عنوان مقاله [English]
The present paper answers the following questions: What readings do
the political discourses of Principlism and Reformism present about
freedom, how do they differ and why does the scope of freedom in
either one of the two perspectives seem different? What is the
position of freedom in Imam Khomeini’s political discourse?
In the post‐revolutionary Iran, it was the jurisprudential political
discourse that could gain the upper hand in presenting its own
interpretation of freedom and was accepted by the majority of
people, and after its division into the two political discourses of
principlism and reformism, it demonstrated two different readings of
the issue of freedom.
The first hypothesis and answer by the present paper is that the division
depends on the perspective that each of the camps may have on the
concept of republic. The perspective, which gives more color to
Islamism and Divine legitimacy in the phrase Islamic Republic,
naturally pays more attention to the authority of an appointed ruling
jurist; in some way, that perspective considers religion as the
cornerstone and freedom as resulting from it, and interprets freedom
within the framework of Islamic canon law. Contrarily, the other
perspective, which seeks to highlight the republic in the phrase,
naturally focuses more on the meaning and concept of freedom and
deems freedom fundamental and even it explicates the popularity of
the canon law on the basis of freedom.