There was once a highly revered spiritual leader from Kerala named Qadi Muhammad,who authored numerous renowned works in Arabic and Arabi-Malayalam, including the famous Muhyiddin Mala. Among his contributions is a poetic work in Arabic titled Al- Fath al-Mubin (“The Clear Victory”). This book is astonishing in its intent and content: it extols the virtues and achievements of the then Hindu ruler of Kerala, the Zamorin, in poetic Arabic and was dispatched to Muslim rulers across the globe. Within it, Qadi Muhammad repeatedly urges global Muslims to pray for this Hindu king. But one must not assume this was an isolated act. Many scholars of that era authored similar works. The Makhdums and Qadis of Kerala all contributed to such a legacy.

Now consider the broader question: how did our ancestors live in lands ruled by non- Muslims? This historical reality itself illustrates Islam’s position — a secular stance. The way Muslims coexisted with non-Muslim rulers in the past is itself a testament to how Islam guides us to live in such contexts. The way of our ancestors stands as the most compelling evidence.

Today, some claim that Muslims cannot live in lands without a Caliphate. They argue that living under such rule invalidates one’s faith. These individuals also assert that Muslims should not cooperate with non-Muslim or secular governments. Such arguments are not only false but dangerously misleading. Even when a Caliph existed somewhere in the world, the predecessors in Kerala lived in obedience to the local rulers, supported by the region’s scholars. That is the true Islamic stance. None of them ever tried to establish a Caliphate there.

This brings us to a crucial clarification of Islam’s position:

A Caliph has political authority only in the regions and provinces that have formally pledged allegiance (bay’ah) to him under the prescribed conditions. Muslims in lands that have not given such bay’ah are to live under agreements made with their local governments. For example, Muslims in India are citizens under the Indian Constitution and laws. This is a contractual agreement made by Indian Muslims in their capacity as citizens. Fulfilling this contract is a religious obligation. A Caliph has no political authority over such Muslims — unless that specific state permits it.

Accordingly, it is the responsibility of the local Imams to instruct Muslims to obey the government under which they live, as part of their religious advice (da‘wah) and counsel (nasihah). Islam has never prescribed that Muslims in secular countries like India must establish an Islamic state or seize power under the name of Khilafah. All such attempts to disrupt public order are strictly forbidden. Violating a contract is not only sinful but is considered a major transgression. The Islamic world has historically taken contracts extremely seriously. Prophet Muhammad ﷺ even counted those who breach their agreements as hypocrites. A true Muslim is one who honors contracts with everyone —even enemies.

Hence, it requires no special reminder that Muslims must also uphold their contracts with fellow citizens and neighbors in secular countries. Kerala and India are lands where the Companions of the Prophet ﷺ themselves reportedly came and preached. For over 1,400 years, no authoritative scholar has ever called for the establishment of an Islamic state here. Nor have any of them refused to acknowledge the legitimacy of existing rulers. Except for their opposition to the British, Muslims have generally stood for justice and goodness with unwavering loyalty to their rulers.

The Muslims of Malabar have often faced oppression. At times, those who embraced Islam were forcefully abducted by local powers. One can find questions and rulings on such crises in works like Fatawa al-Kubra by Ibn Hajar (vol. 4, p. 249). In such moments, scholars raised their voices for justice and tried to correct rulers — this corrective advice is called nasihah. If it can be done, qualified scholars and responsible persons should offer such counsel. But Islam never commanded that Muslims must leave such lands. Nor does it ask them to stir chaos by calling for Khilafah.

Shaykh Zainuddin Makhdum (R) notes in Tuhfat al-Mujahidin (p. 230) that even before the arrival of Western powers, and after their arrival, all rulers in Malabar were non- Muslims — some mighty, some weakened. He further states that in Malabar, no administrative region had a Muslim ruler. It was non-Muslim leaders who governed, collected taxes, and managed state affairs. He reiterates the same in Ajwibat al-Ajeeb (p. 100). Importantly, in no authoritative scholar’s writings do we find any call to depose Hindu or non-Muslim rulers to establish Islamic governance. On the contrary, these scholars recognized existing regimes. When their writings encouraged Jihad, it was solely against the colonizers, not against indigenous rulers. They advised Muslims to stand shoulder to shoulder with local rulers and fight off the foreign invaders. Once the colonialists were driven out, it was the local kings who would benefit.

Works like Fath al-Mubin and Tuhfat al-Mujahidin teach that, while believing Islam to be the ultimate truth, one must still honor and respect the followers of other religions. This is the real essence of religious pluralism. Muslim scholars and the general public in Kerala have always upheld this secular ethos. There is no history of scholars endorsing the removal of a non-Muslim ruler by deception or conspiracy — even though Muslims then held great physical strength and occupied key military positions. Even if a non-Muslim ruler appoints a corrupt or incompetent Qadi, Islamic law says Muslims must still recognize that Qadi. In Ajwibat al-Ajeeb, Shaykh Zainuddin Makhdum discusses this through a question and the responses of global scholars of the time. The scenario: rulers in different parts of Malabar, all non-Muslims, appoint a Qadi lacking proper character or knowledge. In some areas, Qadis are appointed by the Ahl al-Hall wa al-‘Aqd (qualified Muslims), while in others, by non-Muslim kings. Should their rulings be implemented? 

The response — with references from multiple scholars — is unanimous: Muslims must follow such Qadis if appointed by the ruler. (p. 100) Even in internal, non-political Muslim matters, if a ruler intervenes, his command must be followed. If he declares something that is normally permissible (halal) to be restricted or prohibited for public welfare, his ruling must be obeyed. Disobeying such governance is a sin before Allah. Islamic jurisprudence has detailed this extensively to prevent social unrest and chaos.

For example, if a government bans sand mining from a river, Muslims must comply. If it prohibits plowing certain fields or fishing in specific areas, Muslims must adhere. These were not prohibited in classical Islam, but when governance deems such bans necessary, obeying them becomes obligatory. This obedience is not shirk (associating others with God), kufr (disbelief), or obedience to non-divine authority — it is the essence of Islam.

A Muslim can live in any country — Muslim or not — in cooperation, justice, and tolerance. Islam commands that we help one another in good, never abandon justice, and always remain patient and peaceful. These commandments apply equally in secular, non-Muslim nations. There is no difference of opinion among global Muslims in this — except among extremist factions. So, the answer to “How should a Muslim live in a non- Muslim or secular country?” is unequivocally this. At the same time, one must protest against evil. Even in Muslim countries, wrongs must be opposed — but within the bounds of the law and constitution. Protesting under a democratic framework is itself an acknowledgment of the system. We protest only because the constitution grants us that right.

But what if a government becomes unjust and threatens the lives and property of Muslims? Even then, Islam has laid out clear instructions. Islamic texts extensively discuss these scenarios, and scholars must guide the ummah accordingly.

One hadith describes the Prophet ﷺ rising when a funeral passed by. When told it was a Jewish funeral, he said, “Was it not a human soul?” We have seen hundreds of such teachings that uphold human dignity. Islam has clearly defined how a Muslim should live in a pluralistic society — with etiquette, respect, and boundaries. While cooperating with others in shared values, a Muslim must never compromise in matters of faith. Each community must preserve its religious identity — be it worship or festivals — and avoid blurring those lines. A true Muslim would never take part in arrangements that compromise this boundary.