The Impossible State: Islam, Politics, and Modernity's Moral Predicament, by Wael B. Hallaq. New York, Columbia University Press, 2013. xiv, 256 pp. $25.00 US (paper). This book defies conventional categorization. Written by Wael B. Hallaq, a leading authority on Islamic law, the book has two dimensions. The first is a critique of the philosophical foundations of modern Euro-American states and societies, as well as their counterparts in the third world. Built on violence, the exploitation of the weak, and the destruction of the natural world, these states are the logical outcome of enlightenment rationalism, and the very antithesis of truly just, humane, and moral societies. State-centered modernity is fundamentally antithetical to the welfare of human beings. Hallaq does not say this, but by implication, the self-identified modern Islamic states--such as Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and others--are false models. Presumably Islamist-based opposition movements in Muslim majority states are pursuing an unrealizable goal. Muslims in European and American states, and other places where they are religious minorities, are warned against the siren call of liberal, multi-ethnic, multi-religious national societies. The second dimension of the book affirms that Islamic beliefs, embedded in the Qur'an and the Shari'a (divine law) bear the potential for creating just and moral societies. The Qur'an teaches that nature is a moral creation, and that human beings are put into the world to do and promote goodness and kindness. The basic rituals of Islam--prayer, fasting, pilgrimage, and charity--are technologies of the soul, the disciplines, the methods that promote love of God, and a commitment to goodness. Prostration reinforces humility. Charity and sharing of wealth develop compassion. Pilgrimage entails submission to the will of God. Hallaq imagines the medieval era as the time in which divine law was put into practice. Muslim legal scholars, representing communities, working by consensus and respect for independent judgment (ijtihad) developed Islamic law. The scholars came from and were dedicated to the wellbeing of the common people. By contrast with modern times, the state was not the source of law. The ruler did not legislate; he merely enforced Shari'a and was himself subordinate to it. The relation of rulers to scholars is presented as totally benign. Although rulers appointed judges, the jurisconsults and the courts were independent. Similarly, rulers often endowed education and appointed professor, but their political power could not shape the mentality of teachers and students. …