Seerah of Prophet Muhammed 33 - The Treaty & Constitution of Madinah - Yasir Qadhi | May 2012
Seerah of Prophet Muhammed 33 - The Treaty & Constitution of Madinah - Yasir Qadhi | May 2012
The next major incident of the early Madani period is the Constitution of Madinah. So what exactly is this constitution? One of the problems we have is this constitution is not mentioned in every classical source of seerah, and those that mention it, sometimes they mention it without a chain of narrators (isnad). When we go back to Ibn Ishaq, he mentions it in full but says, "It has been narrated to me" - the issue here is there is 150 years between him and the Prophet PBUH, so we don't have a direct isnad. Other early books sometimes mention the constitution as well, but again, without a full chain of narrators. Some books of hadith e.g. Musnad Imam Ahmad, does mention one phrase of the constitution, (Imam Ahmad says, "The Prophet PBUH wrote a book between the Muhajirin and the Ansar, and this book mention in it: 'Every one of them would take care of their own debts and problems, and there will be islah [إصلاح] and ma'ruf [معروف] between them'"), but the problem comes is that there is no early book which mentions the WHOLE constitution WITH an isnad. And this has led some people to doubt there ever was a constitution; they say, "There is no evidence for this constitution to have taken place."
However, many modern researchers say, "Even if there is no chain of narrators, when you look at this constitution and its language, you see that it uses a very archaic language - a language that is not common even in the time of Ibn Ishaq. If somebody were to fabricate it, he wouldn't have fabricated it with such a difficult language." And therefore, the majority of scholars of our times consider this constitution to be an authentic constitution. Note the constitution takes up 5 pages, so we cannot discuss every single clause, so we will rather break up the constitution into four issues:
1. Everything related to the Muslims
2. Everything related to the Jews
3. Everything related to the pagans
4. Everything related to everyone in general
(Sidenote: Imam al-Dhahabi [الذهبي] and others just gloss over the constitution. It seems many people underestimated the importance of this constitution. Ibn Sa'd [ابن سعد] and al-Waqidi [الواقدي] hardly mention it. And it's mentioned in bits and pieces by others. So it seems the significance of the constitution is not fully appreciated. For us who live in Muslim minority lands however, the constitution is very heartening and optimistic.)
The constitution is written in a very difficult language; and it's composed of sentences e.g., "The Prophet PBUH said this, and he said this, and he said this," and a lot of what is mentioned are the names of tribes that we don't know anymore. (Recall "the Ansar" means "the Helpers," and they were composed primarily of the Aws and the Khazraj, but they were more than these two; and even within the Aws and the Khazraj, there are at least 40-50 subtribes. And most of these subtribes, we don't have much details of their names.) But this constitution mentions every single one of these (which is in fact a sign of its authenticity), and what is required of these subtribes. The same applies for the Jews: There were three large tribes, but within them there were many subtribes.
And the way the constitution was written was very different to today: sentences were jumbled up (not each in their own section) i.e. it's very difficult to analyse. So we will simplify it:
1. Clauses Related to the Muslims
- Of the clauses, the Prophet PBUH said in the constitution, "The Muslims from the Quraysh and Yathrib..." Notice here "Yathrib" is used, which again shows its authenticity, because right when the Prophet PBUH came, Madinah was still called Yathrib. The fact it's called Yathrib shows he is talking to people not used to Madinah yet. Also the term "Muhajirun" and "Ansar" isn't used yet. He said, "The Muslims from the Quraysh and Yathrib, and those who join them, are one ummah. And this ummah is in and unto itself (i.e. the ummah is unique to itself to the exclusion of the rest of mankind)."
- He then mentions 40 subtribes all by name, and says, "Every subtribe will be left with their own responsibilities they had before Islam. They shall take care of their own blood money disputes, their own prisoners of war, and their own poor." So in this early state, the welfare system was local - if someone needed help, they would keep it to a tribal level.
- Another clause: All of the Muslims shall unite against those who do injustice, even if it be one of their own. So this means, "If somebody does zulm (oppression), even if he's a Muslim, we will be united against the zalim (oppressor)." (This actually goes back to the treaty of the Hilf al-Fudul - "Everybody will be united against the zalim even if they are one of our own.")
