1.4 When was the “Mu’akhaah” (brotherhood pact) concluded and when was the Sahifah (of Al-Madinah) written? - The Prophetic Constitution of Madinah | System Of Islam

1.4 When was the “Mu’akhaah” (brotherhood pact) concluded and when was the Sahifah (of Al-Madinah) written? - The Prophetic Constitution of Madinah | System Of Islam

0% read · 9 min left

The Prophetic Constitution of Madinah Bookmark

1.4 When was the “Mu’akhaah” (brotherhood pact) concluded and when was the Sahifah (of Al-Madinah) written?

by Dr Muhammad Al-Massari9 min readViewed 58 times

The texts that have already been presented should be sufficient and from them we deduce the following:

1) The correct view is that this brotherhood between the Muhajirin and the Ansar could not possibly have taken place prior to the death of As’ad bin Zurarah (May Allah be pleased with him), during the building of the Masjid, about seven months following the arrival of the Prophet (peace be upon him). It is not conceivable that it took place in his lifetime without him having been mentioned in it, as he was chief of the Ansar and one of the Naqeebs (selected leaders of the Ansar at the second pledge of ‘Aqabah). Therefore, the statement of Abu ‘Umar ibn Abd AlBarr:

“The correct view as held by the scholars of Seera and reports in respect to the “Mu’akhaah” (brotherhood) which the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) concluded between the Muhajirin (emigrants) and the Ansar (helpers), when he came to Al-Madinah, was that it took place after his building of the Masjid and it was upon the basis of the provision of assistance/support and the Haqq (truth) …” .

is very conceivable, and particularly as the completion of the building of the Masjid and the celebration for its opening, represented a good occasion for such a step to be undertaken. I addition, it must have been undertaken prior to the battle of Badr because Ubaida bin Al- Harith (bin Al-Muttalib bin Abd Manaf bin Qusayy Al-Qurashi Al-Muttalibi) is mentioned in it along with his brother ‘Umair bin Al- Humam (bin Al-Jamuh bin Zaid bin Haram bin Ka’b) and they were both martyred at the battle of Badr, may Allah be pleased with them. They were brothers in life and at death, and we hope from Allah that they be like that also, on the Day of Judgement. 2) The correct view is that this brotherhood between the Muhajirin and the Ansar was not written in origin as its nature was incompatible with that. That is because all of the narrations, without exception, do not mention a written document at all. An examination of the books of Seera, history and Hadith reveal the absence of the mention of any charter, written document or code prior to the Sahifah of Al-Madinah. The exception to that included:

“The expedition to Nakhla commanded by Abdullah bin Jahsh (Nakhla is a valley in the Bustan (Orchard) of Ibn ‘Amir) took place in the month of Rajab, the seventeenth month AH.

They said: Abdullah bin Jahsh said: The Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) called for me when he prayed Ishaa’, and said: “Come to me at dawn with your weapons, as I will send you on a mission”. He said: So, I approached at dawn with my sword, my bow, my quiver and my shield. The Prophet prayed Subh (i.e. Fajr) with the people, and then he left and found me. He found me having preceded him already standing at his door whilst I found a group of the Quraysh (i.e. Muhajirun) with me there. The Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) called for Ubayy bin Ka’b and commanded him to write a document. Then he called me and gave me the sheet of leather from Khawlan, saying: “I have appointed you over this group. Proceed until you have travelled for two nights. Then open my letter and do as it says”. I said: “O Messenger of God, in which direction?” He replied, “Go towards Najdiyya until you reach a small well”. The narrator said: Abdullah bin Jahsh hastened, until he reached the well of Ibn Dumayra. He then opened the letter and read it. It said: “Go, in the name of Allah and with His blessings, until you come to the valley of Nakhla, but do not force any one of your companions to go with you. Proceed according to my commands with whoever follows you, until you reach the valley of Nakhla and lie in wait for the caravan of Quraysh from there” [End of Quote].

3) The correct view is that this “Mu’ahkaah” (brotherhood pact) was purely on an individual basis i.e. This man in his personal individual description was paired with that man, in his personal individual description. There was no mention in it of tribes, blood money (relationship), war or peace. It was therefore fundamentally different to the Sahifah of al-Madinah.

