Constition Of Medina
INTRODUCTION
Extravagant claims are often made for the so-called Constitution of Medina. It is claimed as the oldest constitution for Mankind, the oldest example of multi-faith/multi-culturalism, an egalitarian document guaranteeing religious liberty and equality. In terms of modern dawah activists, it is also seen as evidence for the historicity of Islam. In this paper we will examine the document to see if this is valid, specifically in terms of historicity.
Historicity
The first point to note is the multiple references to Jews:
16. Those Jews who follow the Believers will be helped and will be treated with equality.
17. No Jew will be wronged for being a Jew.
18. The enemies of the Jews who follow us will not be helped…
29. The Jews will contribute towards the war when fighting alongside the Believers.
30. The Jews of Bani Awf will be treated as one community with the Believers. The Jews have their religion. This will also apply to their freedmen. The exception will be those who act unjustly and sinfully. By so doing they wrong themselves and their families.
31. The same applies to Jews of Bani Al-Najjar, Bani Al Harith, Bani Saeeda, Bani Jusham, Bani Al Aws, Thaalba, and the Jaffna, (a clan of the Bani Thaalba) and the Bani Al Shutayba.
34. Those in alliance with the Jews will be given the same treatment as the Jews…
37. The Jews must bear their own expenses (in War) and the Muslims bear their expenses.
43. The Jews must pay (for war) with the Muslims…
52. The Jews of al-Aws, including their freedmen, have the same standing, as other parties to the Pact, as long as they are loyal to the Pact. Loyalty is a protection against treachery.
The problem is that there is no archaeological evidence for the existence of Jews in Medina and its vicinity:
One tomb inscription at Hegra from 42/43 AD, in Nabatæan Aramaic reads: ‘This is the tomb which Shubaytu son of ‘Ali’u the Jew made...’ In al-’Ulā, we also find such Jewish tomb inscriptions in the same language, as with one from 307 AD. In nearby Tayma, there is a similar example from 203 AD which is important because it appears that it refers to a local headman, either of his ethnic group or of the town itself, and another example from Hegra in 356/7 also refers to someone who held an analogous position there. The significance of this is that these ‘are important texts for north Arabian Jewry, for they imply that some of them at least were members of the elite of the society.’ This being so, we may infer that their social prominence would have allowed for the dissemination of their religious beliefs and practices among the general population, at least in terms of knowledge.
However, it should be noted that whilst the inscriptions cover ‘a large period of time, at the very least the first century BCE to the fourth century CE’, they are ‘relatively few in number’, and ‘not geographically very widespread, principally hailing only from al-Ula and Mada’in Salih.’ Hoyland comments that ‘the limited nature of this epigraphic crop’ is surprising, particularly given ‘the very frequent reference to Jews in the Qur’an.’ He then observes that there is ‘not a single clearly Jewish inscription’ that has yet been found ‘at Mecca, Yathrib or Khaybar despite quite a number of epigraphic surveys conducted at all three sites.’ Of course, absence of evidence does not necessarily mean evidence of absence, but it is startling that there are so little archaeological indications of a substantial Jewish presence in the area in keeping with the picture supplied by the Qur’an, Hadith and Sira. It should be noted that Hawting observes that: ‘... it is only Muslim tradition that informs us of a Jewish community in Yathrib.’
Interestingly, this calls into question the treatment of Jewish tribes in Yathrib according to the Hadith.
Narrated by Abdullah ibn Umar
Sahih Al-Bukhari 5.362
Banu An-Nadir and Banu Qurayzah fought with the Prophet (peace be upon him) violating their peace treaty, so the Prophet (peace be upon him) exiled Banu An-Nadir and allowed Banu Qurayzah to remain in their homes (in Medina) taking nothing from them till they fought the Prophet (peace be upon him).
He then killed their men and distributed their women, children and property among the Muslims. But some of them came to the Prophet (peace be upon him) and he granted them safety, and they embraced Islam.
He exiled all the Jews from Medina. They were the Jews of Banu Qaynuqa’, the tribe of Abdullah ibn Salam and the Jews of Banu Harithah and all the other Jews of Medina.
