ISLAMIC AND PAKISTANI RENAISSANCE SERIS BOOKS

MISAQ-E-MADINA
OR
The Constitution of Medina
THE POLTICAL IDEAS OF PROPHET MUHAMMAD,saw

ON WHICH ISLAMIC STATE WAS FORMED

AND WHICH IS REGARED AS

The world’s earliest known written

constitution
AND

ALL WESTERN AND MODERN DEVELOPED COCITIES

AND COUNTRIES ARE ORGANISED

BUT SADLY MUSLIMS NEITHER STUDY IT IN

COLLOGES, MADARIS ON WHICH TO ORGANISE
MUSLIM SOCIETIES

GP.CAPT® IMTIAZ ALI

ORIGINAL RESEARCH CENTER

PICKERING. CANADA
5, NOVEMBER, 2017
 INTRODUCTION

OUR PRIME MINISTER HAS GIVEN A NATIONAL AIM OF REORGANIZING OUR

DETABILISED SOCIAL SOCIETY ON PRINCIPLES SET BY OUR HOLY PROPHET AND
PRACTICED IN MADINA STATE.
IT IS UNFORTUNATE THAT NO MUSLIM COUNTRY IS ORGANISED OR RUNNING ON
MADINA CONSTITUTION AND THUS WE HAVE NO LIVING MODEL WHICH WE CAN
COPY. THEREFORE THE CONCEPT OF ISLAMIC SYASTEM IS STILL CONFUSED AND
NOT UNDERSTOOD BY US ALL MUSLIMS. WE HAVE THREE THOUGHTS ON THIS.

a. POLTICAL ISLAM THIS AIMS AT TAKING OVER GOVT OF A COUNTRY

BY RELIGIOUS LEADERS/ RELIGIOUS POLITICAL PARTIES AND THEN
IMPLEMENTING ISLAMIC LAW BY FORCE OF AUTHORITY OF SATE> SUCH
ATTEMPTS HAVE FAILED REPEAREDLY IN DISTANT PAST AND RECENTLY
AS WELL.
b. THEOCRACY> THIS MODEL IS NOT LIKED ANY WHERE IN THE
WORLD>SO IT HAS NO CHANCE BUT RELIGIOUS ARE OF THIS MIND BUT IN
DEMOCRATIC POLITICAL SYSTEMS THEY HAVE NO CHANCE OF SUCCESS>
c. MADINA MODEL> THIS IS NEITHER OF THE TWO ABOVE> IT IS BASED
ON SOCIAL ORGANIS ATION AND IS BASED ON ISLAMIC CULTURE LIKE
HUMAN RIGHTS, EQUALITY AND JUSTICE <BEST CHARACTER LIKE
TRUTHFULNESS HONESTY< HUMAN SERVICE< BEST PUBLIC DEALINGS<

MADINA WAS A MULTI RELIGIOUS AND MULTI CULTURAL SOCIETY.THEREFORE,OUR

PROPHET HAD TO FIND A COMMON CAUSE ON WHICH ALL PEOPLE OF MADINA
COULD GET TEGETHER AND COOPERATE TO MAKE IT A SUCCESS .

1- THEREFORE<HE DID NOT MAKE RELIGION AS THE BASIS OF RELATIONS

BETWEEN DIFFERENT GROUPS> BECAUSE RELIGIONS ALWAYS DIVIDE>
THEREFORE, INSTEAD OF RELIGION,
2- HE MADE COMMON FUTURE< AND ITS SAFEGUARD BY INTERNAL PEACE AND
DEFENCE AGAINST EXTERNAL ENEMIES< AS THE BASIS OF RELATIONS >TO WHICH
ALL GROUPS AGREED>
3- HE THUS MADE A WRITTEN SOCIAL CONTRACT WITH ALL TRIBES< MUSLIMS<
NON MUSLIMS< AND PEOPLE OF THE BOOK JEWS.THE SOCIAL CONTRACT WAS
CALLED MEESAQ MADINA/ MADINA CONSTITUTION/MADINA SOCIAL CONTRACT.

MADINA CONSTITUTION IS RECOGNISED AS FIRST WRITTEN CONSTITUTION OF THE

WORLD> ITS BASIC PRICIPLES CAN BE SUMMERISED AS:.

1-- THE BASIS OF RELATIONSHIP BETWEE ALL HUMAN BEINGS IN MADINA STATE
WILL BECITIZENSHIP.ALL WILL BE EQUAL IN THE STATE
2. ALL DIFFERENT RELIGIOUS COMMUNITIES, WILL BE FREE TO PRACTICE THEIR
RELIGIONS AND CULTURE>
3. ALL TRIBES ARE FREE TO FOLLOW THEIR CULTURAL OR FAMILY LAWS
PRACTICES>
4. JUSTICE WILLBE DONE BY THE STATE WHOSE RULER WILL BE THE PROPHET< NO
PRIVATE TRIBAL JUSTICE WILL BE ALLOWEDALLOWED IN FUTURE..
5. BY THIS ARRANGEMENT< FOR THE FIRST TIME ARABS WERE INTRODUCED TO AN
ESTABLISGED GOVT SYASTEM AND LOYALITY SHIFTED FROM TRIBES TO THE STATE

BUT WE ARE FORTUNATE THAT THESE BASIC PRICIPLES WERE ADOPTED BY THE
WESTERN CIVILZATIONS AND WERE DEVELOPED FURTHER AND ARE PRACTICED
NOW IN ALL THEIR COUNTRIES AND WERE ALSO ADOPTED IN ALL EASTERN
DEVELOPED COUNTRIES AND THAT’S IS WHY THEY ARE LIVING IN PEACE AND
PROSPERITY>
FOR WHICH WE ARE ALL PRAISES .

WE SHOULD HAVE NO HESITATION IN ADOPTING THE WESTERN SOCIAL PRACTICES

AS THEY BEING BASED ON OUR ISLAMIC PRINCIPLES/SYSTEM BUT ARE NOW MUCH
IMPROVED AND TRIED MODEL> THANKS TO THE WESTERN CIVILZATION

CIVILZATIONS LEARN FROM EACH OTHER> WEST LEARNT FROM ISLAM AND NOW IT
IS OUR TURN TO LEARN IT FROM THEM AS A LIVING MODEL OF MADINA
CONSTITUTION>

WE SHOULD HAVE NO SHAME OR HESITATION IN ADOPTING THE WESTERN SYSTEMS

AS THIS IS STRICTLY IN CONFORMITY WITH DIRECTIVE OF GOD AND OUR PROPHET <

Allah Says in Quran2-269-

“He gives wisdom to whom He wills, and whoever has been given wisdom has certainly
been given much good/he truly hath received abundant good.”

The Holy Prophet, peace be upon him had said

“The HIKMA or WISDOM is the lost property of the believer, so wherever he finds it then
he has a right to it.”Tirmidhi 2687

In my opinion, we have now more models to study like Japan, China, South Korea,
Turkey, Malaysia in addition to Western Renaissance Model and choose the strategy.

I have compiled various articles on Madina Constitution written in 622 CE for reading
and pondering. I have also given Mayflower Compact written in 1620 CE by Christian
immigrants to America from Europe,

What was remarkable about both these particular contracts was that they were not
between a servant and a master, or a people and a king, but between groups voluntarily
, with God as a witness and a symbolic co-signator.
I am hopeful this will clear the minds of people of Pakistan in choosing the right model
out of the three above. Theocracy model is being practiced in Iran after 1979 Islamic
Revolution and I leave everyone to make his own conclusions.

IMTIAZ ALI
Toronto Canada
06 September. 2018
The Madina Constitution (Charter) (Full Text)
622 C.E.

