Sir Muhammad Zafrulla Khan was a Pakistani politician, diplomat, and international jurist, known particularly for his representation of Pakistan at the United Nations (UN).

The son of the leading attorney of his native city, Zafrulla Khan studied at Government College in Lahore and received his LL.B. from King’s College, London University, in 1914. He practiced law in Sialkot and Lahore, became a member of the Punjab Legislative Council in 1926, and was a delegate in 1930, 1931, and 1932 to the Round Table Conferences on Indian reforms in London. In 1931–32 he was president of the All-India Muslim League (later the Muslim League), and he sat on the British viceroy’s executive council as its Muslim member from 1935 to 1941. He led the Indian delegation to the League of Nations in 1939, and from 1941 to 1947 he served as a judge of the Federal Court of India.

Prior to the partition of India in 1947, Zafrulla Khan presented the Muslim League’s view of the future boundaries of Pakistan to Sir Cyril Radcliffe, the man designated to decide the boundaries between India and Pakistan. Upon the independence of Pakistan, Zafrulla Khan became the new country’s minister of foreign affairs and served concurrently as leader of Pakistan’s delegation to the UN (1947–54). From 1954 to 1961 he served as a member of the International Court of Justice at The Hague. He again represented Pakistan at the UN in 1961–64 and served as president of the UN General Assembly in 1962–63. Returning to the International Court of Justice in 1964, he served as the court’s president from 1970 to 1973.

He was knighted in 1935. He is the author of Islam: Its Meaning for Modern Man (1962) and wrote a translation of the Qur’an (1970).

Thus, after the arrival of the Holy Prophet in Medina, its people were divided into the following groups:

1. Muslims, Emigrants and Ansar.

2. Those of Aus and Khazraj who had become nominally Muslims but did not truly believe in Islam and entertained secret designs against the Holy Prophet and the Muslims. They were the disaffected who were known as hypocrites.

3. Those of Aus and Khazraj who were still pagans, but were rapidly becoming Muslims, and who would be soon absorbed among them.

4. The Jews who were divided into three principal tribes, Banu Qainuqa, Banu Nadhir and Banu Quraidha.

This was a situation which was replete with dangerous possibilities in the future, and called for a strong measure of co-ordination and adjustment, more particularly as the very existence of the Muslims was bitterly resented and was seriously threatened by Quraish, who were busy designing measures to wipe out Islam and the Muslims. Therefore, as soon as the Holy Prophet was settled in Medina, he called together the representatives of the Emigrants, Aus and Khazraj, and the Jewish tribes for consultation and invited them to consider the desirability of establishing some system of mutual cooperation whereby risk of dissension might be obviated and the security of Medina might be provided for. After a thorough exchange of views, agreement was reached and was reduced to writing, of which the principal provisions may be summarized as follows:

1. The Muslims and Jews would deal with each other on the basis of sympathy and sincerity and would not indulge in any aggression or wrong against each other.

2. All sections of the people of Medina would enjoy complete religious freedom.

3. Everyone’s life and property would be secure, and would be respected, subject to the maintenance of law and order.

4. All matters of difference would be submitted for decision to the Holy Prophet, and would be determined by him according to the laws and the customs of each section of the people of Medina.

5. No section would go forth to fight without the permission of the Holy Prophet.

6. In case of aggression against the Jews or the Muslims, both would combine in repelling the aggression.

7. In case of attack against Medina, all sections would combine in repelling it.

8. The Jews would not in any manner aid Quraish or provide refuge or comfort for them.

9. All sections would be responsible for their own upkeep and expenses.

10. Nothing in the agreement would afford immunity to a wrongdoer, or sinner or mischief-maker.

By virtue of this agreement, the relations between the Muslims and the Jews were duly regulated, and a basis for the governance of Medina was provided, where under each section would have complete freedom of religion, and complete autonomy with regard to its internal affairs, but would be knit into a central administrative system which would be presided over by the Holy Prophet.[a]

Sir William Muir:

