The Prophetic Constitution of Madinah by Dr Muhammad Al-Massari

42- None from among them shall go out [to war] without the permission of Muhammad (peace be upon him).

43- They must support one another against those who make war against the people of this Sahifah (document).

44- But none shall be prevented from taking vengeance for wounds inflicted.

45- Whoever acts on his own account (in vengeance) [involves] himself and his family, except him who has been wronged.

46- Allah is accepting of what is most upright.

47- The Jews must bear their expenses and they are due sincerity and upright conduct without bad conduct (being undertaken against them).

48- No one must perpetrate a crime against his ally.

49- Mutual sincerity is demanded and support for the wronged (oppressed).

50- The Jews shall share in the spending with the believers when they are in a state of war.

51- Yathrib shall be an inviolable place for the people of this Sahifah (document).

52- The neighbour is like the self; not being harmed and not having a crime perpetrated against him 53- No woman is to be provided protection except with the consent of her family.

54- Any occurrence or quarrel between the people of this document, the corruption (or harm) of which is feared, must be referred to Allah ‘Azza Wa Jalla and to Muhammad, the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him).

55- Allah is (witness) over that which is most God-fearing and upright in this document.

56- No protection is provided to Quraish or to those who support/help them.

57- They must support one another against whoever attacks Yathrib.

58- If they (the believers) invite the Jews to a Sulh (peace treaty) with an ally of theirs, then they must (also) conclude a truce with that ally.

59- And if they (the Jews) invite us to something similar to that, then the believers should respond to that, except with the one who makes war on account of the Deen (religion). And each people are to fulfil their share from their side to those they are responsible for.

60- The Jews of Al-Aws, their allies and selves, are upon the same as the people of this document, in terms of receiving purely upright conduct from the people of this document.

61- Good and upright conduct is demanded and not bad or criminal conduct (i.e. from the parties of the Sahifa). No person earns anything except that he earns it against himself.

62- Verily Allah is (witness) over that which is most truthful and righteous in this Sahifah (document).

63- This document does not protect any wrongdoer or sinful person (criminal).

64- The one who exits is safe and secure and the one who remains in Al-Madinah is provided the best safety and security, except for the transgressor and sinful (criminal).

65- This document is for the one who acts upright and does good.

66- Verily, Allah is the protector of the one who is acts good and has God-fearing. And Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him).

Imaam Abu Ubaid Al-Qasim bin Salam, may Allah have mercy upon him, discussed the obscure expressions of this Sahifa in his book “Al- Gharib” and in other places. Imam Zanjawaih (2/471/751) transmitted this with some element of disposal:

“Abu Ubaid said: Regarding the statement (i.e. in the Sahifa): “So and so tribe is responsible over their Rabaa’ah” (And Ribaa’ah is most correct in my view), he said: This is how it was narrated to us by Ibn Bukair from Al-Laith bin Sa’d. Ar-Rabaa’ah means al-Ma’aaqil (cases of blood money). It could be said: “So and so is responsible for the Rabaa’ah of his people”: When he is appointed to discharge their affairs or is a delegate to the leaders on behalf of them. Concerning the statement: “Verily, the believers shall not leave any indebted person (Mufrah) without assisting him in ransom and blood money”, then “Al-Mufrah” means: The one overburdened with debt. It (the Sahifa) is saying: They must assist him. If he was a captive, they must pay the ransom to free him and if had perpetrated a crime warranting blood money, they would pay it on his behalf. As for the statement: “A polytheist shall not protect the property of Quraish”, then this refers to the Jews who had peace agreements with them. It (the Sahifa) is saying: Your peace agreement does not include protecting the properties of his enemies or to aid them against him. Regarding the statement: “Whoever has killed a believer without right (I’tibaat), there is retaliation”. The term “I’tibaat” employed here means that he kills him whilst he was innocent and his blood was prohibited. The origin of “I’tibaat” is related to camels, referring to when they are slaughtered without any just cause or purpose.

Concerning the statement: “Unless the blood heirs of the one killed are satisfied with blood money”, indicates that he (peace be upon him) has provided a choice between the retaliation or blood money for the blood heirs of the one killed. This is similar to another Hadith of his: “Whoever has someone (related to him) killed (i.e. murdered) then he has one of two options: If he wills, he kills or if he wills, he takes blood money”. As for the statement “It is not permissible for a believer to support a criminal or provide him with shelter”, then the meaning of criminal here refers to anyone who has transgressed a Hadd (limit) from the Hudood (limits) of Allah ‘Azza Wa Jalla. As such, no one can prevent the establishment of the Hadd punishment upon him. This is also similarly to another statement of his (peace be upon him): “Whoever’s intercession has prevented a Hadd from the Hudood of Allah has opposed Allah and His command”.

