constitution of Medina was it true or made up? do you agree with it.
Reply #2 - June 24, 2014, 11:23 PM
There's a good 2002 article by a Ph.D candidate named Anver Emon, article name "Reflections on the 'Constitution of Medina': An Essay on Methodology and Ideology in Islamic History." Here's a cut-and-paste of its conclusion:
"The historical problems associated with learning about the early Medinan polity during Muhammad's lifetime are considerable. The literary tradition, written well after Muhammad's death, poses concerns regarding the authenticity of sources. Yet writers on the Constitution of Medina are convinced that the text of the Constitution is authentic--that a constitution did in fact exist, and its contents correlate with its representation in later literary sources. Furthermore, many assert that the text reported by Ibn Ishaq does not reflect a single original document, but a compilation of different documents. According to some, each sub-document can be differentiated from the others and can be dated, thereby providing guidance about developments concerning the Prophet's authority, the motivations for expelling and executing the Jewish tribes, and the nature of the relationship between the different tribes in Medina. Finally, some Muslim authors, such as al-Hibri, go so far as to argue that the constitutional nature of present Muslim society has a normative example in this prophetic model. Relying on apologetic arguments about notions of bay'a and governmental organization, she argues that the model of Islamic government coincides with the constitutional model of the United States, thereby suggesting that American forms of democracy may have fertile roots in the Middle East.
The authenticity of the text is irrelevant to the present analysis. Given the arcane nature of the language and the ambiguities in the text, there is a strong likelihood that the text may be authentic, although determining its ‘kernel of truth‘ is far from clear. Furthermore, whether or not the text is in fact a compilation appears to be an unresolved matter. None of the methods adopted by historians prove the case of compilation one way or another. Discussions on each of these issues suffer from one fundamental problem--lack of clarity in the text itself. Because of the ambiguities in the text, interpreters exercise considerable discretion in presenting the arguments they believe best represent the past. It is not surprising to find writers on this topic indulging in flawed methodology or inserting their own biases into their research and conclusions. Serjeant and Gil, as suggested above, may have their own reasons for approaching the text in the way they do. Serjeant, as a colonial officer in Arabia, needs to understand the culture as backward to justify colonial efforts in the region. Gil, an Israeli scholar, reads the dynamics of Middle Eastern politics and Arab hostility to the State of Israel into the Constitution, and thereby interprets the Constitution to reflect an anti-Jewish policy beginning with the inception of the Muslim polity in Medina. Al-Hibri effectively engages in an apologetic argument
to suggest that Muslims share a constitutional legacy that is very much akin to American democratic ideals. Whether this is in fact the case is not proven in her article.
The Constitution of Medina is likely not a constitution at all. Relying on historical sources from the medieval period, it appears that few medieval Muslim authors paid serious attention to this agreement. Rather, they referred to it in passing as little more than a treaty negotiated by the Prophet in accordance with his treaty-making powers. 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 with anything inherent in the text. The independence of Muslim nations, their implementation of constitutions and constitutional regimes, and the aims of European and U.S. foreign policy make the debate on ‘Islamic
constitutionalism‘ particularly relevant for Muslims interested in the economic, social, and political development of the Muslim world. Whether or not apologetic or politicized reference is made to concepts like bay'a or documents like the Constitution of Medina, the Islamic tradition provides a complex picture that cannot be readily reduced to politically convenient essentialisms."
Topic: constitution of Medina was it true or made up? do you agree with it.