Re: The Constitution of Medina & Sharia
Peace Shamraz
This assessment is not cogent. I’m being blunt about this so I apologise.
The constitutional state … is not what you think it is … There were no people sitting in a circle deciding how the laws should be developed. That is democracy.
Rather, what was done was that the chieftains of each tribe saw the charter/constitution and agreed to the terms and their signing it meant all of their followers would have to be abide by it. This has nothing to do with democracy, because the content of the charter/constitution was purely from RasoolAllah (SAW) under inspiration and guidance from Allah (SWT). Effectively that is Shari’ah.
Democracy is about deciding whose opinion should be followed based on popularity. Say for example, chief X has 50 people and chief Y has 20, if the tribe of chief X all want to paint the doors of the town in blue paint and all the tribe of chief Y want to do so in red paint then a vote in the whole town would determine that all the doors will be painted in blue.
Another version of democracy is that whatever the leader says goes, but the people need to vote him in place first. So the only vote that counts is the one where you appoint the leader and thereafter there is no more “democracy” just whatever the leader wants … Even this model does not fit the constitution of Madinah, because no one was standing in opposition to RasoolAllah (SAW) - God forbid … and there was no election process.
What happened in Madinah was that the people who were already leaders collectively, but independently and under no obligation recognised RasoolAllah (SAW) as the prophet of Allah (SWT) and gave bayah to him (SAW). Later what happened in the case of the Khulafah … was that there is an existing hierarchy in place. When the leader passes away then the existing authorities choose a leader among themselves. If 50 people choose person X, and 20 people choose person Y, then if person X chooses person Y, even though person Y has only 21 allegiances and X has 50 … Y will still be appointed leader, because the allegiance is not a choice of who will lead … but it is a declaration that whatever decision the person makes they will respect it.
Democracy is about campaigning and trying to be appointed - the set-up in Madinah was about being given leadership without seeking it out.
Well, were are talking about 2 different things here. 1) Democracy and 2) Sharia. People who are trying to impose “Sharia” on rest argue that democracy is un-Islamic western concept, yet Sharia has never been defined as for what it is.
We know that Prophet himself never said anything about Sharia, but he did rule Medina (one of the 1st territory ruled by Muslims) and he never impose Sharia there. In fact, they agreed on a charter/constitution that was acceptable to all. So the question is 1) where did the concept of Sharia originated? And 2) what is Sharia?