Islam Does not Enable Nations to Have Constitutions?

So I was reading an post by Daniel Pipes. He said an interesting about the ideology of Islamism, he mentioned, “In distinct, they seek to make an Islamic state in Turkey, replace Israel with an Islamic state and the U.S. constitution with the Koran.”

Though I won’t speak on the politics of the Arab Middle East, or Turkey, it’s the final part of that sentence I discover exciting. Pipes tends to make the inference that anyone who prefers “Islamic Laws” for the country in which they live (in his articles case, radical Islamists) are persons who advocate replacing Democratically instituted Constitutional Laws with Quranic Laws.

Sidestepping the crazy Islamists for a second (mainly, but not restricted to Wahhabi’s and Salafi’s), let’s assume that Pipes is speaking about any and all Muslims here. Again, is he inferring that anyone who believes in a program of laws based on Islamically excellent principles are actively searching to replace Constitutional laws with Islamic laws? Does he believe 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 true Islamic country, no matter if democracy, theocracy, or theomocracy*, would not only require a constitution, but would need one particular to stay in accordance with the Sunnah of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). I’m not sure if Daniel Pipes does not 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 essentially is?) for the citizens of Medina just after he was invited to Medina in 622CE.

Read ahead for your self now and inform me if you consider, based on the historical proof, 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 manage 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 have been subjected to become 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. Right after the war, each sides agreed they needed a single authority to arbitrate conflicts if they had been to ever sustain longstanding peace. In 620CE, a delegation from the 12 most important 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 identified as the Hijrah.

Upon his arrival in Medina, one of the very first orders of small 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 frequent ethical normal. This contract became recognized 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 community. The neighborhood was defined from a religious perspective, but also substantially preserved the legal forms of the old Arab tribes. Effectively, it established the initial Islamic state.

Sohail H. Hashmi gave a terrific description when he wrote in his report Cultivating an Islamic Liberal Ethos, Building an Islamic Civil Society, “the basis of the 1st Islamic civil society was actually a social contract. The so-known 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 made the formerly fractious tribes of Medina and their newly arrived guests from Mecca into a neighborhood was their acceptance of a typical ethical regular, the still unfolding ‘Qur’anic revelation, and the supreme authority of Muhammad. The precise role that Muhammad occupied in this society is nonetheless debated by Muslim scholars. What is clear is that the Prophet did not seek to eliminate previous tribal authority. His part seems 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 essential to accept that this initially state led by Muhammad was the initially 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 individual, or even a theocracy. The persons of Medina enforced their personal laws and lived according to their personal mutually agree upon ethics, and had been unified in this ordainment by necessity to have their conflicts arbitrated when they have been unable to settle problems 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 must 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’t be argued that there was anything against the Islamic teachings considering the fact that Muhammad (Pbuh) was the 1 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 will have to be included in any Islamic State. Hence, any Islamic State have to be based on a Constitution. Islam for beginners 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 those who to not fully grasp Islamic History would assume that to have a country based on Islamic principles would call for abolishment of constitutional law. Whether amendments would have to be produced is an totally unique point to be produced.