The Medina Charter and Islam’s False Claim of Democracy
When I began to write my book Islam: Religion of Peace? — The Violation of Natural Rights and Western Cover-Up a couple of years ago, I became fascinated with a video of an exchange between then-President George W. Bush and a student during a discourse on the global war on terrorism at Johns Hopkins University in 2006. The student prefaced a question to him: “Considering that it was, in fact, the Prophet Mohammed who established the first known constitution in the world—I’m referring to the constitution he wrote for the city of Medina—and that his life and the principles outlined in his constitution, such as the championing of the welfare of women, children and the poor, living as an equal among his people,…I’m wondering how might [you could] educate Americans about the democratic principles inherent in Islam?” To which Bush responded: “I think it is vital for our future that we encourage liberty, and…as you said, it doesn’t necessarily run contrary to what the Prophet Mohammad said.”
Many in the Muslim world, as in the West, maintain that the Medina Charter, traditionally delineated by the Prophet Muhammad in 622, was the first ever constitution to historically establish certain democratic principles and peace among nations. Far be it to challenge that it brought political harmony with the non-believers, let alone fostering human rights as the precursor to democracy, for historically, as soon as Muhammad had the upper-hand with the tribes and nomadic peoples he negotiated with, he reneged on his promises. It must first be pointed out that the Medina Charter was more of an agreement among tribal groups that singled out certain individual privileges and duties among them, as well as the limitations placed on non-Muslims. A constitution, instead, is the fundamental and organic law of a nation or state that establishes the institutions and apparatus of government, whereby the scope of governmental power is defined, in addition to guaranteeing individual civil rights, as our US Bill of Rights — something the Charter of Medina did not. That being said, a constitution presupposes democracy, something that is completely absent in a state that relies on sharia law.
The concept of an Islamic constitutional tradition is complex in light of orthodox Islamic understandings of the utter sovereignty and agency of Allah over the entire world, governments and governed alike. In any case, as the 20th-century Arab scholar Robert Bertram Serjeant explained, the Charter as a constitution is pretentious, especially since there is doubt among scholars as to whether it was written as a unitary document. There is also question as to its historicity—I being one of them—since only fragments from early Islamic sources survive; most of it can be found in Ibn Ishaq’s Sirah Rasul Allah, the first biography of Muhammad two hundred years after his death.
Humoring the argument that the Charter is a constitution, two technical points are to be looked at, which would disclaim this. The first is the Medinan period, in which the Charter was apparently written, occurred after iMuhammad and a handful of followers were forced to leave Mecca since he was incapable of convincing his fellow Meccans to convert to his preaching. Having heard of his gift of prophecy, he was invited to Medina to act as a judge to mediate disputes between the various clans and clan chiefs. In Western terms, Muhammad was primus inter pares (first amongst equals) and the intent of the invitation did not include changing the status quo of power relationships within Medina beyond recognizing him as a prophet able to give rulings on behalf of God.
The second point would to be looked at as that Ibn Ishaq simply relates: “The apostle wrote a document concerning the emigrants and the helpers in which he made a friendly agreement with the Jews and established them in their religion and their property, and stated the reciprocal obligations.” This seems an odd introduction for something that is often referred to as a type of constitution. In the first place, it only mentions an agreement between the emigrants and the helpers’ and the Jews, rather than with the people of Medina, as one might expect. It clearly delineates a separate identity between the Muslims and the Jews rather than a unified populace. What one may assume is that this served the purposes of Ishaq’s narrative in explaining the eventual falling out between Muhammad and the Jews, an assumption bolstered by the fact that Muhammad himself went on to contradict this division when he asserted that various groups of Jews are one community with the believers.
President Bush, during his speech on the 20th anniversary of the National Endowment for Democracy stated: “It should be clear to all that Islam—the faith of one-fifth of humanity—is consistent with democratic rule. More than half of all the Muslims in the world live in freedom under democratically constituted governments.” This could not have been any farther from the truth. An Islamic country, my friends, because it cannot separate itself from its religion, since such unity is anthropologically based on the sharia—the daily guide for Muslims forged from the Quran and the hadiths—which negates any sort of equity or social development within the socio-political field. Such political stagnation and incongruity are what Kemal Mustafa Atatürk fought against and changed after the Turkish War of Independence when he eliminated the caliphate in 1924. He publicly maintained Islam was a “a theology of an immoral Arab, and while it might have suited tribes of nomads in the desert,” it is vitiated by its sharia-based antiquated structure; it was counterproductive for a modern and developing state.
