The Announce­ment of the Con­sti­tu­tion of Madinah

Akram Diya al Umari

Excerpt­ed from Mad­i­nan Soci­ety At the Time of the Prophet, Inter­na­tion­al Islam­ic Pub­lish­ing House & IIIT, 1991

The treaty with the Jews

The Prophet (P) orga­nized the rela­tion­ships between the var­i­ous inhab­i­tants of Mad­i­nah, and record­ed this in a doc­u­ment which is report­ed in the his­tor­i­cal sources. The aim of this doc­u­ment was to explain the com­mit­ments of each group with­in Mad­i­nah, and to define their rights and duties. In the old sources this doc­u­ment is called at-Kitab (the book) and al-Sahj­fah (sheet of paper). Mod­ern research calls it at-Dus­tur (the Con­sti­tu­tion) or al-Wathiqah (the Document).

The sources through which the Doc­u­ment was reported

Con­tem­po­rary researchers have relied upon the doc­u­ment as the basis for their study of the Messenger?s reforms in Madinah.[1]

But it is most essen­tial to ascer­tain to what extent the doc­u­ment is authen­tic, before bas­ing any stud­ies on it, espe­cial­ly since one of the researchers con­sid­ers the doc­u­ment to be fabricated.[2]

In view of the legal (shar’i) impor­tance of the doc­u­ments, besides its his­tor­i­cal impor­tance, it must be judged accord­ing to the stan­dards of the schol­ars of hadith, in order to deter­mine its strength or weak­ness. It should not be dealt with as light­ly as oth­er his­tor­i­cal reports. The ear­li­est schol­ar who report­ed the text of the Con­sti­tu­tion was Muham­mad ibn Ishaq (d. 151 AH), but he report­ed it with­out an isnad.[3] Both Ibn Sayyid al Nas[4] and Ibn Kathir[5] claimed to have trans­mit­ted it from him, and they both trans­mit­ted it with­out isnad also. Al Bayhaqi[6] referred to Ibn Ishaq?s isnad of the doc­u­ment which defines the rela­tion­ships between the Muha­jirun and the Ansar, with­out includ­ing the claus­es which dealt with the Jews. For this rea­son, we can­not be sure that he took it from the same source. Ibn Sayyid al Nas relates that Ibn Abu Khaythamah[7] also report­ed it through Abd Allah ibn Sal­ih in an isnad sim­i­lar to that report­ed by Abu ?Ubayd.[8]

These are the ways in which the full text of the doc­u­ment were report­ed. All the reports are very sim­i­lar, apart from some dif­fer­ences in the arrange­ments of phras­es, or slight dif­fer­ences in vocab­u­lary, or a slight increase in the num­ber of phras­es. But these dif­fer­ences do not affect its gen­er­al content.

The extent of the doc­u­men­t’s authenticity

A num­ber of mod­ern schol­ars have based their stud­ies on the doc­u­ment, but on the whole, Pro­fes­sor Yusuf al ?Ish has sug­gest­ed that the doc­u­ment is a fab­ri­ca­tion. He says : It was not report­ed in the books of jurispru­dence and authen­tic hadith, in spite of its leg­isla­tive impor­tance. Rather, Ibn Ishaq report­ed it with­out isnad, and Ibn Sayyid al Nas trans­mit­ted it from him.”

He added that Kathir ibn Abd Allah ibn Amr al Muzani report­ed it from his father, and from his grand­fa­ther. Ibn Hib­ban al Busti men­tioned that Kathir al Muzani report­ed a fab­ri­cat­ed ver­sion from his father and grand­fa­ther. It is not per­mit­ted (halal) to include it in a book or to nar­rate from it, except for the pur­pose of express­ing amazement.[9] Al ?Ish thinks that Ibn Ishaq relied on the report of Kathir, but delib­er­ate­ly omit­ted the isnad.[10]