Regarding the statement: “The Jews shall share with the spending with the believers as long as they are at war”, then this the spending which is specific to war, stipulating upon them that they assist him against his enemy. We view that he would only make the Jews contribute according to this condition that he stipulated upon them, in terms of spending, if they fight with the Muslims. Otherwise, they would not have had a share in the spoils of war of the Muslims.

As for the statement: “The Jews of Banu ‘Awf are an Ummah from the believers”, then this only intends their provision of support to the believers and their assistance to them against their enemies, through the spending which was stipulated upon them. As for the Deen (religion), then they have no relationship to that. Do you not see that this was made clear when it said: “The Jews have their Deen (religion) and the believers have their Deen” and its statement: “They do not hurt except himself” which means that he does not destroy except himself, where the expression used here refers to when someone falls into a matter that destroys him, whilst it is also possible to make others fall into destruction.

This document, in respect to what was related, occurred when the Messenger (peace be upon him) had arrived in Al-Madinah, prior to Islam becoming prevalent and strong and prior to him being commanded to take the Jizyah from the Ahl ul-Kitab (people of the Book). They (i.e. the Jews) were three groups: Banu Al-Qainuqaa’, An- Nadir and Quraizha. The first group betrayed. Banu Qaynuqaa’, who were allies to Abdullah bin Ubayy, violated the peace treaty (Muwada’ah) and so the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) forced them to leave Al-Madinah. They were followed by An-Nadir and then Quraizhah. And we have mentioned the forced eviction and killing of them in this book of ours” [End of Quote].

We have previously stated that the statement mentioned above by Abu Ubaid: “This document, in respect to what was related, occurred when the Messenger (peace be upon him) had arrived in Al-Madinah, prior to Islam becoming prevalent and strong and prior to him being commanded to take the Jizyah from the Ahl ul-Kitab (people of the Book)” is an error that holds no meaning from which nothing beneficial can be hoped to be obtained.

We also observe, through a mere reading over of the Sahifa, that it represents, in its sum, constitutional texts which regulate the relationship between the different groups of a society which has been formed upon a tribal basis, where tribes represent important units and each tribe is equivalent to a state. These entities or states were: The Muhajirun (emigrants) from Quraish, Banu ‘Awf bin Al-Khazraj, Banu Al-Harith bin Al-Khazraj, Banu Sa’idah bin Ka’b bin Al-Khazraj, Banu Jusham from the Khazraj, Banu An-Najjar and they were Taimullah bin Tha’labah bin ‘Amr bin Al-Khazraj, Banu ‘Amr bin ‘Awf bin Malik bin Al-Aws, Ahl (the people of) Qubaa’ and Banu An-Nabit (and this was ‘Amr bin Malik bin Al-Aws). Then, there was the remainder of the Aws as a whole and they were Banu Murra bin Malik bin Al-Aws (they were Al-Ja’aadarah), Banu Jusham bin Malik bin Al- Aws and Banu Imra’u l-Qais bin Malik bin Al-Aws. It would be incorrect to mention the other clans of the Aws altogether and Allah knows best. That is because all of the clans of the Khazraj had embraced Islam collectively. Even those from them who were not believers embraced Islam outwardly. However, the clans of the Aws, then there were those from them which had not embraced Islam collectively, with the exception of Banu ‘Amr bin ‘Awf, who were the people of Qubaa’ and Banu An-Nabit. As for the other Aws clans, then their embracing of Islam followed the Sahifah and as such the Sahifah mentioned them included under their general name (title) (i.e. rather than specifically). This also indicates that they were an alliance or single political unit. Then from the Jews (mentioned in the Sahifa) there were: The Jews of Banu ‘Awf, the Jews of Banu An-Najjar, the Jews of Banu Al-Harith, the Jews of Banu Sa’idah, the Jews of Banu Jusham, the Jews of Al-Aws, the Jews of Banu Tha’labah (and the preponderant view in my opinion is that this was Tha’labah bin ‘Amr bin ‘Awf bin Malik bin Al-Aws, including Jafnah) and Banu Ash- Shatnah which was a Jewish tribe (“And the same applies to Banu Ash-Shatna that applies to the Jews of Banu ‘Awf”). In total they numbered 17 entities. It is also observable that the Sahifa does not include any mention of Banu Quraizhah, Banu An-Nadir or Banu Qaynuqaa’ by their well- known names. That is whilst it is impossible for them not to be included within it as it was written as a result of the killing of one of the chiefs of Banu An-Nadir. That means that they must have been mentioned in it alongside their allies from the Ansar, so that their inclusion within it would represent and acknowledgment reiteration and reminder of the prior old alliance. At the same time, it represents a genius style which denies their claimed original right of independent existence within Al-Madinah.