Background to the Treaty

Arabia's prevailing political conditions

1-The Arabs belonged to one ethnic race, but history does not record that
they were ever united as one nation.
2-They were divided into tribes and clans, each having its own chief or
chieftain. They, no doubt, spoke the same language, but each tribe followed
a different dialectal variation.
3- Indeed, even religion was not a binding force. Almost every house had its
own god; tribes had their own supreme deities.
4- they were frequently engaged in intensive warfare. Bakr and Taghlib had
been fighting each other for forty years. Blood engagements had ruined
many a tribe of Hadhramaut.
Aws and Khazraj had exhausted themselves through a protracted war, and
the Battle of Fijar between the Banu Qais and Quraish had not yet ended.
5-If any member of a tribe was killed, the tribe considered itself duty bound
to seek revenge not merely upon the murderer but also on the tribe to which
he belonged.
6-Since there was no effective machinery to settle such disputes, this
invariably touched off furious wars, which lasted for generations.
7-Only a few months of the year were regarded as sacred. It was only then
that bloodshed was stopped in order to facilitate the performance of the
annual pilgrimage to Mecca or to do trade at Ukaz.
8-But even this convention was at times relaxed to suit the convenience of
individual tribes. Only the precincts of the Ka'bah were considered sacred
and were free from bloodshed. It is to this state of affairs that the Qur'an has
drawn attention: Do they not see that we have made a sacred territory secure
for them, while men are carried off by force all around them? (Qur'an,
29:67)
9-The conditions in the country were so insecure that even till 5 A.H., the
powerful tribe of Abdul-Qais of Bahrain could not think of going to Hijaz
outside the sacred months.
10-Even the caravans going to or returning from Syria were sometimes
plundered in open daylight.
11-Muslims' pasturelands were at times raided.
12-Although conditions had considerably improved by then, the route to
Mecca from Medina was not altogether safe until the fall of Mecca.
13-While the country was so strife-ridden internally, dangers from outside
were no less.
a-The Roman and Persian empires had extended their domain to the fertile
provinces of Yemen, Oman and Bahrain and had established their
sovereignty over them.
b-The Romans had occupied Syria. Ghassan and some other Arab tribes,
who had embraced Christianity, had been set up as the latter's feudatories.
14-The Romans had expelled the Jews from Syria and Palestine in the
second Century B.C. These Jews had migrated to Medina and its suburbs
and built strong fortresses at Medina, Khaibar, Taima, Fadak and other
places.
15-Prospering themselves, the Jews were extremely jealous of prosperity in
other races and strongly resented rivalry in trade business.
16-They believed themselves to be God's "chosen people" and their conduct
was characterized by pride and arrogance intensified by the feeling of being
secure inside their formidable fortresses.
17-It was during such times that the Prophet started his great Mission. For
preparing the ground and the proper climate, the first step that he took was to
unite the Ansar and the Muhajirun.

. As far the choice of migrating to Medina , the decision was made easier by
the second „Pledge of Aqaba‟ made a year before on the occasion of the
annual rites of pilgrimage. The pledge was made by seventy three men and
two women of Khazraj and Aws communities of Medina. They had accepted
Islam and wanted to invite the Prophet to migrate to Medina. Their
motivation for this move, apart from recognizing him as the Prophet,
the trustworthy, and the best in conduct in Mecca, was to bring peace
and security between the Khazraj and Aws. They were often at war
with each other and the Battle of Bu'ath had shattered their strength
completely.

They desperately needed a leader who could be trusted by both communities

and bring peace in Medina. As part of the pledge, they were to protect the
Prophet as they would protect their women and children if he were attacked
by the Meccans.

Among the people in Medina, there was a small community (three tribes)
of Jews with Arab communities constituting the majority of the population.
Because of wars going on for several generations, the resources of the Arabs
were depleted and their influence in Medina was dwindling. The Jews were
traders and many of them used to lend money at exorbitant interest. The
continuing wars boosted their economy and personal wealth.

History does not record much as to when first Jewish migration from north
to Yathrib (Medina) began as their numbers remained small throughout their
stay there. Among the major reasons for their settlements in Arabia were: the
relative peace and security in north Arabia with orchards and gardens; the
Arab trade route linking Yemen, Arabia, Syria and Iraq; and continuing
tensions resulting from wars between the Romans and Persians in the area
around the Holy Land. Some of the learned men among the Christians and
Jews had also moved to this area based on their conviction that the advent of
the final Prophet of God was near, who was to settle in this area. Bahira, the
monk, and Salman, the Persian, were some of the people who moved to
the caravan route to or near this area. Salman was told by his last Christian
sage:

―He‎will‎be‎sent‎with‎the‎religion‎of‎Abraham‎and‎will‎come‎forth in Arabia
where he will emigrate from his home to a place between two lava tracts, a
country of palms. His Signs are manifest: he will eat of a gift but not if it is
given‎as‎alms,‎and‎between‎his‎shoulders‎is‎the‎seal‎of‎prophesy.‖Yathrib
was the only city fitting this description.

The immediate result of the Prophet‟s migration to Medina was peace

and unity between the communities of Aws and Khazraj. The Prophet,
motivated by the general welfare of citizens of Medina, decided to offer
his services to the remaining communities including the Jews. He had
already laid down the basis for relationship between the Emigrants
from Mecca (known as Muhajirin) and Medinites (known as the Ansar,
the helpers).

The Treaty between Muslims, non-Muslim Arabs and Jews of Medina

was put in writing and ratified by all parties. It has been preserved by the
historians. The document referred Muhammad (pbuh) as the Prophet and
Messenger of God but it was understood that the Jews did not have to
recognize him as such for their own religious reasons. The major parts of
the document were:
In the name of God the Compassionate, the Merciful.
(1) This is a document from Muhammad the prophet
(governing the relations) between the believers and Muslims
of Quraysh and Yathrib, and those who followed them and
joined them and labored with them.
(2) They are one community (umma) to the exclusion of all
men.
(3) The Quraysh emigrants according to their present
custom shall pay the bloodwit within their number and shall
redeem their prisoners with the kindness and justice
common among believers.
(4-8) The B. ‘Auf according to their present custom shall pay
the bloodwit they paid in heatheism; every section shall
redeem its prisoners with the kindness and justice common
among believers. The B. Sa ida, the B. ‘l-Harith, and the B.
Jusham, and the B. al-Najjar likewise.
(9-11) The B. ‘Amr b. ‘Auf, the B. al-Nabit and the B. al-‘Aus
likewise.
(12)(a) Believers shall not leave anyone destitute among
them by not paying his redemption money or bloodwit in
kindness.
(12)(b) A believer shall not take as an ally the freedman of
another Muslim against him.
(13) The God-fearing believers shall be against the
rebellious or him who seeks to spread injustice, or sin or
animosity, or corruption between believers; the hand of
every man shall be against him even if he be a son of one of
them.

(14) A believer shall not slay a believer for the sake of an

unbeliever, nor shall he aid an unbeliever against a believer.
(15) God’s protection is one, the least of them may give
protection to a stranger on their behalf. Believers are friends
one to the other to the exclusion of outsiders.
(16) To the Jew who follows us belong help and equality. He
shall not be wronged nor shall his enemies be aided.
(17) The peace of the believers is indivisible. No separate
peace shall be made when believers are fighting in the way
of God. Conditions must be fair and equitable to all.
(18) In every foray a rider must take another behind him.
(19) The believers must avenge the blood of one another
shed in the way of God.
(20)(a) The God-fearing believers enjoy the best and most
upright guidance.
(20)(b) No polytheist shall take the property of person of
Quraysh under his protection nor shall he intervene against
a believer.
(21) Whoever is convicted of killing a believer without good
reason shall be subject to retaliation unless the next of kin is
satisfied (with blood-money), and the believers shall be
against him as one man, and they are bound to take action
against him.
(22) It shall not be lawful to a believer who holds by what is
in this document and believes in God and the last day to
help an evil-doer or to shelter him. The curse of God and His
anger on the day of resurrection will be upon him if he does,
and neither repentance nor ransom will be received from
him.
(23) Whenever you differ about a matter it must be referred
to God and to Muhammad.
(24) The Jews shall contribute to the cost of war so long as
they are fighting alongside the believers.

(25) The Jews of the B. ‘Auf are one community with the
believers (the Jews have their religion and the Muslims have
theirs), their freedmen and their persons except those who
behave unjustly and sinfully, for they hurt but themselves
and their families.
(26-35) The same applies to the Jews of the B. al-Najjar, B.
al-Harith, B. Sai ida, B. Jusham, B. al-Aus, B. Tha'laba, and
the Jafna, a clan of the Tha‘laba and the B. al-Shutayba.
Loyalty is a protection against treachery. The freedmen of
Tha ‘laba are as themselves. The close friends of the Jews
are as themselves.
(36) None of them shall go out to war save the permission of
Muhammad, but he shall not be prevented from taking
revenge for a wound. He who slays a man without warning
slays himself and his household, unless it be one who has
wronged him, for God will accept that.
(37) The Jews must bear their expenses and the Muslims
their expenses. Each must help the other against anyone
who attacks the people of this document. They must seek
mutual advice and consultation, and loyalty is a protection
against treachery. A man is not liable for his ally’s misdeeds.
The wronged must be helped.
(38) The Jews must pay with the believers so long as war
lasts.
(39) Yathrib shall be a sanctuary for the people of this
document.
(40) A stranger under protection shall be as his host doing
no harm and committing no crime.
(41) A woman shall only be given protection with the consent
of her family.
(42) If any dispute or controversy likely to cause trouble
should arise it must be referred to God and to Muhammad
the apostle of God. God accepts what is nearest to piety and
goodness in this document.
(43) Quraysh and their helpers shall not be given protection.