Pro­fes­sor al Ish made that sug­ges­tion because he thought that the Doc­u­ment had not been report­ed by any­body oth­er than Ibn Ishaq. He could not find any oth­er isnad for it apart from that which Ibn Sayyid al Nas refers to from Ibn Abu Khaythamah?s report of it through Kathir al Muzani. But Abu Ubayd al Qasim ibn Salam cit­ed the Doc­u­ment through al Zuhri. This is an inde­pen­dent chain which has no con­nec­tion with Kathir al Muzani. In view of the fact that Ibn Ishaq was one of the most dis­tin­guished stu­dents of al Zuhri, there is a pos­si­bil­i­ty that he cit­ed the Doc­u­ment through al Zuhri except for the fact that al Bay­haqi iden­ti­fied Ibn Ishaq?s isnad for the Doc­u­ment which defined the rela­tion­ships between the Muha­jirun and the Ansar, with­out includ­ing the claus­es which dealt with the Jews. We can­not be sure whether Ibn Ishaq took the claus­es which dealt with the Jews from this source or from anoth­er. Al Bay­haqi said : ?Uth­man ibn Muham­mad ibn al Mughi­rah ibn al Akhnas ibn Shu­rayq said : I took this Doc­u­ment, along with the doc­u­ment of al sadaqah, from the fam­i­ly of ?Umar ibn al Khat­tab.” The hadith is daif in this isnad, because the isnad includes men who are daif in one way or anoth­er, such as Uth­man, who is trust­wor­thy, but some­times is con­fused and makes mis­takes ; and Yunus ibn Bukayr, who is known to make mis­takes ; and al Attar, who is weak. This report should be con­sid­ered seri­ous­ly, in spite of its weak­ness, and it has been acknowl­edged. The text destroys the base upon which Pro­fes­sor al ?Ish built his opin­ion. It is not pos­si­ble to judge the Doc­u­ment as being fab­ri­cat­ed just because the books of hadith did not report its com­plete text. The books of hadith report­ed many of its claus­es, as will be point­ed out in this study.

Hence, it becomes clear that it is reck­less to judge the Doc­u­ment as being fab­ri­cat­ed. The Doc­u­ment as a whole, how­ev­er, can­not be put on a par with the authen­tic sahih. Ibn Ishaq report­ed it in his Sir­ah with­out isnad, which makes his report daif. Al Bay­haqi also report­ed it from Ibn Ishaq, with an isnad which includes Sa?d ibn al Mund­hir, who is maqbul (accept­able) only. Ibn Abu Khaythamah report­ed it through Kathir ibn Abd Allah ibn Amr al Muzani, who has nar­rat­ed fab­ri­cat­ed mate­r­i­al. Abu ?Ubayd al Qasim ibn Salam report­ed it with a munqati ? isnad (an isnad hav­ing a miss­ing link) which only goes back to al Zuhri, who is one of the less­er Tabi­un, so his mur­sal hadith (trans­mis­sion of a tra­di­tion of a suc­ces­sor from the Prophet direct­ly, drop­ping the com­pan­ion from the isnad) can­not be tak­en as evidence.

But there are some texts of the Doc­u­ment which have been report­ed in the books of hadith, some of which were report­ed by al Bukhari and Mus­lim. These texts are among authen­tic hadith. The jurists used them as evi­dence and based their rul­ings on them. Some of these texts were report­ed in the Mus­nad of Imam Ahmad, and in the Sunan of Abu Dawud, Ibn Majah and al Tir­mid­hi. These texts came through a dif­fer­ent source, inde­pen­dent of the chain of trans­mit­ters through which the com­plete doc­u­ment came. Even if the doc­u­ment, as a whole, is not valid as evi­dence for the rul­ings of the Shari­ah ? apart from the parts which were report­ed in the authen­tic books of hadith ? it is still valid as a basis for his­tor­i­cal study, which does not require such a high lev­el of authen­tic­i­ty as is required for legal judg­ments, espe­cial­ly since the Doc­u­ment was report­ed through numer­ous chains of trans­mit­ters which com­bine to give it strength. Al Zuhri is one of the great­est schol­ars among the ear­ly pio­neers in writ­ing the Sir­ah of the Prophet. The most impor­tant books of Sir­ah and his­tor­i­cal sources includ­ed the Prophet’s peace treaty, which was writ­ten down[11] and also referred to his draw­ing up a writ­ten agree­ment between the Muha­jirun and the Ansar.

