سید مصطفی ابطحی

This article is an effort based on critical discourse analysis and is carried out by the descriptive-analytical method. The results show that The Reformists and Principlist do not have the same attitude to the political participation. Based on the Guardianship of the Islam Jurist in the field of political principles, the Principlist believe in appointment and consider the legitimacy from top to bottom. They consider the voting of people is a confirmation to them. They also believe that approbatory supervision is necessary and try to develop Islamism rather than republic. On the other hand, the Reformist consider the political participation form bottom to top and they believe that it results in political development. They believe that the government should be formed based on people’s opinion and compared to Principlist, they believe less to approbatory supervision. They emphasize on the importance of republic. In order to determine their own destiny, they try to take the advantage of political participations including voting in elections, establishing societies and organizations, media activities, guild activities, etc. Anyway, the researches show that different patterns can be considered in the field of competition and political participation in Iran.in iran in iran in iran in iran in iran

The discussion on the relationship between religion and politics has a long history in Christianity, spanning several centuries. With the onset of modernity, especially with the theories proposed by Thomas Hobbes, the claim of secularism or the separation of religion from politics was raised and remains a subject of much debate to this day. Thomas Hobbes, in the aftermath of the religious wars in England during the 16th and 17th centuries, attempted to transform worldly power into the ulti-mate arbiter in the public sphere by separating the foundations of politics from religion, introducing the concept of "state religion." In contrast to the West, Islamic thought has consistently understood politics based on religious foundations. In the 20th century, due to colonization, the debate on the separation of religion from politics entered the Islamic world. With the victory of the Islamic Revo-lution, this Western claim was challenged, and Imam Khomeini introduced the theory of the "Reli-gious state," presenting the religious nature of political foundations in Islam in a novel way. Based on these foundations, this article aims to explore the relationship between religion and politics in the political thoughts of Thomas Hobbes and Imam Khomeini, both of whom, as founders and initia-tors of political thought, have presented era-defining views. In doing so, we seek to demonstrate, through an examination of their arguments, the perspectives on the relationship between religion and politics put forth by Imam Khomeini and Hobbes. Through this comparative analysis, we can highlight important points in these two types of thinking. Consequently, by considering the discus-sions regarding the relationship between religion and politics in Western and Islamic thought, using a descriptive-analytical approach, we pose the following questions: What is the relationship be-tween religion and politics in the political thoughts of Thomas Hobbes and Imam Khomeini? What is the concept of "state religion" according to Thomas Hobbes? What is the concept of the "Reli-gious state" according to Imam Khomeini?

Thomas Hobbes's theory of "social contract" provided a new basis for the establishment of the gov-ernment, which had fundamental differences with the theories before it. In such a way that he con-sidered the government "constitutional" and not "natural". According to him, before the govern-ment, people lived in a natural state, which is a kind of a state of war, and according to the natural law and the rule of reason, they should have left this state and entered a state of peace. A state of peace requires the "establishment" of the government to provide security. Based on this, the citizens establish the government through agreement and contract and transfer all their rights to it in order to end the war situation and be the final judge of the affairs. This theory of Hobbes was proposed in the field of religious and political ideological controversies, which its roots go back to the late Mid-dle Ages and the conflict between the church and the kingdom regarding the basis of the legitimacy of the government. On this basis, without paying attention to the context of Hobbes's discussion, it is not possible to get a precise understanding of his theory and intention in the "Social Contract" plan. Our goal in this article is to read Hobbes's theory "context-centered" and we use Quentin Skinner's approach. As a result, our question is, in what context was Thomas Hobbes's "social con-tract" about the basis of government legitimacy formed, and what was his intention in proposing it? Our hypothesis is that Thomas Hobbes, in the field of disputes between the church and the kings, based on the two main theories of the absolute authority of the Pope (controversy of installation) and the divine right of kings, to transition from the state of religious-political wars in England, pro-posed a "social contract" and provided a new basis of legitimacy for the establishment of the state.