Sir William Muir

Hadhrat Mirza Bashir-ud-din Mahmud Ahmad, Khalifatul Masih II

Hadhrat Mirza Bashir-ud-Din Mahmood

Between the Prophet of God and the Faithful on the one hand, and all those on the other, who voluntarily agree to enter. If any of the Meccan Muslims is killed, the Meccan Muslims will themselves be responsible.  The responsibility for securing the release of their prisoners will also be theirs. The Muslim tribes of Medina similarly will be responsible for their own lives and their prisoners. Whoever rebels or promotes enmity and disorder will be considered a common enemy. It will be the duty of all the others to fight against him, even though he happens to be a son or a close relation. If a disbeliever is killed in battle by a believer, his Muslim relations will seek no revenge.  Nor will they assist disbelievers against believers. The Jews who join this covenant will be helped by Muslims. The Jews will not be put to any hardship.  Their enemies will not be helped against them. No disbeliever will give quarter to anybody from Mecca.  He will not act as a trustee for any Meccan property.  In a war between Muslims and disbelievers he will take no part. If a believer is maltreated without cause,  Muslims will have the right to fight against those who maltreat. If a common enemy attack Medina, the Jews will side with the Muslims and share the expenses of the battle. The Jewish tribes in covenant with the other tribes of Medina will have rights similar to those of Muslims. The Jews will keep to their own faith, and Muslims to their own. The rights enjoyed by the Jews will also be enjoyed by their followers. The citizens of Medina will not have the right to declare war without the sanction of the Prophet. But this will not prejudice the right of any individual to avenge an individual wrong. The Jews will bear the expenses of their own organization, and Muslims their own. But in case of war, they will act with unity. The city of Medina will be regarded as sacred and inviolate by those who sign the covenant.  Strangers who come under the protection of its citizens will be treated as citizens. But the people of Medina will not be allowed to admit a woman to its citizenship without the permission of her relations.  All disputes will be referred for decision to God and the Prophet. Parties to this covenant will not have the right to enter into any agreement with the Meccans or their allies. This, because parties to this covenant agree in resisting their common enemies.  The parties will remain united in peace as in war. No party will enter into a separate peace. But no party will be obliged to take part in war. A party, however, which commits any excess will be liable to a penalty.  Certainly God is the protector of the righteous and the Faithful and Muhammadsa is His Prophet (Hisham).

William Montgomery Watt

William Montgomery Watt

THE CHARACTER OF THE ISLAMIC STATE

THE CONSTITUTION OF MEDINA 

IBN ISHAQ has preserved an ancient document commonly known as the ‘Constitution of Medina’. Apart from the introductory words, however, he tells us nothing about it, neither how he came by it nor when and how it was brought into force. On the latter points he must be presumed ignorant; its place near the beginning of his account of the Medinan period is simply that called for by logic.

(a)   The text of the document[1]

Ibn Ishaq said: The Messenger of God (God bless and preserve him) wrote a writing (kitab) between the Emigrants and the Ansar, in which he made a treaty and covenant with the Jews, confirmed them in their religion and possessions, and gave them certain duties and rights :

In the name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate!

This is a writing of Muhammad the prophet between the believers and Muslims of Quraysh and Yathrib and those who follow them and are attached to them and who crusade (jahadu) along with them.

1.      They are a single community (ummah) distinct from (other) people.[2]

2.      The Emigrants of Quraysh, according to their former condition, [3] pay jointly the blood-money between them, and they (as a group) ransom their captive(s), (doing so) with uprightness and justice between the believers.

3.      Banu ‘Awf, according to their former condition, pay jointly the previous blood-wits, and each sub-clan (ta’ifah) ransoms its captive(s), (doing so) with uprightness and justice between the believers.[4]

4.      Banu ‘l-Harith, according to their former condition, pay jointly … (as 3).

5.      Banu Sa’idah … (as 3).

6.      Banu Jusham … (as 3).

7.      Banu ‘n-Najjar … (as 3).

8.      Banu ‘Amr b. ‘Awf … (as 3).

9.      Banu ‘n-Nabit … (as 3).

10.  Banu ‘l-Aws … (as 3).

11.  The believers do not forsake a debtor among them, but give him (help), according to what is fair, for ransom or blood-wit.

