This study seeks to understand why religious movements exhibit divergent views regarding their regime preferences in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region. Using a mixed methods approach, large-N analysis of movements across 19 Muslim-majority countries in the MENA region and a comparative case study on Turkey and Jordan, my study classifies religious communities and explains their political regime preferences. Theoretically, this paper considers Muslim majority countries as dual legitimacy systems where the constitutional authority and traditional religious authorities are in constant competition for legitimacy over the same group of people. This competition creates a “meta-constitutional space”, allowing various configurations of bargaining within and among state actors and religious authorities. I argue that the primary interest of religious groups and communities is to survive and become hegemon within the traditional religious authority while simultaneously increasing their influence compared to other state actors. Utilizing original data collected across dimensions such as sectarian characteristics, scale and scope, organizational structure, objectives, tactics, and leadership, this study aims to demonstrate that there are mainly four types of Islamic movements in the MENA region: religious communitarian, political reformist, social reformist, and radicals. Despite being commonly labelled as 'Islamic movements', they exhibit ideological differences, particularly in their attitudes towards state-religion relations, democracy, and the ideal form of governance. I argue that each movement type prefers a political regime that aligns best with its primary objectives, including survival, hegemony over other religious actors, and enhanced legitimacy for religious authority. Their preferences vary from liberal democratic regimes to Islamic democracy, and from secular authoritarian to Islamic authoritarian regimes. Religious communitarian and radical movements, due to their restrictive, non-pluralist nature, strict interpretation of religious texts, and frequent use of ex-communication, struggle to get support from larger groups of people. As a result, they tend to favor authoritarian forms of government, which provide the means necessary to achieve their goals. Conversely, social and political reformist movements are more likely to gain wider societal support due to their inclusive and pluralist nature. Therefore, democratically oriented regimes, whether Islamic or liberal, are more conducive to the objectives of these movement types. Keywords: Regime preferences, MENA, Islamic movements, state-religion relations