It’s frequently asked and answered “how” and “why” “Iranian Constitutional Revolution” “happened”? The Constitutional Revolution of Iran has been the subject of many dissertations and investigations during the last century, and continues to receive scholarly attention increasingly. These attempts, however, do not deal with the conditions, under which the idea of the constitution was formed, the gradual development of social changes that finally have crystallized in the constitution, and the way in which the constitution got legitimacy. Briefly characterizing, most of the answers and explanations, are, in one way or another, examples of orientalism. They highlight the defeats of attempts to make reforms in political structures to limit the arbitrary will of the shah and governors of provinces, to bring about a central administration and so on; they point their finger to the strength of despotic structures and resistance of rulers against all of these reforms. They assert that the failure of reforms left no way except Revolution. So, Iranians, who then due to getting familiar with European countries were aware of the constitutional monarchy, when started to protest, started to ask for the constitution, and finally, they were able to force the shah to grant the constitution. The article tries through criticizing Katouzian and Foran’s explanations of the Constitutional Revolution, and exploiting insights of Weber and Durkheim, historically situate the genesis of the so-called “Iranian Constitution” and explain complexities around its formation.