mirza Kazem, 124 Steinmo, Sven, 5 Samsan al- Saltaneh, 91, 119 Suamarez Smith, Richard, 154– 55 Sardar As‘ad Bakhtiari, 170 Sulayman Mirza, 96, 103 Sawlat al- Dawleh, 170 Sunnism, 27– 28 Sayyed Zia. See Tabataba’i, Sayyed Zia al-Din Supplementary Law (1907). See constitution Schayegh, Cyrus, 158, 160– 61 Supreme Court/Court of Cassation (Divan-e Schneider, Irene, 32, 35, 43 ‘Ali- ye Tamiz), 64, 89, 92, 93, 95, 96, School of Law, 97, 100– 105, 111, 116, 133, 123, 132– 33, 136, 160, 169, 177, 181 142. See also School of Political Science; Sur Esrafil, 77 Tehran University Sykes, Sir Percy, 25 School of Political Science, 52, 63, 87, 95, 100– 101, 103– 4, 105, 116, 136 Tabataba’i, Sayyed Abdolmehdi, 94 Sedq al- Molk, 69, 76 Tabataba’i, Sayyed Mohammad, 58, 60– 61, Sepahdar, Mohammad Vali Khan 63, 67, 94 Tonekabani, 85 Tabataba’i, Sayyed Zia al- Din, 84, 97, 102, Sepahsalar, Mirza Hosayn Khan Moshir al- 119, 120, 136 Dawleh, 39, 40– 42, 47, 51, 53, 60 Tabbas, 71 Shabir, Habibollah, 132, 136 Tabriz, 31, 38, 42, 50, 60, 63, 71, 85, 96, Shafti, Mulla Mohammad, 32 99, 120, 149, 162, 177, 182 Sharaf al- Molk, 71 Tadayyon, Mohammad, 103, 114 shari‘a: codification of, 139; concept of Taleboff, Abdol Rahim, 52 contract in, 137; concept of rights in, Tanzimat, 23, 41, 43– 47, 51, 52, 53 10; and constitutionalism, 57– 59, 62, Taqavi, Sayyed Nasrollah, 63, 67, 91, 95, 76; and corporate personality, 140; and 102, 132, 135, 136 equality, 11, 58, 61, 63, 81; and penal Taqizadeh, Sayyed Hasan, 63, 67, 74, 76, law, 33, 34, 91, 108, 109; and rule of 85, 86, 120, 184 law, 10, 11; as state law, 139 Taymurtash, Abdol Hosayn, 114, 123, shari‘a courts (mahazer- e shari‘), 28, 30– 33, 163, 166– 67, 169, 170, 171, 176; as 45, 58, 64, 65, 66– 67, 68, 80, 90, 91, minister of justice, 97, 98– 99, 102 96, 122, 124, 128, 129– 30, 137, 149, Tehrani, Mirza Hosayn Khalili, 58 151, 184, 185, 189, 190– 91, 216n33, Tehran University, 105, 127, 135, 176 217n66 Thailand, 8 Shari‘at Sangalaji, 60 Thompson, E. P., 15 Shari‘atzadeh, Ahmad, 160– 61 Tiflis, 41, 55 Sharif-Kashani, Mohammad Mahdi, 92, 93, 101 tobacco revolt, 49– 50, 52– 53, 54, 55, 155, Sharq, 119 209n2 Shatibi, Abu Ishaq al- , 25 Tomaniants, 140 Shayegan, Ali, 136, 138, 177 Tonekaboni, Mirza Taher, 95 Shi‘ism: hierocracy in, 25– 27; legal and Tudeh Party, 176– 77, 179 judicial theory in, 26, 27, 28, 29, 45, Turkey, 3, 8 59, 104; and the state, 12, 25, 27, 191 Turkomanchai, Treaty of, 115 Shirazi, Khan Baba Khan, 71 Shirazi, Mirza Hasan, 87 ulama. See clerics; mojtaheds 256 Index

Vahdat, Farzin, 53 Yazdi, Shaykh Mohammad Hosayn, 107, Vakil, Sayyed Hashem, 164, 178 136 Vosuq al- Dowleh, 84, 95, 97, 107, 136 Yek Kalameh (One Word), 54– 55 Yeprim Khan, 162 Weiss, Bernard, 27 Werner, Christophe, 31, 33, 36 Zakaria, Fareed, 8 White Revolution, 181 Zarinkafsh, Ali Asghar, 164 Wright, Erik Olin, 5 Zartoshti, Feraydun, 74– 75, 184 Zell al- Soltan, 38 Yaghma’i, Hasan Saba, 167 Zoroastrians, 29, 74– 75, 138 Yazdi, Mohammad Kazem, 87 Zubaida, Sami, 27, 33, 80