It is incorrect to say that the Sahifah encompassing the relationship with the Jewish tribes which had independent fortresses and villages, like Banu Quraizhah, Banu An-Nadir and Banu Qaynuqaa’, and which were equivalent to states, meant that it represented a purely international agreement, like the treaty of Al-Hudaibiyah! It is incorrect to say that for the following reasons:

1) The majority of the texts or the Sahifah of Al-Madinah regulate the relationship between different Muslim tribes and groups whilst decisively stating that they are “One Ummah to the exclusion of the people”. It also regulates matters related to security in Al-Madinah, specifies the sanctuary of Al-Madinah geographically and it regulates the relationships of social support between the convening parties. These are all constitutional subject areas.

2) Al-Hudaibiyah was a peace treaty and truce between two independent states which had been at war, concerning which the Quraish rejected even the Prophet (peace be upon him) being given the title reflecting his prophetic standing, as he was in their view, only Muhammad, and nothing other than that. That is whilst the Sahifah of Al-Madinah states that all matters are referred back to Muhammad, the Prophet or Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him). It is as though all of the parties had acknowledged him as the high head of the “league” or “collective of states” or “alliance” which they had formed, in accordance to the dictates of the document. Acknowledging Muhammad (peace be upon him) with the title of messengership and prophethood in the document did not mean by necessity that they all believed in him and followed him as they could be representative of purely diplomatic terms i.e. where the title is provided to each party in accordance to what they have titled themselves, just as is apparent from the relationship of the Jews with him in Al-Madinah. This “league or union (Rabitah)” which the Sahifah of Al-Madinah founded resembles:

1) The “Organisation internationale de la Francophonie”. It is novel that the French constitution touches upon it, abides to some of its rulings and states that the President of France is also its president or head, exactly like the Sahifah of Al-Madinah.

2) The “British commonwealth” which is also laid down within British laws which include various regulatory rulings. These laws are considered by the scholars of constitutions to possess a constitutional quality.

However, despite that, the truth is that this “league or union” was stronger and more cohesive than the French and British models. It is therefore more correct that we speak here of a “Unionist (or federal) Alliance” and not just a league or union of peoples. Such a “unionist (or federal) alliance” is our preferred expression for what is usually called “Confederation”. Perhaps the distinguishing essential difference between the “federation” or “confederation” and the “unionist (or federal) alliance” is the issue of “At-Taabi’iyah” (subject status). In the federation it has an independent subject status which the emigrant to the land can obtain. The holder of the federation subject status is immediately and automatically considered to be a holder of the subject status of the “Province” he lives in (in the case where this “Province” is a member state of the federation), albeit with some secondary points of difference in respect to the details and particulars specified by constitutions and regimes. Consequently, the “federation” has independence and autonomous self-authority, in contrast to the “Unionist (or federal) Alliance” as nobody attains its subject status except for the one who has obtained the subject status of one of the member states prior to that. In that case he would at that time automatically and immediately hold the subject status of the “Unionist (or federal) Alliance” i.e. the “confederal” subject status. Therefore, the independence of the “Unionist Allaiance” and its authority is not autonomous. Rather, it is derived and taken from the member states. In addition, the constitution of the “Unionist (or federal) Alliance” (i.e. the “Confederal Constitution”) cannot be changed except by the agreement of all of the members. That is because it represents a constitution and an alliance treaty at one and the same time.

Consequently, it is necessary to be absolutely certain that the Sahifah of Al-Madinah was a constitutional document established upon the basis of a “Unionist (or federal) Alliance” i.e. “Confederal Union”, at the head of which was our master Abu Al-Qasim Muhammad bin Abdullah, the Messenger of Allah and seal of Prophets, peace be upon him and his family. It is absolutely inconceivable to have been anything other than that.

It is true that the drafting of the paragraphs of the document of the Sahifah of Al-Madinah were mostly contrary to the style of legal or law formulation and contrary to the drafting of Fiqh as has been presented within the books of Fiqh, especially “Kashaf Al-Qinaa’ ‘An Matn Al-Iqnaa’” (A very detailed and comprehensive book of Hanbali Fiqh”. This was necessary and it would be inconceivable for it to have come in a manner contrary to how it came. That is because it was written via the dictation of our master Muhammad, the Messenger of Allah and seal of Prophets (peace be upon him), who had been provided with “Jawami’ Al-Kalam” (Brevity in speech with the utmost eloquence) and to whom speech was “Summarized concisely”. The style used in it, is the same style of the revelation. It is a speech of a specific kind and does not fall under the category of the speech of jurists, Sultans, philosophers or Al-Mutakallimin (speculative theologians). Despite that, this distinct style does not remove it from being a constitutional document. That is because it undoubtedly and unquestionably is a constitutional document albeit with a distinct legislative style.