The massacre of the Banu Qurayzah has long been a major ethical dilemma for Muslims, and a frequent cause of criticism for Islam. However, the question for this study is not the moral problem, but rather the historical: did it even happen? After all, if there is no epigraphic evidence for Jews in Medina and Khaybar, despite their long-standing and strong presence in both localities, how can we believe the stories of the warfare that was supposed to have happened in both places? There is only a limited reference in the Qur’an that is supposedly linked to the Qurayzah incident, but nothing explicit, Surah Al-Ahzab 33:26-27: ‘And He brought those of the People of the Scripture who supported them down from their strongholds, and cast panic into their hearts. Some ye slew, and ye made captive some.’ It is only in tradition that these verses are related to the Qurayzah event.
Significantly, there is no contemporary non-Islamic evidence for the event – not even from Arabian Jews. Indeed, the only evidence comes from much later Muslim sources. These include Al-Waqidi, 748 – 822, whom we saw earlier and noted that even Muslim historians questioned his veracity; Ibn Hisham, d. 833, who edited the Sira of Ibn Ishaq (who died c. 767); and Tabari, d. 923. There is thus a problem of historical reliability about this event. This is intensified when we consider the lack of archaeological evidence. W. N. Arafat, surveying the issues, observes: ‘If indeed so many hundreds of people had actually been put to death in the market place, and trenches were dug for the operation, it is very strange that there should be no trace whatever of all that no sign or word to point to the place, and no reference to a visible mark.’ The situation is not helped by present Saudi policies:
It is particularly frustrating that there has been no archaeological investigation of the Arabian environment traditionally associated with the life of the Prophet and the early development of Islam. Nor will there be. The Mosque of the Haram at Mecca and the Mosque of the Prophet at Medina have been razed to the ground and completely rebuilt in such a manner as to deny any possibility of archaeological excavation, even were it to be permitted. Outside the precincts of the two Holy Mosques, archaeological investigation of sites in Saudi Arabia that might yield evidence for the nature of religion in the sixth and seventh centuries is actively discouraged. Historians cannot expect any deus ex cavea.
Moreover, the Jewish presence – such as it is – is not located in either Yathrib, as the Hadith and Sira claim with at least three Jewish tribes there, not even at Khaybar, supposedly a Jewish stronghold, but rather in the Nabatæan region of Hegra and al-’Ulā. In one sense this should be no surprise. Jewish diaspora communities naturally drifted to major areas of population and trade, such as the southern Nabatæan capital of Hegra, and it should be observed that Hegra ‘enjoyed the status of a civitas in the Roman province of Arabia’, indicating its continuing importance, making it attractive for a continuing Jewish diaspora presence. Hoyland notes that the Midrash Rabbah 79.7 regarding Genesis 33.19 records a visit of two rabbis in the third century AD to ‘Hegra of Arabia’ to ‘learn again’ the meaning of ‘some Aramaic words that they had forgotten.’ Again, this points to the continuing importance of the city, not least among Jewish scholars. A substantial Jewish presence further in the interior might be more surprising.
Note especially Hoyland’s comment that there is ‘not a single clearly Jewish inscription’ that has yet been found ‘at Mecca, Yathrib or Khaybar despite quite a number of epigraphic surveys conducted at all three sites.’ If there is no extant archaeological evidence for Jews in Yathrib/Medina, then it is impossible that the so-called “Constitution of Medina” is historically valid; rather, it is a legendary, apocryphal construct. Further evidence comes from the late dating of the sources for the document.
