Nothing out of periphery of Quran and Sunnah. Period.

Juda ho deen siyasat se to reh jaatee hai changezi ...

1.State should not stay bound with its traditional ties and conservative ideas while the world keeps developing on a rapid pace.

2.If misunderstood version of religion puts it on a risky track and it runs out of its survival, it should adopt new vistas and should not let certain risky doctrines, on the name of religion , interfere in its business.

3. There should not be inequality with its citizen on the basis of the difference over language,traditions,religion , caste, creed or color. All citizens constituting the state should be treated as one unit and should ,therefore, be given equal status in all respects. No one should enjoy extra perks and privileges based on these distinctions in the state.

etc ... etc.....

If this is a criterion for becoming a secular state....

YES THE STATE SHOULD BE SECULAR.........

We are Muslims first then Pakistani, Arab, Indian etc. Because Islam is not based on the length of terrain or anything else but it unite its followers with fundamental belief. If one embarrassed Islam then no matter he stays in anywhere in the globe he would be considered Muslim.
As long as the question concerned secular state it is useless and not according to the norms and aspiration of Muslim youth.

__________________
“Minds like parachutes, only function when open"

1. Islam is not about traditional ties or conservative ideas or is stagnant to a changing world. Islam is adaptive to change. The Islamic jurisprudence principles of Ijma, Ijtihad and Qiyas are some of the basic means of that ongoing evolution that keeps Islam at pace with the changing world.

2. I can not stress it enough that Islam is not a religion. In Islam there are religions (The direct translation of Mada'hib i.e. Hanafi, Shafai, Atna Athari etc). Islam can only be understood by the word deen. To call it a mere religion is to not understand Islam at all. Since Islam is a "way of life" it guide every sphere of it, including government. The argument that one should not take a risky course is a relative argument. Besides, for a Muslim it would be hypocritical to avoid taking risks for the right cause in this world and entail punishment in the hereafter.

3. Islam does provide equal citizenship to all its inhabitants but that is subject to their ability to discharge their duties to a state. For instance, a non-muslim can not fight for Islam and hence is not included in the standing army. I'd like to present a simile to further punctuate my point:

In the U.S, you can not serve the government or claim equal rights as their citizen if you do not believe their constitution and the laws that they U.S enacts through its political system. Similarly, since an Islamic state is a state of "faith", if you do not adhere to the state "faith" you can not claim its citizenship, at least not equally to those who do adhere.

It also needs to be realized that in Islam, all citizens, irrespective of their faith, are treated equally before law. So there are, technically, no perks and privileges as americans enjoy over illegal-immigrants in america.

Dear Shahzaib !!!
i believe that i am more staunch advocate of Islam than you.
in my conceived criterion for secular state did i mention any thing which goes against islamic teaching? does Islam not give acceptance to all these points i ,mentioned for a secular state ?????

Brother, I never said you loved Islam less than I did. Indeed, it may well be that you love it even more than anyone on this forum But that is besides the point.

I have answered your issues point by point in detail, I believe.

But you did advocate secularism, which by its very nature is against Islam. You said one should abandon religion if it turned "risky" etc etc... this is why I presented with the answer in the earlier post.

If you are calling the socio political culture of the western countries as secularism i am afraid to see vices in it and more afraid to see the offensive nature of usa , european union and allies.... if they are calling themselves secular and you are watching secularism with their meanings
sorry the state must not be secular....

i said so because i am damn sure that Islam can never turn risky .. it is only for the welfare of mankind and if it turns risky any way.. it is not Islam

regards

Brother what are you talking about? Islam has always faced risk. It faced risk when the Prophet S.A.W was asked to preach openly and he faced fierce resistance from the Makkans, it was risky when the people of Makkah fought the Muslims at Badar and It was risky when the tribes of Hijaz camped at the door of Makkah during the siege of trench. It is risky today when one has to speak in favor of Islam despite the fear of prosecution!

And I do not see secularism from the manner in which the west uses it, not entirely anyways. I see it as a Muslim should... i.e. with disdain!

agreed.

but can you please look beyond and find out what the muslims of mecca were fighting for ???
purpose behind their adventure was for the collective good of the human being in the long run.....
for a great cause if you are sacrificing your lives and property.. it is not risk.. it is a righteous contribution.. in other words an investment....

after the conquest of mecca.. did you not see how magnificent result the muslim sacrifices brought about !!!!!!