(44) The contracting parties are bound to help one another

against any attack on Yathrib.
(45)(a) If they are called to make peace and maintain it they
must do so; and if they make a similar demand on the
Muslims it must be carried out except in the case of a holy
war.
(45)(b) Every one shall have his portion from the side to
which he belongs.
(46) The Jews of al-Aus, their freedmen and themselves
have the same standing with the people of this document in
purely loyalty from the people of this document. Loyalty is a
protection against treachery. He who acquires ought
acquires it for himself. God approves of this document.
(47) This deed will not protect the unjust and the sinner. The
man who goes forth to fight and the man who stays at home
in the city is safe unless he has been unjust and sinned. God
is the protector of the good and God-fearing man and
Muhammad is the apostle of God.
This text is taken from A. Guillaume, The Life of Muhammad
— A Translation of Ishaq's Sirat Rasul Allah, Oxford
University Press, Karachi, 1955; pp. 231-233. Numbering added.

http://www.constitution.org/cons/medina/con_medina.htm

The first written constitution of a State ever promulgated by a sovereign in

human history emanated from the Prophet of Islam. It was enacted from the
first year of Hijrah (622 CE). The treaty stipulated a city state in Medina,
allowing wide autonomy to communities. Private justice was to be
banished. The head of the State had the prerogative to decide who should
participate in an expedition, the war and peace being indivisible. Social
insurance was to be instituted.

2-The Constitution of Medina is the earliest known written

constitution. It was drafted in 622. It constituted a formal agreement
between Muhammad and all of the significant tribes and families of
Yathrib (later known as Medina), including Muslims, Jews, and
pagans.
3-The document was drawn up with the explicit concern of bringing to
an end the bitter inter tribal fighting between the clans of the Aws
(Aus) and Khazraj within Medina. To this effect it instituted a number
of rights and responsibilities for the Muslim, Jewish, and pagan
communities of Medina bringing them within the fold of one
community-the "Ummah".
4-The Constitution of Medina, "established a kind of alliance or
federation" among the eight Medinan tribes and Muslim emigrants
from Mecca, which specified the rights and duties of all citizens and
the relationship of the different communities in Medina (including that
of the Muslim community to other communities specifically the Jews
and other "Peoples of the Book").
5-the Constitution of Medina was a social contract derived from a
treaty and not from any fictional state of nature or from behind the
Rawlsian veil of ignorance. The contract was built upon the
concept of one community of diverse tribes living under the
sovereignty of One God.

Welch in Encyclopedia of Islam states: "The constitution reveals

his Muhammad's great diplomatic skills, for it allows the ideal
that he cherished of an ummah (community) based clearly on a
religious outlook to sink temporarily into the background and is
shaped essentially by practical considerations."

6-The Constitution established: the security of the community,

religious freedoms, the role of Medina as a sacred place (barring all
violence and weapons), the security of women, stable tribal relations
within Medina, a tax system for supporting the community in time of
conflict, parameters for exogenous political alliances, a system for
granting protection of individuals, a judicial system for resolving
disputes, and also regulated the paying of Blood money (the payment
between families or tribes for the slaying of an individual in lieu of lex
talionis).

The Medina Constitution also instituted peaceful methods of dispute

resolution among diverse groups living as one people but without
assimilating into one religion, language, or culture
The non-Muslims included in the ummah had the following
rights:
1. The security (dhimma) of God is equal for all groups

2. Non-Muslim members have equal political and cultural rights

as Muslims. They will have autonomy and freedom of religion.

3. Non-Muslims will take up arms against the enemy of the

Ummah and share the cost of war. There is to be no treachery
between the two.

4. Non-Muslims will not be obliged to take part in religious wars

of the Muslims.
One of the constitution's more interesting aspects was the
inclusion of the Jewish tribes in the Ummah, the Jewish tribes
were "one community with the believers," but they "have their
religion and the Muslims have theirs."

The most important points with respect to the geographically close

Jews were:

1. The Jews will profess their religion, and the Muslims theirs.

2. The Jews shall be responsible for their expenditure, and the

Muslims for theirs.

3. If attacked by a third party, each shall come to the assistance

of the other.

4. Each party shall hold counsel with the other. Mutual relation
shall be founded on righteousness; sin is totally excluded.

5. Neither shall commit sins to the prejudice of the other.

6. The wronged party shall be aided.

7. The Jews shall contribute to the cost of war so long as they

are fighting alongside the believers.

8. Madinah shall remain sacred and inviolable for all that join
this treaty. Should any disagreement arise between the
signatories to this treaty, then Muhammad shall settle the
dispute.

9. The signatories to this treaty shall boycott Quraish

commercially; they shall also abstain from extending any
support to them.

10. Each shall contribute to defending Madinah, in case of a

foreign attack, in its respective area.

11. This treaty shall not hinder either party from seeking lawful
revenge.
 The Constitution of Medina
Ali Khan

The first Islamic state was founded not in the shadow of swords, as is
commonly believed in some circles, but in the security of a social contract,
called the Constitution of Medina. By all counts, the Medina Constitution lit
the torch of freedom by establishing a Free State for a pluralistic community
composed of Muslims, Jews, and pagans.

This unprecedented Free State, the first of its kind in the intellectual
and political history of human civilization, was founded by none other
than Prophet Muhammad himself in the Gregorian year of 622, that is, more
than thirteen hundred years before the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights (1948) envisaged a modern pluralistic, religiously tolerant Free
State.

In 622, the Prophet and his followers were forced to leave the increasingly
oppressive city of Mecca, which had become a place of religious
intolerance and persecution.

In the hope of peace and freedom, they migrated to Medina. The year
622 which is known as the year of migration or the hijrah set in motion two
important Islamic events.;-

a-Chronologically, this is the year that starts the Islamic Calendar.

b-Politically, this is the year when the Medina Constitution was agreed
upon and written into law.
Scholars fail to agree, however, whether the Medina Constitution is a single
contract or a compilation of multiple agreements reached at different times.
A close reading of the document reveals that its provisions are most coherent
when read as a compilation of two separate agreements. Muhammad
Hamidullah makes a persuasive case that the Medina Constitution, because
of its tone and phraseology, was not drafted in a single sitting. He divides
the document into two parts al-Rashida 1941). This textual division of the
Medina Constitution, though necessary to make the most sense of the
document, does not undermine its underlying organic appeal to found
Islamic Free State on principles of equality, equity, and religious
freedom.

The most organic feature of the Medina Constitution is that it

establishes an Islamic Free State on the basis of a social contract. A
point of contrast must be noted here: The Western political theory of social
contract, derived from the works of Hobbes, Rousseau and Rawls,
presupposes a fictional state of nature, and draws various normative and
structural inferences. Hobbes installs a mighty sovereign who commands
absolute power‎over‎the‎people‎to‎―keep‎them‎all‎in‎awe.‖‎Rousseau‘s‎theory‎
of social contract lodges sovereignty in the will of the people. This highly
abstract notion of the general will lead to all sorts of distortions, including
the legitimization of totalitarian democracies. Rawls is no better because,
despite some brilliant insights, he anchors his theory in an artificial device of
the‎the‎veil‎of‎ignorance.‖

Muhammad Hamidullah, Majmu al-Watha‘iq‎ al-Siyasiyya fi al-Ahd al-

Banawi wa al-Khaliafa al-Rashida 1941 Contrary to these fictional, artificial,
and theoretical accounts of social contract, the Islamic Free State is
founded on the reality of an actual agreement among real people of
diverse ethnic and religious groups. This reality based social contract is
not even a theory or an inspirational constitution to be implemented in the
future. The Medina Constitution offered social contract in real time, in
real space, to real people through a real agreement, hundreds of years
before the theory of social contract gained widespread approval, mostly in
the West.
An equally impressive and timeless contribution of the Medina
Constitution is the normative establishment of a pluralistic community.
The Constitution‘s‎ opening‎ articles‎ state‎ that‎ Muslims‎ of‎ Quraysh‎ and‎
Yathrib, and those who followed them and joined them and labored with
them, are one community to the exclusion of all men.

These provisions assert that the immigrant Muslims of Mecca and

native Muslims of Medina constitute one community.

Conceptually, the Constitution establishes the concept of the community

of believers (ummat–al mumunin). The community of believers treats all
Muslims with equal respect and dignity. It dissolves the distinction between
natives and immigrants, offering principles of equality and justice to all
Muslims, regardless of their origin of birth, nationality, tribe, or any other
ethnic or racial background. It does not allow natives to have superiority
over immigrants or vice versa. The Islamic Free State is therefore not
exclusively identified with any one tribe or culture but is expanded to
include immigrants with diverse dialects, cultures, and social habits.

The modern concept of citizenship, practiced in some Muslim states,

which excludes immigrant Muslims from the rights of citizenship on a
permanent basis, would be incompatible with the letter and spirit of the
Medina Constitution

Part II of the Constitution further expands the scope of community that

the Islamic Free State protects. Articles 25-35 mention a legion of
Jewish tribes,‎such‎as‎‗Auf,‎Najjar,‎Harith,‎Sai‘ida,‎Jusham,‎Aus,‎Tha'laba,‎
and Jafna, granting each tribe the right to be “one community with the
believers.
 This expansive concept of the community is most significant because an
Islamic Free State is no longer conceived as an exclusively Muslim
nation. In modern terms, an Islamic state can be a religiously pluralistic
state. Any attempts to cleanse an Islamic state of the peoples of other
religions would be incompatible with the dictates of the Medina
Constitution.

