Islam Doesn’t Permit Nations to Have Constitutions?
So I was reading an report by Daniel Pipes. He mentioned an exciting about the ideology of Islamism, he stated, “In specific, they seek to make an Islamic state in Turkey, replace Israel with an Islamic state and the U.S. constitution with the Koran.”
While I won’t speak on the politics of the Arab Middle East, or Turkey, it’s the final portion of that sentence I locate interesting. Pipes makes the inference that any person who prefers “Islamic Laws” for the country in which they live (in his articles case, radical Islamists) are individuals who advocate replacing Democratically instituted Constitutional Laws with Quranic Laws.
Sidestepping the crazy Islamists for a second (mostly, but not limited to Wahhabi’s and Salafi’s), let’s assume that Pipes is speaking about any and all Muslims here. Once again, is he inferring that any person who believes in a system of laws primarily based on Islamically ideal principles are actively searching to replace Constitutional laws with Islamic laws? Does he believe that there is nothing equivalent or compatible about Western Democratic rule of law and Islamic rule of law?
I would argue that any correct Islamic country, no matter whether democracy, theocracy, or theomocracy*, would not only call for a constitution, but would need to have 1 to remain in accordance with the Sunnah of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). I am not positive if Daniel Pipes does not know, or forgot when writing that short article, but history agrees that the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) had established a social contract (and isn’t that what a constitution essentially is?) for the citizens of Medina immediately after he was invited to Medina in 622CE.
Read ahead for oneself now and tell me if you believe, primarily based on the historical evidence, that a nation whose laws are primarily based on Islamic principles are incompatible with a constitution.
The Skinny Towards the finish of the 5th century, Jewish tribes of Yathrib* lost handle of the city to two incoming Arab tribes from Yemen, the Banu Aus and Banu Khazraj. The opposing Arabs and Jews warred for 120 years. Following the wars, the Jewish population lost and had been subjected to develop into Clientele of the Arab tribes. The Jewish tribes quickly started a revolt that culminated with the Battle of Bu’ath in 620 C.E. This war involved all the clans and tribes in Yathrib. Immediately after the war, both sides agreed they necessary a single authority to arbitrate conflicts if they were to ever keep longstanding peace. In 620CE, a delegation from the 12 most critical clans of Medina went to Mecca to invite Muhammad as the neutral celebration required to serve as chief arbitrator for the city. Muhammad accepted, and in 622 the whole Muslim population of Mecca, followed by Muhammad (pbuh), emigrated in what became recognized as the Hijrah.
Upon his arrival in Medina, one particular of the first orders of business was to establish a social contract that would settle longstanding tribal grievances and unite the persons of Medina into a federation bound by a widespread ethical regular. This contract became identified as the Constitution of Medina. It delegated the rights and duties of all citizens and the nature of the relationships of various tribes in the neighborhood. https://bismillahjr.com/ was defined from a religious viewpoint, but also substantially preserved the legal types of the old Arab tribes. Correctly, it established the first Islamic state.
Sohail H. Hashmi gave a terrific description when he wrote in his short article Cultivating an Islamic Liberal Ethos, Developing an Islamic Civil Society, “the basis of the initially Islamic civil society was literally a social contract. The so-referred to as Constitution of Medina spelled out the mutual rights and obligations of all members of the Muslim society. It did not obliterate tribal identities it superseded this tribalism with the umma, the community of the faithful. What produced the formerly fractious tribes of Medina and their newly arrived guests from Mecca into a community was their acceptance of a common ethical standard, the nevertheless unfolding ‘Qur’anic revelation, and the supreme authority of Muhammad. The precise part that Muhammad occupied in this society is still debated by Muslim scholars. What is clear is that the Prophet did not seek to do away with earlier tribal authority. His function seems to have been that of ultimate arbiter of any social disputes that could have arisen in that society.”
Judging by the scholarship of Sohail H. Hashmi, the Arab Tribal leaders of Medina had their own say in their affairs, as did the Muslims, as did the Jews, and only when an agreement could not be reached, Muhammad (pbuh) was looked to as the agreed arbitrator.
Since Muhammad (pbuh) is the final authority on interpretation of the Qur’an and all Islamic traditions, it is essential to accept that this 1st state led by Muhammad was the very first Islamic State, and thus, an Islamic State in the purest form. As outlined in the mutually agreed upon Constitution of Medina, it was not a dictatorship, or ruled by a singular individual, or even a theocracy. The folks of Medina enforced their personal laws and lived according to their own mutually agree upon ethics, and have been unified in this ordainment by necessity to have their conflicts arbitrated when they were unable to settle difficulties themselves.
So, now that we have some concept of what the Constitution of Medina is, can we say that the rule of law in a state based on Islamic principles should be determined by the Quran and not a Constitution?
The answer is no.
The Islamic State established in Medina was in accordance with Islamic principles outlined in the Qur’an and not in conflict with it. It cannot be argued that there was something against the Islamic teachings considering the fact that Muhammad (Pbuh) was the one who established this social contract. To argue that the Constitution of Medina was against Islamic teachings would be arguing against the Prophet himself. So if we extrapolate this we see that anything established in the Constitution of Medina should be incorporated in any Islamic State. Hence, any Islamic State should be primarily based on a Constitution. It would be conflicting for an Islamic state to be established in accordance with the Islamic tradition and not have a constitution. It would also be inaccurate to say that an Islamic state would abolish a constitution wherever it is established, in favor of the Qur’an. Only these who to not recognize Islamic History would assume that to have a country primarily based on Islamic principles would call for abolishment of constitutional law. No matter whether amendments would have to be created is an entirely distinct point to be produced.