The Islamic Revolution Approach

The Islamic Revolution Approach

Political Philosophy and Reformist Theology in the Thought of Ayatollah Na’ini and John Locke: A Comparative Reflection on the Legitimacy of Power and the Limits of Religious Sovereignty

Document Type : Original Article

Author
Ahmad Tayyebi
Faculty Member, Department of Islamic Studies, Payame Noor University, Tehran, Iran
Abstract
This article offers a comparative analysis of the political philosophy and reformist theology of Ayatollah Mohammad-Hossein Na’ini (1860–1936) and John Locke (1632–1704), two thinkers who, despite emerging from vastly different intellectual and theological traditions, converge on the question of limiting power and legitimizing governance. The main purpose is to examine how both thinkers—Na’ini through Islamic reformist theology and Locke through Enlightenment rationalism—sought to reconcile divine authority with popular sovereignty. The study employs an analytical-comparative methodology, drawing on textual analysis of Na’ini’s Tanbih al-Ummah wa Tanzih al-Millah and Locke’s Two Treatises of Government. Findings show that while Locke’s legitimacy of power rests on natural rights, consent, and the social contract, Na’ini articulates legitimacy through divine trusteeship (amanat) and collective supervision (nazar-e omumi). Both perspectives establish moral and legal boundaries against tyranny, emphasizing accountability and the protection of human dignity. The article concludes that Na’ini’s synthesis of religious reform and political constitutionalism represents a unique indigenous framework comparable to Locke’s liberal constitutionalism, both aiming to restrain absolute rule and secure justice within their respective civilizational contexts.
 
Introduction
The intersection of theology and political philosophy represents a critical frontier in both Islamic and Western intellectual traditions. In the context of modernity, few figures exemplify this intersection as clearly as Ayatollah Mohammad-Hossein Na’ini in Iran and John Locke in England. Both thinkers, facing contexts of despotism and theological domination, articulated frameworks for reconciling divine authority with rational limitations on political power.
Na’ini’s Tanbih al-Ummah wa Tanzih al-Millah (1909), written during Iran’s Constitutional Revolution, sought to ground constitutionalism within Shi’a theology by redefining governance as a divine trust (amanat) rather than absolute sovereignty. Locke’s Two Treatises of Government (1690), written after the Glorious Revolution, similarly aimed to limit monarchical power through the idea of the social contract and natural rights. This study explores how both systems—Islamic reformist theology and Protestant rational philosophy—constructed theoretical models of legitimate governance, emphasizing moral responsibility, the consent of the governed, and the accountability of rulers.
Materials and Methods
This research adopts an analytical–comparative approach combining philosophical hermeneutics and theological exegesis. The primary sources analyzed are Na’ini’s Tanbih al-Ummah wa Tanzih al-Millah and Locke’s Two Treatises of Government. Secondary materials include works by political theorists such as Dunn (1984), Strauss (1953), Kadivar (2001), and Abrahamian (2008), as well as Islamic constitutional studies concerning the Qajar era. The methodological framework proceeds in three stages:
1.               Conceptual analysis – examining key notions such as hakimiyyat-e elahi (divine sovereignty), amanat (trusteeship), nazar-e omumi (public oversight), natural rights, and consent;
2.               Doctrinal comparison – identifying theological underpinnings in Na’ini’s Shi’a rationalism versus Locke’s Protestant empiricism;
3.               Contextual synthesis – exploring how sociopolitical crises (despotism in Qajar Iran, absolute monarchy in Restoration England) shaped each thinker’s political theology.
This structured comparison allows for understanding not only theoretical convergences but also the distinct epistemic foundations that distinguish Islamic reformist discourse from Enlightenment liberalism.
 
