عبدالمطلب عبداله رهیافت انقلاب اسلامی 2980-9118 19 72 2025 12 20 A Comparative Study of Religious and Secular Rationality in the Constitutional Revolution Era: The Views of Sheikh Mohammad Ismail Mahallati and Mirza Fath Ali Akhundzadeh مطالعه‌ی تطبیقی عقلانیت سکولار و عقلانیت دینی در دوران مشروطه (آراء میرزا فتحعلی آخوندزاده و شیخ محمداسماعیل محلاتی) 269 292 238025 FA حسین جودکی دانشجوی دکتری گروه علوم سیاسی، واحد خرم آباد، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، خرم آباد، ایران شهریار فرجی نصیری استادیار، گروه علوم سیاسی، دانشگاه لرستان، خرم آباد، ایران علی قاسمیان استادیار گروه علوم سیاسی، واحد خرم آباد، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، خرم آباد، ایران Journal Article 2025 09 06 The Constitutional Revolution era is considered a pivotal period in the history of intellectual and political transformations in Iran. The discourse surrounding the revolution emerged from the intersection of intellectual and religious reformist approaches, with concepts such as law and freedom becoming arenas for contestation and dialogue between these movements. In this context, Mirza Fath Ali Akhundzadeh, as a secular intellectual, and Sheikh Mohammad Ismail Mahallati, as a religious reformist, adopted distinct and influential approaches to engage with modernity and its requirements. This study, utilizing Habermas's framework and the distinction between "instrumental rationality" and "communicative rationality," offers a comparative analysis of rationality in the thought of these two thinkers. The findings indicate that Akhundzadeh, relying on instrumental rationality, viewed the establishment of secularism as a prerequisite for modernity, whereas Mahallati, with an approach based on communicative rationality, sought to shape the legitimacy of the constitutional system through rational interaction between social actors and religious teachings. Despite differences in epistemological foundations, both thinkers shared common goals, such as opposing despotism, defending the rule of law, and striving for social justice. This comparative study provides a clearer picture of the relationship between religion and modernity in Iran during the Constitutional Revolution era. Introduction In the years leading up to the Constitutional Revolution, Iranian society faced significant intellectual, political, and social crises. The Qajar monarchy's authoritarian structure, the decline of traditional order, widespread public dissatisfaction, and the encounter with Western modernity pushed Iranian intellectuals to seek solutions for change. Three main intellectual currents emerged: one focused on modern rationality and rejected religious tradition, a second sought to reject modernity with a fundamentalist view, and the third aimed to reinterpret religion to address modern challenges. This study focuses on the first and third currents. Two key figures, Mirza Fath Ali Akhundzadeh, a secular intellectual, and Sheikh Mohammad Ismail Mahallati, a religious reformist, will be analyzed. A comparative study of their ideas helps uncover the roots of the intellectual divide between religion and modernity and the development of both secular and religious intellectualism. Understanding the political and religious thoughts of this era is crucial for analyzing contemporary Iran's identity transformations. Additionally, analyzing the views of these two thinkers may offer insights into revisiting modern reformist and intellectual discourses. Given the ongoing tension between religious tradition and modern reason, the historical and epistemological understanding of their intellectual legacies is particularly important. The central question of this research is: How can religious and secular rationality be understood in the political thought of Mahallati and Akhundzadeh? Materials and Methods Based on Habermas's distinction between instrumental rationality and communicative rationality, two distinct approaches to religion and politics can be observed in the thoughts of Akhundzadeh and Mahallati. Akhundzadeh, as a secular intellectual, embraced