The Medina Charter in Its Historical Context

1. The Emergence of the Charter

The German orientalist Wellhausen was the first to introduce the Medina Charter to Western scholarly circles. Most likely after the publication of Wellhausen’s Skizzen und Vorarbeiten in 1899, the attention of other scholars and researchers—among them the German scholar Grimme, the Italian Caetani, as well as Buhl, Wensinck, Korehl, Ranke, Müller, and Guillaume—was drawn to the Charter, and there was a noticeable increase in publications concerning it.(1)

However, we owe the actual emergence of the Charter as a subject of current relevance in the Islamic world to Muhammad Hamidullah. (2) Hamidullah’s multidimensional research (3), encompassing libraries in Turkey, the Middle East, Asia, and Europe, has enabled us to acquire extensive information about the Charter and the historical and social environment in which it was signed. We also observe that, in addition to Hamidullah, other scholars have shown interest in the Charter. (4)

In modern times, Ekrem Ziya Umari, Munir M. Gadban, M. Husayn Haykal, and many others have included the Medina Charter in their books. It is also noted that Said Hawwa, Shaykh al-Ghazali, and Mustafa Sibai drew attention to the text of the Charter. Said Hawwa himself incorporated the text into his own work and analyzed several of its articles. Ramadan al-Buti argues that, in modern terminology, the text may best be described as a “constitution,” that it established the rule of law for the first time, and that the Messenger of God received this text through revelation. (5) According to Said Hawwa, this document established the social relations of the Medinan community on a firm and coherent basis without distinguishing among believers, polytheists, Muslims, and Jews. In this way, it regulated relations among different religious groups while also establishing the unity of Muslims and equality among them. According to Hawwa, Islam regulates relations among different groups within a legal framework regardless of time and place. The provision in the Charter (Art. 27), “The Jews of Banu Awf are one ummah together with the believers; the Muslims have their religion,” defines all citizens as a single nation. Sibai, for his part, states that this contract sets forth the principal principles of “social justice” that must be established among Muslims and non-Muslims alike. (6)

2. The Sources of the Charter and Its Authenticity

The first person to record the Medina Charter was Muhammad ibn Ishaq (d. 151/768). Although Ibn Ishaq did not employ the method of isnad recognized in hadith methodology, Ibn Sayyid al-Nas and Ibn Kathir state that they took the Charter from him and incorporated it into their own books. (7) Nevertheless, al-Bayhaqi provided the isnad for the section of the Charter containing articles 1–23 according to Hamidullah’s numbering, a section that primarily regulates relations between the Muhajirun and the Ansar. (8) Ibn Sayyid al-Nas also records that the Charter was included in Ibn Abi Khaythama’s book with an isnad.

As Wellhausen and others have emphasized, there is no doubt that they took the Charter from Ibn Hisham. Indeed, Ibn Hisham (d. 213/833), whose work is a fuller recension of Ibn Ishaq, presents the Charter in his famous Sirah as a complete and integral text. (9) What is striking is that the Charter also appears in Abu Ubayd’s Kitab al-Amwal as a complete text and through a chain of transmission different from that transmitted through Ibn Abi Khaythama. (10) According to the information given by Umari, the Charter is also found, through the channel of Zuhayr, in Ibn Zanjawayh’s (d. 247) Kitab al-Amwal. (11) Historians such as al-Baladhuri and al-Tabari, by contrast, suffice with mentioning only a single sentence from the Charter and offer no information or opinion concerning its contents.

It is therefore clear that there is no serious reason to doubt the historical value of the Charter as preserved in the sources of the eighth, ninth, and tenth centuries. (12)

The Italian scholar Caetani (1869–1935) states with great clarity that there is no problem in this regard. In his view, both the style of expression and the content are of such a nature that, had a special-purpose idea been inserted into it or had it been tampered with, even the slightest trace of such intervention would have immediately become apparent. Caetani argues that neither the hadith scholars nor Ibn Ishaq fully grasped the value and significance of this Charter. (13) According to him, if the Charter has reached us in its authentic form without corruption, this is precisely the reason; had it not been written down and instead come to us merely through oral transmission, it would have undergone major alterations. Caetani observes that Ibn Ishaq, as was his habit, transmitted this precious Charter to us without adding any record concerning the source from which he received it, and was content merely to append one or two lines to it. In Caetani’s opinion, the Charter reached Ibn Ishaq through written transmission. If it had been handed down orally, it would naturally have been subject to emendation and change at the hands of the hadith transmitters. (14)