Furthermore, the Medina Constitution does not treat all Jews as one
monolithic population. It treats them as a religious population but
recognizes their diverse ethnic, cultural, or linguistic characteristics,
just as it acknowledges similar diversity within the Muslim population.
This comprehensive recognition of each distinct Jewish group in a
separate Article of the Constitution bestows equal dignity and respect
upon all Jewish tribes with whom the social contract was made,
rejecting the concept that some Jews are superior to others. Each Jewish
tribe in the Constitution is placed on an equal footing with each other as well
as with the community of believers, i.e., Muslims.

Article‎ 25‎ grants‎ the‎ freedom‎ of‎ religion,‎ stating‎ that‎ ―the‎ Jews‎ have‎ their‎
religion‎and‎the‎Muslims‎have‎theirs.‖‎Prophet‎Muhammad‎is‎of‎course‎no‎
moral‎relativist‎or,‎for‎that‎matter,‎secular.‎He‎is‎God‘s‎Prophet,‎seeing‎God‎
in all aspects of life. The model of life he presents is spiritual, a model under
which human beings are constantly conscious of God, devoted to God, and
live and die for God. And the religion of Islam that the Prophet transmitted
to the humanity contained no flaws. Despite this absolute confidence in the
truth‎ of‎ Islam,‎ the‎ Medina‎ Constitution,‎ made‎ in‎ the‎ midst‎ of‎ God‘s‎
revelations to the Prophet, does not establish a self-righteous State,
compelling its citizens to adhere to the official religion of Islam. And
despite‎the‎Prophet‘s openly expressed belief that the Divine Torah has been
altered, the Medina Constitution nonetheless frames a Free State under
which Jews are free to practice their religion as they believe it. This
normative freedom to practice one‟s religion as one believes it, and even
if it is contrary to Muslim beliefs, demonstrates the highest possible
form of religious tolerance.
The Medina Constitution refutes theories that insist that only secularism can
protect religious freedom.

In addition to protecting religious freedom, the state that the Medina

Constitution establishes is a pluralistic state. The Medina Constitution is not
simply an accord among Muslims. It is also a treaty between distinct
religious communities, Jews and Muslims.

By implication of its underlying principle, the Islamic Free State is not

confined to Muslims but is open to the followers of all monotheistic
religions and even beyond, for after all Medina was both monotheistic
and pagan.

Yet another remarkable feature of the Medina Constitution is its

recognition that a lawful agreement is always subject to supra-
normative constraints. In modern terms, for example, agreements contrary
to state policies and values are unenforceable. In the international legal
system, agreements contrary to jus cogens or peremptory norms carry no
validity. Recognizing supra-normative constraints, Article 47 explicitly
states that this Constitution “will not protect the unjust and the sinner.‖‎
Thus, the Medina Constitution was not an accord reflecting “political
realities” or “ugly compromises.” It was indeed a morally honest
agreement, true to the revealed (and to be revealed) words of the
Quran, and made under the Prophet‟s guidance. As such, the value of the
Medina Constitution lies in its moral authenticity and in its virtue that a
social contract among diverse peoples can be reached on the basis of freely
expressed consent.
Among the Islamic sources of law, the Medina Constitution should not be
treated as a distinct source of law and jurisprudence. It is part of the
Prophet‟s Sunna. The Quran remains the supreme source of law, and
nothing‎ in‎ the‎ Medina‎ Constitution‎ can‎ be‎ invoked‎ to‎ trump‎ the‎ Quran‘s‎
text. Since the Sunna is fully compatible with, and always subservient to,
the Quran, the Medina Constitution is remarkable in its compatibility
with the Quran‟s principles of inter-human behavior. For example, the
Medina‎ Constitution‘s‎ religious‎ freedom‎ is‎ in‎ accord‎ with‎ the‎ Quran‎ that‎
lays‎out‎the‎principal‎idea‎of‎spiritual‎freedom‎to‎practice‎one‘s‎religion as
one‎ believes‎ it.‎ ―To you be your Way, and to me mine .Quran 109:6.
Anver Emon, a student of Professor Khaled Abou El Fadl, has written a
well-argued article to demonstrate that modern scholars are reading too
much‎ into‎ the‎ Medina‎ Constitution.‎ ―The‎ fact that recent Muslim authors
often address a presumed constitutional theory implicit in the document may
have more to do with twentieth century politics in the Muslim world than
with‎anything‎inherent‎in‎the‎text.‖3‎Emon‘s‎argument,‎however,‎misses‎the‎
point that the Medina Constitution, as part of the Prophet‟s Sunna, is an
eternal source of guidance and each community of believers in the
constant flow of time may tap into this source to derive meaning and
guidance for structuring a life consistent with the values of the Quran
2
and the Sunna, the Basic Code of Islam

Anver Emon, Reflections on the Constitution of Medina, 1 UCLA Journal of

4
Islamic and Near Eastern Law 103, 133 (2001-2002). Ali Khan, The
Reopening of the Islamic Code: The Second Era of Ijtihad," 1 University of
Saint Thomas Law Journal 341 (2003).
 The Compact of Medina:
A Constitutional Theory of the Islamic State
M. A. Muqtedar Khan
A Return to Enlightenment
Muqtedar Khan's Column on Islamic Affairs

We explain the signs in detail for those who reflect (Quran;

10:24).

Published in the Mirror international on May 30th, 2001

The Qur'an was sent as a divine guidance to those who believe

and contains principles and guidelines essential for social,
political and spiritual guidance of humanity.

The Qur'an should however not be mistaken as a manual. It is an

essence of divine values, a collection of revealed principles the
understanding and following of which will lead us along the
straight path.

The derivation of a manual from the divine principles is one of

the most important responsibilities that come from being a
Muslim. This responsibility is like a fard-e-kifaya (communal
obligation). It is enough that someone take up this task in a given
place and time.

As Muslims always in search of political autonomy and ethical

authenticity we repeatedly return to Islamic sources in order to derive
a manual for our times from the divine principles in the Qur'an and
the Sunnah. One of the projects that contemporary Muslims are
dealing with is the construction of a theory of an Islamic state.
Several theories of the Islamic state have already been advanced.
Some are more focused on the principle of shura and hence are
more democratic in character ,

while other theories are more focused on the divine authority of

the Khalifa and are therefore more authoritarian models.

In this brief essay I wish to point out to one particular precedent set
by Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) that not only supports the
democratic theories of Islamic state but also provides a very
important occasion for the development of political theory itself.

The occasion I am referring to is the compact of Medina; some

scholars also refer to it as the Dastur al-Medina (The
Constitution of Medina).

We must remember that everything the Prophet (PBUH) said

and did is essentially an exegesis of the Qur'an.

The Prophet s actions should be understood as an

interpretation, a prophetic and divine interpretation, of the
Holy Qur'an.

After Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) migrated from Mecca to Yathrib

in 622 CE, he established the first Islamic state. For ten years
Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) was not only the leader of the
emerging Muslim Ummah in Arabia but also the political head of
Medina.

As the leader of Median, Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) exercised

jurisdiction over Muslims as well as non-Muslims within the city. The
legitimacy of his rule over Medina was based on his status as
the Prophet (PBUH) of Islam as well as on the basis of the
compact of Medina.

As Prophet of Allah (SWT) he had sovereignty over all Muslims by

divine decree so profoundly manifest in the statement of Shahadah,
Lailaha Illallah Muhammadur Rasoolullah (There is no God but Allah
and Muhammad is his messenger). When Muslims declare their faith,
they not only assert the sole divinity of Allah (SWT) but also the
sovereignty of Muhammad (PBUH) as his messenger and agent on
Earth.

But Muhammad (PBUH) did not rule over the non-Muslims of

Medina because he was the messenger of Allah. They did not
recognize this particular credential of his.

He ruled over them by virtue of the tri-partite compact that was

signed by the Muhajirun (Muslim immigrants from Mecca), the
Ansar (indigenous Muslims of Medina and the Yahud (Jews).

It is interesting to note that Jews were constitutional partners

in the making of the first Islamic state.

The compact of Medina provides an excellent historical example of

two theoretical constructs that have shaped contemporary political
theory and should therefore be of great value to those scholars who
are involved in the theorizing of the Islamic state. Political theory
relies heavily on the ideas of a social contract and a constitution.

A social contract, made famous by the French philosopher Rousseau

is an imaginary agreement between people in the state of
nature that leads to the establishment of a community or a
state.

In the state of nature people are free and are not obliged to follow
any rules or laws. They are essentially sovereign individuals. But
through the social contract they surrender their individual sovereignty
to the collective and create the community or the state. This state
then acts as an agent of the sovereign people, exercising the
sovereignty that has been delegated to it by the people through the
social contract in order to realize the wishes of the people enshrined
in the objectives of the social contract.
While western political thinkers like Rousseau and Locke have used
this idea of an imaginary social contract as a fundamental
premise for theorizing the modern state, there are really very few
real examples of such an event in human history.