instrumental rationality and viewed religion as a barrier to societal progress. He believed that religion should be separated from politics and that changes in cultural tools, such as writing and education, were necessary for progress. In contrast, Mahallati, as a constitutionalist cleric, emphasized communicative rationality and sought to reinterpret modern concepts within religious teachings to legitimize the Constitutional Revolution through dialogue and consensus between religion and modernity. Thus, these two thinkers represent two different paths in confronting modernity in Iran. Discussion In comparing Habermas's theoretical framework with the thoughts of Akhundzadeh and Mahallati, significant differences are observed in their perspectives on religion, law, tradition, and ultimate goals. Habermas highlights the dual role of religion, which can be both a threat and a positive source. For Akhundzadeh, religion and traditional superstitions are seen as obstacles to modernizing society, whereas Mahallati views religion as complementing communicative rationality, providing moral and normative legitimacy to laws and institutions. Regarding law, Akhundzadeh advocates for a secular law based on Western models, while Mahallati believes that law should emerge from public dialogue and consensus, with religious teachings integrated only when expressed in rational terms. In dealing with tradition, Akhundzadeh sees it as a hindrance to progress, while Mahallati emphasizes correcting misinterpretations of tradition and utilizing its inner capacities to combat despotism. Akhundzadeh's ultimate goal is the modernization of Iran, while Mahallati aims to legitimize the constitutional revolution and create an ideal system through rational consensus. Conclusion In confronting modernity during the Constitutional Revolution, two distinct approaches emerged: Akhundzadeh's secularism and Mahallati's religious reformism. Akhundzadeh, with instrumental rationality, radically criticized religion and tradition, viewing them as obstacles to progress. He sought modernization and efficiency by modeling Iran after the West. In contrast, Mahallati, using communicative rationality, tried to reinterpret modern concepts within the framework of religion, aiming to legitimize the Constitutional Revolution through dialogue and consensus. While these approaches differed in methods and epistemological foundations, they shared the ultimate goal of combating despotism and establishing the rule of law. A comparative analysis of these two rationalities shows that Akhundzadeh's instrumental rationality failed to gain a broad social base, while Mahallati's communicative rationality, though successful in creating consensus, could not evolve into a dialogue-based democracy. این مقاله به بررسی تطبیقی عقلانیت سکولار و عقلانیت دینی در دوران مشروطه با تمرکز بر آراء میرزا فتحعلی آخوندزاده و شیخ محمداسماعیل محلاتی می‌پردازد. پرسش اصلی پژوهش آن است که این دو متفکر چگونه مفاهیم مدرن سیاسی همچون مشروطه و قانون را در چارچوب عقلانیت‌هایی متفاوت تبیین کرده‌اند. چارچوب نظری تحقیق مبتنی بر رویکرد یورگن هابرماس بر تمایز میان عقلانیت ابزاری و عقلانیت ارتباطی در نظر گرفته شده، روش انجام پژوهش، توصیفی ـ تحلیلی و مبتنی بر مطالعه متون است. یافته‌ها نشان می‌دهد آخوندزاده با اتخاذ رویکردی سکولار و متأثر از عقلانیت ابزاری، در نظر داشت به هدف غایی پیشرفت و نوسازی برسد، از این منظر، سنت و دین را مانع پیشرفت دانسته و بر جدایی دین از سیاست و استقرار قانون تأکید دارد. در مقابل، محلاتی به‌عنوان نواندیش‌دینی، مبتنی بر عقلانیت ارتباطی، در پی ایجاد تفاهم میان سنت دینی و مقتضیات دنیای جدید است و می‌کوشد با بازخوانی عقلانی آموزه‌های دینی، مشروعیت دینی ـ مردمی مشروطه را اثبات نماید. نتیجه پژوهش نشان می‌دهد که گفتمان مشروطه‌خواهی در ایران متشکل از این دو گونه عقلانیت متمایز ولی در عمل تاریخی مکمل بود .با وجود تفاوت در مبانی معرفتی، هر دو اندیشمند در اهدافی چون نفی استبداد و دفاع از قانون اشتراک نظر داشتند. این مطالعه‌ی تطبیقی می‌تواند تصویری روشن‌تر از نسبت دین و تجدد در ایران عصر مشروطه فراهم آورد.

https://www.rahyaftjournal.ir/article_238025_44cd5510d64ad4613b6446333d8d63e9.pdf