Still, although the fact that Abu Ubayd and Ibn Hisham transmitted the same Charter through different channels is of great importance, (15) the issue raised by Yusuf Ush (or Ish)—namely, that the full text is absent from hadith and fiqh sources—is one that merits consideration. In my opinion, however, this does not constitute a major problem. For in the principal hadith collections we possess a reliable report stating that such a contract or treaty was concluded first in the house of Anas b. Malik and then in the house of Bint al-Harith, as a result of mutual consultations. The report reads as follows:

“From Asim. I said to Anas b. Malik: ‘I have been informed that the Prophet said, “There is no pact of alliance (hilf) in Islam.”’ Anas replied to me: ‘The Prophet concluded a treaty in my house in Medina between Quraysh and the Ansar.’” (16)

From this reliable (sahih) narration, which is included by al-Bukhari, Muslim, and others in their collections, we understand that the negotiations among the religious-legal communities in Medina were conducted in the house of Anas b. Malik under the leadership of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), and that the Charter in question was drafted as a result of these discussions. The first section of the Charter was signed in the house of Anas b. Malik, and the second section, which regulated relations with the Jews, was signed in the house of Bint al-Harith. Apart from the foundational principles of the Charter and the names of tribes and places, it is possible to identify numerous Qur’anic verses and hadiths that may serve as points of reference for its provisions regarding rights and responsibilities at the level of general law. Anyone who undertakes careful research can determine the corresponding foundations of the Charter’s relevant principles and provisions in the Qur’an and the hadith sources.

Finally, one more point should be made concerning the historical value of the Charter. The great majority of both early and modern authors accept that the Charter was signed in the first year of the Hijrah, that is, in 622 CE. While it appears in the works of Ibn Hisham and Abu Ubayd as a plain and integral text, Wellhausen divided it into 47 articles, and later Muhammad Hamidullah, by subdividing certain articles, increased this number to 52. When the subject was first raised in Birikim magazine, we adopted Hamidullah’s division; yet in preparing this book, we concluded that in our own translation it would be clearer to divide the text into 53 articles.

Ibn Khaythama (d. 279), however, extends the chain of transmission all the way back to the Prophet. According to his isnad, Ahmad ibn Janab Abu al-Walid, Isa ibn Yunus, and Kathir ibn Abdullah ibn Amr al-Muzani, who in turn narrated from his father, and he from his grandfather, reported that the Messenger of God drafted an agreement between the Muhajirun and the Ansar. What Ibn Khaythama says is similar to what Ibn Ishaq reports. Ahmad ibn Hanbal also mentions this in his Musnad, transmitting it from Sarij (II, 204). Ibad narrates from Hajjaj, who narrates from Amr ibn Shuayb, from his father, from his grandfather, that the Prophet concluded a written agreement between the Muhajirun and the Ansar. (17)

However, we are deprived of the possibility of examining Ibn Khaythama’s chain of transmission in full, because only the third volume of what we presume was his highly valuable history has survived, while unfortunately the remaining volumes have been lost.

According to a report traced back to Ali, when his companions asked him, “Do you—the Ahl al-Bayt—possess anything written besides the Book of God?” Ali swore and said: “No. We have nothing written besides the Book of God—except for this sahifah which I have fastened to the sheath of my sword.” Ali opened the sahifah. They saw that it contained “such and such provisions.” Hikmet Zeyveli states that there is little doubt that this sahifah, preserved in the sheath of Ali’s sword, was in fact the Medinan Document. (18)

Among contemporary researchers who have examined the Charter, Ekrem Ziya Umari argues that the absence of the Charter, with full chains of transmission, from the hadith collections does not cast doubt on its authenticity. For although it does not appear in full in the hadith and fiqh books, it does appear there in fragmentary form, and legal rulings have in fact been derived on the basis of those fragmentary narrations. Umari adds that its style itself may be cited as evidence of its authenticity, pointing out that no party is treated in a polemical or condemnatory manner; rather, the style is objective and descriptive. (19) Serjeant maintains that the agreement concluded between the Muhajirun and the Ansar was later brought together with subsequent agreements and transmitted to us as a single text, and that although some confusion may have arisen in the course of transmission, it remains authentic. Serjeant divides the Charter into eight main sections:

1. Treaty of unity,
   B. Supplement to the treaty of unity,
   C. Treaty determining the status of the Jewish tribes within the union,
   D. Supplement to section C concerning the status of the Jewish tribes within the union,
   E. Reaffirmation of the status of the Jews,
   F. Declaration of Yathrib as a sacred territory,
   G. Treaty concluded before the Battle of the Trench between the Arabs of Yathrib and the Jewish Banu Qurayzah for the defense of Yathrib against the Meccan Quraysh,
   H. Supplement to the declaration of Yathrib as a sacred territory. (20)

Hamidullah likewise does not exclude the possibility that the Charter may have reached us through the combination of two separate parts. (21)

1. Montgomery Watt, who, like other orientalists, does not doubt the authenticity of the Charter, states that the text cannot be a later fabrication. For, according to him, no one in the Umayyad or Abbasid periods who wished to produce a forged document could have conceived of including non-Muslims within the ummah, or of granting the “polytheists” a place as one of the contracting parties. The style and the vocabulary—for example, the frequent use of the term “believers” (mu’minun) rather than “Muslims”—belong to the earliest period of Medina. (22)

Although he does not regard the matter as especially decisive, Watt nevertheless considers whether the Charter was written at one time, at different times, or before or after the Battle of Badr (622 CE as stated in the original text). Proceeding from the disputes that later arose with the Jews, from the Jewish settlements both داخل Medina and in its vicinity, and from a striking analysis of the articles, he concludes that both possibilities remain open, without arriving at a definitive judgment. The Charter may have been written either before or after Badr. The debate arises because the text has reached us as a unified whole; nevertheless, it is not beyond possibility that articles originating at different times were later brought together. For instance, the inclusion of the Jews within the ummah suggests a date before Badr; yet the names of the three major tribes are not mentioned. According to Watt, this may be explained by the fact that “the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) associated each Jewish tribe with the area in which it resided.” On this matter, Watt makes the following interesting assessment: “Scholars may accept some such views concerning the Constitution of Medina, but much must remain hypothetical and unknown… There is no need to press these questions further. This examination of the text of the Constitution is sufficient to justify the use of this document as a source for the ideas that prevailed during the early formative years of the Islamic state; at the same time, however, it warns us not to base the claims advanced solely on the presumed date of any particular clause of the Constitution.” (23)

It should not escape notice that Watt’s cautious reservation concerns not the text itself or its clauses, but rather its dating.

Footnotes

1. Wellhausen, J., Skizzen und Vorarbeiten, Berlin, 1899, IV, 76 ff.; Caetani, L., Annali, Milan, 1903 (History of Islam, trans. Hüseyin Cahit, Istanbul, 1924, I, 126 ff.); Wensinck, A. J., Muhammed en de Joden te Medina, Leiden, 1908, p. 78 ff.; Buhl, F., Das Leben Muhammeds, Leipzig, 1930; Majid Khadduri, War and Peace in the Law of Islam, Baltimore, 1955, p. 206 ff.; Müller, A., Der Islam in Morgen- und Abendland, I, 95; Ranke, Weltgeschichte, V, 75; Grimme, Muhammed, I, 75 ff. For these and other sources, see Hamidullah, Islam Peygamberi, I, 202; Tuğ, 31.

2. Muhammad Hamidullah, al-Watha’iq al-Siyasiyyah, Cairo, 1956, Document no. 1; Islam Peygamberi, 5th ed., Istanbul, 1990, I, 200 ff.; Islam Hukuku Etüdleri, Istanbul, 1974, p. 37 ff.

3. Hamidullah, Islam Peygamberi, II, 1159 ff.

4. For an extensive bibliography on the classical and modern sources of the Charter and the studies devoted to it, see Muhammad Hamidullah, al-Watha’iq al-Siyasiyyah, pp. 63–73; Salih Tuğ, Islam Ülkelerinde Anayasa Hareketleri, Istanbul, 1969, p. 30 ff. For publications on the Charter in Arab scholarly circles, see E. Ziya Umari, Medine Toplumu, p. 78 ff.; Vecdi Akyüz, translation of Hamidullah’s al-Watha’iq al-Siyasiyyah, pp. 63–66; Hikmet Zeyveli, Medine Sahifesi, pp. 17–19 and 67–75.