The earliest source seems to be the Sira of Ibn Ishaq (d. 767)/Ibn Hisham (d. 833). Given that its redaction is dated to the 9th century AD – two centuries after the events it portrays – it cannot be considered a valid historical source. It is equivalent to someone writing the first history of the 1812 War between the US and UK in 2012, or the first history of the 1815 Battle of Waterloo in 2015! Other sources include Kitab al-Amwal (The Book of Revenue/Finance) by Abu Ubaid al-Qasim bin Salam (d. 838), and Al-Bidāya wa-n-Nihāya (The Beginning and The End) by Ibn Kathir (d. 1373) [see Serjeant, p. 9, below]. Again, we note the late dates of these authors. Donner observes (Fred M. Donner., Muhammad and the believers: at the origins of Islam, Cambridge & London: Belknapp, 2010, p. 227):
The “umma document,” sometimes also called the “Constitution of Medina,” the “sahifa document,” or the “sunna jami'a,” is a group of connected documents or treaty clauses apparently concluded between the prophet Muhammad and the people of Yathrib. The original documents are now lost, but the text is preserved, with mostly minor variations, in two early Islamic literary texts: the Sira (a biography of the prophet) of Muhammad ibn Ishaq (died ca. 150/767), and the Kitab al-amwal (a book on property) of Abu ‘Ubayd al-Qasim ibn Sallam (died 224/838).
Denny observes (Frederick M. Denny, “Ummah in the Constitution of Medina”, Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Vol. 36, No. 1, (Jan., 1977. p. 39):
Ibn Ishaq preserved this ancient document, which does not appear in any other historical source, in his Sirah. It is placed, for logical reasons, near the beginning of his account of the Medinan period, but we do not know for sure that it belongs there. It seems to consist of separate documents from differing times in Medina, edited together in the form preserved in the Sirah. There is little doubt among scholars that it authentic, and that it, like the Qur’an, is intimately connected with Muhammad’s thought and activity.
It is amazing that traditional scholars have seen the document as authentic in the light of its absence from historical sources other than the Sira, and in view of its conglomerate but redacted nature. Watt presents the arguments for its authenticity (W. Montgomery Watt, Muhammad at Medina, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1956, p. 225):
This document has generally been regarded as authentic, though it has not always been given the prominence appropriate to an authentic document of this sort. The reasons for its authenticity have been succinctly stated by Wellhausen. No later falsifier, writing under the Umayyads or 'Abbasids, would have included non-Muslims in the ummah, would have retained the articles against Quraysh, and would have given Muhammad so insignificant a place. Moreover the style is archaic, and certain points, such as the use of ‘believers’ instead of ‘Muslims’ in most articles, belong to the earlier Medinan period.
These arguments are very subjective and weak. If it is an apocryphal work, one would expect the possibility of minor theological divergence (Cf. the Protoevangelium of James, which essentially argues for the perpetual virginity of Mary, in contrast to the canonical Gospels). If apocryphal, it may be an apologetic/polemical work, the idea being that Muhammad tried to be nice to the Jews, but the latter were so wicked and treacherous that in the end he had to expel and exterminate them. On p. 226, Watt presents the arguments that it is a redaction of several distinct traditions from different dates:
This discussion of the date has assumed that the document is a unity; but that is the point that ought to be examined first. There are reasons for thinking that articles which originated at different dates have been collected. Thus there are certain linguistic variations : the believers are mostly spoken of in the third person, but sometimes they are ‘you’ and sometimes ‘we’ (as in 23, 16, 18); mostly they are ‘believers’, but twice they are ‘Muslims’ ( 25, 37). Again, certain articles come near to being repetitions of other articles; they deal with the same problem but may have slight alterations. Both 23 and 42 say that disputes are to be referred to Muhammad, though 42 is more precise. Both 20 and 43 are directed against Quraysh. The points about Jews in 16 and 24 are similar to those in 37 and 38; and indeed 24 and 38 are identical. Finally both 30 and 46 deal with the Jews of the Aws. It is to be noted that the articles which are similar do not occur together, as one would expect where articles dealt with different aspects of the same point. On the contrary one set is spread between 16 and 30 and another set between 37 and 46. This is sufficient to justify an examination of the possibility that the document as we have it contains articles from two or more different dates.