Discussion
Both Na’ini and Locke respond to the problem of legitimacy under divine sovereignty, yet they do so from divergent metaphysical and epistemological assumptions. Locke’s political philosophy emerges from natural theology and rational empiricism, asserting that human beings, created equal by God, possess inalienable rights to life, liberty, and property. Sovereignty arises from the social contract; rulers hold power conditionally, based on the consent of the governed. Political tyranny thus violates divine will, as it disrupts the natural order and individual conscience. Na’ini, by contrast, grounds legitimacy in a theology of trusteeship (amanat)—the ruler is not a divine agent with unbounded authority but a trustee accountable to God and the community. His model transforms velayat from an absolute claim of domination into a conditional, moral responsibility. Through the concept of nazar-e omumi (public supervision), Na’ini introduces a proto-democratic mechanism of accountability compatible with Islamic jurisprudence. Both thinkers share a moral–political teleology: governance exists to prevent tyranny and preserve human dignity. However, Locke achieves this through the rational autonomy of individuals and secular institutional checks, while Na’ini articulates it through divine law (Shari‘a) and communal obligation. From the standpoint of political theology, Locke secularizes the covenantal model, locating legitimacy in rational human consent, whereas Na’ini sacralizes rational governance by interpreting consultation (shura) and justice (adl) as divine imperatives. In both frameworks, despotism is equated with moral corruption and deviation from divine justice. In sociopolitical function, Locke’s constitutionalism leads to the establishment of representative democracy, while Na’ini’s reformism provides the theoretical foundation for Islamic constitutionalism in Iran’s 1906 Revolution. Despite differing metaphysics, both construct a vision of limited government, rule of law, and moral accountability—demonstrating a convergent evolution between reformist theology and liberal philosophy. Furthermore, Na’ini’s rationalist jurisprudence (usuli) anticipates modern ideas of separation of powers and citizen supervision, arguing that “tyranny over creation is tyranny against the Creator.” His thought can thus be seen as an indigenous articulation of what Locke conceptualized as the moral contract between ruler and ruled.
Conclusion
This comparative inquiry shows that Ayatollah Na’ini and John Locke, each within their religious and philosophical horizons, converge on a shared pursuit: the moral limitation of power and the legitimation of authority through responsibility and consent. Both reject divine-right absolutism and advocate a model of governance grounded in trust, justice, and public accountability.
Na’ini’s theological reformism transforms Shi’a jurisprudence into a framework for political participation and public oversight, while Locke’s rational philosophy inaugurates modern liberal constitutionalism. Their synthesis illustrates two parallel pathways in the global history of political thought—one proceeding from faith to reason, the other from reason to faith.
For Islamic political philosophy, Na’ini’s model provides a bridge between divine sovereignty and people’s agency, allowing an ethical reinterpretation of governance that remains deeply relevant to contemporary debates on religious democracy and legitimacy. For Western thought, Locke’s influence endures as a template for secular limitation of power rooted in moral individualism.
In the final analysis, the dialogue between Na’ini and Locke reveals that genuine legitimacy arises not from authority alone but from the mutual recognition of duty, consent, and moral accountability—a principle that transcends the boundaries of civilization, culture, and faith.
 
