Talk:Constitution of Medina

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of the WikiProject Islam, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Islam on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page so as to become familiar with the guidelines.
Start	This article has been rated as start-class on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.
Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

Though there are many sites on the web claiming that the Constitution of Medina is the oldest written constitution, this appears not to be correct. For instance, the Solonian Constitution was much earlier (6th century BCE).

Crust 29 June 2005 18:51 (UTC)

For a more detailed discussion, see the talk page of Constitution (under the heading First Constitution?).

Crust 17:27, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Contents 1 summary 2 622? 3 Article Accuracy 4 Article is wrong 5 No consensus 6 RFC dispute at Constitution

[edit] summary

The current summary seems quite misleading in that it refers to Jews in a way that implies the whole Jewish people - yet the document purely relates to realtions between the various Arab tribes, Muslim and Jewish, in the immediate area of Medinia.

Also badly needs links to the full text. -- ninianc

The orginal Arabic states variously Jews or the clients of specific Arab tribes which are the local Jewish clans. However, the document does not state nor imply that Jewish clans outside of Medina were to be treated otherwise. One can look at the document as spelling out a nascent pluralism envisioned in early Islamic history. Article 25: "The Jews of Banu 'Awf are one community with the believers (i.e. Muslims). To the Jews their religion and to the Muslims their religion."

ibn battutah

The pact was made between Muhammad and the Jews of Jathrib/Medina and not with anyone else. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 11:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 622?

Is there a source for 622? It has got to be 624.

Constitution of Medina (date debated) -- Muhammad

c. 623 -- [1]

Great. Publicola 08:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

There is no firm date for the drafting of the consitution of Medina other then shortly after the hijra. Traditional sources, i.e. Ibn Ishaq's (in Ibn Hisham’s rescension of) Sirat Rasul Allah or Abu ‘Ubayd's Kitab al-Amwal, do not give a specific date but imply by placement within a historical chronology a date within 5 months of the hijra in 622. The akhbar tradition documents its drafting within 8 months of the hijra through the reports of Annas b. Malik. Furthermore, modern scholarship demonstrates that the constition of Medina is a composite document which evolved over a number of years.

See R. B. Serjeant. "The Constitution of Medina." or also M. Watt. Muhammad in Medina.

Ibn Battutah

[edit] Article Accuracy

The article ignores the historic sources and relies on modern radings of the event. It is not true that the treaty was unilateral even if Lewis said that. Ibn Ishaq and Ibn Hisham state that it was a multilateral one otherwise there is no point of listing all the names of the jewish tribes in the treaty. Also when the treaty is read in its Arabic version one can see that it refers to Muhammad as "Muhammad" and as "Prphet" since not all the signees of the treaty concured to that. I think a full translation of the treaty has to be included in this article so that the reader can see for himself.Marwan123 16:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know whether it was a unilateral decree on Muhammad's part or a multilateral treaty negotiated among multiple parties. However, the fact that the names of the Jewish tribes are listed in the treaty doesn't really bear on the question. Crust 21:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks Crust for your reply. I think it must be dealt with as a multilateral treaty unless other documents show otherwise. It is written as if it was a treaty and its wording indicates that. Like I said in my previous comment, the treaty refers to Muhammad by "Muhammad" and not by "Prophet" ". Had it been unilateral, Muhammad would have proclaimed himself a prophet in it. What one can argue though is whether all the Jewish tribes were included in this treaty or not. The listing of the names of some Jewish tribes indicates that those tribes were a side in the treaty while other tribes like "Banu Quraitha" may not have been. I think this an important point that the article should address.Marwan123 06:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

The article in general is very poor, it ignores the historical context and the significance of the constitution (i.e. the formation and nature of the Umma, as instituting the first Islamic state, what information it gives about the early community) while excessively focusing on the Jewish tribes (which are not mentioned directly specifically the three main ones but through their clan affiliations). The article is also inaccurate-Yathrib was not at war with its neighbours (Who Khaybar?) but it was internal tribal fighting which was renting apart Medina and hence their solicitation of Mohammad to come as mediator see Ibn Ishaq, Al-Waqidi or any intro to Islamic history book for that matter. The problem with whether the constitution was a multilateral agreement or unilateral declaration is colored by its political ramifications (especially read through 20th and 21st century biases) in regards to the conflict with Al-Nadir, Qaynuqa and Qurayzah. i.e. if it was a unilateral declaration the conflict with the Jewish tribes were primarily and unjustifiably initiated by the Muslims where as a multilateral agreement points to an agreement broken by the Jewish tribes and hence the conflict. The sources point to a multilateral agreement as does the document itself however, due to its implications the matter will remain contentious. Ibn battutah 21:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article is wrong