5. Ramadan al-Buti, Fiqh al-Sirah, Dar al-Fikr Publications, 1980, p. 206.

6. Said Hawwa, al-Asas fi al-Sunnah, Istanbul, 1991, II, 54, 59.

7. Ibn Sayyid al-Nas, Uyun al-Athar, I, 197; Ibn Kathir, al-Bidayah wa al-Nihayah, Cairo, 1351, III, 224; Umari, 78–79.

8. al-Bayhaqi (d. 458), al-Sunan al-Kubra, Hyderabad, 1344, VIII, 106 (Book of Blood Money section); Umari, 79.

9. Ibn Hisham, al-Sirah al-Nabawiyyah (published by Maktabat al-Kulliyyat al-Azhariyyah), Egypt, n.d., II, 106.

10. Abu Ubayd, Kitab al-Amwal, Egypt, n.d., para. no. 519 (Turkish trans. Cemaleddin Saylık, Istanbul, 1981, p. 235 ff.).

11. Humayd ibn Zanjawayh, Kitab al-Amwal, para. no. 750; Umari, Medine Toplumu, p. 79.

12. Among Arab authors, Yusuf Ush (or Ish) is reported to have expressed doubts concerning the historical value of the Charter. Ush states this view in note 9 of his translation of Wellhausen’s The Arab State and Its Fall (Umari, 79). However, neither Western orientalists nor Muslim authors generally cast doubt on the historical value of the Charter.

13. Caetani, ibid., III, 118–119.

14. Caetani, ibid., III, 121.

15. Between the narrations of Ibn Hisham and Abu Ubayd, there are, apart from some other minor differences, variations in Article 27 concerning the Jews of Banu Awf, specifically between the expressions ma‘a (“with/together with”) and min(“from”). Since Wellhausen, this variation has generally been noted as a preferred reading in that article; however, the essential framework remains unchanged in either reading. Hikmet Zeyveli carefully identified these differences in two tables. See Medine Sahifesi, Appendix I, pp. 163–165. We will have occasion to return to this issue in the third section while responding to criticisms.

16. al-Bukhari, Adab, 66; Kafalah, I‘tisam, 16; 2; Muslim, Fada’il al-Sahabah, 204 (2529); Abu Dawud, Fara’id, 17 (2926); Ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalani, Fath al-Bari, V, 179, Hadith no. 2293.

