The theory of ‘state of nature’ which is considered as the cornerstone of the theories developed about social contract is not the creation of the western politica philosophers; rather, one can trace it in the Holy Qur’an and in ÝAllāmah ÓabaÔabāi’s political-interpretive approach to the problem in question. The theory refers to the situation prior to human civilization (precivilization) and when there has been no political sovereignty. Considering the fact that the need for a comparative study as to the views of western phiosophers and Muslim philosophers about state of nature is badly felt, it seems necessary to make a comparison between the views of John Locke and those of Allamah Tabatabai in this regard. Drawing upon the comparative-analytical method, the article seeks to study the views of these two thinkers in order to find the extent to which John Locke’s views differ from or resemble the views of ÝAllāmah ÓabāÔabāi. According to the findings of the research, both John Locke and ÝAllāmah ÓabāÔabāi hold a view that in the state of nature, human beings were inclined to have a peaceful social life or coexistence and live together in unity and the reverse situation was something accidental. Both thinkers believe what makes human beings live a social life or have a civilized way of life is urgency. However, Locke makes references to the natural law (reason) and ÝAllāmah ÓabāÔabāi to primordial or innate nature(fiÔrah). Locke thinks the way out of the state of nature is reliance on reason, but ÝAllāmah lays emphasis on man’s turning back to religion and obedience to the divine prophets and following their teachings. Given the fact that the state of nature as depicted by ÝAllāmah is of a real aspect and Locke’s state of nature is symbolic, it seems that the ‘state of nature’ theory of ÝAllāmah is capable of meeting the objection levelled at the unreal nature of Locke’s theory.