Historical Reading of the Concepts of Individual Freedom and State Power in the Political Discourse of Ayatollah Naeini and Sheikh Fazlullah Nouri in the Constitution

The purpose of writing this article is to explain the differences between the historical reading of the concepts of individual freedom and state power in the political discourse of Ayatollah Naeini and Sheikh Fazlullah Nouri. The concepts of individual freedom and the power of the state and its characteristics for Shiites have been the main topics of Shiite jurists during the period of absence. The Constitutional Revolution, which is one of the most important developments in the contemporary period of our country, followed by the establishment of a new monarchical regime; It is one of the historical turning points in which the legitimacy of the new political regime in its application to Islamic principles was disputed by scholars. Some saw the constitutional revolution and its purpose in accordance with the theoretical positions of religious thought, and their reading of the constitution coincided with the explanation of the concepts of individual freedom and state power. On the other hand, they saw constitutionalism and its institutions as contrary to the theoretical foundations of Shiite political thought. The representatives of these two different jurisprudential approaches to the basis of the legitimacy of the constitutional government were the two great jurists of the constitutional era, Allameh Naeini and Sheikh Fazlullah Nouri. The results of this article in the face of two jurists with the concepts of new political discourse on the one hand witnessed the elitist ideology and bipolar theory of government by Sheikh Nouri to fulfill the rules of Sharia and on the other hand Allameh Naini for the first time to some extent freedom and sovereignty He accompanied the people along with Velayat-e-Faqih on the bed of religion. This article, using the discourse concepts of these thinkers with their own historical reading, led to the inference of a different and sometimes contradictory view of these thinkers.