Like many other observers, he notes that the covenant does not mention the three main Jewish tribes in Medina (p. 227):
It seems probable, then, that the three main Jewish groups are not mentioned in the document. If that is so, the document in its present form might belong to the period after the elimination of Qurayzah. The difficulty that much attention is given to Jewish affairs at a time when there were few Jews in Medina could be explained by the hypothesis that the document in its final form was intended as a charter for the Jews remaining in Medina and included all relevant articles from earlier forms of the Constitution of the city.
However, could the answer be that such tribes did not exist at all – q.v. the archaeological evidence? The Jewish entities that are mentioned may simply reflect another tradition of mythical Jewish tribes whose evil character led to the late harsh denunciations of the Qur’an. Note how Ibn Ishaq introduces the subject (A. Guillaume, The Life of Muhammad: A Translation of Ishaq’s Sirat Rasul Allah, Karachi: Oxford University Press, 1955, 1967, 1998, p. 231)
The apostle wrote a document concerning the emigrants and the helpers in which he made a friendly agreement with the Jews and established them in their religion and their property, and stated the reciprocal obligations as follows…
The tone of this introduction is that Muhammad gave them every chance. The later history demonstrates they failed in their “reciprocal obligations”. Michael Lecker, The Constitution of Medina: Muḥammad’s First Legal Document, (Princeton: The Darwin Press, 2004), p. 10ff, observes that there are a number of variants to Ibn Ishaq’s version, on p. 19ff that there are a number of variants to Abu Ubaid’s version. On p. 191 Lecker writes:
Serjeant (9) bases his study of the Kitab on Ibn Ishaq’s recension, remarking that Abu ‘Ubayd’s text is defective. Crone believes that Abu ‘Ubayd’s recension is later than Ibn Ishaq’s. 197 However, she remarks (203 n. 16):
“Ibn Hisham knew of another recension which may well have been Abu
‘Ubayd’s: he tells us that some have al-birr [read: al-barr] al-mu(isin for
al-birr al-mal:ir;l, which is precisely what Abu ‘Ubayd has”.
Abu ‘Ubayd’s recension has an isnad going back to Zuhri, who died roughly a quarter of a century before Ibn Ishaq. But this should not lead to the conclusion that it is earlier than Ibn Ishaq’s recension, because the latter also received it from an informant of Zuhri’s generation. Abu ‘Ubayd’s recension is indeed much shorter than Ibn Ishaq’s and many clauses are missing in it; however, in some minor points it is superior. For instance, minhum in the list of Arab participants (§§4-11) appears in
Abu ‘Ubayd throughout and must reflect the original reading.
It is significant that Abu ‘Ubaid relied on isnad, rather than written documents. Surely, if the Constitution was an extant written document, Abu ‘Ubaid would have been able to inspect it? Lecker informs us that Abu ‘Ubaid got his isnad from Zuhri (p. 192): “At one point (166 no. 328) Abu ‘Ubayd records a fragment of the Kitab with the following isnad: Abu ‘Ubayd ....- ‘Abdallah b. Salih). ....- al-Layth b. Sa’d .....- ‘Uqayl b. Khalid al-Ayli .....- Zuhri… Abu ‘Ubayd had yet another text of the Kitab (166 no. 329) with the same isnad but for his immediate source who was not ‘Abdallah b. Salih but Yahya b. ‘Abdallah b. Bukayr.”
The place where Abu ‘Ubaid got his isnad is also significant – not Medina, but Egypt! “Abu ‘Ubayd gained access to Zuhri’s recension in Egypt. Both his immediate informants, ‘Abdallah b. Salih and Yahya b. ‘Abdallah b. al-Bukayr, were Egyptians. Abu ‘Ubayd must have received Zuhri’s recension after his arrival in Egypt with Yalhya b. Ma‘in in 213/828.” This seems to refer to Muhammad ibn Muslim ibn Ubaydullah ibn Shihab al-Zuhri, allegedly from Medina, moved to Damascus, d. 741-2. Mustafa Azami, Studies in Early Hadith Literature: with a Critical Edition of Some Early Texts (Indianapolis: American Trust, 1978, p. 76), writes about him (observe the late dates again):
Zuhri (51-125) compiled a biography of the Prophet which was absorbed into the works of later authors and thus perished in the course of time as a work on its own. Some modern researchers have doubts about this report. Recently almost the whole work of Zuhri, which is more than 200 pages, has been published in one of the hadith works of the third century which has came to light for the first time. Even the editor did not notice that it was the work of Zuhri. A detailed study was carried out, and it was found that several students of Zuhri reported portions of this book. This information was recorded by authors who died some 150 years after Zuhri yet their wordings are very similar, which is almost impossible except if the original book was used.