Democracy, from our Western perception, prevents government from making laws which prohibit the free exercise of religion, or abridge the freedom of speech, the freedom of the press, the right to peacefully assemble, or the right to petition the government for redress of grievances. Even those states that have adopted a “democratic” structure of government, such as Iran, Egypt, and the Kingdom of Morocco, in fact they apply draconian legislation, like the death penalty for apostasy or the suppression of the right to speak and press, not unlike that of the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia where sharia is the prevailing law. So much for the democracy the Prophet of Islam instituted.
N.B. Originally published on http://thegreatarchitect.blog on March 14, 2019.
Mario Alexis Portella is author of Islam: Religion of Peace? – The Violation of Natural Rights and Western Cover-Up
Book is available on Amazon:
Barnes & Noble:
https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/islam-mario-alexis-portella/1129630361?ean=9781973635550
WestBow Press:
https://www.westbowpress.com/Bookstore/BookDetail.aspx?BookId=SKU-001168034
Found the untruth says
====================================
The verse is part of a parable (story) that Jesus taught and commanded his disciples to do. Jesus never hurt or killed anyone. Unlike Krishna, Shiva, Rama, Moses, etc.
Thus, this verse has nothing to do with an individual turning the other cheek, nor does it speak to the idea of human governance at all. What it does teach is that all mankind will one day face the judgment of God. Those who have hated and rejected God will be punished.
====================================
So you agree that your “god”does violence at the end by punishing people who rejected him for not providing enough evidence.
Yet you blame Hindu Gods for punishing evil or killing evil demons. The is typical crustian hypocrisy.
By the way, Moses killed unbelievers and took sex slaves because your evil demonic bible god told so.
OTH THE god of bible and Quran are rapist gods who commands his followers to rape unbelievers.
Numbers 31:7-18 NLT CLEARLY EXPOSES THAT RAPE IS THE PURPOSE OF VIRGIN GIRLS.
17: Now kill all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man.
18. Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves.
Now, why should all boys be killed? and why the hell women who have slept with a man be killed? Why is virginity of girls important? IT IS OBVIOUSLY FOR SEX. NOW crustians CLAIMS THAT THOSE GIRLS WERE MARRIED? ….SO DID MOHAMMAD SUPPOSEDLY MARRY ALL THOSE WOMEN HE RAPED. Will a girl marry and sleep with men who have killed their male relatives?
NOW some crustians FOOLISHLY ASKS WHERE DOES IT SAY THEY SLEPT WITH HER…….
DEUTERONOMY 21:10-14 CLEARLY PUTS UP RULES FOR HAVING SEX WITH CAPTIVE WOMEN (UNDER THE NAME OF MARRIAGE)….NOWHERE IT TALKS ABOUT CONSENT OF CAPTIVE WOMEN. OBVIOUSLY IT IS RAPE….NOW WHICH CAPTIVE WOMAN WOULD WILLINGLY MARRY AND SLEEP WITH HER CAPTORS WHO HAVE REDUCED HER TO A SEX SLAVE AFTER KILLING HER MALE RELATIVES? HOW IS THIS ANY DIFFERENT FROM MOHAMMAD, WHO WAS MERELY FOLLOWING EVIL Old Testament JUST LIKE EVIL QURAN….BOTH ARE SAME…
10 When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the Lord thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive,
11 And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife;
12 Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house, and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails;
13 And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife.
NOW some crustian GOES FURTHER AND CLAIMS THE EVIL Old Testament ALSO PRESCRIBES DEATH FOR RAPE…..REALLY…is there no limit to LYING AMONG THE FOLLOWERS OF DESERT RELIGIONS?
Laws of Rape (Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NAB)
If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.
What kind of lunatic would make a rape victim marry her attacker? Answer: demonic BIBLE god……
CLEARLY THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MOSES AND OTHER Old Testament PROFITEERS AND MOHAMMAD THE PROFITEER….BOTH THE gods YAHWEH AND ALLAH are THE SAME DEMONIC gods.