See Banu Qurayza and [2]. I'll work on it in a couple days when I can get the sources. The constitution was imposed unilaterally by Muhammad after he killed all the Jews. Arrow740 03:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Well User:Itaqallah cleaned it up. There is no "refutation" anywhere, by the way. Arrow740 03:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

err, no. Banu Qurayza isn't a very good article at all. strange that you aren't removing the "tertiary source" article written by Watt from that article, and this exemplifies your double standards here. EoI is an academic resource, and an exception to WP:RS were you slightly even aware of the guideline. why don't you consult Beit Or about that? i have shown on the diplomat page that most academics accept the general historicity of the constitution, and that the Jews were participants. do stop this tendentious editing and baiting, and please stop removing sourced material. ITAQALLAH 04:03, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Good for you, you can look at my contributions. They accept the historicity but not that it was brokered by Muhammad shortly after he arrived in Medina. In fact he instituted it single-handedly after he had done away with almost all of the Jews so the fact that they were included in the document is not worthy of note. Whether or not EoI is an exception to the rule I am "slightly even aware" of is not the main objection here, it is the fact that the inclusion of the EoI quote skews this article from NPOV. Arrow740 04:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

"he instituted it single-handedly after he had done away with almost all of the Jews" what you obstinately refuse to acknowledge is that many academics disagree with this theory. the EoI quote does not skew the article, as you have fundamentally mistaken neutral point of view for no point of view. whatever academics think, we reflect in the article and proportion it according to prevelance in academic circles. and, unfortunately for you, nearly all academics concur that the agreements drawn by Muhammad here were a masterstroke. ITAQALLAH 05:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Though hardly perfect, Banu Qurayza is a far better article than is Muhammad as a diplomat in several respects; indeed the latter continues to suffer from avoiding this very episode, which, among others, can only have represented either the failure or insincerity of Muhammad's diplomacy.Proabivouac 05:01, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Exiling and killing all your political opponents doesn't count as "diplomacy." Some masterstroke. We need to present a neutral point of view. Presenting Welch's POV without a balancing one makes this impossible. Arrow740 07:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

please do not mistake "neutral point of view" for "giving all view points equal validity" (as i mentioned here), which is something we do not do. we take into consideration the prevelance of academic opinions, and then proportion it likewise in order to avoid granting undue weight to minority opinions. ITAQALLAH 19:03, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Lulling one's opponents into complacency, or creating a political situation in which they feel unable to react in the ways they need to, is certainly diplomacy, and perhaps a "masterstroke." What it's not, and can't be, is both successful diplomacy and a peaceful solution; were the goal a peaceful solution, it were a miserable failure. In either case, as it's not to us to decide, we must mention the real-world outcome of this "agreement" for the Jews of Medina. It's unacceptable that this "Constitution" be hailed as a triumph when it's universally acknowledged to have failed (again, unless it were only deception, or came after the conflict was settled by force).Proabivouac 09:26, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

of course, there was some impact of this constitution as Watt observes. yes, it did indeed fall apart eventually, whether or not it indicates a failure in diplomacy on Muhammad's part is debatable. despite that, most agree that it was a wise move, and very few academics resort to attributing sinister underlying intentions to Muhammad. ITAQALLAH 19:03, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Did it institute dhimmitude or was, for example, jizya a later invention? Why wasn't he consistent, if so? Arrow740 10:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

jizya and general dhimma status was enforced post-Khaybar. ITAQALLAH 19:03, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No consensus

