Nizam Al-Mulk Book of Government
Nizam Al-Mulk Book of Government
Nizam Al-Mulk Book of Government
Hist 115
11-12-08
Four hundred years after the death of the prophet Muhammad, those in power are
not descendants of Muhammad, or even any of the Rashidun caliphs. They are not even
Arabs. They are Turks. To mention these details to a 7th century Muslim would probably
result in a heart attack, but such is the scene in and around the Arabian Peninsula when
Government. I will outline a few of Nizam al-Mulk’s main points in his effort to portray
God is Government. For all intents and purposes, in the Islamic world, in the 9th
and 10th centuries, God is Government. Nizam al-Mulk wrote “In every age and time God
(be He exalted) chooses one member of the human race and, having adorned and
endowed him with kingly virtues, entrusts him with the interests of the world and the
well-being of His servants…” This illustrates two things. One, that God is behind the
appointment of the ruler. And two, that there is a supposed transfer of power as God
“entrusts him with the interests of the world…” Despite this, the king is still in a vastly
different seat than that of the caliph. The king does not have the same overarching claim
of infallibility that the caliph does. The king is more of a hands on ruler and must “ever
acquaint himself, secretly and openly, with their (his subordinates) conditions;” so that
“blessings from those actions may come about in the time of his rule…” A wise and just
ruler will be like a light in the darkness that the peasantry can use to light his or her own
path to The Truth. Of course, the king must use the Qur’an and the hadiths as tools to
In order for the king to be informed of the goings on of his people Nizam al-Mulk
advises a wide range of tactics. The king should use informants, spies, and messengers to
relay valuable details regarding the kingdom. According to Nizam al-Mulk, quarrels
chicken or a bag of straw from another” are worthy of the king’s attention. Although it
might be said that the king has a “responsibility” to the peasantry, the absolute nature of
At this time, as long as the king is in power it is safe to assume that he is in God’s
favor. Once his rein is questioned, he looses on the battlefield, or is assassinated; the new
ruler stakes claim on divine leadership based on the grounds that he was able to
Because these rulers are not claiming authority based on their genealogy, in the
eyes of the Islamic community they are only as powerful as God decides them to be. If a
king has his throne secure then it must be because God wills it to be so. This dependency
on God for legitimacy leaves the ruler on completely un-solid ground if Islam is not true.
If the king is said to be appointed by a god that does not exist, or does not back him, then
he is just a man. If he uses a counterfeit book of scripture and the words of a false
unfounded. If he believes the Islamic God has put him there, he better be right, or he is no
better than the lowest of the peasants he rules. He has not been entrusted with the
the 9th and 10th centuries. The rulers have many of the same characteristics of the
caliphs they have taken the power from, but also because of the nature of their rule, have