Journal of Historical Research, Law and Policy

The management of criminal records within the Iranian legal system, despite reform-oriented approaches reflected in higher-level policy documents, has become one of the principal obstacles to the realization of criminal justice and the prevention of recidivism. Employing a descriptive–analytical method and grounded in labeling theory, this study examines the pathology of the gap between “law in the books” and “law in action.” The central issue concerns analyzing the causes underlying the inefficiency of Articles 25 and 26 of the Islamic Penal Code (2013) in eliminating the adverse consequences of criminal records, as well as investigating the process through which “legal punishment” transforms into “permanent social exclusion.” The findings indicate that the duality between “legal rehabilitation” and the perpetual retention of information within law-enforcement databases, combined with indiscriminate occupational restrictions and employers’ risk-averse practices, has resulted in the blockage of reintegration pathways and the emergence of “secondary deviance” among convicted individuals. In effect, the criminal justice system, by preserving what may be described as an institutional “memory of dangerousness,” unintentionally contributes to the reproduction of criminal cycles. To overcome this structural impasse, the present article proposes a model of “hybrid penology,” grounded in a transition from “mechanical exclusion” toward “intelligent risk management.” Key policy solutions include the legal recognition of the right to be forgotten, the specialization and proportionalization of social disabilities, and the smart modernization of the criminal record system based on an access-level classification model. The study concludes that sustainable security lies not in the exclusion of offenders but in their reintegration through data-driven mechanisms and post-penal support measures.

The Meccan period is regarded as one of the most critical stages in the formation and expansion of the Islamic call; a period during which the Prophet of Islam and his early followers faced a range of social, economic, and political pressures from the Quraysh. The tribal structure of Meccan society, the city’s economic dependence on the Quraysh commercial system, and the status of existing religious traditions created a context in which the Prophet’s monotheistic call was perceived as a serious challenge to the dominant order. Under such conditions, opponents attempted to prevent the spread of this call through methods such as social pressure, economic boycott, security threats, and the persecution of Muslims. The main problem of this study is to examine what strategies the Prophet of Islam employed in confronting this critical situation in order to preserve and sustain the Islamic call. The aim of the study is to explain and analyze the Prophet’s leadership strategies in managing the crises of the Meccan period and to examine how he confronted the structural pressures of Meccan society. Using a historical-sociological analytical method and drawing on sources of Prophetic biography and Islamic history, this study investigates the issue. The findings indicate that the Prophet employed a set of intelligent strategies in managing the crises of the Meccan period, including strategic patience and avoidance of direct confrontation, social networking among followers, utilization of tribal support, migration as a strategy for reducing pressure, and the management of social conflicts. These strategies enabled the nascent Muslim community to withstand the severe pressures of the Quraysh and prepared the ground for the expansion of the Islamic call in the subsequent stage. Accordingly, the Prophet’s leadership during the Meccan period can be regarded as an example of transformational leadership under conditions of structural pressure, which, through the combination of social realism and strategic foresight, paved the way for the continuity and expansion of the Islamic call.

This article examines the role of the Deobandi movement in the reproduction of political-security power in Pakistan by moving beyond reductionist interpretations. The central question is through which institutional, discursive, and network-based mechanisms the Deobandi movement participates in processes of power reproduction. The theoretical framework is grounded in the concept of “power reproduction” and is formulated through the integration of historical institutionalism, symbolic capital theory, and discursive approaches to power. The research adopts a qualitative methodology based on historical-institutional analysis and discourse analysis, encompassing religious-political texts, educational literature, and the discourses of religious and political elites. The findings indicate that the network of religious seminaries, the authority of the ulama, and religious symbolic capital have provided an institutional infrastructure for social and political influence. In dynamic interaction with the state and security institutions, these elements have contributed to the production of legitimacy, the framing of threats, and social mobilization, without being reducible to mere instruments of the state. The internal heterogeneity of the movement further suggests that its connections with politics and jihadism are less inherent than they are products of specific historical and geopolitical contexts. The article concludes that security in Pakistan is not a purely material phenomenon but rather a social and discursive construct shaped through the interaction between the state and religious networks. Therefore, analyses of politics and security in Pakistan remain incomplete without considering the structural role of religious actors. By conceptualizing religion as a source of meaning, legitimacy, and mobilization, this study contributes to the literature on political Islam and security studies in postcolonial societies.

The right to adequate housing, as one of the fundamental social rights, occupies a prominent position within legal systems and state welfare policies. In the Iranian legal system, this right is explicitly recognized under Article 31 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Nevertheless, the persistence of the housing crisis and the inability of a considerable proportion of citizens to access adequate housing raise a fundamental question regarding the extent to which governmental legislative policymaking has succeeded in realizing this right and the structural and institutional barriers that impede its achievement. The present study aims to explain the requirements and challenges of governmental legislative policymaking in the realization of the right to adequate housing. It employs a descriptive–analytical method and draws upon legal documents, development plan laws, and official reports. The findings indicate that housing policies incorporated into post-Islamic Revolution development plans, although they have undergone discursive and methodological transformations, have generally lacked coherence, continuity, and a sustainable rights-based framework. An examination of programmatic regulations demonstrates that the predominance of broad and generalized approaches, the absence of effective enforcement mechanisms, institutional inconsistency, and policy instability have created a gap between legislation and implementation, ultimately weakening the realization of the right to housing. In this regard, the challenges associated with the realization of this right can be classified into five categories: structural–institutional, economic–financial, legal–legislative, socio-cultural, and executive–managerial challenges, which mutually reinforce one another. The study concludes that the sustainable realization of the right to adequate housing requires a transition from temporary and program-oriented policies toward comprehensive, rights-based, and institutionalized legislation. Accordingly, the enactment of a comprehensive housing law, the strengthening of integrated governance, the reform of financing systems, the diversification of housing models, and the establishment of policy stability and continuous evaluation mechanisms are proposed as the most significant legislative policy requirements in this field.

