We need a classical Ottoman empire which was reasonably tolerant of minorities and which rendered all the land and ethnic disputes irrelevant since the entire empire was the Sultan’s personal property.
The Turks turned into dog shit when they tried to emulate the European model of a nation state.
The difference is that Christianity, within its texts, always had the justification for living under secular or non-Christian rule and had an overwhelming focus on being passive and peaceful.
Christians may have set up their own religious kingdoms and murdered the infidels, but it’s not exactly what Jesus was preaching.
In the Islamic world there was in practice a rough separation of religion and state. Not in the modern Western sense of course. Rather most functions that we associate with Shari'a were carried out by networks of scholars and mosques that were primarily organized from the bottom up and rooted in their local communities. Shari'a courts were not like modern day criminal or civil courts which are run by the centralized state, they are more like private arbitration courts and in practice often arbiters of last resort as more often than not people could find a private arbiter from the community itself.
There's even an old saying in the Islamic world
The best sultan is he who sits and stands with the scholars. The worst scholar is he who sits and stands with the sultans.
It was considered distasteful for scholars to try and interest themselves in top down state politics.
Of course that too is oversimplifying it as there was still the post of Shaykh al Islam, appointed by the sultan, which did carry immense prestige. It wasn't like being a Supreme Court Justice, their decisions were merely guidelines other scholars and jurists could choose to follow or not, and to reach that post you were often part of some scholarly family that intermarried with dynastic elites. But still it had prestige and influence, its just more so through moral authority than than coercive force. And of course many religious/charitable institutions were funded by wealthy actors within the state out of their own pockets so how you view that through the modern lens of separation of church and state is not easy.
Even if you go back to the beginning the so called state in Medina was not that sophisticated even by premodern standards. As far as I know there was no professional bureaucracy or standing army which other premodern states such as the Roman and Achaemenid Empires did have. If you want to use modern terms it was really an intentional community with really high levels of civic engagement, not a bureaucratic coercive state like modern so called Islamic states or even what you see in some ancient premodern states like in ancient Egypt.
I think if Muslims want to apply Shari'a in the modern world it should be through civil society and the private sector, not the state. Apply Shari'a through private arbitration courts, encourage people to make business contracts in accordance with Shari'a when possible, expand access to private religious education, and of course manage and expand the social welfare networks instead of entrusting it to the bloated and corrupt bureaucracies of the state.
If you want to influence politics, don't make political parties but rather just stick to opposition politics. Pressure the state in that way and focus on issues where there is broad public support like repealing emergency laws or austerity measures or passing and repealing laws such that the aforementioned private/civil society functions are made easier.