Look at this video and the comments on youtube
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I2i824Vq708
Mario Alexis Portella writes: “In Western terms, Muhammad was primus inter pares (first amongst equals) and the intent of the invitation did not include changing the status quo of power relationships within Medina beyond recognizing him as a prophet able to give rulings on behalf of God.”
That is certainly one interpretation, but I wonder if you have given due weight to the Second pledge of Aqaba which is often called “the pledge of war”?
Whilst I would agree that the general populace (and even may of the tribal leaders) thought ol’Mo role wouls be as you describe 2nd aqaba indicates that this was not what he, nor the Aws and and Khazrah tribes, thought would happen.
In the event, Mohammed went not so much as a judge but as judge and jury and executioner too.
Please read this post https://thegreatarchitect.blog/2019/03/22/why-isnt-any-speaking-about-the-christian-persecutions-2/
@Found the Truth
I accept Jesus is God. But why I am not coming out of my ignorance? Why is not Jesus helping me.?
Learn the truth about the teachings of the 3 main religious scriptures in the world. The Bhagavad-Gita, Bible, and the Quran.
https://eternalreligion.org/wp-content/uploads/pdf-files/summary-of-comparative-religion-teachings.pdf
Learn why Lord Krishna is the only proven God. If anyone can create the below for their God. I will be happy to follow their God. This would be impossible, because God is One, Lord Krishna.
https://eternalreligion.org/wp-content/uploads/pdf-files/Lord-Krishna.pdf
There is ZERO proof for the God the Bible and Quran. This is because, God is One, Lord Krishna.
Walking on water, multiplying food, bringing back the dead, curing the sick etc.. All these miracles have been performed by Buddha, Lord Krishna, and thousands of Yogis. Only Lord Krishna performed miracles beyond these. These are documented in the above link.
In the gospel of Luke, Jesus says, “But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me.” Whoa, that doesn’t sound like the meek and mild-mannered Jesus we know. Did He wake up on the wrong side of the bed? What’s going on?
When I teach on “Never Read a Bible Verse,” I often cite this passage because it’s a great example of how someone who reads (or hears) only a single Bible verse out of context can easily mistake its meaning.
This verse, though, is not a command of Christ. When you read it in context, you quickly realize that Jesus is telling a parable (a fictitious story) about a king whose subjects hate him. It’s the king in the story, not Jesus, who issues the order to kill his enemies.
“But bring here these enemies of mine, who did not want me to rule over them, and slaughter them in my presence.’” (Luke 19:27 CSB).
The verse is part of a parable (story) that Jesus taught and commanded his disciples to do. Jesus never hurt or killed anyone. Unlike Krishna, Shiva, Rama, Moses, etc.
The parable seems intended to teach about the judgment of God at this point. It does not suggest that human governance should even follow this example. He merely uses what could and often did happen to illustrate a point of God’s supreme governance.
11 As they heard these things, he proceeded to tell a parable, because he was near to Jerusalem, and because they supposed that the kingdom of God was to appear immediately. 12 He said therefore, “A nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom and then return. 13 Calling ten of his servants, he gave them ten minas, and said to them, ‘Engage in business until I come.’ 14 But his citizens hated him and sent a delegation after him, saying, ‘We do not want this man to reign over us.’
15 When he returned, having received the kingdom, he ordered these servants to whom he had given the money to be called to him, that he might know what they had gained by doing business. 16 The first came before him, saying, ‘Lord, your mina has made ten minas more.’ 17 And he said to him, ‘Well done, good servant![c] Because you have been faithful in a very little, you shall have authority over ten cities.’ 18 And the second came, saying, ‘Lord, your mina has made five minas.’ 19 And he said to him, ‘And you are to be over five cities.’ 20 Then another came, saying, ‘Lord, here is your mina, which I kept laid away in a handkerchief; 21 for I was afraid of you, because you are a severe man. You take what you did not deposit, and reap what you did not sow.’