The era of the Abbasid Caliphate (750–1258 CE) represents a complex and paradoxical period in terms of the social and cultural status of women. This study adopts a historical–analytical approach to examine the roles and activities of women during this era. The findings indicate that, contrary to the common image of Abbasid women as being confined to royal harems, they played active roles in various scientific, literary, economic, and even political spheres. In the field of scholarship, women such as ʿAliyah bint al-Mahdi engaged in poetry and literature, while other women attained expertise in the transmission of hadith and Islamic jurisprudence. Economically, women played significant roles through commercial activities, charitable endowments (waqf), and the management of estates and properties. Within the Abbasid court, influential figures such as al-Khayzuran and Zubaydah exercised considerable political influence and took leading roles in philanthropic and public works, including the construction of caravanserais and hospitals. Nevertheless, these activities occurred within the constraints imposed by the harem system, mandatory veiling practices, and the gradual intensification of women’s social seclusion. In other words, the role of Abbasid women combined hidden influence with a limited yet undeniable presence in the public sphere. This article demonstrates that despite prevailing religious and social restrictions, women in Abbasid civilization were not merely passive subjects but rather influential actors across various layers of society.

The outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic confronted legal systems and criminal policy frameworks worldwide with profound challenges concerning the protection of public health, the preservation of social order, and the determination of the reciprocal responsibilities between the state and citizens. In the Islamic Republic of Iran, responses to this crisis were primarily implemented through a set of fragmented regulations, traditional criminalization approaches, and emergency executive measures that lacked legislative coherence and a unified theoretical foundation. The present study, employing a descriptive–analytical method based on documentary and library sources, provides a comprehensive examination of Iran’s criminal policy toward threats arising from epidemic diseases, with particular emphasis on COVID-19. The findings indicate that despite the existence of considerable jurisprudential, legal, and institutional capacities, Iran’s criminal policy in this field has faced multiple challenges, including ambiguity in the legal foundations for restricting individual freedoms, difficulties in proving causation in the transmission of contagious diseases, weaknesses in establishing criminal intent (mens rea), disproportionality of sanctions, overlapping institutional jurisdictions, and the absence of a comprehensive epidemic diseases law. At the same time, the experience of the COVID-19 crisis demonstrates a gradual shift in Iran’s criminal policy away from excessive criminalization toward the adoption of hybrid preventive mechanisms, participatory governance policies, non-custodial sanctions, and compensatory state responsibility. The study concludes that enhancing the effectiveness of criminal policy in confronting biosecurity threats requires a fundamental reconsideration of legislative approaches, the enactment of a comprehensive communicable diseases law grounded in the principles of necessity and proportionality, strengthened inter-institutional coordination, the development of rule-based executive policies, increased social participation, the establishment of coherent judicial practice, and the protection of fundamental rights alongside the safeguarding of public health.

Retrial with respect to judgments that have been finalized by the Supreme Court continues to be situated at the intersection of “finality” and the “right to correct error,” facing ongoing scholarly and judicial debate. This study, employing an analytical-descriptive approach and based on seven recent rulings from various chambers of the Court, demonstrates that the current uniform practice rests on two main principles: the formal finality of the Supreme Court does not negate the jurisdiction of the trial or appellate court to hear a retrial, and judgments issued under the framework of Article 477 of the Civil Procedure Code, once finalized, cannot be retried except within the same framework. On the other hand, the Civil Procedure Code does not exempt finalized judgments from retrial in any of its provisions, and given the formal nature of proceedings in the Court, finality signifies confirmation of the trial or appellate judgment rather than issuance of a new judgment. Therefore, whenever the conditions of Article 426 are met, the issuing court may issue an order accepting the retrial, even if the judgment has been finalized by the Court. However, the restriction of the term “judgment” in Article 426 excludes decisive orders from its scope, and the criterion of “probable validity” for suspending execution is interpreted very strictly; consequently, damages resulting from enforcement of finalized judgments are often irreparable. The article proposes that Article 426 be extended to include “decisive orders,” that the criterion for suspension of execution be facilitated, and that a mechanism for state compensation for damages be established so that retrial transforms from a paper guarantee to an enforceable legal safeguard.

This article examines the role of artificial intelligence in situational crime prevention with particular emphasis on privacy challenges. Situational crime prevention focuses on reducing criminal opportunities by modifying environmental, technological, and organizational conditions that facilitate crime. Artificial intelligence has expanded this preventive model through predictive analytics, smart surveillance, biometric identification, cyber threat detection, automated risk assessment, and data-driven criminal justice management. These technologies can improve the speed, accuracy, and efficiency of preventive interventions by identifying crime patterns, detecting suspicious behavior, supporting resource allocation, and strengthening responses to both physical and cybercrime. However, the use of artificial intelligence in crime prevention also creates serious legal and ethical concerns. Because AI systems depend on extensive data collection and algorithmic processing, they may threaten informational privacy, increase mass surveillance, enable discriminatory profiling, reduce transparency, and weaken accountability. The article argues that the preventive benefits of AI cannot justify unrestricted monitoring or automated suspicion. Instead, AI-based situational prevention must be governed by legality, necessity, proportionality, transparency, explainability, human oversight, data minimization, purpose limitation, independent auditing, and effective remedies. The study concludes that artificial intelligence should function as a supportive tool for human decision-making rather than a substitute for legal judgment. A legitimate model of AI-based crime prevention must reduce criminal opportunities while preserving privacy, dignity, equality, and the rule of law.