فهم تكاملي علماي مشروطه در توليد الگوي نظام سياسي عدالتخانه

Evolutionary Understanding of Ulema in Producing a Model of Political System Base on Justice Department (House of Justice) from Tobacco Movement to Greater Migration

دوره مشروطيت ، از جمله مهمترين نقاط عطف در تاريخ معاصر ايران به شمار مي آيد و تأثيرات عميقي را بر تحولات سياسي- اجتماعي بعدي اين مرز و بوم به جاي نهاده ومبدأ چالشهاي فكري گسترده و پايايي بوده كه دامنه آن تا به امروز نيز ادامه يافته است.از جمله چالشها نوع مواجهه با نظام استبدادي بوده است.مشروطه خواهان غربگرا كه ذيل الگوي كلان توسعه غربي، مي زيستند نظريه ترجمه اي مشروطه را به عنوان جايگزين حكومت استبدادي مطرح كردند. اما علما كه عمدتا جز نفي نظري مشروعيت حكومتهاي غير معصوم يا ماذون از ناحيه معصوم اقدامي ايجابي براي طرح نظريه جايگزين انجام نداده بودند بعد از جنبش تحريم تنباكو و فضاي ايجاد شده تلاش نمودند تا در يك سير تكاملي طرحي ايجابي را براي تحديد استبداد به نحوي كه مبتني بر مقتضيات بومي باشد ارائه نمايند و در مقابل مشروطه، عدالتخانه را مطرح كردند. با نگاهي گذرا به تاريخ مبارزات مردم به رهبري علماء از آغازين روزهاي نهضت عدالتخانه تا اواخر حضور جمعي از مردم در سفارت انگلستان كه همزمان با تحصن علماء در قم به سفارت رفته بودند ، مي‌توان به وضوح دريافت كه رهبران نهضت آرام آرام به اين نتيجه رسيدند كه بدون طراحي يك الگوي مشخص و با اقدامات فرد محور و مصداقي نمي توان، حقوق ملت را استيفا كرد و از دين محافظت نمود.

Constitutional movement is a turning point in the contemporary history of Iran that has left deep impacts on the political and social developments of this country. It was a source of large scale and lasting intellectual challenges that have extended to modern-day Iran. One such challenge was the type of confrontation with a despotic royal regime. The Western-oriented constitutionalists, living under the big banner of Western development, introduced a translation-based theory of Constitutional Movement as a substitute for the despotic rule. Ulema, however, had done nothing more than theoretically rejecting legitimacy of governments run by a non-infallible figure or those unauthorized by an infallible authority. They had proposed no positive action as a replacement for the theory of substitution. It was after the Tobacco Movement and the ensuing political atmosphere that Ulema (Muslim scholars) tried to introduce – in an evolutionary understanding – a positive plan for constraining the despotic rule in a way to force it comply with the local requirements. Therefore, they proposed the political system of the Department of Justice or House of Justice (Adalat Khaneh) against the theory of translation-based Constitutional Movement. With a glance at the history of public combats under the leadership of the Ulema ever since the early days of the House of Justice movement up to the final days of public protests before the UK Embassy at the same time with a sit-in by Ulema in Qom, it is clearly understood that the movement’s leaders had come to the conclusion that it was impossible to meet the rights of the nation and to safeguard religion based on individual approaches and that there should be a specific pattern of action to meet these goals.