The surprising rise of the Islamic State of Iraq and Sham (ISIS) and its proclamation as the caliphate on 29 June 2014 imposed an obvious threat to nation-states. The continuous controversy over the nature and applicability of Islamic tenets to governmental institutions has yet to be solved. The possibility and impossibility of an Islamic state in contemporary times is observed by analyzing the very nature of Islam. The concept of an Islamic state is based on the teachings of the Koran and Sunnah, as meant for human welfare and happiness that, according to Muhammad Asad, would automatically preclude the government of such a state from contemplating wars of aggression. This article attempts to analyze the political developments that have taken place since the beginning of the twentieth century and the failure of the Muslims in establishing an Islamic state, despite upholding sharī‘ah principles.

The problematic addressed in this article is the challenge initiated by the Arab revolutions to reform the Arab political system in such a way as to facilitate the incorporation of ‘democracy’ at the core of its structure. Given the profound repercussions, this issue has become the most serious matter facing the forces of change in the Arab world today; meanwhile, it forms the most prominent challenge and the most difficult test confronting Islamists. The Islamist phenomenon is not an alien implant that descended upon us from another planet beyond the social context or manifestations of history. Thus it cannot but be an expression of political, cultural, and social needs and crises. Over the years this phenomenon has presented, through its discourse, an ideological logic that falls within the context of ‘advocacy’; however, today Islamists find themselves in office, and in a new context that requires them to produce a new type of discourse that pertains to the context of a ‘state’. Political participation ‘tames’ ideology and pushes political actors to rationalize their discourse in the face of daily political realities and the necessity of achievement. The logic of advocacy differs from that of the state: in the case of advocacy, ideology represents an enriching asset, whereas in the case of the state, it constitutes a heavy burden. This is one reason why so much discourse exists within religious jurisprudence related to interest or necessity or balancing outcomes. This article forms an epilogue to the series of articles on religion and the state published in previous issues of this journal. It adopts the methodologies of ‘discourse analysis’ and ‘case studies’ in an attempt to examine the arguments presented by Islamists under pressure from the opposition. It analyses the experiences, and the constraints, that inhibit the production of a ‘model’, and monitors the development of the discourse, its structure, and transformations between advocacy, revolution and the state.

This article provides an overview of the issues addressed in a series of papers on the general theme of ‘religion and the state in the Arab world’ published in Contemporary Arab Affairs over the past 12 months. The papers were initially presented at a conference convened by the Center for Arab Unity Studies and the Swedish Alexandria Institute, held in Hamamaat, Tunisia, in November 2012. Further to his own paper on the topic (published in issue 6(4) in this journal) here Abdelilah Belkeziz identifies the purpose of the whole exercise, namely to explore a range of different perspectives on the theme. He positions these perspectives on a spectrum between two extremes: at one, he contends, the case for separation between religion and state verges on hostility to religion itself; and at the other, an exclusivist version of Islam is accorded primacy over all other considerations in the running of a state and thence political discourse. He discusses the dangers inherent in both extremes and makes the case for a model of secularism that accords space to both religion and politics in the national project.