I was just listening to an interesting discussion on the radio about why it's so difficult for predominantly Islamic nation-states to follow the secularisation path which the West has followed for hundreds of years.
The overwhelming alignment of religion/politics/economics/law in Islam, actually, the word I'm looking for is stronger than just alignment: inter-connectedness, entwined, interdependence, etc - suggests the quasi impossibility of Islam undergoing its own Reformation, or if it is to undergo its own Reformation, it will be longer, harder and bloodier.
We can trace the roots of this all the way back to the Prophets of the respective religions.
Despite, being the son of God, a part of the Holy Trinity, Jesus still commands his followers to obey the law of Caesar - so there is immediately a distinction between civil law and the law of God from the outset, the two live side by side, and thus the opening to lever one from the other exists and has progressively played itself out in the West to reach the point where we are today (which is a good thing in my view).
Muhammad was an altogether different type of prophet, who was able to spread Islam during his lifetime, as a political leader and military general. During his lifetime he was able to establish the principle that there can only be one law, what we know today to be Sharia law.
Some predominantly Islamic states have occasionally experimented with modernity and a degree of secularisation, Turkey being the most notable, but even then, this tension has always existed which stops Turkey from continuing along that path of secularisation.
Other examples are Indonesia and Malaysia, which both have significant minorities, and have had some success at a form of secularisation, but even then, those same tensions lurk, and underscore the difficulty Islam faces in undergoing its own Reformation.