Abstract:
This comparative study aimed to investigate anthropology and the status of the ruler from the perspectives of Hobbes and Khajeh Nezam Al-Mulk. On the one hand, we have Hobbes representing Western Thinking where God and Religion have no position as the human soul has prevailed, while, on the other hand, we have a Muslim thinker whose ideas have been derived taken from the Qur'an and a Hadith (Quotes from the Prophet). In this research, we first seek to review the political thinking of Hobbes and Khajeh Nezam Al-Mulk Tusi, and secondly, to investigate the position of the government in the thinking of these two thinkers. Using the library method, data were collected and after the data were collected, the differ-ences and similarities between the two views were stated and finally, the following results were inferred: 1- There are fundamental differences between the two views and ideas of these two philosophers with the differences being that Hobbes thinks only based on mun-dane and human thinking and encounters many doubts and contradictions, whereas Khajeh states his thinking based on Islam and Revelation. 2. Hobbes's political thinking is original-ly extra-religious and is based on the social contract, while the political thinking of Khajeh Nezam Al-Mulk is based on religion and religious decrees. However, the two thinkers are mostly similar in the sense that they regard security preceding over justice and equality be-ing the most important concept when justifying the absolute governance. The most impor-tant findings of this study suggest that Hobbes focuses more on the law as being more in favor of the ruler with the people following the ruler completely; hence this is a prelude to the formation of absolute states. This is while Khajeh considers people slaves to the ruler while emphasizing the ruler's Divine Right. Accordingly, this could intensify domination. The two thinkers consider the security of the people and the society under the shadow of the ruler with Hobbes regarding the ruler as an elected representative of the people and social contract and Khajeh calling him as selected by God. In this article, attempts were made to re-view and compare the issues using the historical and analytical method proposed by Skinner.
Machine summary:
The two thinkers consider the security of the people and the society under the shadow of the ruler with Hobbes regarding the ruler as an elected representative of the people and social contract and Khajeh calling him as selected by God. In this article, attempts were made to re- view and compare the issues using the historical and analytical method proposed by Skinner.
Table 2 The view of Khajeh Nezam Al-Mulk Tusi regarding the ruler and the people Ruler PeopleThe ruler is chosen by God and he is charged to preserve the religion The absolute ruling monarchy advises the ruler of religion and to consult with religious scholars God, not the people chooses the ruler The ruler's main obligation is to establish order, peace, and justice Justice is the most important attribute of the king is An ideal king pays attention to religion and religiosity and is just Social unrest and disorder is because of disobedience of the ruler and the people's rebellion against God because he is the ru- ler chosen by God The people must strictly obey the ruler People should not get involved in politics.
Man is a physical body with wisdom Differences between religious sects and their involve- ment in political affairs have led to dire consequences Intellect chaos among young people stemming from lack of scientific order and control as well as improper education at universities Humans must learn to follow the law Citizens cannot change the form of government People's votes constitute the foundation of government People can only reject the ruler if he fails to provide security or endangers the life of people.