1. Introduction

The religious policy of the Seljuk state, particularly during the reign of Malik-Shah, constitutes one of the most significant and contested dimensions of political history in fifth-century AH Islamic Iran. During this period, the Seljuk government faced not only the challenge of consolidating political authority and organizing a vast bureaucratic apparatus, but also the necessity of managing profound religious and sectarian diversity. This pluralism was rooted in earlier historical experiences—most notably the Buyid period—as well as in the legal, theological, and intra-sectarian conflicts of the fourth and fifth centuries AH. In this context, the relationship between politics and religion was not peripheral but fundamental to the Seljuk state-building project, and any interpretation of elite political action that neglects this relationship risks oversimplification.

Among Seljuk political actors, Niẓām al-Mulk Ṭūsī occupies a uniquely central position. His nearly three-decade-long vizierate under Alp Arslan and Malik-Shah, his role in establishing durable administrative and educational institutions, and his contribution to the ideological formation of the Seljuk state have led many historians to associate the religious policies of the period—rightly or wrongly—primarily with his person. Yet prevailing portrayals of Niẓām al-Mulk tend to oscillate between two reductive extremes. On the one hand, he is depicted as a sectarian and anti-Shiʿi vizier pursuing a deliberate project of eliminating Shiʿism, particularly Twelver Shiʿism; on the other hand, the continued presence of Shiʿis within Seljuk bureaucratic and social structures is taken as evidence of his religious tolerance or neutrality. Although both interpretations draw on historical evidence, neither adequately explains the internal logic of his political action or the relationship between language, thought, and practice in his policies.

Research Question(s)

This article addresses this interpretive gap by posing the following research questions: How did Niẓām al-Mulk conceptualize and enact his policies toward Twelver Shiʿism and Ismailism? On what political and intellectual grounds did he distinguish between these two Shiʿi currents, and what function did this distinction serve in the Seljuk state-building project? To answer these questions, the study employs Quentin Skinner’s methodology in the history of political thought, which conceptualizes political texts as context-bound speech acts rather than expressions of timeless beliefs. From this perspective, Niẓām al-Mulk’s writings—especially the Siyāsat-nāma—are read as strategic political interventions aimed at ordering power, managing threats, and redefining the relationship between religion and kingship within the Seljuk political imagination.



3. Methodology

This study adopts Quentin Skinner’s methodology in the history of political thought as its analytical framework. The theoretical foundation of Skinner’s approach rests on the principle that understanding a text requires reconstructing the author’s intentions at the moment of writing. As Skinner famously argues, the central question is not merely what an author said, but what the author was doing in saying it. From this perspective, political texts are not neutral repositories of abstract propositions but forms of linguistic and political action produced in response to specific historical problems, conflicts, and circumstances.

Skinner emphasizes that a genuinely historical study of political thought must situate texts within the intellectual conventions and discursive contexts that made particular forms of political action intelligible. Accordingly, texts possess an illocutionary or performative dimension and should be analyzed intertextually, without claiming direct access to the inner mental states of past thinkers. The objective is to reconstruct the concepts, distinctions, and argumentative strategies available to authors by employing conventional methods of historical inquiry.

In this research, particular attention is given to one of the core components of Skinner’s methodology: the analysis of political thought through prevailing norms and conventions. Skinner maintains that the meaning of a text can only be grasped by identifying the dominant norms governing social and political action in a given historical context. On this basis, the study first reconstructs the key political and religious norms preceding the Seljuk period, as well as those shaping the Abbasid caliphate and the Seljuk state. It then examines how Niẓām al-Mulk’s political language and religious policy engaged with these norms—either reinforcing or transforming them—in order to articulate a coherent strategy of governance.



4. Results

This study applied Quentin Skinner’s methodology to the analysis of Niẓām al-Mulk’s approach to Twelver Shiʿism and Ismailism through a three-stage analytical process. First, it reconstructed the prior political and intellectual norms governing the relationship between state and religion in Niẓām al-Mulk’s political thought. Second, it reread the Siyāsat-nāma within the conventional discursive and institutional frameworks of the Seljuk period. Third, it analyzed Niẓām al-Mulk’s treatment of Twelver Shiʿism and Ismailism in order to identify the specific political actions he sought to perform through the language of religion and governance. This methodological framework made it possible to interpret his policies not as reflections of personal intolerance or tolerance, but as rational and situational political acts embedded in Seljuk political thought.

The findings demonstrate that Niẓām al-Mulk drew a fundamental distinction between Twelver Shiʿism and Ismailism, rooted in his differentiated assessment of the political threat posed by each group. Despite its doctrinal divergence from official Sunnism, Twelver Shiʿism was not perceived as an immediate or organized political challenge to Seljuk authority. Lacking a centralized political structure and direct action against the state, the Twelvers were subjected to a policy of institutional containment and epistemic exclusion. On the one hand, their marginalization from official institutions of knowledge and legitimacy—most notably the Niẓāmiyya madrasas—served to reinforce the Sunni identity of the Seljuk state. On the other hand, the avoidance of systematic repression allowed for a minimal level of coexistence necessary for effective governance. As a result, Twelver Shiʿism was displaced to the institutional margins rather than eliminated, prompting a reconfiguration of its intellectual and social strategies in non-official spheres.

In contrast, Ismailism was constructed within Niẓām al-Mulk’s political discourse not as a religious deviation but as an existential political enemy. Analysis of the language of the Siyāsat-nāma reveals that terms such as “Bāṭiniyya,” “corruption,” and “disruption of the realm” functioned as securitizing speech acts that rendered coercive elimination both rational and legitimate. In this framework, violence was not exceptional but integral to the logic of politics aimed at preserving state order against an organized and active threat. Accordingly, the disparity in the intensity and form of Niẓām al-Mulk’s response to these two Shiʿi currents stemmed not from theological disagreement, but from political rationality and situational judgment.

Ultimately, this article argues that Niẓām al-Mulk’s religious policy should be understood as a constellation of linguistic, institutional, and practical actions that acquire meaning only within the specific historical context of the fifth century AH. By employing Skinner’s approach, the study moves beyond moralistic and reductionist readings and reconstructs Niẓām al-Mulk’s thought as a political response to religious pluralism, legitimacy crises, and security threats facing the Seljuk state. From this perspective, Niẓām al-Mulk emerges neither as a symbol of religious tolerance nor merely as a sectarian zealot, but as a political actor who consciously differentiated between accommodation, containment, and coercion according to the nature of the perceived threat, thereby playing a decisive role in shaping Seljuk religious policy.