Comparing the Role of the Ruler in the Political Thought of Khajeh Nezam Al-Mulk Tusi and Thomas Hobbes

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.