---

There are many similarities in the ups and downs of social and literary life of Nizar Qabbani, Arabic poet, and Ahmad Shamlu who is Iranian poet. This article examine concept of freedom in the poems of these two poets to consider differences and similarities of thought of the poets in this issue. People and rulers share in the acquisition and preservation of liberty, which these two poets have focused on both of them, using the symbol and the combination of lyrical concepts and political and social concepts, have presented their subject. Shamlu praises the freedom-loving people and defines “poverty” as lack of freedom. Qabbani tries to summon the people of the Arab lands to reform their affairs. he blames the heads of Arabic countries more, but does not name a certain person and notes the danger of the Jews. Ahmad Shamlu and Nizar Qabbani believe that gunfight is one of the ways which can be achieved freedom through it. So, they loathe silence of people against cruelty, autocracy and injustice, and they blame or chide and sometimes humiliate people for that. Both poets condemn autocracy and additionally they show their unique talent and genius in describing “freedom”. Clarity and simplicity of Nizar’s poems and mysterious and elusive words in Shamlu’s poesies are the characteristics of these two poets in the concept of freedom.

---

One of the forms of being is to think and create antagonism in resistance to the Other. Antagonism is the (mis)reading of the action and structure of the thoughts of the other. One of the most evident phenomenological aspects of the modern Persian poem is creation of opposition. Shamlu’s works are the best example of such oppositional discourses. Through this methodology, not only he reaches new structures in his poetry, but also he expands this method to his other cultural activities. This paper has two parts. The first part presents a phenomenological definition of antagonism and how it is formed by opposition, dialogue, and enmity and how it results in creation of linguistic, cultural, and aesthetic structures. In the second part, the typology of Shamlu’s antagonistic discourse has been studied based on these assumptions. The paper concludes that Shamlu has four kinds of oppositions: reversality, myth making, playing with structure, and breaking the taboos