In the American history, the Mayflower compact is one example.

The writing and signing of the constitution after six months of
deliberation in Philadelphia may be considered as another example of
a social contract. But Muslims are fortunate to have the compact
of Medina as a tradition upon which the foundations of a
modern state can be built.

The second idea that underpins contemporary political theory is the

concept of the constitution. In many ways the constitution is the
document that enshrines the conditions of the social contract
upon which any society is founded. The writing of a constitution
is a very old idea. Aristotle himself had collected over 300 written
constitutions in his lifetime. The compact of Medina clearly served a
constitutional function since it was the constitutive document for the
first Islamic state.

Thus we can argue that the compact of Medina serves the dual
function of a social contract and a constitution. Clearly the
compact of Medina by itself cannot serve as a modern
constitution.

It would be quite inadequate since it is a historically specific

document and quite limited in its scope. However it can serve as
a guiding principle to be emulated rather than a manual to be
duplicated.

The compact of Medina also illustrates what should be the

relationship between the revelation and a constitution.

Muhammad (PBUH) if he so wished could have merely indicated the

truth revealed by Allah (PBUH) shall serve as the constitution of
Medina or the basis for the new community and force this revelation
upon non-Muslims. But if he did that then he would have ruled
Medina with the authority of Allah behind him but without the
complete consent of those under his rule. Muhammad (PBUH) in his
great wisdom demonstrated a democratic spirit quite unlike the
authoritarian tendencies of many of those who claim to imitate him
today. He chose to draw up a historically specific constitution based
on the eternal and transcendent principles revealed to him and
sought the consent of all who would be affected by its
implementation.

In simple terms, the first Islamic state established in Medina was

based on a social contract, was constitutional in character and
the ruler ruled with the explicit written consent of all the
citizens of the state.

Today we need to emulate Muhammad (PBUH) and draw up

our own constitutions, historically and temporally specific to
our conditions and based on the eternal and transcendent
principles revealed by Allah (SWT). We can use the compact of
Medina as an example of how to develop manuals from
principles.

In conclusion, I would like to summarize the principles manifest in

Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) constitution of Medina. I recommend
that all Muslims read this wonderful document themselves. I regret
that there is no place in this brief column to reproduce it in its
entirety. but readers are welcome to rad its entire text at
http://msanews.mynet.net/books/lessons/constitution.html.

The Constitution of Medina establishes the importance of

consent and cooperation for governance. According to this
compact Muslims and non-Muslims are equal citizens of the Islamic
state, with identical rights and duties. Communities with different
religious orientations enjoy religious autonomy. Which
essentially is wider in scope than the modern idea of religious
freedom.
The constitution of Medina established a pluralistic state -- a
community of communities. It promised equal security to all
and all were equal in the eyes of the law. The principles of
equality, consensual governance and pluralism are beautifully
enmeshed in the compact of Medina.

It is amazing to see how Muhammad's (PBUH) interpretation

of the Qur'an and the Maqasid al-Shariah was so democratic, so
tolerant and compassionate, while contemporary Muslims (like
the Taliban for example) interpretation of the same is so harsh,
so authoritarian and so intolerant.

I hope this discussion will invite us to look at the Sunnah of our dear
Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), more closely. We must learn from
him not only the principles of faith but also human virtues of
mercy, compassion, equality, justice and tolerance. The
constitution of Medina is an excellent manifestation of the
Prophet's (PBUH) virtuous personality.

LAW COLLEGE LESSON PLAN FOR

COMPARATIVE STUDY OF
MADINA CONSTITUTION and
MAY FLOWER SOCIAL CONTRACT OF
AMERICAN IMMIGRANTS
 The Constitution of Madinah and the Mayflower
Compact – A Comparison
(Primary Source readings)

Overview: This lesson introduces students to the Constitution of

Madinah, written in 622 CE and draws parallels with the
Mayflower Compact of 1620 CE. Although these two documents
are separated by a thousand years of history, they both represent
religious communities establishing a charter for self-
governance following an experience of persecution and
migration to a new land.

Objectives: Students should be able to:

 describe the historical setting of the Constitution of Madinah

and the Mayflower Compact.

 compare the purposes of the Constitution of Madinah and the

Mayflower Compact.

Procedure:

1. Have students read about the Constitution of Madinah and

the Mayflower Compact (Handouts 3:1a & 3:1b
respectively) in groups. Then, on Handout 3:1c, have
students use a two-column chart to answer the following
questions concerning each document in the handout.
o Who were the participants in the agreement? Describe
them.
o What was the situation that brought about the need to
create a pact?
o What solutions do each of the documents propose for
living in peace together?
 2. Have students compare their answers to the questions on both
sides of the two-column sheet. Then, on a separate piece of
paper, have students list similarities between the two
documents and the situations that engendered them.

3. Then have each student present their observations and create

a master list of similarities between the two documents and
the historical situations that brought them into being.

Handout 3:1a THE "CONSTITUTION OF MADINAH"

The Constitution of Madinah is a voluntary pact among three groups, namely the
Muslims from Makkah, the Muslims from Yathrib, and the non-Muslims of
Yathrib. It followed a period of disagreement over leadership in Yathrib, which
was one reason that the people of the city invited Muhammad to come to the city.
The Constitution was unique in Arabian history, because it went beyond the
system of tribal loyalty that people depended upon. Not breaking completely with
tradition, the Constitution incorporates the tribes into an agreement in which
loyalty, rights and responsibilities are based on voluntary association and religious
belief. The groups named "Bani" refers to the clans, a subgroup of a tribe, often
living in a certain neighborhood in the city. The following excerpt is from a
biography‎ of‎ Muhammad‘s‎ life,‎ and‎ explains‎ the‎ Constitution‎ further.‎ "[Upon‎
arriving at Madinah,] The Prophet gave orders that his newly acquired courtyard
should be made into a mosque. They began work on it immediately. Most of the
building was done with bricks, but in the middle of the northern wall, that is, the
Jerusalem wall, they put stones on either side of the prayer niche. The palms in the
courtyard were cut down and their trunks were used as pillars to support the roof
of palm branches, but the greater part of the courtyard was left open.

The Muslims of Madinah had been given the title of Ansar, or Helpers, by the
Prophet. The Muslims of Makkah, who had left their homes and emigrated to
Madinah, were called Muhajirun, or Emigrants.

It was to be hoped that these two parties would be strengthened by a third, and the
Prophet now made a covenant of mutual obligation between his followers and the
Jews of the oasis, forming them into a single community of believers but allowing
for the differences between the two religions. Muslims and Jews were to have
equal status. If either a Jew or Muslim was wronged, then he must be helped to his
rights by both Muslims and Jews. In case of war against polytheists, the two
parties must fight as one force, and neither Jews nor Muslims were to make a
separate peace, but peace was to be indivisible. If there were differences of
opinion or dispute or controversy, the matter was to be referred to God through
His Messenger. There was, however, no express stipulation that the Jews should
formally recognize Muhammad as the Messenger and Prophet of God, though he
was referred to as such throughout the document." [From of Martin Lings,
Muhammad, His Life Based on the Earliest Sources, pp. 125-126]

The "Constitution of Madinah" (622)

The‎Prophet‘s‎Document‎Between‎the‎Muhajirun‎(The‎Emigrants),‎the‎Ansar‎(The‎
Helpers from Madinah) and the Jews (of Madinah):

Bismillah al-Rahman al-Rahim (In the name of God the Merciful, the
Compassionate)

(1) This is a document from Muhammad, the Prophet (governing the relations)
between the believers and the Muslims of Quraysh and Yathrib, and those who
followed them and joined them and struggled with them.

(2) They are one community (ummah) to the exclusion of all men.

(3) The Quraysh Muhajirun, according to their present custom, shall pay the blood
money within their number and shall redeem their prisoners with the kindness and
justice common among believers.

(4)‎ The‎ Banu‎ ‗Awf,‎ …‎ with‎ kindness‎ and justice.(5) Banu al Harith (Ibn al
Khazraj)...

(6)‎Banu‎Sa‘idah...(7)‎ Banu‎Jusham‎…‎(8)‎Banu‎al‎Najjar‎….(9)‎Banu‎‗Amr‎ibn‎
‗Awf‎…‎

(10)‎Banu‎al‎Nabit…‎(11)‎Banu‎al‎Aws…‎with‎kindness‎and‎justice.

(12a) Believers shall not leave anyone destitute among them by not paying his
redemption money or blood money in kindness.

(12b) A believer shall not take as an ally against him the freedman of another
Muslim.

(13) The God-Fearing believers shall be against the rebellious or anyone who
seeks to spread injustice, or sin, or enmity, or corruption between the believers; the
hand of every man shall be against him even if he be a son of one of them.
(14) A believer shall not slay a believer for the sake of an unbeliever, nor shall he
aid an unbeliever against a believer.