12.  A believer does not take as confederate (halif) the client (mawla) of a believer without his (the latter’s) consent.

13.  The God-fearing believers are against whoever of them acts wrongfully or seeks (? plans) an act that is unjust or treacherous or hostile or corrupt among the believers; their hands are all against him, even if he is the son of one of them.

14.  A believer does not kill a believer because of an unbeliever, and does not help an unbeliever against a believer.

15.  The security (dhimmah) of God is one; the granting of ‘neighbourly protection’ (yujir) by the least of them (the believers) is binding on them; the believers are patrons (or clients-mawali) of one another to the exclusion of (other) people.

16.  Whoever of the Jews follows us has the (same) help and support (nasr, iswah) (as the believers), so long as they are not wronged (by him) and he does not help (others) against them.

17.  The peace (silm) of the believers is one; no believer makes peace apart from another believer, where there is fighting in the way of God, except in so far as equality and justice between them (is maintained).

18.  In every expedition made with us the parties take turns with one another.[5]

19.  The believers exact vengeance for one another where a man gives his blood in the way of God. The God-fearing believers are under the best and most correct guidance.

20.  No idolater (mushrik) gives ‘neighbourly protection’ (yujir) for goods or person to Quraysh, nor intervenes in his (a Qurashi’s) favour against a believer.

21.  When anyone wrongfully kills a believer, the evidence being clear, then he is liable to be killed in retaliation for him, unless the representative of the murdered man is satisfied (with a payment). The believers are against him (the murderer) entirely; nothing is permissible to them except to oppose him.

22.  It is not permissible for a believer who has agreed to what is in this document (sahifah) and believed in God and the last day to help a wrong-doer[6] or give him lodging. If anyone helps him or gives him lodging, then upon this man is the curse of God and His wrath on the day of resurrection, and from him nothing will be accepted to make up for it or take its place.

23.  Wherever there is anything about which you differ, it is to be referred to God and to Muhammad (peace be upon him).

24.  The Jews bear expenses along with the believers so long as they continue at war.

25.  The Jews of Banu ‘Awf are a community (ummah) along with the believers. To the Jews their religion (din) and to the Muslims their religion. (This applies) both to their clients and to themselves, with the exception of anyone who has done wrong or acted treacherously; he brings evil only on himself and on his household.

26.  For the Jews of Banu ‘n-Najjar the like of what is for the Jews of Banu ‘Awf.

27.  For the Jews of Banu ‘l-Harith the like . . .

28.  For the Jews of Banu Sa’idah the like . . .

29.  For the Jews of Banu Jusham the like . . .

30.  For the Jews of Banu ‘l-Aws the like . . .

31.  For the Jews of Banu Tha’labah the like of what is for the Jews of Banu ‘Awf, with the exception of anyone who has done wrong or acted treacherously; he brings evil only on himself and his household.

32.  Jafnah, a subdivision (batn) of Tha’labah, are like them.

33.  For Banu ‘sh-Shutaybah[7] the like of what is for the Jews of Banu ‘Awf; honourable dealing (comes) before treachery.[8]

34.  The clients of Tha’labah are like them.

35.  The bitanah[9] of (particular) Jews are as themselves.

36.  No one of them (? those belonging to the ummah) may go out (to war) without the permission of Muhammad (peace be upon him), but he is not restrained from taking vengeance for wounds. Whoever acts rashly (fataka), it (involves) only himself and his household, except where a man has been wronged. God is the truest (fulfiller) of this (document).[10]

37.  It is for the Jews to bear their expenses and for the Muslims to bear their expenses. Between them (that is, to one another) there is help (nasr) against whoever wars against the people of this document. Between them is sincere friendship (nas’h wa-nasihah), and honourable dealing, not treachery. A man is not guilty of treachery through (the act of) his confederate. There is help for (or, help is to be given to) the person wronged.

