This article theoretically examines the possibility or impossibility of the emergence of a modern Islamic state in the Arab world from the perspective of two contemporary prominent thinkers, Mohammad Jabroun and Saber Nefzaoui. Jabroun, with a reformist and rationalist approach, clearly emphasizes the need to reinterpret religious texts in light of contemporary conditions, and actively seeks to present a morality‑based model of an Islamic state in which justice, bay'ah (popular consent/pledge), and ma'ruf (common good) constitute the very core pillars. He advocates adapting traditional Islamic concepts to modern structures within an indigenous and ethical framework. In contrast, Nefzaoui, adopting a deeply critical perspective grounded in a fundamental contradiction, firmly deems the formation of a modern Islamic state impossible, viewing it as an incompatible attempt to reconcile two opposing and heterogeneous models: the secular Western modern state and Islamic Shari'ah. In his considered view, the modern Arab state is more a product of colonial imposition than a result of indigenous developments, and is thus an imported construct. He considers a return to the Islamic value system essential for reconstructing a legitimate Arab state. Accordingly, the present article employs a comparative‑analytical method and library‑based research to compare the views of these two thinkers on the possibility or impossibility of a modern Arab‑Islamic state. The research ultimately concludes that the political discourse of the modern Islamic state in the Arab world continues to oscillate between reformism and the fundamental rejection of modernity, and clearly requires deeper theoretical rethinking grounded in the cultural and historical exigencies of Islamic societies.