(15)‎God‘s‎protection‎is‎all-embracing, the least of them may give protection to a

stranger on their behalf. Believers are friends and protectors one to the other, to
the exclusion of outsiders.

(16) To the Jews who follow us belong help and equality. He shall not be wronged
nor shall his enemies be aided.

(17) The peace of the believers is indivisible. No peace shall be made when
believers are fighting in the way of God. Conditions must be fair and equitable to
all.

(18) In every foray a rider must take another behind him.

(19) The believers must avenge the blood of one another shed in the way of God.

(20a) The God-fearing believers enjoy the best and most upright guidance.

(20b) No polytheist shall take the property or person of Quraysh under his
protection nor shall he intervene against a believer.

(21) Whosoever is convicted of killing a believer without good reason shall be

subject to retaliation unless the next of kin is satisfied (with blood money), and the
believers shall be against him as one man, and they are bound to take action
against him.

(22) It shall not be lawful to a believer who holds by what is in this document and
believes in God and the Last Day, to help an evil-doer or to shelter him. The curse
of God and His anger on the Day of Resurrection will be upon him if he does,
neither repentance nor ransom will be received from him.

(23) Whenever you differ about a matter, it must be referred to God and to
Muhammad.

(24) The Jews shall contribute to the cost of war so long as they are fighting
alongside the believers.
(25)‎The‎Jews‎of‎Banu‎‗Awf‎are‎one‎community‎with‎the‎believers‎(the‎Jews‎have‎
their religion and the Muslims have theirs), their freedmen and their persons
except those who behave unjustly and sinfully, for they hurt but themselves and
their families.

(26)‎The‎Jews‎of‎Banu‎al‎Najjar‎are‎like‎the‎Jews‎of‎Banu‎‗Awf.(27)‎The‎Jews‎of‎
Banu‎ al‎ Harith‎ …(28)‎ The‎ Jews‎ of‎ Banu‎ Sa‘idah‎ ….(29)‎ The‎ Jews‎ of‎ Banu‎
Jusham‎ …(30)‎ The‎ Jews‎ of‎ Banu‎ al‎ Aws‎ ...(31)‎ The‎ Jews‎ of‎ Banu‎ al‎ Tha‘labah‎
…(32)‎Jafnah,‎a‎clan‎of‎the‎Tha‘labah,‎are‎as‎themselves.(33)‎The‎Jews‎of‎Banu‎al‎
Shutaybah‎ …(34)‎ The‎ freedmen‎ of‎ Tha‘labah‎ are‎ as‎ themselves.(35)‎ The‎ close‎
friends of the Jews are as themselves.

(36a) None of them shall go out to war save with the permission of Muhammad.

(36b) But he shall not be prevented from taking revenge from a wound. He who
slays a man without warning slays himself and his household, unless it be one who
has wronged him, for God will accept that.

(37a) The Jews must bear their expenses and the Muslims their expenses. Each
must help the other against anyone who attacks the people of this document. They
must seek mutual advice and consultation, and righteousness is a protection
against sinfulness.

(37b)‎A‎man‎is‎not‎liable‎for‎his‎ally‘s misdeeds. The wronged must be helped.

(38) The Jews must pay with the believers so long as war lasts.

(39) Yathrib (Madinah) shall be a sanctuary for the people of this document.

(40) A stranger under protection shall be as his host doing no harm and
committing no crime.

Handout 3:1b: THE MAYFLOWER COMPACT

Paul Johnson writes in his book A History of the American People:

An important event occurred on the voyage, when the Mayflower was two
months out from England, and the discomforts of a crowded voyage were
leading to dissension.
 On November 21, the colony‟s leaders assembled in the main cabin and drew
up a social compact, designed to secure unity and provide for future
government. In‎ effect‎ it‎ created‎ a‎ civil‎ body‎ politic‎ to‎ provide‎ ‗just‎ and‎ equal‎
laws,‘‎ which‎ were‎ founded‎ upon‎ church‎ teaching,‎ the‎ religious‎ and‎ secular‎
governance of the colony to be in effect indistinguishable. This contract was based
upon the original Biblical covenant between God and the Israelites. But it also
reflected early17th-century social-contract theory, which was later to receive such
notable‎expression‎in‎Thomas‎Hobbes‘‎Leviathan (1655)‎and‎Locke‘s‎Treatise of
Civil Government (1690).

What was remarkable about this particular contract was that it was not
between a servant and a master, or a people and a king, but between a group
of like-minded individuals and each other, with God as a witness and a
symbolic co-signatory.

It was as though this small community, in going to America together, pledged

themselves to create a different kind of collective personality, living a new life
across the Atlantic. One of their leaders, William Bradford, later wrote a history,
"Of Plymouth Plantation," in which he first referred to them as Pilgrims. But they
were not ordinary pilgrims, traveling to a sacred shrine, and then returning home
to resume everyday life. They were, rather, perpetual pilgrims, setting up a new,
sanctified country that was to be a permanent pilgrimage, traveling ceaselessly
towards a millenarian goal. They saw themselves as exceptions to the European
betrayal of Christian principles, and they were conducting an exercise in
exceptionalism. [From Paul Johnson, A History of the American People, pp 28-29
]

The Mayflower Compact (1620)

"In the name of God, Amen. We, whose names are underwritten,
the Loyal Subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord, King James, by
the Grace of God, of England, France and Ireland, King, Defender
of the Faith, e&.

Having undertaken for the Glory of God, and Advancement of the

Christian Faith, and the Honour of our King and Country, a voyage
to plant the first colony in the northern parts of Virginia; do by
these presents, solemnly and mutually in the Presence of God and
one of another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a
civil Body Politick, for our better Ordering and Preservation, and
Furtherance of the Ends aforesaid; And by Virtue hereof to enact,
constitute, and frame, such just and equal Laws, Ordinances, Acts,
Constitutions and Offices, from time to time, as shall be thought
most meet and convenient for the General good of the Colony;
unto which we promise all due submission and obedience.

In Witness whereof we have hereunto subscribed our names at

Cape Cod the eleventh of November, in the Reign of our Sovereign
Lord, King James of England, France and Ireland, the eighteenth,
and of Scotland the fifty-fourth. Anno Domini, 1620."

Handout 3:1c DOCUMENT COMPARISON

Constitution of Madinah Mayflower Compact

Allah: Allah is the proper name in Arabic for The One and Only God, The
Creator and Sustainer of the universe. It is used by the Arab Christians and
Jews for the God (Eloh-im in Hebrew; 'Allaha' in Aramaic, the mother
tongue of Jesus, pbuh). The word Allah does not have a plural or gender.
Allah does not have any associate or partner, and He does not beget nor was
He begotten. SWT is an abbreviation of Arabic words that mean 'Glory Be
To Him.'s or pbuh: Peace Be Upon Him. This expression is used for all
Prophets of Allah ra: Radiallahu Anhu (May Allah be pleased with him).

"HE WAS THE BEST OF JEWS" SAID PROPHET

MUHAMMED
The Story of Rabbi Mukhayriq
Constitution of Medina
The Constitution of Medina (Arabic: ‫صحیفة المدینه‬‎‎,Ṣaḥīfat‎al-Madīna),‎
also known as the Charter of Medina, was drafted by the Islamic
prophet Muhammad. It constituted a formal agreement
between Muhammad and all of the significant tribes and families of
Yathrib (later known
as Medina),including Muslims, Jews,Christians[1] and pagans.

This constitution formed the basis of the future caliphate. The document
was drawn up with the explicit concern of bringing to an end the bitter
inter tribal fighting between the clans of the Aws (Aus) and Khazraj within
Medina. To this effect it instituted a number of rights and responsibilities
for the Muslim, Jewish, Christian and pagan communities of Medina
bringing them within the fold of one community—the Ummah.[4]

The precise dating of the Constitution of Medina remains debated but

generally scholars agree it was written shortly after the Hijra (622).[5] It
effectively established the first Islamic state. The Constitution
established: the security of the community, religious freedoms, the role of
Medina as a haram or sacred place (barring all violence and weapons), the
security of women, stable tribal relations within Medina, a tax system for
supporting the community in time of conflict, parameters for exogenous
political alliances, a system for granting protection of individuals, a
judicial system for resolving disputes, and also regulated the paying
of blood money(the payment between families or tribes for the slaying of
an individual in lieu of lex talionis).