- Final clause was, "The protection (ذمة / dhimmah) granted by the Muslims is the same, and even the lowliest of them can give protection." So every Muslim has the right to give anybody whom they know this 'visa', even if they are the lowliest of them (meaning even if they are a slave or a child at the age of tamyiz [تمييز]) - he has the permissibility to allow anybody to enter Madinah. And if somebody comes in with this 'visa,' nobody can harm him.
2. Clauses Related to the Jews
Again, the Prophet PBUH mentioned all of the Jewish tribes by name specifically (and there were around 12 different tribes).
- And then he PBUH said, "All of these Jews are one ummah, along with the believers." Meaning they have a type of status that in some ways is equivalent to an ummah. And the Prophet PBUH said they shall take care of their own disputes, affairs, blood money, internal crime etc. - meaning they are all in charge of it, unless they are to come to the Muslims for help OR if it involves an event between both the Jews and the Muslims. So notice the affairs of the Jews is the business of the Jews, unless it's between both parties.
- The Prophet PBUH further said, "Between the two shall be mutual support against those who fight the people of this constitution. And the Jews will stand among the Muslims as long as they are being fought." So notice financial obligations for domestic affairs are not the same (the Muslims must take care of their poor, the Jews will take care of their poor; the Muslims sort out their feuds, the Jews theirs), however, if someone attacks, the Muslims must spend on defense, and the Jews must equally spend on defense. Both will spend for the sake of the protection of Madinah. Therefore at time of crisis, the two shall unite and help one another.
- The Prophet PBUH said, "No Jews can leave Madinah without the permission of the Prophet PBUH." "Leaving" means changing your citizenship. Where you live is where your tribe is, and that's where your citizenship is. For them to leave Madinah means renouncing their citizenship and joining another camp - you can't just leave and become a traitor/neutral. To this day, if you want to leave USA and give up your citizenship, you must renounce it. Similarly for the case of Madinah.
- Another clause is that if any Jew wishes to convert to Islam, he shall be helped and protected, and no injustice shall be done to him i.e. nobody can harm him.
3. Clauses Related to the Pagans
Note the fact there there were clauses for the pagans shows that there were still pagans in Madinah. They lasted up until the Battle of Badr (2 AH) - when the Prophet PBUH returned back to Madinah victorious, that's when every pagan realized, "We are such a small minority, we can't stay pagan now," so they converted. (And consequently, that's also when the phenomenon of nifaq/hypocrisy began.)
The main clause is that the Prophet PBUH said, "No mushrik shall offer protection to the Quraysh even if it's in return for life or money, nor shall he in any way come between the Quraysh and the Believers (i.e. to defend)," i.e. the Prophet PBUH is saying you cannot support the pagans in Makkah or defend them, or come between us and them. In short, to stay out of affairs between Makkah and Madinah. This shows us the Prophet PBUH allowed the pagans to be in Madinah. And indeed, look how fair this is. (Tangent: Later on, the madhahib differed: Can pagans live in the state of Islam? Should we extend the rights and protection to pagans? Of course Jews, Christians, and Majus, are allowed. Hanafi say yes, but other schools of thought say no. Of the evidence of the Hanafi thought is that the Prophet PBUH allowed the pagans to live in Madinah - this is what some of the classical scholars say. These were pagans who were allowed to be pagans, but with an extra condition that they must remain neutral.)
4. Clauses Related to Everyone
- The Prophet PBUH said the interior of Yathrib is a Haram for the people of this constitution. Thus it's a sacred land and all the rules of a Haram must be followed (e.g. no weapons that are unsheathed; no plucking leaves or trees; no hunting; no fighting or killing; etc.)
- And the Prophet PBUH also clarified exactly what is Madinah: He mentioned the four points and said, "This is the Haram." At east and west are two labba (volcanic foundations); at south and north are the mountains of Ayr and Thawr. And the bulk of people lived inside the Haram.
