Abstract

The inability of traditional Shi’a jurisprudents to respond to the challenges in the field of human rights and the rights of religious minorities, which is rooted in the denial of human dignity and the emphasis on religious dignity, has led to the emergence of a new discourse among contemporary Shi’a jurisprudents in Iran in recent years. This group of jurists known as reformist jurists seeks to re-evaluate the jurisprudential laws, re-interpret the Shari’a and find a way out of the religion to reduce the existing conflict with the universal human rights standards. The opinions of this group of jurists, albeit criticized by the traditional scholars, have been welcomed by young clerics. To understand the main aspects of this jurisprudential dispute, two main questions have been considered by the researchers: What are the main principles of human rights in the thoughts of traditionalist and reformist jurists in Iran? And how differently have the reformist jurists conceptualized the subject of human rights? To answer these questions, the impact of traditional jurisprudents on the formulation of the current constitution of Iran is studied and the main differences between the views of traditional and modern jurists are evaluated.