This article adopts a comparative-analytical method to examine the epistemological, anthropological, and political foundations of the political thought of Imam Khomeini and John Locke. Its central question addresses how each thinker conceptualizes the desirable political order based on their respective understandings of human nature, knowledge, the source of political authority, and the purpose of government. Imam Khomeini’s political philosophy is grounded in the interplay among Tawhid, Sharia, religious rationality, guardianship, and popular participation in establishing a political order. By contrast, Locke articulates a distinct model predicated on natural rights, individual consent, the social contract, and religious toleration.



The findings indicate that the contrast between these two perspectives cannot be reduced to simplistic binaries, such as “divine legitimacy” versus “popular legitimacy” or “religion” versus “reason.” In Imam Khomeini’s framework, public acceptance, political rationality, and public interest play integral roles alongside divine law. Likewise, Locke’s theory of natural rights and political order is not entirely detached from theological foundations. The article concludes that a balanced comparison must consider both fundamental differences and shared concerns, including justice, political accountability, public order, and human dignity. Therefore, comprehending these two theories necessitates a nuanced and context-sensitive approach.