So I was reading an write-up by Daniel Pipes. He said an fascinating about the ideology of Islamism, he mentioned, “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 is the last component of that sentence I come across intriguing. Pipes makes the inference that anyone who prefers “Islamic Laws” for the nation in which they live (in his articles case, radical Islamists) are folks 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. Again, is he inferring that any individual who believes in a technique of laws primarily based on Islamically best principles are actively searching to replace Constitutional laws with Islamic laws? Does he assume that there is nothing at all related or compatible about Western Democratic rule of law and Islamic rule of law?
I would argue that any correct Islamic country, whether or not democracy, theocracy, or theomocracy*, would not only demand a constitution, but would will need one particular to remain in accordance with the Sunnah of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). I am not certain if Daniel Pipes doesn’t know, or forgot when writing that article, but history agrees that the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) had established a social contract (and isn’t that what a constitution primarily is?) for the citizens of Medina right after he was invited to Medina in 622CE.
Study ahead for your self now and tell me if you consider, based on the historical proof, that a nation whose laws are based on Islamic principles are incompatible with a constitution.
The Skinny Towards the end 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. Soon after the wars, the Jewish population lost and were subjected to turn into Customers of the Arab tribes. The Jewish tribes quickly began a revolt that culminated with the Battle of Bu’ath in 620 C.E. This war involved all the clans and tribes in Yathrib. After the war, both sides agreed they required a single authority to arbitrate conflicts if they were to ever keep longstanding peace. In 620CE, a delegation from the 12 most significant clans of Medina went to Mecca to invite Muhammad as the neutral party needed 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 known as the Hijrah.
Upon his arrival in Medina, one of the first orders of enterprise was to establish a social contract that would settle longstanding tribal grievances and unite the men and women of Medina into a federation bound by a prevalent ethical typical. 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 unique tribes in the community. The community was defined from a religious viewpoint, but also substantially preserved the legal types of the old Arab tribes. Properly, it established the initially Islamic state.
Sohail H. Hashmi gave a great description when he wrote in his short article Cultivating an Islamic Liberal Ethos, Building an Islamic Civil Society, “the basis of the first 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 neighborhood 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 popular ethical standard, the nonetheless unfolding ‘Qur’anic revelation, and the supreme authority of Muhammad. The precise function 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 preceding tribal authority. His function appears to have been that of ultimate arbiter of any social disputes that might have arisen in that society.”
Judging by the scholarship of Sohail H. Hashmi, the Arab Tribal leaders of Medina had their personal 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.
Due to the fact Muhammad (pbuh) is the final authority on interpretation of the Qur’an and all Islamic traditions, it is vital to accept that this 1st state led by Muhammad was the initial Islamic State, and hence, an Islamic State in the purest type. As outlined in the mutually agreed upon Constitution of Medina, it was not a dictatorship, or ruled by a singular person, or even a theocracy. The persons of Medina enforced their personal laws and lived according to their own mutually agree upon ethics, and had been unified in this ordainment by necessity to have their conflicts arbitrated when they were unable to settle concerns themselves.
So, now that we have some notion of what the Constitution of Medina is, can we say that the rule of law in a state based on Islamic principles need to 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 can not be argued that there was something against the Islamic teachings given that Muhammad (Pbuh) was the a single who established this social contract. To argue that Learn online 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 must be included in any Islamic State. Thus, any Islamic State will have to be 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 fully grasp Islamic History would assume that to have a nation primarily based on Islamic principles would need abolishment of constitutional law. Regardless of whether amendments would have to be produced is an entirely diverse point to be made.