Background
In the last years of Muhammad in Mecca, a delegation from Medina, consisting
of the representatives of the twelve important clans of Medina, invited
Muhammad as a neutral outsider to Medina to serve as the chief arbitrator for
the entire community.[6][7] There was fighting in Yathrib mainly involving its
pagan and Jewish inhabitants for around a hundred years before 620. [6] The
recurring slaughters and disagreements over the resulting claims, especially
after the battle of Bu'ath in which all the clans were involved, made it obvious to
them that the tribal conceptions of blood-feud and an eye for an eye were no
longer workable unless there was one man with authority to adjudicate in
disputed cases.[6] The delegation from Medina pledged themselves and their
fellow-citizens to accept Muhammad into their community and physically
protect him as one of themselves.[8]

After emigration to Medina, Muhammad drafted the Constitution of Medina,

"establishing a kind of alliance or federation" among the eight Medinan tribes
and Muslim emigrants from Mecca, which specified the rights and duties of all
citizens and the relationship of the different communities in Medina (including
that of the Muslim community to other communities specifically the Jews and
other "Peoples of the Book").[6]

Sources
Scholars do not possess the original document but rather a number of versions
can be found in early Muslim sources. The most widely read version of the
Constitution is found in the pages of Ibn Ishaq's Sirah Rasul Allah (see wikisource),
while alternative copies are located in Sayyid al-Nas‎ and‎Abu‎ ‗Ubayd's Kitab
al-Amwal. Most scholars accept the authenticity of the document.

Montgomery Watt suggests that the constitution must have been written in
the early Medinan period. He supports his view by arguing that had the document
been drafted later, it would have had a favorable attitude towards Quraysh, and
given Muhammad a prominent place. Hubert Grimme believes the Constitution
was drafted in the post-Badr period, while Cetani argues that the document was
complete before the Battle of Badr.[9]

According to R.B. Serjeant, verses 101-104 of sura 3 of the Qur'an make

reference to the Constitution. He proposes that this section of the Qur'an
underwentrecension (a hypothesis first proposed by Richard Bell). In its first
recension, this text sanctioned the establishment of a confederation. In its
second, it admonished the Aws and Khazraj to abide by their treaty. In its third,
in conjunction with the proceeding verses, it is an encouragement of
Muhammad's adherents to face the Meccan forces they eventually fought
at Uhud. He states that even if this proposal of three recensions be unacceptable,
it must be affirmed that these verses make reference to the two different
treaties.[10]
Analysis
King Fahd Complex for Printing the Quran in Medina

The Constitution was not a treaty in the modern sense, but a unilateral
proclamation by Muhammad, Bernard Lewis states.[11] One of the constitution's
more interesting aspects was the inclusion of the Jewish tribes in the Ummah,
the Jewish tribes were "one community with the believers," but they "have their
religion and the Muslims have theirs."[12]

Legal Scholar L. Ali Khan says the Constitution of Medina was a social
contract derived from a treaty and not from any fictional state of nature or from
behind theRawlsian veil of ignorance. The contract was built upon the concept of
one community of diverse tribes living under the sovereignty of one God.[13]

Dr. Muhammad Tahir-ul-Qadri has written a book called the Constitutional

Analysis of the Constitution of Madina which states an analysis and review of
the Constitution. He has categorised the headings of the articles according to
the modern legal constitutions consisting of 63 articles.[14]

The Medina Constitution also instituted peaceful methods of dispute resolution

among diverse groups living as one people but without assimilating into one
religion, language, or culture.[15] Welch in Encyclopedia of Islam states: "The
constitution reveals his Muhammad's great diplomatic skills, for it allows the
ideal that he cherished of an ummah (community) based clearly on a religious
outlook to sink temporarily into the background and is shaped essentially by
practical considerations." [16]

Significance of the Ummah

Another important feature of the Constitution of Medina is the redefinition of

ties between Muslims. The Constitution of Medina sets faith relationships
above blood-ties and emphasizes individual responsibility.[17] Tribal identities
are‎ still‎ important,‎ and‎ are‎ used‎ to‎ refer‎ to‎ different‎ groups,‎ but‎ the‎ ―main‎
binding‎tie‖‎for‎the‎newly-created ummah is religion.[18] This contrasts with the
norms of pre-Islamic Arabia, which was a thoroughly tribal society, although
Searjant postulates the existence of earlier theocratic
communities. According‎ to‎ Denny,‎ ―Watt‎ has‎ likened‎ the‎ Ummah‎ as‎ it‎ is‎
[19]

described in the document to a tribe, but with the important difference that it
was to be based‎on‎religion‎and‎not‎on‎kinship‖.[18] This is an important event in
the development of the small group of Muslims in Medina to the larger Muslim
community and empire.[20]
Rights of non-Muslims

The non-Muslims included in the ummah had the following rights:[21]

1. The security of God is equal for all groups,[22]

2. Non-Muslim members have equal political and cultural rights as
Muslims. They will have autonomy and freedom of religion.[23]
3. Non-Muslims will take up arms against the enemy of the Ummah and
share the cost of war. There is to be no treachery between the two.[24]
4. Non-Muslims will not be obliged to take part in religious wars of the
Muslims.[25]

References
Constructs such as ibid. and loc. cit. are discouraged by Wikipedia's style
guide for footnotes, as they are easily broken. Please improve this articleby
replacing them with named references (quick guide), or an abbreviated title.

1. ^ R.‎B.‎Serjeant,‎"Sunnah‎Jāmi'ah,‎pacts‎with‎the‎Yathrib‎Jews,‎and‎the‎
Tahrīm‎of‎Yathrib:‎analysis‎and‎translation‎of‎the‎documents‎comprised‎
in the so-called 'Constitution of Medina'", Bulletin of the School of
Oriental and African Studies (1978), 41: 1-42, Cambridge University Press.
2. ^ See:
o Reuven Firestone, Jihād: the origin of holy war in Islam (1999) p.
118;
o "Muhammad", Encyclopedia of Islam Online
3. ^ Watt. Muhammad at Medina and R. B. Serjeant "The Constitution of
Medina." Islamic Quarterly 8 (1964) p.4.
4. ^ Ibid, Serjeant, page 4.
5. ^ Watt. Muhammad at Medina. pp. 227-228 Watt argues that the initial
agreement was shortly after the hijra and the document was amended at a
later date specifically after the battle of Badr (AH [anno hijra] 2, = AD
624). Serjeant argues that the constitution is in fact 8 different treaties
which can be dated according to events as they transpired in Medina
with the first treaty being written shortly after Muhammad's arrival. R. B.
Serjeant. "The Sunnah Jâmi'ah, Pacts with the Yathrib Jews, and the
Tahrîm of Yathrib: Analysis and Translation of the Documents
Comprised in the so called 'Constitution of Medina'." inThe Life of
Muhammad: The Formation of the Classical Islamic World: Volume iv.
Ed. Uri Rubin. Brookfield: Ashgate, 1998, p. 151 and see same article in
BSOAS 41 (1978): 18 ff. See also Caetani. Annali dell’Islam, Volume I.
 Milano: Hoepli, 1905, p. 393. Julius Wellhausen. Skizzen und Vorabeiten,
IV, Berlin: Reimer, 1889, p 82f who argue that the document is a single
treaty agreed upon shortly after the hijra. Wellhausen argues that it
belongs‎to‎the‎first‎year‎of‎Muhammad‘s‎residence‎in‎Medina,‎before‎the‎
battle of Badr in 2/624. Wellhausen bases this judgement on three
considerations; first Muhammad is very diffident about his own position,
he accepts the Pagan tribes within the Umma, and maintains the Jewish
clans as clients of the Ansars see Wellhausen, Excursus, p. 158. Even
Moshe Gil a skeptic of Islamic history argues that it was written within 5
months of Muhammad's arrival in Medina. Moshe Gil. "The Constitution
of Medina: A Reconsideration." Israel Oriental Studies 4 (1974): p. 45.
6. ^ a b c d Watt, The Cambridge History of Islam, p. 39
7. ^ Esposito (1998), p. 17.
8. ^ Alford Welch, Muhammad, Encyclopedia of Islam
9. ^ Watt (1956), p. 225-6
10. ^ Ibid, Serjeant, page 8.
11. ^ Bernard Lewis, "The Arabs in History," page 42.
12. ^ Jonathan Berkey, The Formation of Islam: Religion and Society in the
Near East, 600-1800, Cambridge University Press, p.64
13. ^ See
14. ^ Constitution of Madina
15. ^ Ramadan, Hisham M. (2006). Understanding Islamic Law: From
Classical to Contemporary. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. ISBN 0-
7591-0990-7.
16. ^ Welch, Encyclopedia of Islam, Muhammad article
17. ^ Williams, John Alden. Themes of Islamic Civilization. p. 12
18. ^ a b Denny, Frederick. "Umma in the Constitution of Medina." "Journal
of Near Eastern Studies, Vol. 36, No. 1 (Jan., 1977), p 44. The
University of Chicago Press
19. ^ Ibid, Serjeant, page 4.
20. ^ Ibid, Serjeant, page 4.
21. ^ Ahmed (1979), p. 46-7
22. ^ Article 15, as quoted in Ahmed (1979), p. 46-7
23. ^ Article 25, as quoted in Ahmed (1979), p. 46-7
24. ^ Article 37, as quoted in Ahmed (1979), p. 46-7
25. ^ Article 45, as quoted in Ahmed (1979), p. 46-7
Further reading
 Ahmad, Barakat (1979). Muhammad and the Jews. Vikas Publishing
House.
 Watt, Montgomery (1956). Muhammad at Medina. Oxford University
Press.
 Wensinck, Arendt Jan (1908). Muhammad and the Jews of Medina.
Leiden.

