The historian Barani refused to consider the state in India under Delhi Sultans as truly Islamic because

Barani criticized the Delhi Sultans for not ruling strictly by shariʿa and for the growing practice of the ruler framing state ordinances (zawabit) that supplemented or overrode religious law. Contemporary accounts note sultans like Alauddin asserted absolute power and acted pragmatically rather than following theological prescriptions [1]. The rulers resisted ulama demands to impose shariʿa fully because they ruled over a majority non-Muslim population and therefore relied on other legitimizing forces (sufis) and state regulations instead of jurists’ interpretations [2]. Barani’s own discussions (and later analyses) highlight his concern with the emergence of zawabit as a political-legal innovation that made the Sultanate fall short of a truly Islamic state in his eyes [3].

Sources

1. [1] History , class XI (Tamilnadu state board 2024 ed.) > Chapter 10: Advent of Arabs and Turks > State and Society > p. 148
2. [2] THEMES IN INDIAN HISTORY PART II, History CLASS XII (NCERT 2025 ed.) > Chapter 6: Bhakti-Sufi Traditions > 7.4 Sufis and the state > p. 159
3. [3] https://dacollege.org/uploads/stdmat/History-SEM4-CC9-religious-tolerance.pdf