- He also said, "Whatever disagreement occurs between the people of this constitution which leads to internal arguments shall be decided by Allah and His Messenger." (E.g. disagreement between Muslims & Jews, Jews & pagans, pagans & Muslims.)
- He also said, "It will not be allowed for any believer to help or support any rebel. Whoever does so will have the curse of Allah, the angels, and all of mankind; and no good deed will be accepted from him."
- The final point he mentions, "Whoever leaves Madinah shall be safe, whoever stays in Madinah shall be safe, except for anyone who does an injustice or sin. And Allah will protect those who are pious and righteous." And the constitution ends with, "And Muhammad [PBUH] is His Messenger."
______________
Misinterpretations of the Constitution
Some people exaggerate it's importance; others disregard it completely. This is the standard case of everything - some people go to one extreme, others go to the other extreme.
One extreme: One academic Muslim leader back in the 1980s said Thomas Jefferson read this constitution and based the whole constitution of the USA on it. But to Sh. YQ, this type of mentality is a sign of an inferiority complex: that everything that is good somehow has to be linked to Islam and say, "We invented it." There is no doubt this constitution was ahead of its time, and the western civilization took some aspects from it, but to claim the whole constitution is based on that of Madinah's is far-fetched - because they are so different.
Another extreme: Non-Muslims who say the Prophet PBUH had bad intentions, e.g. by saying, "He wanted to isolate the Jews." It's a very delicate concept - they accuse the Prophet PBUH treated the Jews unfairly. And for non-Muslims, this is not an 'accusation' anymore; for them it's a 'fact.' So they say this constitution is antisemitic. But obviously, it's not the case, because the same obligations on the Jews are on the Muslims.
As usual, the truth is in between the two extremes: The constitution was very significant, it had a lot of long-range implications, and it establishes an overall philosophy of how an Islamic state is run.
______________
What We Learn From the Constitution
1. Of the most important concepts that this constitution puts into writing is that the Prophet PBUH is defining relationships based upon theology. This is completely unique in the history of Arabia. Because he said the Ansar, Muhajirun, etc. are all one ummah, and they don't have differences amongst themselves. Anyone who converts to the faith will become a part of the ummah. So the old system of lineage, tribalism, of "you are who your father was" is being broken. Now you are who YOU are. In that time, this was completely unprecedented. Bilal RA was a slave and Abu Bakr RA was a nobleman from a pure lineage - however, this constitution in writing now means they are one and the same, in one ummah. Note the word "ummah" occurs in the Qur'an [23:52]. The word "ummah (أمة)" comes from "umm (أم)" which means "mother". And the word "umm" comes from "amma (أم)" which means "to strive for." "Amma" is basically the object of attention; and when a child is born, that object is their mother, so mother is "ummi." Now when we look at ummah, this means the bonds between every person in an ummah is so strong it's as if they have one mother. Of course there are many other meaning of ummah; Ibrahim AS is called an ummah because the quality of his Iman is so strong it's as if he is a whole ummah by himself. The word has over 15 derived meanings. The point is the word ummah comes from "umm" because the people are bonded so strongly they are one family.
2. The constitution demonstrates the justice of the Prophet PBUH. He treated the Jews with the utmost respect and gave them their full rights. They were the ones who kept on making things difficult for themselves. They were treated the way they were treated because of their actions, not because of who they were. Notice the constitution says, "اليهود أمة مع المؤمنين (The Jews are an ummah along with the Believers)," i.e. 'You are an ummah and we are an ummah, along with each other we are two ummahs.' The word used in Ibn Ishaq is literally "ma'a (مع)" which means "along with" - it's an amazing respect given to the Jews. If they fulfilled the constitution, they would have been shown the utmost honor, and benefited the most. They were businessmen etc. and the success of the Muslims would have meant their success as well. They would have risen along with the Muslims, but they broke these promises. The clause was very clear: Do not side with the pagans against us. But the Banu Qurayza did! (in ?? AH) So what was coming to them was fully deserved. Similarly, any issues between the Jews and the Muslims would be dealt with by the Prophet PBUH.