17. Said Hawwa, al-Asas fi al-Sunnah, Istanbul, 1991, II, 54.

18. Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Musnad, II, 267; Hikmet Zeyveli, Medine Sahifesi, p. 69. Zeyveli lists the principal and secondary sources transmitting the sahifah as follows: Ibn Hisham (d. 213/829); Abu Ubayd (d. 224/839). Western scholars such as Wellhausen, Nöldeke, Caetani, Wensinck, and others relied on the text incorporated by Ibn Ishaq into his Sirah; however, for the first time in 1938, Hamidullah also included Abu Ubayd’s text in his research.
Those who took the Charter from Ibn Ishaq include: Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 728/1328), al-Sarim al-Maslul, 62–64; Nuwayri (733/1333), Nihayat al-Arab, XVI, 246–248; Ibn Sayyid al-Nas (734/1334), Uyun al-Athar, I, 227–229; Ibn al-Qayyim (751/1350), Ahkam Ahl al-Dhimmah, III, 1404–1407; Ibn Kathir (774/1373), al-Bidayah wa al-Nihayah, V, 555–558; Ibn Hudaydah (783/1381), al-Misbah al-Mudi, II, 5–15.
Those who took the Charter from Abu Ubayd include: Ibn Zanjawayh (251/865), Kitab al-Amwal, 446–470; al-Abi (421/1030), Nathr al-Durr fi Muhadarat, I, 155–156; al-Zamakhshari (538/1144), al-Fa’iq fi Gharib al-Hadith, II, 25–26; Ibn al-Athir (606/1210), Manal al-Talib, I, 227–228; al-Qastalani (923/1517), al-Mawahib al-Laduniyyah, II, 56. See Hikmet Zeyveli, Medine Sahifesi, pp. 67–68; for the text as found in these sources, see Appendix II, pp. 167–210.
Hadith and historical works in which the Charter appears in fragmentary form include: ‘Abd al-Razzaq (211/827), al-Musannaf, IX, 273, 408; Abu Ubayd (224/839), Gharib al-Hadith, I, 30–31, Kitab al-Amwal, 166–167; Ibn Sa‘d (230/845), al-Tabaqat, I, 377; Ibn Abi Shaybah (235/850), al-Musannaf, V, 419; Ahmad ibn Hanbal (241/856), al-Musnad, II, 36, 285, 286 (no. 599 from Ali), IV, 258 (no. 244 from Abdullah ibn Abbas), XI, 504 (no. 6904 from Abdullah ibn Amr al-‘As), XXII, 338 (no. 14445 from Jabir ibn Abdullah), XXIII, 41 (nos. 14686–14687 from Jabir ibn Abdullah), XXVIII, 508 (no. 17272 from Rafi‘ ibn Khadij); al-Bukhari (256/870), Sahih, III, 20 (no. 1870), IX, 97 (no. 7300), and according to the numbering of M. Fuad ‘Abd al-Baqi, nos. 111, 3047, 3172, 3179, 6755 (6903); Muslim, Sahih, II, 994 (no. 1370 [467] from Ali), II, 1146 (no. 1507 from Jabir), and according to the numbering of M. Fuad ‘Abd al-Baqi, 137 [469–470], 1508 [18, 19]; Ibn Majah (273/887), Sunan, III, 760 (no. 2658); Abu Dawud (275/889), Sunan(ed. Shu‘ayb al-Arna’ut), III, 378–379 (no. 2034), VI, 586 (no. 4530); al-Tirmidhi (279/893), Sunan, IV, 24 (no. 1412); Ibrahim al-Harbi (285/898), Gharib al-Hadith, III, 1227; Ibn Abi ‘Asim (287/900), Diyat, 68; al-Nasa’i (303/916), al-Sunan al-Kubra, VI, 330 (no. 6910), VI, 331 (6911), VI, 334 (no. 6921), VI, 335 (6922), VIII, 56 (nos. 8628–8629); al-Tabari (310/923), Tarikh, II, 486 (I, 1367); Abu Bakr al-Khallal (311/924), Ahkam Ahl al-Milal wa al-Riddah, 5; al-Kulayni (329/941), Furu‘ al-Kafi, V, 31; al-Harawi (401/1011), Kitab al-Gharibayn, I, 89; al-Bayhaqi (458/1066), al-Sunan al-Kubra, VIII, 184–185 (16369–16370); Abu Ja‘far al-Tusi (460/1067), Tahdhib al-Ahkam, VI, chapter 61, hadith no. 5 (238); al-Khatib al-Baghdadi (463/1071), Taqyid al-‘Ilm, 71; Nashwan al-Himyari (573/1178), Shams al-‘Ulum, V, 3184; Ibn al-Athir (606/1210), al-Nihayah, I, 68; I, 117; II, 117, 189; III, 172, 267, 279, 424; al-Saghani (650/1252), ‘Ubab al-Zahir, 283–284; Ibn Manzur (711/1311), Lisan al-‘Arab, IV, 52; VIII, 85, 107, 108; IX, 462; II, 541; al-Maqrizi (845/1441), Imta‘ al-Asma’, I, 124; Ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalani (852/1448), Fath al-Bari, I, 205 (no. 111); al-Samhudi (911/1505), Wafa’ al-Wafa’, I, 207.
For the identification of the relevant passages in these sources through painstaking research, see Hikmet Zeyveli, Medine Sahifesi, Appendix III, pp. 211–228. For brief and partial references to the Charter, see Appendix III, pp. 211–237.

19. E. Ziya Umari, Medine Toplumu, pp. 79–81. Munir M. Gadban agrees with Umari’s views on the basis of the same arguments. See M. Muhammad Gadban, Islam’da Siyasi Antlaşma, pp. 126–127.

20. R. B. Serjeant, “The Community of the Sunnah, the Pacts with the Jews of Yathrib, and the Sanctification of Yathrib: Analysis and Translation of the Documents Included in the So-Called ‘Constitution of Medina,’” Bilgi ve Hikmet Dergisi, Winter 1994/5, pp. 68–88.

21. Hamidullah, Islam Peygamberi, I, 191.

22. W. Montgomery Watt, Muhammad at Medina, Istanbul, 2016, p. 266.

23. Watt, ibid., p. 269.