Khan disagrees with al-Afghānī's idea that lost political power and its restitution developed into the theory that Islam had a system covering the whole of human life and that this included politics. This ideological development made the notion of a "political revolution" into a religious duty, "a binding obligation, like prayers and fasting." Discrediting the religious credentials of "political Islam," Khan writes: "The movement was the result of anti-Western rather than pro-Islam feelings."
Hence, political Islam is "not genuinely Islamic in nature," and it "had only the community agenda in mind [and] adopted the name of Islam purely as a means of self-justification." The Islamic message is the eternal and universal divine message directed at each individual human; hence the creation of a Muslim state or society is in opposition to true religion. Furthermore, according to Khan, the concept of an ideal Islamic state has no direct precedent in the Quran and the Sunna. This makes the ideas of political revolution and state-building as binding religious duties untenable in Islam. This is because in a slightly legal-technical, any "basic Islamic injunction" can never be construed by "inferential argument," which can only be used to clarify "peripheral matters."
Each of the four Sunni rightful caliphs was settled upon by different procedures. Therefore, a final verdict, "a basic Islamic injunction," on the origin and nature of an Islamic state cannot be agreed upon. Khan asserts that this is not due to any fault of the Islamic revelation. Instead, it shows a certain truth of Islam. It proves that the goal of Islam is to call people to the one God and to encourage individual perfection. Hence, the purpose of Islam is not the creation of an ideal state that upholds its laws by force. The acceptance of Islam must be the result of an inward transformation of submission to God.