Abstract
This article examines some fundamental perspectives in the political thought of Abū Hāmed Ghazzālī and Mohammad Bāqir Sabzevārī, and compares their views on specific topics. The aim of this research is to investigate the differences in their approaches after analyzing their political opinions on several broad issues and comparing them. After examining Ghazzali’s perspectives on five different topics, in each section we demonstrate that Sabzevari, who wrote his work several centuries later, expresses more balanced, moderate, and pragmatic viewpoints on these subjects. This suggests that centuries of political struggles and historical events influenced the political perspectives of certain prominent thinkers. Moreover, if adopting more moderate and pragmatic approaches is considered a sign of civilizational progress in political science, then the changes observed in Sabzevari’s political thought indicate an advancement and evolution in political ideas within our civilizational sphere, compared to earlier political perspectives.
Keywords: Gazzali, Mohammad Bagher Sabzevari, Nasihat al-Moluk, Rawzat al-Anwar, justice.

Introduction
Since ancient times in Iran, certain scholars—often among statesmen or those familiar with governance—produced advisory treatises for rulers. These works outlined the virtues of effective governance to encourage their practice and cautioned against actions deemed inappropriate or reprehensible. They addressed historical, political, prudential, religious, ethical, and other matters, and often accompanied these treatises with historical stories and anecdotes. From the Islamic period onward, references to Qur’anic verses and other religious accounts, stories, and quotations were added to demonstrate the alignment of these advisory treatises with foundational religious principles. The inclusion of Qur’anic verses, religious accounts, and quotations served to show that their guidance was consistent with the content of the principal religious texts, while the use of historical anecdotes indicated that their recommendations were derived from experience and, therefore, practical and tested. Thus, these political treatises not only paid special attention to the pragmatic aspects of governance—often framed through historical anecdotes—but also sought to align their guidance with the established religious and cultural traditions of the time.
These political advisory treatises were, in many respects, highly similar to one another. For example, many of them cited anecdotes and statements attributed to certain pre-Islamic Iranian kings, ministers, and sages; particular attention was often given to the style of governance of Anushirvan the Just and to the advice of Bozorgmehr. In their examinations, they focused, above all, on the justice of the ancient Kings. For instance, the description provided by both Ghazzali and Sabzevari regarding the practice of ancient Iranian kings—holding a court with the presence of the chief mobad to hear the people’s grievances against the king—is especially notable in that it emphasizes the exemplary justice of these monarchs.
Moreover, in nearly all of these treatises, the interweaving of politics and religion is apparent to some degree. They placed politics within the framework of their religious beliefs and aligned it with them, or, over time, imposed a religious framework on political practice.
They also typically presented ethical points alongside—and often before—the presentation of points and advice concerning politics, governance, and state administration. Moreover, they usually accompanied their accounts with numerous anecdotes, a practice that helped make their texts more engaging and easier to comprehend. In addition, alongside paying respect to and preserving the dignity of the king or ruler, there is often a degree of frankness and openness in presenting advice, and it appears that they sought to leave no important matter unaddressed, even if doing so occasionally caused their guidance to extend somewhat beyond the role of an ordinary advisor. Other common features can also be observed across these political advisory treatises.
But the focus of this article is on certain differences between two political treatises, since it seems that by concentrating on these differences we can better examine civilizational-intellectual transformations, particularly in the sphere of politics. One of the treatises under discussion is Ghazzali’s Nasihat al-Moluk, written for a Seljuk ruler. The other is Mohammad Bagher Sabzevari’s Rawzat al-Anwar, composed several centuries later and addressed to Shah ʿAbbas II of the Safavid dynasty. In both of these works, the question of “justice” may be seen as a central issue, yet Ghazzali and Sabzevari appear to approach this matter in different ways. One possible reason for their divergent views, in addition to the different historical contexts in which they lived, lies in the distinct religious doctrines to which they adhered. With this difference in mind, it can be concluded that a change in the political outlook had emerged.
Materials and Methods
The aim of this study is to address the question of the differences in the political views of Ghazzali and Sabzevari on several general issues, and to analyze and compare them. In this examination, we seek to demonstrate that Ghazzali’s intense and rigid stance on certain matters gradually underwent transformation over time.
In order to pursue this aim, the article adopts a comparative and analytical approach. By examining two key political texts by the aforementioned authors and analyzing their views, we undertake a critical evaluation and comparison of their ideas, leading to conclusions about how they addressed certain political issues.
Discussion and Result
This study examines five key themes in the political thought of Ghazzali and Sabzevari. Ghazzali favors a form of strict religious duty in his political outlook, whereas Sabzevari places greater emphasis on justice and the stability of the realm.
In several themes, Sabzevari’s thought moves beyond Ghazzali’s faith-based perspective, aligning more closely with historical and political realities, and adopting a balanced and pragmatic approach. Overall, Sabzevari demonstrates a shift toward moderation and pragmatism, reflecting intellectual development and civilizational progression in political thought over the centuries. This transition appears traceable and analyzable through a comparison of their writings.
Conclusion
This study compares five key themes in the political thought of Ghazzali and Sabzevari. First, Ghazzali emphasizes strict religious duty in governance, whereas Sabzevari shows less rigidity and places greater emphasis on justice and the stability of the realm. Second, while Ghazzali prioritizes religious obligation over popular welfare, Sabzevari treats justice and public satisfaction as inseparable, viewing the people as allies of a just ruler in an ideal government. Third, Sabzevari adopts a more pragmatic and historically informed approach, moving beyond Ghazzali’s strictly faith-based perspective. Fourth, Ghazzali exhibits distrust toward political agents, whereas Sabzevari praises just rulers and emphasizes the necessity of competent governance. Fifth, Ghazzali holds a pessimistic view of the world, while Sabzevari, though attentive to the afterlife, regards the world as a transient marketplace, adopting a more balanced perspective.
Overall, Sabzevari demonstrates a shift toward moderation and pragmatism compared to Ghazzali. This evolution reflects intellectual development in political thought over the centuries and suggests a discernible civilizational progression in governance and political reasoning.