4) The correct view is that there was a “Mu’akhaah” (pact of brotherhood), between the individuals of the Muhajirin, prior to the Hijrah. That included the forming of a brotherhood between the Prophet (peace be upon him) and ‘Ali bin Abi Talib (may Allah be pleased with him). The most preponderant view is that this “Mu’akhaah” was nullified or made obsolete by the “Mu’akhaah” that took place in Al-Madinah, with the exception of the brotherhood established between the Prophet (peace be upon him) and ‘Ali bin Abi Talib (may Allah be pleased with him), in addition to the brotherhood between Hamza bin Abdul Muttalib and Zaid bin Haritha (may Alla be pleased with them). There is therefore no validity to what was stated by Ibn Taymiyah, in grievance to the Shi’ah and driven by loathsome wretched Madh’habi partisanship and factionalism.

Wherever we find a narration about a Sahifah or a written document between the Muhajirin and the Ansar, or concerning blood money rights, war or peace, we know, by necessity, that it bears no relation to this “Mu’akhaah” (formation of brotherhood). It would either be related to the Sahifah of Al-Madinah or something that came or was written (much) later than it. There is also no validity in what came related in “As-Seera An- Nabawiyah” by Ahmad Abu Zaid (p. 71) under the heading “The date of the writing of the treaty (Mu’ahadah) with the Jews”: “One of the contemporary researchers found preponderant that the document was actually two documents in origin and then the historians combined them into one. One of them dealt with the treaty of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) with the Jews and was written prior to the great battle of Badr. That is whilst the second clarified the commitments (duties) of the Muslims from the Muhajirin and the Ansar, their rights and obligations. He said: “It is preponderant in my view that the peace agreement (Muwada’ah) document with the Jews was written before the great battle of Badr. As for the second document, then it was written after it”. The classical sources have expressed that which supports this preponderance. Abu ‘Ubaid Al-Qasim bin Salam said: “The Wathiqa (document) was written on two occurrences, when the Prophet (peace be upon him) arrived in Al-Madinah, prior to the dominance of Islam and its becoming strong and before he was commanded to take the Jizyah from Ahl ul-Kitab (the people of the book)”. Al-Baladhari said: “When the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) arrived in Al-Madinah he made a treaty (Muwada’ah) with the Jews and wrote between himself and them a document. He stipulated upon them that they should not support or side with his enemies, to support him against those who attack him and that he would not fight in defence of the Ahl udh-Dhimmah. He did not then wage war against anyone, they did not defame him and he did not dispatch a military expedition, until Allah ‘Azza Wa Jalla revealed: “Permission [to fight] has been given to those who are being fought, because they were wronged. And indeed, Allah is capable of providing them victory. [They are] those who have been evicted from their homes without right” (TMQ 22:39- 40)”.

In this way Al-Baladhari clarifies that the peace agreement (Muwada’ah) with the Jews was written before the sending of the first raiding party (Saraya). That is whilst it is known that the Sariya (raiding party) of Hamza took place in Ramadan of the first year of Hijrah i.e. a year and some days before the battle of Badr. The battalion of Hamza was the first battalion formed by the Prophet (peace be upon him). Al-Baladhari stated in another place when talking about the expedition of Bani Qainuqaa’: “The reason for it was that the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him), when he arrived in Al-Madinah, made a peace agreement with its Jews and wrote a document between himself and them. Then, when the Muslims were victorious at Badr and came back to Al-Madinah with abundant booty, the Jews rebelled and broke the covenant”. In this manner, Al- Baladhari asserted that the peace agreement with the Jews took place prior to Badr. At-Tabari said: “Then the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) remained in Al-Madinah after his return from Badr. When he had arrived in Al-Madinah he had made a peace agreement with its Jews upon the stipulation that they do not assist anyone against him and that if he was attacked in Al-Madinah by an enemy they would support him. Then when the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) killed those whom he had killed from the Mushrikin (polytheists) of Quraish, they demonstrated envy and rebelliousness towards him and demonstrated the breaching of the covenant”. In these Mutawatir (concurrent transmissions indicating decisiveness) testimonies, there is enough to establish preponderance to conclude that the peace agreement document with the Jews was written in the first year of the Hijrah. In addition, an analysis of its articles and texts indicate that they are not indicative of any tension between the Prophet (peace be upon him) and the Jews. As such, due to all of this, the claims of the Islamic encyclopaedia fall down and their doubts are refuted” [End of Quote].