3. Another benefit of this constitution is that we are seeing that the Prophet's PBUH political status has now become a de facto leader. His followers are so numerous he can establish a constitution on their behalf. Even the Jews and the pagans; they are told they have independence, but if something happens that deals with each other, they must come to the Prophet PBUH. Therefore this constitution made official what was already understood: That the Prophet PBUH is the de facto and the accepted ruler of Madinah.
4. Note there is no jizya (جزية) mentioned. Why? The laws of jizya had not been revealed yet by Allah.
5. Another benefit is, the reality of Islam—without any political correctness or appeasement—is that freedom of religion is guaranteed by the sharia, not to an unlimited extent, but to a great extent. No doubt, classical Islamic fiqh did not give the types of freedom the modern secular world gives: a non-Muslim does not have the right to preach and convert others; but apart from that, pretty much everything is allowed. The non-Muslims are even allowed to sell alcohol amongst themselves. (So much so the books of fiqh discuss the issue if a Muslim is married to a Christian lady, can he prevent her from drinking wine? And the majority scholars say no. He can enforce the wine not be in the house, but he cannot enforce her not to drink the wine, because wine is 'halal' for her and the Catholics drink it in their churches as a part of their rituals.) This is the type of freedom that Islam allowed.
The irony is, in our times, we Muslims are accused of being intolerant, but yet, if we compare our track record with the accuser's, it's unbelievable how they can have the audacity to say that we are religiously intolerant. We cannot allow people to say things about Islam when they don't even know their own faith. They have no right to tell us that our faith was intolerant, when, Western powers were frankly the most religiously intolerant in the history of humanity. Even when Constantine converted to Christianity, what did he do? He adopted a version of Trinitarian Christianity and outlawed all other Christianities - e.g. those that believed that Jesus is al-Masih and not the son of God, those that believed that Christianity is not a new religion (i.e. that Christianity is just "Judaism + believing in al-Masih"), etc. Constantine came along and banned everyone who didn't follow the Trinity form of Christianity. Everyone had to either flee or get killed.
Arius, the main opponent of Constantine, did not believe in the Trinity or Divinity of Jesus. He had to run away and go down south. (Note: It's said he went down to what is in the time of the Prophet PBUH Abyssinia; and it's said therefore the ruler of Abyssinia was aware of the Arian creeds.) And this is just the beginning. And throughout medieval times, the Catholic church killed millions. And we are not talking about killing Jews, etc., we are talking about killing fellow Christians! The Roman Catholic church could not tolerate dissent! And there was a group called the Huguenots - again, tens of thousands were killed. The Anabaptist as well: 20,000 - 30,000 were killed. And there were wars between Catholics and Protestants. Even Martin Luther had to flee to Switzerland because Roman Catholics wanted to kill him. This is not even intolerance of another religion; this is intolerance of their OWN religion! It's ironic that even John Locke (the main founding father of intellectual political science of this country - considered to be the greatest philosopher of the time) said to look at the Turks. He is putting the Ottomans (Turks) as the role models. John Locke said to the Christians, "The Turks allow different faiths to live peacefully - why don't you follow them?"
6. Getting back to the constitution: We notice the semi-independence of every single group of people. The Prophet PBUH is giving them almost full independence WITHIN the state of Islam: each group is responsible for their own affairs, the positives and the negatives, including crimes and issues. However, when it comes to the issues of the state, everyone becomes ONE group. E.g. if an external threat comes, they will be united. Some people in our time say the system of the Prophet PBUH is a federalist system - even though to try to read modern terms back into history is a little bit problematic, but there's an element of truth to this.
7. Another benefit: If you're Muslim or non-Muslim, if you do a crime, you will be dealt with. The constitution says, "All of the Muslims will be united against them." Simply being a Muslim does not let you off the hook. If someone commits a crime, everyone has to unite against him regardless of the religion. No one can shelter a murderer, etc. Again, these are novel ideas for the time, and so the Prophet PBUH is being very forward thinking here.
8. The Prophet PBUH accepted the legal norms and customs (urf / عرف) of every tribe, as long as they didn't conflict with the laws of the sharia. (Tangent: There are five major rules that govern all of fiqh. One of them is: "In the absence of a shar'i ruling, the culture of a people [how people typically interact with one another, etc.] will be given precedence.")