22 He said to him, ‘I will condemn you with your own words, you wicked servant! You knew that I was a severe man, taking what I did not deposit and reaping what I did not sow? 23 Why then did you not put my money in the bank, and at my coming I might have collected it with interest?’ 24 And he said to those who stood by, ‘Take the mina from him, and give it to the one who has the ten minas.’ 25 And they said to him, ‘Lord, he has ten minas!’ 26 ‘I tell you that to everyone who has, more will be given, but from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away. 27 But as for these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slaughter them before me.’” Luke 19:11-27 ESV
Thus, this verse has nothing to do with an individual turning the other cheek, nor does it speak to the idea of human governance at all. What it does teach is that all mankind will one day face the judgment of God. Those who have hated and rejected God will be punished.
Tomorrow at about 8 am EDT on my blog: thegreatarchitect.blog I shall have an article entitled: Why Isn’t Anyone Speaking About the Christian Persecutions?
I hope you can click one and follow. Blessings to all of you!
Dear “Found the Truth”
You have found lies and not the truth. Even Jesus calls you en evil doer based on his teachings.
True and False Disciples (based on the statements made by Jesus)
“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’ (Matthew 7:21-23)
Based on the above, those who make Jesus into God and neglect the real God, are evildoers.
Jesus ordering the killing of men, women and children:
“And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain.” (Deuteronomy 2:34 KJV)
“Don’t assume that I came to bring peace on the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.” (Matthew 10:34 CSB)
“But bring here these enemies of mine, who did not want me to rule over them, and slaughter them in my presence.’” (Luke 19:27 CSB)
Only one example should suffice to illustrate the success of Jesus’ teaching; “slaughter them in my presence.”
Godfrey of Bouillon conquest of Jerusalem (c1060-1100) ― Known as the “First Crusade:”
“The defenders fled along the walls and through the city, and our men pursued them killing and cutting them down as far as Solomon’s Temple, where there was such a massacre that our men were wading ankle deep in blood … Then the crusaders rushed around the whole city, seizing gold and silver, horses and mules, and looting the housing that were full of costly things. Then, rejoicing and weeping from excess of happiness, they all came to worship and give thanks at the sepulcher of our savior Jesus. Next morning, they went cautiously up the temple roof and attacked the Saracens, both men and women [who had taken refuge there], cutting off their heads with drawn swords … Our leaders then gave orders that all the Saracen corpses should be thrown outside the city because of the stench, for almost the whole city was full of dead bodies … such a slaughter of pagans had never been seen or heard of, for they were burned in pyres like pyramids, and none save God alone knows how many they were.”
Raymond of Aguiles provided eyewitness account which shows the spiritual excitement that the carnage produced among the Christians.
“Wonderful sights were to be seen. Some of our men (and this was more merciful) cut off the heads of their enemies; others shoot them with arrows, so that they fell from the towers; others tortured them longer by casting them into flames. Piles of heads, hands and feet were to be seen in the streets of the city. It was necessary to pick one’s way over the bodies of men and horses. But these were small matters compared to what happened at the Temple of Solomon, a place where religious services are normally chanted … in the temple and the porch of Solomon, men rode in blood up to their knees and bridle reins. Indeed it was a just and splendid judgement of God that this place should be filled with the blood of unbelievers since it had suffered so long from their blasphemies.”
Dear “Found the Truth”
You are full of lies. The below statement is 100% incorrect.
“Krishna taught (e.g. to Arjuna in Gita) to kill your enemies”
Why don’t you quote from the Bhagavad-Gita to prove your points?
Lord Krishna told Arjuna to fight because he was on the battlefield and a soldier in the military. It’s the duty for soldiers to fight when war is declared on them. Before the war, Lord Krishna approached both parties and told them to resolve their issues peacefully. But the other side (Durodhan) refused and thus Arjuna had no choice but to fight and Lord Krishna merely asked him to do his duty of being a soldier. Also Durodhan was a very bad guy.
Only the Bhagavad-Gita preaches to love all living beings. The Bible and Quran does not.
Give up Hatred – Take up Kindness
“One who is not envious but is a kind friend to all
living entities – Such a devotee of Mine is very dear to Me.”
(Lord Krishna, Bhagavad-Gita 12.13-14)
“Who is friendly to every living entity, certainly comes to Me.”
(Lord Krishna, Bhagavad-Gita 11.55)
Thanks for the feedback! I would like to share with you this piece I just posted on my blog. God bless!
https://thegreatarchitect.blog/posts/
Thanks Mario, for the wonderful explanation you have given to the ‘Medina Charter; where as President George W. Bush was in the dark. Anyway Presidents do not have time to go deeper into every aspect of Islam.
I do not know whether Medina Charter includes Jizya- protection money and blood money.
Mohammad is so unreliable. Even after Medina Charter he murdered 600-900 Jews.
“According to Sahih Bukhari (Volume 4, Book 52, Number 280), after 25 days of holding Banu Qurayza besieged, the Jews eventually surrendered unconditionally as was demanded by our Holy Prophet. By the order of our Holy Prophet, between 600 and 900 of the Jewish men were beheaded.
Even if these Jews were found ‘treacherous’, was he not a “mercy of God to mankind” as Allah has said in the Quran? How could he then commit this horrendous massacre?
Yet, Mohammad boasted of such cruelties: “I have been made victorious through terror”. (Bukhari 4:52:220)
We need to cool down and follow Jesus. Jesus taught us to forgive those who hurt us. He said to love your enemies. Bless those who curse you. We have to win them with love.
Krishna taught (e.g. to Arjuna in Gita) to kill your enemies, even if they are your brother, sister, father, mother, grandfather, children etc and Krishna justified it by saying that you are killing the body and not the soul.
Mohammad told to kill your enemies and all those who are not muslim and by while doing this if you die you will go to heaven and have 72 virgins..
We cannot use hatred and violence here. We need follow Jesus.
Jesus is the only way, the truth and life.
The actual word “Republic” has on origin the Latin meaning “Of the people” With the mullahs ayatollahs in so much power and even influencing the parliament of this Islamic regime is tyranny is hardly a real republic .Furthermore the ruthless gang of thugs who are the stooges of those Muslim clerics, called the “Revolutionary Guards,” those Islamic State “police” come down hard on the human rights and freedoms of the Iranian people. Therefore the people do have the right to overthrow a tyranny. This reality had even been expressed and described by men of great intelligence .For example the philosopher .John Locke. This is wisdom that mullahs and other villains in power in that Islamic tyranny don’t want the Iranian people to know about or understand.
As about this tyrannical Islamic regime of Iran which has the official title of “The Isla mic Republic of Iran” and also about the chief and head Imam, Ayatollah Khomeini, who had a strong hand in establishing this so called “Republic “ The very actual essence of that Islamic tyranny ,Ayatollah Khomeini had made in known that “The Islamic Republic of Iran would be Islamic and nothing but .He declared ‘What the nation wants is an Islamic Republic . Not just a Republic, not a democratic Republic, not a democratic Islamic Republic. Do not use the word “democratic” to describe it. That is the Western style. ‘” [1]
[1]`THE HISTORY OF JIHAD by Robert Spencer, page 318.
One of the definitions of Terrorism is the terrorism is “The use of violence for the achievement of political ends which is common to state and non- state groups.”
Therefore, Islam with its Islamic terrorism actually fits within this definition. As difficult and hard as this might be for some Westerners, especially Americans, to comprehend and understand. For example, many Americans do strongly understand the concept of the “separation of religion and state.”
For Islam is a religious/ political /Sharia law based system that had total and complete control over the thoughts values , lives , behavior of millions of people around the world. This also included the use of violence to achieve the advancement of the power of Islam. As Islam’s “holy book” the Quran does strangely instructs, as in Surah 2:191, 5:33. 9:5, 111, 47:4.
So the above definition of “non- state group” describes al Qaeda, Boko Haram , Al Shabaab, etc.
For the definition of “state” terrorism the rough state of Iran serve as good example , is i his Islamic terrors it inflects on the Iranian people though is violent ruffians gangs of Islamic state “police” who are called the “Revolutionary Guards.” Furthermore , the state “mullah regime “ of Iran also funds ,supports and uses in violent and murderous Muslim stooge jihad groups and Hezbollah and Hamas to achieve its religious /political agenda . So indeed Islam is political and with its violence fits the above definition.
Islam is in essence, a religious /political Sharia law based system. As so well explained in brief way, by the Muslim tyrant who and ruled Iran, Ayatollah Khomeini when he stated that “All Islam is politics.” [1]
[1] THE ISLAM IN ISLAMIC TERRORISM by Ibn Warraq , page 332.