posits a separation between Church and State. Khomeini and Qutb both
argue that this distinction violates the essential unity of political and moral
domains, yet another instance of the corruption of Islam by a set of inappro-
priate categories derived from the history of Christian Europe (Khomeini
1981 , 38 ; Qutb 1962 , 129 ). Islam, Khomeini insists, ‘‘is a religion where worship
is joined to politics and political activity is a form of worship’’ (Khomeini
1981 , 275 ). It is thus the divine source of legislation and its jurisdiction over
both religious and political realms that distinguishes Islamic government—
which is synonymous with just government—from constitutional monarch-
ies, republics, and the ‘‘unbelieving’’ governments of the United States,
Britain, and the Soviet Union. These are governments, Khomeini writes,
that ‘‘execute anti-human laws and policies for the sake of their own inter-
ests’’ (Khomeini 1981 , 66 ).
For Khomeini and Qutb, the legitimate exercise of political power depends
always upon the ruler’s commitment to upholding to theShari‘a, not alle-
giance to the governed (Khomeini 1981 , 55 , 64 – 5 ; Qutb 1974 , 63 ). The respon-
sibility of the ruler to the ruled and ruled to ruler is thus mediated by the
Shari‘a: justiceXows from adherence to Islamic law alone, not from adher-
ence, for example, to the terms of a political contract. Khomeini maintains
that the rule of Islamic law must be under the guardianship of those most
knowledgeable in matters of divine law, thefuqaha(jurists), an argument that
simultaneously draws upon and eVects a radical rereading of Shi‘ite doctrines
regarding rulership (Akhavi 1988 , 414 ). Unlike Khomeini, Qutb, a Sunni
Muslim, rejects theocracy, claiming the traditionally elite prerogative to
judge rulers for himself and for all virtuous Muslims, much as the Reforma-
tion sought to make the Biblical text accessible to laymen.
Despite such diVerences, however, Qutb and Khomeini both insist that
divine sovereignty not only strengthens the Islamic community against those
who would destroy it from without and within, but also provides the only
framework through which essentially selWsh and arrogant human beings are
made moral. Indeed, all human behavior will be brought into conformity
with God’s will through daily adherence to laws large and small. Here equality
among human beings is possible for theWrst time, for all members are equal
to one another by virtue of their common submission to God. This is in stark
contrast to the manyjahilistates where only some rule others, and human
beings are in this way enslaved to one another. This is not the Lockean idea of
equality whereby all persons are free and equal in that each has a natural right
to life, liberty, and property; rather, it is the case that since all are equally
modern and contemporary islamic political theory 305