______________
What the Prophet PBUH Has Done After Arriving in Madinah
Let us now take a step back and examine again what the Prophet PBUH has done after arriving in Madinah:
i) The first thing he does is build a masjid - the masjid is of course the basis of tawhid and fundamental of Islam.
ii) He then establishes the bonds between the Muhajirun and the Ansar through the muakha (pairing).
iii) He then makes this entire constitution where he ratifies/affirms the status of the Muslims, Jews, etc.
______________
Q&A
Point of note: Classical fiqh says clearly the People of the Book are allowed to freely worship in the state of Islam, but there are restrictions: E.g. proselytizing is not allowed; what you say in your churches, you can say in your churches, but you cannot 'blaspheme' out loud in public. So there isn't ultimate freedom of expression. And classical fiqh has the penalty for blaspheming Allah and His Messenger. The question arises: Do we have room for fine-tuning? Here we have a spectrum of opinion. Major scholars have their positions about this. Sh. Yasir Qadhi's position is that it doesn't make sense to apply this law to a nation state, because this deals with multiple factors, one of them being the supremacy of Islam. When the state is not run by Islam, it doesn't make sense.
For example, for Pakistan to have a system of blasphemy laws, it doesn't make sense, since it is not fully Islamic - it is more secular. In Pakistan, the rights of a Muslim, Jew, etc., are the same, but classical fiqh tells us the rights of a Muslim are different, the rights of a Jew is different, etc. The point is this is a sensitive question. If we had a perfect Islamic system, that is one thing. But we don't. We only have attempts to do so. Some scholars give more laxities in fatwas than are found in classical books - why? Because modernity calls for it.
But classical fiqh, without any doubt, gives the right of other religions to worship, build churches, and even have their own courts.
Q: Why aren't non-Muslims allowed into Makkah and Madinah?
A: The Prophet PBUH, on his deathbed, said (reported in Bukhari and Muslim), "I wish to get the People of the Book out of the Jazirah al-Arab." But he PBUH didn't actually do it as he was on his deathbed. Abu Bakr RA was too busy with Ridda Wars, so Umar RA was the first person to execute it. And he put a number of conditions. They can only come if:
1. Someone invites them in
2. They come temporarily (for business or whatnot)
3. They are non-free-slaves (i.e. slaves)
Classical fiqh therefore took this hadith ("I wish to get the People of the Book out of the Jazirah al-Arab"), and the Shafi'i, Maliki, and Hanbali, all agreed that the People of the Book cannot permanently reside in Jazirah al-Arab. There is then ikhtilaf between them how long they can stay there, can they actually enter Makkah and Madinah (because Allah says in Surah al-Tawba [9:28], one of the last big surahs to be revealed, "...Let them not come close to Masjid al-Haram," - so the Hanbalis made tarkib (تركيب) between the hadith and this verse, and said, "Masjid al-Haram, they can never enter; and the Jazirah al-Arab, they can enter with conditions"), etc. So to this day, you can be a Christian/Jew in Jeddah, Ta'if, Khobar, Dammam, Riyadh, etc., but when you are driving to Makkah, there is a big sign which says no non-Muslim can enter. The Shafi'i have a similar reasoning. The only madhhab to disagree is Hanafi who say they can enter Makkah and Madinah unconditionally.
The ikhtilaf comes: What is Jazirah al-Arab? Every book of fiqh discusses what is Jazirah al-Arab. A modern scholar has the position that the entire Arabian Peninsula is Jazirah al-Arab - but this isn't the majority opinion. The majority opinion basically says Jazirah al-Arab is more like central Arabia (خرج مخرج الغالب), because even when the Prophet PBUH said this, there were still Jews in Yemen. But again, this is legitimate fiqh ikhtilaf. There were scholars in the past who said the entire peninsula, from Bahrain and Oman and Najran and everything, is Jazirah al-Arab. So this is not a modern opinion.
Note that anywhere outside the Jazirah al-Arab, the sharia says the Ahl al-Kitab can build whatever they want, e.g. churches, as long as not inside the Jazirah al-Arab.