As such, we find that this researcher, who has not been named, reversing the timing of the issues, placing the “Mu’akhaah” (formation of brotherhood) after Badr and the Sahifah prior to Badr, just as he has confused the issues objectively:

1) He, therefore took the “Mu’akhaah” (formation of brotherhood), through pure imagination, to be an independent document, which is contrary to the Mutawatir (decisive concurrent) transmissions which do not make any mention of a written document at all. 2) He then took this imaginary written document to be one of the two documents which the historians, according to his claim, forged into one single document. If he had only read the texts of the “Sahifah” related to the believers (i.e. the Muhajirin and the Ansar) he would not have found a single letter related to the “Mu’akhaah”, the inheritance between them or what resembles that in terms of individual affairs. Rather, he would have that it related to the regulation of the constitutional tribal relationships, general (public) security affairs, issues of blood money, the freeing of captives and what is similar to these. 3) He also mixed between the case of the original situation of peace and truce (Muwada’ah) with the Jews and others including all of states, nations, authorities, collectives, societies and tribes of the worlds and between the “confederal union” with the Jewish tribes which arose from the Sahifah. He came up with this mixing up without any basis.

The “Muwada’ah” (peace and truce) represents the original situation that the Prophet (peace be upon him) and his companions were upon with the whole world, including the criminal and hostile Quraish, when he arrived at Al-Madinah and prior to the revelation the statement of Allah ‘Azza Wa Jalla:

“And it is a mistake because this woman was at peace and under a truce (Muhadanah). That is because when the Prophet (peace be upon him) came to Al-Madinah he made peace with all of the Jews residing there an unrestricted manner and he did not impose Jizyah upon them. This is well-known by the people of knowledge to the level of Tawatur (decisive concurrent transmission) among them. Ash- Shafi’iy (may Allah’s mercy be upon him) said: “I do not of any from the people of knowledge of Seera who disagree upon the point “That when the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) settled in Al- Madinah, he made peace with all of the Jews without the imposition of the Jizyah”. It is as Ash-Shafi’iy (May Allah’s mercy be upon him) stated. That is because Al-Madinah had three groups of Jews surrounding it: Banu Qainuqaa’, Banu An-Nadir and Banu Quraizha. Banu Qainuqaa’ and Banu An-Nadir were allies of the Khazraj, while Banu Quraizha were allies of the Aws. Then when the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) came to Al-Madinah, he made a truce and peace with them with his approval of them, alongside those who were around Al-Madinah from the polytheists who were allies of the Ansar, upon the basis of their alliance and covenant that they had previously been upon. He even took a covenant from the Jews that they would support him if he was fought against. Then, Banu Qainuqaa’ broke the covenant, followed by An-Nadir and then Quraizha” [End of Quote].

That is even if some of the expressions used here were possibly not the most accurate, like his statement describing the Jewish woman as being under a “truce” (Muhadanah), as there had not even been any fighting, for a truce to have come into effect followed it. It may be that this was merely a slip of expression.

As for what Ustadh Ahmad bin Zaid mentioned in terms of statements or views of the historians, then most of them are either invalid or inconclusive:

1) The statement of Abu ‘Ubaid Al-Qasim bin Salam:

“In these Mutawatir (concurrent transmissions indicating decisiveness) testimonies, there is enough to establish preponderance to conclude that the peace agreement document with the Jews was written in the first year of the Hijrah. In addition, an analysis of its articles and texts indicate that they are not indicative of any tension between the Prophet (peace be upon him) and the Jews. As such, due to all of this, the claims of the Islamic encyclopaedia fall down and their doubts are refuted”, then there are significant, indeed fatal errors in it.

1) The statements or views of the historians are not called testimonies (shahada) unless it is from a contemporary (first-hand) witness. Otherwise, such a view is merely an opinion based upon correct or incorrect information or premises. A large number of conforming or similar opinions is not called Tawatur (i.e. established definitely by concurrent transmission) and they do not hold the value of Tawatur (decisive) testimonies of affirmation.

2) Some constitutions could be written following a civil war and yet its texts do not reflect the existence of any tension between the parties involved. That is because the purpose of the constitution is to lay down the regulation of the state (i.e. Unitary or union form etc…). As such, the date of the tension or conflict that occurred leading up to it, is neither written or mentioned within it. Consequently, in respect to the statement “They (i.e. the texts) are not indicative of any tension between the Prophet (peace be upon him) and the Jews”, then the opposite is also correct. That is because the writing of a confederal constitution or international treaty in itself, is not an evidence for the existence of a tension, conflict or war proceeding it. There could have been just as there may well not have been. This would only be known via other historical indications which are looked at independently from the document that is under examination, or from the texts of the document itself which indicate to the ending of a conflict or cessation of fighting or the solving of problems of compensations and blood monies etc… Ustadh Ahmad Abu Zaid wishes to refute the claims of the “Islamic Encyclopaedia” which he had formulated shortly before that in “As- Seera An-Nabawiyah” by Ahmad Abu Zaid (p: 70) as follows: