A Comparative Study of the Political Thought of Hobbes and Tusi on the Ruling Position, the People and the Law in Society

The stability of any society is based on the rule of law and the security of its people. Also, the law can be considered as the most important link between the people and sovereignty. Thus, throughout history, theorists have always had different views about the three elements of law, the ruler and the people. The main question and purpose of this article is: What are the similarities and differences between the political thought of Thomas Hobbes, the seventeenth-century English thinker, and the Khwaja Nizam al-Mulk al-Tusi? It can also be said that the most important origin of Hobbes's political thought is based on social contract. However, the origin of Khwaja Nizam al-Mulk's political thought was based on religion. The most important similarity between Hobbes and Khwaja Nizam al-Mulk al-Tusi's view is the priority of security on justice and equality, which is the main concept in justifying absolute sovereignty. The most important findings of this study are as follows: In the Hobbes theory, the law is more in favor of the ruler, and the people must obey the ruler. However, Khwaja Nizam al-Mulk emphasizes the divine right of the kingdom, recognizes the people as the ruling slave, and intensifies the policy of domination. Both Hobbes and Khwaja Nizam al-Mulk believe that the security of the community and the people depend on the ruler. However, in Hobbes's view, the ruler is elected by the people and the social contract, but in Khwaja Nizam al-Mulk's view, the ruler is God's chosen one. In this article, using the historical analytical method and examining the political and social situation of both thinkers, it has been attempted to investigate and explain the issue.