Reuven Firestone summarizes the scholarly debate as follows: "Western scholarship is divided over whether it belongs to the earliest Medinan period or whether it represents the situation obtaining after the exile and destruction of the Jews of Medina or at least after the battle of Badr in 624." (Jihad: The Origin of Holy War in Islam, p. 118) Arrow740 21:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

what you fail to understand is that this does not negate Muhammad having engaged in an agreement beforehand - the dispute is over the dating of the text we have today, and whether it is from the earlier periods or reflects later agreements. ITAQALLAH 05:56, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

You can call it an agreement but that's about all you can do. You can't call it the Constitution of Medina. Arrow740 07:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

You might want to file an RfC. "Most scholars" is weasel-wording. Prove that over 50% percent of scholars believe what you claim. Arrow740 07:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

see Talk:Muhammad as a diplomat. "You can't call it the Constitution of Medina" actually, you can, as numerous academics such as Serjeant and Watt suggest that it comprises of numerous, seperate agreements. ITAQALLAH 07:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

i don't know what "most scholars" think, but i do know that a substantial number of scholars do assign it an early dating. ITAQALLAH 07:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

First, there is no proof of anything regarding the Constitution. It is not known if it is a unified document or more of an amalgamation. Second, assuming that the speculation that it is a series of documents is correct, the dating of the proposed independent sections is in no way clear. Third, you have admitted that you inserted unsourced information that you do not know to be true; this is disappointing. Arrow740 07:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

i reverted your removal which was tantamount to vandalism. i did not write the intro passage, that was done by someone else. ITAQALLAH 07:27, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you should be more attentive in your edits. How can you possibly claim that the Constitution was written in 622? Arrow740 07:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

maybe you should be more attentive to what the prose actually says :| ITAQALLAH 07:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

"the dating of the proposed independent sections is in no way clear" if you were paying attention on Talk:Muhammad as a diplomat you would have known that Serjeant attempts to do just that. regardless, such a concern is irrelevant, it doesn't stop the scholars from declaring with certainty that there was indeed such a constitution. ITAQALLAH 07:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Of course there was! It is the date that makes it relevant. If the date is not known it is irrelevant. If there were almost no Jews left in Medina and everyone obeyed Muhammad anyway, it is irrelevant. We cannot know that that is not the case (as I suspect it was). Arrow740 07:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

this is where you must read my first post in this section. the dating of the text we have today is what is disputed. ITAQALLAH 07:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't you see that the text we have today is all we have to work with? Arrow740 07:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Let's have a constructive discussion about this please, rather than arguing? Now it's my understanding that the document that is now known as the "Constitution of Medina" essentially comes from only one source, Ibn Ishaq, who didn't expressly give a date for it but put it after the hijra but before the agreement of brotherhood between the Ansar and the Muhajirun. There is much scholarly debate about several topics: whether Ibn Ishaq had a single source or whether he compiled the document from several other documents, whether the document is really from the early Medinan period or a later period, and so forth. All of this debate can be discussed in the article, but the point remains that when someone says "Constitution of Medina" they mean Ibn Ishaq's document. Does what I've said make sense? --bainer (talk) 08:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Please edit the article for yourself. Itaqallah's current version is making all sorts of claims, some at odds with each other. Arrow740 19:28, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

not quite. one of the most prominent versions is indeed that of Ibn Ishaq, though as Serjeant states, az-Zuhri; Tabari; Abu Ubayd; and Ibn Kathir all seem to have their own versions also. as scholars conceive different theories about the constitution, it's more appropriate to state that Ibn Ishaq's version is a representation of the Constitution/agreements made by Muhammad. ITAQALLAH 00:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Do we know that there was a unified document during Muhammad's time? Arrow740 00:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RFC dispute at Constitution

There is a NPOV dispute going on at Talk:Constitution, there is one editor who has declared himself to be an "expert" and has declared that there are "Principles of Successful Constitutions" without stating explicitly what the principles are, he is trying to write that they must come from Aristotle, Plato, and John Mason or else they "don't count" as successful Constitutions. I responded that this was highly POV and gave a number of counter examples including this one, but by Circular logic, he argues that my examples don't count as "successful" because they didn;t come from Aristotle, Plato, and John Mason, therefore they cannot possibly be regarded as "successful". Please share your comments. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 13:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)