Note what Lecker states about the time and place of these isnads (p. 192): “In sum, at the beginning of the third century of Islam at least two nearly identical versions of the Kitab in Zuhri’s recension were circulating in Egypt.” NB- not 1st century AH in Medina. Significantly, there is no reference in the Qur’an to such a “constitution” or “covenant”, even obliquely, nor in the Hadith.
R. B. Serjeant suggested that he had found Qur’anic references (“The “Sunnah Jāmi’ah,” Pacts with the Yaṯẖrib Jews, and the “Taḥrīm” of Yaṯẖrib: Analysis and Translation of the Documents Comprised in the So-Called ‘Constitution of Medina’”, Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, Vol. 41, No. 1 1978, p. 5):
In my initial examination of the ‘Constitution’ I stated that many Qur’anic verses appear to allude to one or other of the eight documents it comprises. It would indeed be surprising if the Qur’an made no reference to, at least, documents A and B, that are fundamental as establishing the confederation at Yathrib which conceded Muhammad political supremacy. While I do not undertake to distinguish, systematically and in toto, Qur’anic allusion to each of these eight documents, I regard Surah III, 101 seq., as making clear and unmistakable reference to the pact(s) embodied in documents A and B; further research might well reveal many more.
This is what S. 3:101-104 states: “How can ye disbelieve, when it is ye unto whom Allah’s revelations are recited, and His messenger is in your midst? He who holdeth fast to Allah, he indeed is guided unto a right path. O ye who believe! Observe your duty to Allah with right observance, and die not save as those who have surrendered (unto Him) 103 And hold fast, all of you together, to the cable of Allah, and do not separate. And remember Allah’s favour unto you: How ye were enemies and He made friendship between your hearts so that ye became as brothers by His grace; and (how) ye were upon the brink of an abyss of fire, and He did save you from it. Thus Allah maketh clear His revelations unto you, that haply ye may be guided, 104 And there may spring from you a nation who invite to goodness, and enjoin right conduct and forbid indecency. Such are they who are successful.” Surely, Serjeant is guilty of eisegesis.
Even is there is correspondence at times between the Qur’an and the Constitution, is not the obvious conclusion that the latter is secondary to the former in terms of time and composition, rather than the reverse? That is, it is apocryphal. Serjeant also comments (p. 9):
Abu ‘Ubayd (154-224/770-838) has not always correctly understood the documents, but the main interest in his account is the isndd he gives going back to al-Zuhri (c. 51-124/671-742) who is reported to have said, ‘ I have heard that the Apostle of God wrote this writing...’ Al-Zuhri’s version is defective and inferior to that of Ibn Ishaq. It looks as if Ibn Ishaq had access to a written document, not necessarily, though possibly, the original, whereas al-Zuhri as reported by Abu ‘Ubayd did not.
This all sounds very uncertain, and at best secondary. The overwhelming attitude of the Qur’an to the Jews, especially in the so-called “Medinan” verses, is hostile, and the same is true of the Hadith. Rather, the prevailing option is expulsion from the Hijaz, possibly the entire Arabian Peninsula, or subjugation through the Jizyah. The latter policy is borne out in Islamic history; we do not find the idea of constitutionally-guaranteed liberty and equality to be the normative practice of any caliphate. Islamic rulers were guided in this by their ulema, especially fuqaha, who were themselves guided by Fiqh, based on the Qur’an and Sunnah. Had the Constitution been valid, the negative policy of Caliphates from Abu Bakr onwards towards Jews and others requires some explanation.