Keywords
Ayatollah Na&rsquo
ini
John Locke
Political legitimacy
Religious reformism
Limitation of power
Accountability
Theology of governance
Ahmadi Tabatabai, S. (2023). Constitutionalism synthesis to the Sharia in the political thought of Allameh Naini. Islamic Political Thought, 10(1), 67-79.
Ahmed, Y. (2023). Muhammad Husayn Na’ini, Caught between Empires and Nations. Archiv orientální, 91(3), 423-445.
Beetham, David. (1991). The Legitimation of Power. London: Macmillan.
Coicaud, Jean-Marc. (2002). Legitimacy and Politics: A Contribution to the Study of Political Right and Political Responsibility. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dunn, John. (1969). The Political Thought of John Locke. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Esfandyar, V. (2022). The Impact of the Thoughts of Sheikh Fazlollah Nouri and Allameh Naini on the Islamic Awakening. International Journal of Political Science, 12(2), 1-13.
Esposito, J., & Ramazani, R. (Eds.). (2016). Iran at the Crossroads. Springer.
FAQIH, V. E. SHIITE POLITICAL THOUGHT IN IRAN.
Locke, John. (1689). Two Treatises of Government. (Based on original edition).
Locke, John. (1689b). A Letter Concerning Toleration. (Based on original edition).
Maythem, A. J. (2021). Contemporary Islamic Political Idea: The Clash of Reformist Spirit and Extremist-Radical Mentality. Journal of Globalization Studies, 12(1), 61-78.
Mirsepassi, A. (2000). Intellectual discourse and the politics of modernization: Negotiating modernity in Iran. Cambridge University Press.
Mirshahvalad, M. (2024). Islamic reform with or without Ulama? A comparative study between al-Kawakibi and Naini. British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies, 1-16.
Rahimi, B., & Gheytanchi, E. (2008). Iran's reformists and activists: Internet exploiters. Middle East Policy, 15(1).
Rawls, John. (1971). A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Rawls, John. (1993). Political Liberalism. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Vaezi, A. (2004). Shia political thought (p. 33). London: Islamic Centre of England.
Yeganeh, M. (2020). Constitutionalism and teh Concept of Law in Mirza Naini’s Political Thought. International Journal of Political Science, 10(3), 83-94.
Ahmadi Tabatabai, S. (2023). Constitutionalism synthesis to the Sharia in the political thought of Allameh Naini. Islamic Political Thought, 10(1), 67–79.
Ahmed, Y. (2023). Muhammad Husayn Na’ini, caught between empires and nations. Archiv orientální, 91(3), 423–445.
Beetham, D. (1991). The legitimation of power. London: Macmillan.
Coicaud, J.-M. (2002). Legitimacy and politics: A contribution to the study of political right and political responsibility. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Derakhshesh, J. (2005). The concept of law in the political thought of Mirza Na’ini. Political Knowledge Journal (Danesh-e Siyasi), 2(2), 39–59. {In Persian}
Dunn, J. (1969). The political thought of John Locke. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Esfandyar, V. (2022). The impact of the thoughts of Sheikh Fazlollah Nouri and Allameh Naini on the Islamic awakening. International Journal of Political Science, 12(2), 1–13.
Esposito, J., & Ramazani, R. (Eds.). (2016). Iran at the crossroads. Springer.
Faqih, V. E. (n.d.). Shiite political thought in Iran.
Hasanifar, A. (2010). Mohammad-Hossein Na’ini’s approach to modern political concepts and teachings. Quarterly Journal of Politics, 40(3), 93–112. {In Persian}
Locke, J. (1689a). Two treatises of government. (Based on original edition).
Locke, J. (1689b). A letter concerning toleration. (Based on original edition).
Maythem, A. J. (2021). Contemporary Islamic political idea: The clash of reformist spirit and extremist-radical mentality. Journal of Globalization Studies, 12(1), 61–78.
Miradkhani, F., & Sadeghian, M. (2000). Constitutionalism, people’s rights, and Ayatollah Na’ini’s role in developing the concept of “right.” Political Science Journal, 22(86), 1–20. {In Persian}
Mirsepassi, A. (2000). Intellectual discourse and the politics of modernization: Negotiating modernity in Iran. Cambridge University Press.
Mirshahvalad, M. (2024). Islamic reform with or without Ulama? A comparative study between al-Kawakibi and Naini. British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies, 1–16.
Mosbahy Moghaddam, G., & Beigdeliri, V. (2012). Legitimacy and the role of the people in government from Na’ini’s perspective: An explanation of underdevelopment in Islamic societies. Islamic Governmental Legal Studies Quarterly, 1(1), 109–136. {In Persian}
Rahimi, B., & Gheytanchi, E. (2008). Iran’s reformists and activists: Internet exploiters. Middle East Policy, 15(1).
Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Rawls, J. (1993). Political liberalism. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Vaezi, A. (2004). Shia political thought. London: Islamic Centre of England.
Yeganeh, M. (2020). Constitutionalism and the concept of law in Mirza Na’ini’s political thought. International Journal of Political Science, 10(3), 83–94.