38.  The Jews bear expenses along with the believers so long as they continue at war.

39.  The valley of Yathrib is sacred for the people of this document.

40.  The ‘protected neighbour’ (jar) is as the man himself so long as he does no harm and does not act treacherously.(

41.  No woman is given ‘neighbourly protection’(tujar) without the consent of her people.

42.  Whenever among the people of this document there occurs any incident (disturbance) or quarrel from which disaster for it (the people) is to be feared, it is to be referred to God and to Muhammad, the Messenger of God (God bless and preserve him). God is the most scrupulous and truest (fulfiller) of what is in this document.

43.  No ‘neighbourly protection’ is given (Ia tujar) to Quraysh and those who help them.

44.  Between them (? the people of this document) is help against whoever suddenly attacks Yathrib.

45.  Whenever they are summoned to conclude and accept a treaty, they conclude and accept it; when they in turn summon to the like of that, it is for them upon the believers, [11] except whoever wars about religion; for (? = incumbent on) each man is his share from their side which is towards them.

46.  The Jews of al-Aws, both their clients and themselves, are in the same position as belongs to the people of this document while they are thoroughly honourable in their dealings with the people of this document. Honourable dealing (comes) before treachery.

47.  A person acquiring (? guilt)[12] acquires it only against himself. God is the most upright and truest (fulfiller) of what is in this document. This writing does not intervene to protect a wrong-doer or traitor. He who goes out is safe, and he who sits still is safe in Medina, except whoever does wrong and acts treacherously. God is ‘protecting neighbour’ (jar) of him who acts honourably and fears God, and Muhammad is the Messenger of God (God bless and preserve him).

(b)   The authenticity, date, and unity of the document

This document has generally been regarded as authentic, though it has not always been given the prominence appropriate to an authentic document of this sort. The reasons for its authenticity have been succinctly stated by Wellhausen.[13] No later falsifier, writing under the Umayyads or ‘Abbasids, would have included non-Muslims in the ummah, would have retained the articles against Quraysh, and would have given Muhammad so insignificant a place. Moreover the style is archaic, and certain points, such as the use of ‘believers’ instead of ‘Muslims’ in most articles, belong to the earlier Medinan period.

There has been some discussion, however, whether the document is to be dated before or after the battle of Badr. Wellhausen placed it before Badr. Hubert Grimme,[14] however, argued for a date after Badr on the following grounds: the functions attributed to Muhammad in 23 and 36 show that his authority was generally recognized; the references to fighting for the faith (fi sabil Allah, 17, 19; fi ‘d-din, 45) imply that some fighting had taken place; the hostile attitude towards Quraysh could have been demanded of Medinan believers only after Badr. Caetani[15] shows that these arguments are not so strong as Grimme thought, and prefers a date prior to Badr.

This discussion of the date has assumed that the document is a unity; but that is the point that ought to be examined first. There are reasons for thinking that articles which originated at different dates have been collected.[16] Thus there are certain linguistic variations: the believers are mostly spoken of in the third person, but sometimes they are ‘you’ and sometimes ‘we’ (as in 23, 16, 18); mostly they are ‘believers’, but twice they are ‘Muslims’ ( 25, 37). Again, certain articles come near to being repetitions of other articles; they deal with the same problem but may have slight alterations. Both 23 and 42 say that disputes are to be referred to Muhammad, though 42 is more precise. Both 20 and 43 are directed against Quraysh. The points about Jews in 16 and 24 are similar to those in 37 and 38; and indeed 24 and 38 are identical. Finally both 30 and 46 deal with the Jews of the Aws. It is to be noted that the articles which are similar do not occur together, as one would expect where articles dealt with different aspects of the same point. On the contrary one set is spread between 16 and 30 and another set between 37 and 46. This is sufficient to justify an examination of the possibility that the document as we have it contains articles from two or more different dates.

