Face off Discourses in the Islamic Republic of Iran Constitution Council (Discourse of Jurist Islam versus the Liberal Islam)

The present study aimed to examine the position of jurist islam discourses and liberal islam in the final review of the islamic republic of iran constitution in 1979. and consider the conflict between the above-mentioned constitutional discourses to gain a better understanding of these discourses and the constitution. to this aim, should find the point of the debate on the draft was in the final constitutional review session of the iri. and for finding the result, details the final constitutional review negotiations, and the memoirs and interviews of council members, as well as those involved in the constitution draft, were examined using laclau and mouffe's theory of discourse. the council for final review of the islamic republic of iran constitution, consisted of the jurist islam proponents and the liberal islam. based on the views of the representatives of the two sides, the discourse of liberal islam, which vied for such concepts as freedom, national sovereignty and the governance of law stood against the jurist islam discourse; which held for the rule of the jurist over the society, the islamic society and establishment of the divine laws and limits. ultimately, the jurist islam, backed by an absolute majority in the council for final review of the islamic republic of iran constitution, building on the revolutionary atmosphere prevailing in the society, succeeded in compiling and ratify the constitution according to its discourse.