Medina, A federal secular republic?
Edip Yuksel is politically progressive and vocal about
it. We can even see his politics preach out to us from the pages of his work,
which he calls the “Reformist translation of the Qur’an.” A couple of times Edip Yuksel refers to the
early state established by the Muslims as a “federal secular republic.” At
other times Yuskel labels the early state of Medina as a “federal secular
democracy.” The words democracy, secular
and federal come up time again throughout his translation. Is this best way to
refer to the early state of Medianh? We will briefly examine Edip Yuksel’s
claims on the nature state established by the Prophet Muhammad.
The treaty of Hudayybiyah is an important hallmark in Islamic
history. Often referred to as the “constitution” of Medinah, the treaty is certainly
a pioneer effort in establishing a just society along the lines of different
communities living and thriving together.
The treaty was established by the Prophet Muhammad in an alliance with
the non- believing tribes and Jews that inhabited the city of Medinah. There is always a tendency to exaggerate the
good aspects of history. The treaty of Hudayybiyah is in my view proof of the
good intentions of the Prophet Muhammad and the nascent Muslim community. But how
much more can we say about it? Edip
Yuksel believes the treaty is proof that the Prophet had modern concepts of
government. Yuksel uses the treaty and
some verses of the Qur’an to attempt to prove his assertions that that Quran
exhibits “progressive” notions. Commenting on 2:193 Yuksel writes in the footnote
“ God's system is based on freedom of faith and expression. God's system
recommends an egalitarian republic, and a federally secular system that allows
multiple jurisdictions for different religious or non-religious groups..” We
will see Yukel use the terms “secular” “federal” and “republic” over and over
again.
In what way would Yuksel argue that the Islamic system established
by the Prophet Muhamad was a republic as he comments on 2:193? Elsewhere, commenting on 4:140 Yuksel said
that the early Medinian state was a “federal
secular democracy.” Democracy or republic? Which is it? We assume that Yuskel would know the
difference between the two terms: democracy and republic. We understood that
often the terms “democracy” and republic” are used interchangeably. But Yuksel has an obligation to describe the
nature of this republic/democratic state. What was the nature of participation of the
masses of people in the state to make it a democracy? Were there elected representatives
to govern Medina like a republic? If so, then who elected them? We do not really get an answer to these
questions in the commentary Edip provides.
One claim is made to prove the democratic nature of the
state by using the pledge of women to the Prophet as an example. He refers to
the pledge as the “right to vote.” Commenting on 60:12 Yuskel writes, “In this
verse, the prophet acknowledges women's right to vote, by taking the pledge of
believing women to peacefully surrender themselves to God alone and lead a
righteous life. The word "BaYA'" used in the verse implies the
political nature of the pledge; they accepted the leadership of the prophet
individually, with their free choice. This verse is not about some pagan or
mushrik women embracing islam, but is about a group of muslim women publicly
announcing their allegiance to Muhammad, who became a founder of a federally
secular constitutional government in central Arabia…” According to Yuksel, the example of the
women pledging their allegiance to the Prophet is an example of the “right to
vote” He tries to show the arabic baya
as indicating a “political nature.” We then
see this as proof of a “federally secular constitutional government.”
Yuksel is right that 60:12 is not referring to idolaters
who just embraced islam. Giving baya is
not just limited to embracing islam. A pledge is given to reigning caliphs as
well as Sufi murshids by people who have long accepted islam. In both these cases one proclaims loyalty to a
respective person. But how exactly the pledge an example of the “right to vote?”
Was there anyone else to give the pledge
to? Sure, the women had the choice not
to pledge that alone does not qualify
the situation as a “right to vote.”
What is the nature of the pledge to the prophet? One of the first pledges was at Aqaba when
the Prophet traveled to Medinah at the beginning of Hijra. A hadith attributed to ibn Jarir in Bukhari
gives a similar list of duties prescribed to the companions on their pledge to
the prophet. The point of the pledge is
to give obedience to the messenger of God. Obedience is not the same as democracy
because you cannot un-elect the messenger of God. The verses that discuss
obedience to the messenger are well known and elaborated upon in Surah Nisa and
elsewhere. To claim that giving bay3 has
anything to do with the right to vote is misleading.
Edip Yuksel describes the system of government as “federal
secularism” when commenting on 2:193. What does that term even mean? We need to
break these terms down. Yuksel continues about Medinah, that the prophet, “established
a successful example of a federal secular system by dividing the territory into
independent legal jurisdictions to accommodate the diverse religious, social,
and political preferences of its communities.” The treaty of Hudaybiyah established
a system in which the various tribes and societies that composed Median had
their own respective laws. The Muslims had their courts to use for various affairs
and the Jews had their own courts to use which were independent of Muslim jurisdiction. Yuksel gives the example in Surah 5:83 where
the Prophet asks a group of Jews why they take legislation from him when they
have the Torah. A federal system of government has a strong central authority
but allows for internal affairs. The system
at Medinah could be described as federal in this sense but it was one based on
tribal societies and not based on the modern notions of a state that came into
being after the treaty of Westphalia on modern times.
Where does the “secularism” come into the Medina
society? Yuksel finds it apparently in
the non-coercive religious authority that existed in Medina. But a lack of religious
of coercion need not imply secularism. When the debate about secularism comes
up we often bring up the subject the separation of church and state. Could we really describe early Islam as being
subservient to such notions? Yuksel believes the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah manifested secularism due to non-coercive character
of the constitution which is true. But did the treaty advocate a “secular”
environment like the one we talk about where there is a separation of church
and state? That would be a weak
argument. It is well known that in the original draft of the Treaty the Jews
told Hazrat Ali to remove the words “messenger of God” by the Prophet’s name. “O
Ali! Delete it and write ‘Muhammad b. Abdullah’.” (Sahih Muslim; Ahmad.) Ali did not want to remove the term but Muhammad
consented to it eventually. No one would
call a document “secular” that had the word “messenger of God attached.” Of course the term “messenger of God” was not
in the ratified agreement but the intention of the founders was well
known. The society of Medinah was not
one in which one group coerced the others to have another faith. But to argue
that the society was “secular” is problematic.
The terms “secular” and “federal” have to do with modern
notions of the state that did not exist at the time of the Qur’an reception. I agree with Edip Yuksel that the society
created by the Prophet manifested some values that modern egalitarian thinkers can
look upon as being noteworthy for contemporary political issues. However to label
the early Medina society as a “democracy” or “secular” creates anachronistic problems.
When we read the Qur’an the believer had the double task of not sacrificing
their own values (the way fundamentalists do) but also the other task of not trying to push
their own values into the Qur’an itself.
No comments:
Post a Comment