With this possibility in mind let us turn to what is said about the Jews. The inclusion of the Jews in the ummah is an important argument for dating the document before Badr.[17] The omission of the names of the three great Jewish tribes or clans is surprising. One way of explaining it, however, is to suppose that Muhammad grouped the Jews according to the Arab clans in whose districts they lived; an-Nadir and Qurayzah would then be included among the Jews of al-Aws and Tha’labah, since they lived between

Awsallah and Tha’labah b. Amr b. ‘Awf.[18] There are strong reasons, however, for thinking that the three main Jewish groups are not included in the document. For one thing it is most likely that a phrase like ‘the Jews of the Banu ‘Awf’ means the Jews who were confederates of that clan. Small groups of Jews, like those at Ratij, [19] doubtless became confederates of the Arab clan surrounding them; but an-Nadir and Qurayzah had their own territories, and were latterly confederates of ‘Abd al-Ash’hal, who lived some distance away, and who were part of the clan of an-Nabit which is not mentioned in 25-35 among the clans with Jews attached. Secondly, Ibn Ishaq[20] has a list of sixty-seven Jewish opponents of Muhammad and arranges them under the following heads : B. an-Nadir (12), B. Tha’labah b. Fityawn (3), B. Qaynuqa’ (31), B. Qurayzah (17), Jews of B. Zurayq (1), Jews of B. Harithah (1), Jews of B. ‘Amr b. ‘Awf (1), Jews of B. an-Najjar (1). This makes it probable that ‘the Jews of B. Tha’labah’ of 31 are those whom Ibn Ishaq and as-Samhudi[21] reckon as a Jewish clan, and shows that at some period small groups of Jews, distinct from the three main clans, were known as ‘the Jews of such-and-such an Arab clan’.

It seems probable, then, that the three main Jewish groups are not mentioned in the document. If that is so, the document in its present form might belong to the period after the elimination of Qurayzah. The difficulty that much attention is given to Jewish affairs at a time when there were few Jews in Medina could be explained by the hypothesis that the document in its final form was intended as a charter for the Jews remaining in Medina and included all relevant articles from earlier forms of the Constitution of the city.

The history of the document might be reconstructed conjecturally somewhat as follows. The earlier articles (up to 15 or 1 6 or 19 or 23) may have been the original terms of agreement between Muhammad and the Medinan clans at al-‘Aqabah, or they may have been drawn up by the ‘representatives’ (nuqaba) shortly after the Hijrah. They mostly deal with problems involved in keeping peace between the Arab clans. To these from time to time as need arose other articles were added, while articles which became inoperative would be dropped, e.g., articles about Qurayzah and an-Nadir. The word sahifah (translated ‘document’), which occurs from 22 to 47 implies a written document formally accepted by different parties. The phrase ‘the people of this document’ is doubtless used so as to cover both Jews and Muslims. To the ‘document’ in this special sense belongs the solid body of articles dealing with Jews, 24 to 35 (or, if 36 is interpreted as referring to the Jews, to 38). 16 is perhaps part of the ‘Aqabah agreement with the Aws and the Khazraj, and prior to the formal agreement with the Jews in the sahifah or ‘document’.

While scholars may come to approve some such view of the existing text of the Constitution of Medina, there is much that is bound to remain conjectural and obscure. Thus, is 44 an earlier version of the middle clause of 37? Are the Jews of Banu ‘Awf given a special place because ‘Abdallah b. Ubayy first obtained good terms for them? Why are the Jews of Banu ‘l-Aws mentioned twice? Is Banu l-Aws here and in 30 identical with Banu ‘l-Aws in 10 (which is commonly taken to be the group usually known as Awsallah), or is it the whole tribe of the Aws? This is not the place to pursue such queries further. This study of the text of the Constitution, however, is sufficient to justify the use of it as a source for the ideas underlying the Islamic state in the early formative years, while at the same time it warns us not to base an argument solely on the supposed date of any article of the Constitution.

Muhammad Husain Haykal (or Heikal) (born 1923) was a powerful journalist and editor of Al Ahram (1957-1974), widely read in the Arab world and internationally. He also served as an adviser to Egyptian Presidents Nasser and Sadat.  The wording of the covenant has been reported by him in his book, the Life of Muhammad: