This article aims to investigate the relationship between the theoretical developments within the religious reformist movement and the Islamic Revolution. Within this framework, the Islamic Revolution of Iran is presented as a product of the discursive transformation of religious reformism. The research methodology is a combination of textual interpretation, discourse analysis, and historical process tracing . Using these methods, the historical, theoretical, and discursive trajectory of reformism in Iran has been examined, and the formation of three main reformist discourses—namely, the discourses of Expediency, Compromise, and Debate—has been analyzed. The most significant finding of the article is that the Debate discourse played a primary role in shaping the ideology of the Revolution, redefining goals such as freedom, independence, and justice by reinterpreting Islamic concepts within a revolutionary framework. However, in the post-Revolutionary period, a lack of theoretical development for governing the country and the transformation of global discourse led to the decline of this discourse and necessitated its reconsideration.
Ghoreishi,F. (2025). The Discursive Transformation of Religious Reformism and the Islamic Revolution. The Revolutionary Research, 3(5), 267-287. doi: 10.22034/fademo.2025.527514.1114
MLA
Ghoreishi,F. . "The Discursive Transformation of Religious Reformism and the Islamic Revolution", The Revolutionary Research, 3, 5, 2025, 267-287. doi: 10.22034/fademo.2025.527514.1114
HARVARD
Ghoreishi F. (2025). 'The Discursive Transformation of Religious Reformism and the Islamic Revolution', The Revolutionary Research, 3(5), pp. 267-287. doi: 10.22034/fademo.2025.527514.1114
CHICAGO
F. Ghoreishi, "The Discursive Transformation of Religious Reformism and the Islamic Revolution," The Revolutionary Research, 3 5 (2025): 267-287, doi: 10.22034/fademo.2025.527514.1114
VANCOUVER
Ghoreishi F. The Discursive Transformation of Religious Reformism and the Islamic Revolution. The Revolutionary Research, 2025; 3(5): 267-287. doi: 10.22034/fademo.2025.527514.1114