In the 19th century, Iran witnessed the emergence of intellectual debates on the necessity of reforming the country’s administration, including its legal system. In a context where the empire’s independence was at risk, and local governors and notables arbitrarily exercised their power, a potential solution was found in qānun, interpreted as written and secular laws.

The Qajar empire had a legal and judicial system, though non-codified. While the existence of ʿorf (custom) has been a subject of scholarly debate,¹ the ʿolama presided over shariʿa courts, especially dealing with matters of personal status. Moreover, the shah could sit in judgement over disputes, guided by the principle of what was best for the country.² This degree of arbitrariness and uncertainty sparked a debate on legal reforms with clear political implications.

Originally, the debate was not exclusively conceived as a way to democratise the country, but rather as a tool to counter decentralising attitudes of local governors and powers, and to more effectively resist the Russian and British encroachment on the country. As a result, it drew inspiration from legal developments both in Europe and in other parts of the Muslim world, such as the Ottoman empire and Egypt, as well as local conditions. One of the initiators of this debate was the Iranian Armenian Mirza Malkom Khan, author of the pamphlet “Ketābcheh-ye Ghaibi” (Occult Booklet) or “Daftar-e Tanzimāt” (Book of Reforms), composed in 1858.

Who was Mirza Malkom Khan?

Born in 1834 in New Julfa to an Armenian Christian family that later converted to Islam, Mirza Malkom Khan’s upbringing was shaped by his father’s close contact with Qajar officialdom. This allowed Malkom to study in France at the government’s expense. At the age of 18, he returned to Iran and worked first at the polytechnic school Dār al-Fonun as a lecturer and translator for foreign instructors, then as the personal interpreter to the sovereign and the first telegraph operator in Iran.

After writing “Ketābcheh-ye Ghaibi” and establishing the para-masonic lodge farāmushkhāneh (House of Oblivion), he left Iran, first moving to Baghdad, and then working as a diplomat in Egypt and Istanbul. In the Ottoman capital, he established contacts with Ottoman and Iranian reformists. After holding government positions in Iran for a few years, he obtained a diplomatic post in London in 1874 and remained there for two decades. During this time, his relations with the Qajar government became progressively conflictual and culminated with the publication of the oppositional newspaper Qānun in 1890, which was banned in Iran.³

Introducing the Concept of Qānun

It has been estimated that, during his life, Malkom probably wrote about 200 treatises,⁴ which were circulated among a small number of courtiers, princes, leading officials, and literates in Iran. In his writings, he considered qānun, interpreted as codified laws, as a necessary step to improve the conditions of the country.

Malkom first discussed this concept in his first writing, “Ketābcheh-ye Ghaibi” or “Daftar-e Tanzimāt”, composed anonymously in 1858 and transmitted to the shah via his trusted confidant Mirzā Jaʿfar Khān Moshir al-Dowleh. The pamphlet introduced the Ottoman concept of tanzimāt, literally meaning reorganisation, and aspired to similar developments in Iran. Most pertinently, Malkom also reinterpreted the general concept of qānun existing in Persian as “principle”⁵ and defined it as “any ordinance issued by the government, tending to the general welfare of the community and equally incumbent upon all its members”⁶, following the example of Ottoman legal language.

While often associated with secularity in a Western sense, in Malkom’s view, qānun was not in opposition to shariʿa. Probably out of political astuteness, Malkom never overtly deplored Islamic law, but rather conceived of it as a potential source of inspiration for the content of newly written laws.

Codifying Laws

Malkom’s writings not only discussed the necessity of laws but provided texts for new norms, ranging from proposals for a new institutional system to examples of codes. In his pamphlet, while not suggesting a constitutional monarchy just yet, he proposed 23 separate laws and articles that, taken together, formed a sort of basic law. However, their content appeared quite contradictory, showing a partial integration of the concept of the separation of powers, especially between the shah and the legislative chamber, called majles-e tanzimāt (chamber of reform) and tasked with the codification of laws (art. 11). This body was to compile all relevant precepts from shariʿa and the state, and draft a bill of rights, as well as criminal, military, and administrative codes, and regulations for the affairs of the government.

Actual proposals for these codes were provided in “Daftar-e qānun” (Book of Law), published in the early 1880s. Here, Malkom wrote a bill of rights that also protected against illegal imprisonment, as well as an administrative code for civil servants. Most importantly, he proposed a criminal code that was to be valid, for the first time, in the whole country (art. 1) and established the principle of nulla poena sine lege (art. 9), marking an important step towards ending arbitrariness.

Europe as an Example?

The impact of Malkom’s writings became especially visible in the 1890s, when, following increasing tensions with the Iranian government, he established a newspaper in London, whose title itself again stressed his objective: Qānun. Often regarded as “the most important and influential” publication of the reign of Naser ad-Din Shah⁷, Qānun was disseminated on a large geographical scale, reaching Istanbul and secretly imported into Iran.⁸ While data on its exact readership are not available, Qānun and its reprint were spread among politicians, merchants, and even Iranian pilgrims passing through Istanbul.⁹ It was not a traditional newspaper: attention to current news was scarce, and Malkom’s main concern was what he perceived to be a lack of laws.¹⁰

The articles in the newspaper were indicative of his approach to legal reform in Iran and, in particular, three main characteristics of this process. First, having laws was necessary to avoid the destruction and oppressions that occurred in a state of arbitrariness, and therefore, every human being should ask for qānun.¹¹ Second, qānun and shariʿa were not incompatible or separated. In his view, “our books and the chests of our scholars are full of good laws”, but they were not implemented.¹²

Third, European countries were not the sole source of inspiration. Certainly, since “Daftar-e Tanzimāt”, Malkom had considered European countries as examples and asked that their principles of order be applied and established in Iran without delay, either by invention or by imitation.¹³ However, he considered legal principles to be universally equal and also took examples from Muslim countries, stressing that in the Ottoman empire, Egypt, and among the Turkmen, “everyone knows what their rights and duties are”.¹⁴ Still, his choice to stress non-European examples appears to have been an astute, practical way to push Iran to join these countries as a response to internal and external threats.

1. Nobuaki Kondo, Islamic Law and Society in Iran. A Social History of Qajar Tehran (Routledge, 2017), 2-4. ↩︎
2. Ervand Abrahamian, “Oriental Despotism: The Case of Qajar Iran”, International Journal of Middle East Studies 5, no. 1 (1974), 25. ↩︎
3. M.M. Tabātabāʿi, Majmuʻhā-ye āsār-e Mirzā Malkom Khān (Ketābkhāneh Dānesh, 1327/1948), b. ↩︎
4. Abdul-Hadi Hairi, “The Idea of Constitutionalism in Persian Literature prior to the 1906 Revolution,” in Akten des VII. Kongresses für Arabistik und Islamwissenschaft, ed. Albert Dietrich (Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,1976), 199. ↩︎
5. Hamid Algar, Mirza Malkum Khan: A Study in the History of Iranian Modernism (University of California Press, 1973), 29. ↩︎
6. Tabātabāʿi, Malkom Khān, 14. ↩︎
7. Shaul Bakhash, Iran: Monarchy, Bureaucracy and Reform under the Qajars: 1858-1896 (Ithaca Press, 1978), 396. ↩︎
8. Ḥāfeẓ Farmānfarmāʾiān, Khāterāt-e Siyāsi Mirzā ʿAli Khān Amin al-Dowleh (Moʿasseseh-ye Enteshārāt-e Amir Kabir, 1370/1991), 139. ↩︎
9. Sara Zanotta, “Long-Distance Constitutionalists: Trans-Imperial Mobility and Cross-Border Strategies of the Iranian Constitutional Movement (1850s-1910s)” (PhD diss., University of Pavia, 2025), 146-149; 178-179. ↩︎
10. Qānun, n. 1, 1. ↩︎
11. Qānun, n. 2, 2-3. ↩︎
12. Qānun, n. 1, 2. ↩︎
13. Tabātabāʿi, Malkom Khān, 13. ↩︎
14. Qānun, n. 1, 1. ↩︎