from Muslim backgrounds; most, however, are likely to be found in Western
societies.
Religion and Politics: Among the primary tenets of Islam, despite many
regional variations, there has been the widespread endurance of Shariahbased
religious codes, and the unity of religion, commerce, governance and every-
day life. For Islam, the idea that laws were made by men, rather than based
on the revealed word of Allah, was heresy. Muhammad was both a trader
and a Prophet; there was no conflict between commercial and religious activ-
ities. As was noted, given the traditional class systems, there did not emerge
the kinds of relationships that led to a bifurcation of mosque and a trading
class, whether the relationship was cooperative, as in the Italian city-states
as the Church grew richer, or contentious, as when free peasants and petit
bourgeoisie embraced Luther or Calvin. As such, we did not see the condi-
tions that gave rise to “constitutionalism”, recognition of legal rights that
might sustain secular authority challenged by other bodies or estates. Islam
did not create a separation of mosque and State and spaces where “people”
might legitimately challenge State rule. Islamic fundamentalists accept this
unity of faith and power, but challenge existing systems so that they might
take power and restore a lost unity.
Government: The ideal form of Islamic government was the Caliphate, a
form of traditional authority, in which theologically qualified elites were
selected as rulers in which Shariahbased Islamic rules prevailed. Muhammad
as the founder, and the Rightful Holy Caliphs (Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman and
Ali), established principles of theocratic governance that were given legiti-
macy and coherence by embracing Plato’s concept of a “natural” ruling elite.
Other forms of government were precluded. The Caliphate, much like hered-
itary kingship, was not based on popular assent, representative government
or democratic secular values typical of modern “rational” Nation-States. Tradi-
tional Islamic governance thus precluded secular nationalism that fostered
citizen-based identities on the basis of “the rights of man”. Nor was there a
space for popular representation and assent of the governed. Man-made law
was not seen as acceptable.^33 The bourgeois political imaginary embraced
“popular sovereignty”, republicanism and secular nationalism as principles
of legitimate authority reflecting the “will of the people”, constructed as cit-
312 • Lauren Langman
(^33) Indeed as Weber has shown, the preconditions for democratic governance were
unique to European Christendom, save for a few brief moments among Greek and
Roman elite landowners, democracy has not been a typical form of governance.