Internal character
The document reads less like a constitution, established by a constitutional convention along the lines of the US or Canada, and more like a Royal/Presidential Decree/Edict. The edict does not primarily address freedom of religion as such, but merely allows for peaceful arrangements based on Muhammad’s authority, and for common defense. Note the first reference to Jews (Guillaume, p. 232): “To the Jew who follows us belong help and equality. He shall not be wronged nor shall his enemies be aided. The peace of the believers is indivisible. No separate peace shall be made when believers are fighting in the way of God.” The emphasis is on Jews obeying Muhammad. The equality refers to the protection of his person, not religious practice. The next reference to Jews (p. 232-233) concerns war taxation:
The Jews shall contribute to the cost of war so long as they are fighting alongside the believers. 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. The same applies to the Jews of the B. al-Najjar, B. al-Harith, B. Sa’ida, B. Jusham, B. al-Aus, B. Thalaba, and the Jafna, a clan of the Thalaba 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.”
Later, we read about self-financing in war: “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. The Jews must pay with the believers so long as war lasts.” The military character continues later: “Everyone shall have his portion from the side to which he belongs; the Jews of al-Aus, their freedmen and themselves the same standing with the people of this document in pure loyalty from the people of this document.”
In essence, this resembles a military pact, like NATO, affirming the autonomy of the members, but enjoining their collective action. However, that autonomy is limited by the authority of Muhammad (p. 233): “None of them shall go out to war save with the permission of Muhammad, but he shall not be prevented from taking revenge for a wound.” “If any dispute or controversy likely to cause trouble should arise it must be referred to God and to Muhammad the apostle of God.” Since this was essentially a military pact, the treachery of the Jews in allying themselves with the pagans becomes more startling – they secretly allied themselves with the enemy of the people (Muslims) who were sworn to come to their protection. This suggests that the conduct of the Jews resembles that of some kind of fifth column. Another analogy would with the exasperation of UK PM Churchill with King Leopold III of the Belgians, who prematurely surrendered to Germany in 1940, leaving British and French troops exposed at the Battle of Dunkirk in 1940.The popular press in Britain thereafter denounced him as “King Rat”. As a result, after the war he was obliged to abdicate.
CONCLUSION
In the light of this, we can see the propaganda value of the so-called covenant – it enabled Muslims to point to the unending treachery of the Jews; that they could not be trusted; that they had to be thoroughly subjected. The big problem is the historicity of the ‘constitution’, which cannot be proven. Perhaps the propaganda value of the covenant is the very clue to its origins – it was simply propaganda, nothing more.
Footnotes:
Hoyland, Robert G., ‘The Jews of the Hijaz in the Qur’ān’, in Reynolds, Gabriel Said (Ed.), New Perspectives on the Qur’an: The Qur’an in Its Historical Context 2, (Abingdon: Routledge, 2011), p. 93.
Ibid., p. 94.
Ibid., pp. 95, 96.
Ibid., p. 96.
Ibid., p. 110.
Ibid.
Ibid., p. 111.
Hawting. The Idea of Idolatry and the Emergence of Islam, p. 16.
The Hadith claims that Khaybar was a Jewish stronghold:
Narrated by Sa’id ibn al-Musayyab
Al-Muwatta 33.1.1
The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said to the Jews of Khaybar on the day of the conquest of Khaybar, “I confirm you in it as long as Allah, the Mighty, the Majestic, establishes you in it, provided that the fruits are divided between us and you.”
Sa’id continued, “The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, used to send Abdullah ibn Rawahah, to asses the division of the fruit crop between him and them, and he would say, ‘If you wish, you can buy it back, and if you wish, it is mine, ‘They would take it.”
Arafat, W. N., ‘New Light on the Story of Banu Qurayza and the Jews of Medina’, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland, No. 2 (1976), p. 104.
Johns, ‘Archaeology and the History of Early Islam: The First Seventy Years’, p. 433.
Hoyland, ‘The Jews of the Hijaz in the Qur’ān’, p. 115.
Ibid., p. 92.