External links
 A Short note on Medina Charter
 Full text with alternate translations

The Battle of Uhud was fought here.

Dr. Muqtedar Khan | 08.20.2010

This article was published in The News Journal | 12.01.2009 | AltMuslim

|12.28.2009| The American Muslim |12.01.2009 | Islamicity |12.04.2009| and
many more places.
There are many stories that contemporary Imams rarely tell their
congregations. The story of Mukhayriq, a Rabbi from Medina is one
such story. I have heard the stories about the battle of Uhud, one of
prophet Muhammad’s major battles with his Meccan enemies, from
Imams and Muslim preachers hundreds of times, but not once have I
heard the story of Rabbi Mukhayriq who died fighting in that
battle against the enemies of Islam. So, I will tell the story of Rabbi
Mukhayriq – the first Jewish martyr of Islam. It is quite apropos as
the season of spiritual holidays is here.

Mukhayriq was a wealthy and learned leader of the tribe of Tha’labah.

He fought with Prophet Muhammed in the battle of Uhud on March
19, 625 AD and was martyred in it. That day was a Saturday. Rabbi
Mukhayriq addressed his people and asked them to go with him to
help Muhammed. His tribe’s men declined saying that it was the day
of Sabbath. Mukhayriq chastised them for not understanding the
deeper meaning of Sabbath and announced to his people that if he
died in the battle his entire wealth should go to Muhammed.

Mukhayriq died in battle against the Meccans. And when

Muhammed, who was seriously injured in that battle, was informed
about the death of Mukhayriq, Muhammed said, “He was the best of
Jews.”

Muhammed inherited seven gardens and other forms of wealth from

Mukhayriq. Muhammed used this wealth to establish the first waqf –
a charitable endowment - of Islam. It was from this endowment that
the Prophet of Islam helped many poor people in Medina.

When Muhammed migrated form Mecca to Medina in 622 he signed

a treaty with the various tribes that lived in and around Medina.
Many of these tribes had embraced Islam, some were pagan and
others were Jewish. All of them signed the treaty with Muhammed
that is referred to by historians as the Constitution of Medina. The first
Islamic state, a multi-tribal and multi-religious state, established
by Muhammed in Medina was based on this social contract.
According to Article 2 of the Constitution, all tribes who were
signatory to the treaty constituted one nation (ummah). Mukhayriq’s
people too were signatories to this treaty and were obliged to fight
with Muhammed in accordance to Article 37 of the Constitution,
which says:
The Jews must bear their expenses and the Muslims their expenses.
Each must help the other against anyone who attacks the people of
this document. They must seek mutual advice and consultation, and
loyalty is a protection against treachery. A man is not liable for his
ally’s misdeeds. The wronged must be helped.
In a way Rabbi Mukhayriq, who was also a well-respected scholar of
Jews in Medina, was merely being a good citizen and was fulfilling a
social contract. But his story is fantastic, especially for our times
when we are struggling to build bridges between various religious
communities. Mukhayriq’s loyalty, his bravery, his sacrifice and his
generosity are inspirational.

Perhaps it is about people like Mukhayriq that the Quran says:

And there are, certainly, among Jews and Christians, those who
believe in God, in the revelation to you, and in the revelation to them,
bowing in humility to God. They will not sell the Signs of God for a
miserable gain! For them is a reward with their Lord (3:199).
Mukhayriq’s story is a story of an individual’s ability to transcend
communal divides and to fight for a more inclusive idea of
community.
He was a true citizen of the state of Medina and he gave his life in
its defense.
He was a Jew and he was an Islamic hero and his story must never
be forgotten and must be told and retold.
When Muslims forget to remember his, and other stories that
epitomize interfaith relations they diminish the legacy of Islam and
betray the cause of peace.

If Muslim Imams told his story in their congregations in America and

elsewhere, I am confident that it will contribute to manifestations of
increased tolerance by Muslims towards others.
There are many such wonderful examples of brotherhood,
tolerance, sacrifice and good citizenship in Islamic traditions that
undergird the backbone of Islamic ethics.
I wish we told them more often.

References The story of Mukhariq have been read in, Ibn Kathir The Life
of Prophet Muhammed (Al-Seerah Al Nabwiyyah), Trans. Trevor Le Gassick,
volume III, p. 50, in The History of al-Tabari: The Foundation of the
Community Trans. W. M. Watt, p. 236, also see Ibn Hisham, The Life of
Muhammed Trans. A. Guillaume, p. 384. Click the hyperlinked parts to read
the relevant passage from the books. Return to Ijtihad

PROPHET MUHAMMAD'S PROMISE

TO CHRISTIANS
St. Catherine's Monastery, Sinai, Egypt A Picture of Prophet Muhammad's
Letter to St. Catherine's Monastery

Dr. Muqtedar Khan | 08.22.2010

This article was published in the Pittsburg Post-Gazette [03.25.2007], Daily

News Egypt [03.09.2007], AltMuslim [03.03.2007], Pakistan Link, Middle
East Window, Turkish Daily News [04.10.2007 ], OpEd news [03.19.2007],
Ikhwanweb [02.11.07], and many other places..
 Article also available in:

Courtesy Common Ground News Service

Muslims and Christians together constitute over fifty percent of the

world and if they lived in peace, we will be half way to world peace.
One small step that we can take towards fostering Muslim-Christian
harmony is to tell and retell positive stories and abstain from mutual
demonization. In this article I propose to remind both Muslims and
Christians about a promise that Prophet Muhammed (pbuh) made to
Christians. The knowledge of this promise can have enormous
impact on Muslim conduct towards Christians. Muslims generally
respect the precedent of their Prophet and try to practice it in their
lives.

In 628 AD, a delegation from St. Catherine’s Monastery came to

Prophet Muhammed and requested his protection. He responded by
granting them a charter of rights, which I reproduce below in its
entirety. St. Catherine’s Monastery is located at the foot of Mt. Sinai
and is the world’s oldest monastery. It possess a huge collection of
Christian manuscripts, second only to the Vatican, and is a world
heritage site. It also boasts the oldest collection of Christian icons. It is
a treasure house of Christian history that has remained safe for 1400
years under Muslim protection.

The Promise to St. Catherine:

"This is a message from Muhammad ibn Abdullah, as a

covenant to those who adopt Christianity, near and far, we
are with them. Verily I, the servants, the helpers, and my
followers defend them, because Christians are my citizens;
and by Allah! I hold out against anything that displeases
them.

No compulsion is to be on them. Neither are their judges to

be removed from their jobs nor their monks from their
 monasteries. No one is to destroy a house of their religion,
to damage it, or to carry anything from it to the Muslims'
houses.
Should anyone take any of these, he would spoil God's
covenant and disobey His Prophet. Verily, they are my allies
and have my secure charter against all that they hate.

No one is to force them to travel or to oblige them to fight.

The Muslims are to fight for them. If a female Christian is
married to a Muslim, it is not to take place without her
approval. She is not to be prevented from visiting her
church to pray. Their churches are to be respected. They are
neither to be prevented from repairing them nor the
sacredness of their covenants.

No one of the nation (Muslims) is to disobey the covenant

till the Last Day (end of the world)."

The first and the final sentence of the charter are critical. They
make the promise eternal and universal. Muhammed asserts that
Muslims are with Christians near and far straight away rejecting
any future attempts to limit the promise to St. Catherine alone. By
ordering Muslims to obey it until the Day of Judgment the charter
again undermines any future attempts to revoke the privileges.
These rights are inalienable. Muhammed declared Christians, all of
them, as his allies and he equated ill treatment of Christians with
violating God’s covenant.

A remarkable aspect of the charter is that it imposes no conditions

on Christians for enjoying its privileges. It is enough that they are
Christians. They are not required to alter their beliefs, they do not
have to make any payments and they do not have any obligations.
This is a charter of rights without any duties!
The document is not a modern human rights treaty but even
thought it was penned in 628 A.D. it clearly protects the right to
property, freedom of religion, freedom of work, and security of the
person.
I know most readers, must be thinking so what? Well the answer is
simple. Those who seek to foster discord among Muslims and
Christians focus on issues that divide and emphasize areas of
conflict. But when resources such as Muhammad’s promise to
Christians is invoked and highlighted it builds bridges. It inspires
Muslims to rise above communal intolerance and engenders good
will in Christians who might be nursing fear of Islam or Muslims.

When I look at Islamic sources, I find in them unprecedented

examples of religious tolerance and inclusiveness. They make me
want to become a better person. I think the capacity to seek good
and do good inheres in all of us. When we subdue this
predisposition towards the good, we deny our fundamental
humanity. In this holiday season, I hope all of us can find time to
look for something positive and worthy of appreciation in the
values, cultures and histories of other peoples.

References

See for example Life and Teachings of Muhammed by Amir Ali, p. 176.
click to read it.