The style of the Doc­u­ment sup­ports its authen­tic­i­ty. Its para­graphs are formed of short and sim­ple ? not com­pli­cat­ed ? sen­tences. There is much rep­e­ti­tion, and it uses words and expres­sions which were com­mon at the time of the Mes­sen­ger, and which became less fre­quent­ly used, even­tu­al­ly prov­ing too dif­fi­cult for those who had not stud­ied that peri­od in depth. There is noth­ing in the Doc­u­ment to com­mend or con­demn any indi­vid­ual or group. Hence we can say that the Doc­u­ment is authen­tic, and not a forgery”[12]. The many sim­i­lar­i­ties between the style of the Doc­u­ment and the style of oth­er writ­ings dic­tat­ed by the Prophet also com­mend it as being authentic.

The date of the writ­ing of the document

It is more like­ly that there were orig­i­nal­ly two parts to the doc­u­ment, which his­to­ri­ans joined togeth­er. One of them dealt with the Messenger?s peace treaty with the Jews, and the oth­er explained the com­mit­ments, rights and duties of the Mus­lims, both Muha­jrun and Ansar.

It is most like­ly that the doc­u­ment of the peace treaty with the Jews was writ­ten before the Bat­tle of Badr[13] and the doc­u­ment between the Muha­jirun and Ansar was writ­ten after Badr. The sources men­tion that the peace treaty with the Jews was con­clud­ed when the Mes­sen­ger first came to Mad­i­nah. Abu Ubayd al Qasim ibn Salam said that the doc­u­ment record­ed two events : the com­ing of the Mes­sen­ger of God to Mad­i­nah before Islam became strong and before he was ordered to take Jizyah from the Peo­ple of the Book”[14]. Islam became strong after the Bat­tle of Badr. Al Bal­ad­huri says :

It was said that when the Mes­sen­ger of God came to Mad­i­nah he made a peace treaty with the Jews there and wrote a doc­u­ment between them and him­self. He stip­u­lat­ed that they should not assist his ene­mies and should sup­port him in fight­ing invaders, and that he should not fight for Ahl al Dhimmah. So the Mes­sen­ger of Allah did not fight any­one and no one pro­voked him. He did not send out an expe­di­tionary force (sariyyah) until Allah revealed to him :

To those against whom war is made, per­mis­sion is giv­en (to fight), because they are wronged ? and ver­i­ly, Allah has indeed the pow­er to suc­cor them”. (Al Hajj, 22:39)

The first par­ty he sent out was led by Hamzah ibn Abd al Muttalib.”[15]

Thus, al Bal­ad­huri explains that the doc­u­ment of the peace treaty with the Jews was writ­ten before the first expe­di­tions were sent out. It is known that the expe­di­tion of Hamzah took place in Ramadan of the first year AH, just over a year before Badr[16] Ibn lshaq con­sid­ers that the sariyyah of ?Ubay­dah ibn al Harith took place before that of Hamzah. He explained that they hap­pened very close togeth­er, and that they hap­pened in Rabi al Aww­al in the year 2 AH. Both al Tabari and Ibn Ishaq agreed that the first sariyyah were sent out before Badr. This is the point of this research.[17]

In anoth­er place, where he dis­cuss­es the mil­i­tary action against Banu Qaynuqa, al Bal­ad­huri says : The rea­son for this ghazwah was that when the Mes­sen­ger of God came to Mad­i­nah, he made a peace treaty with all the Jews, which was writ­ten in a doc­u­ment ; and when he won the Bat­tle of Badr and returned unin­jured and in tri­umph to Mad­i­nah, they became hos­tile and broke the treaty.”[18] Thus al Bal­ad­huri is cer­tain that the treaty with the Jews took place before Badr.

Al Tabari says : After return­ing from Badr, the Mes­sen­ger of God stayed in Mad­i­nah. He had made a treaty with the Jews when he came to Mad­i­nah, which stip­u­lat­ed that they should not sup­port any­one against him, and that if Mad­i­nah were invad­ed by an ene­my, they should sup­port him. When the Mes­sen­ger of Allah killed some of the idol­aters of Quraysh, the Jews showed jeal­ousy and hos­til­i­ty towards him, and broke the treaty.”[19] Thus the text of al Tabari sup­ports the claim that the peace treaty with the Jews was con­clud­ed when the Prophet came to Mad­i­nah, before the Bat­tle of Badr.

In his Sunan, Abu Dawud[20] reports — after con­firm­ing the killing of Ka’b ibn al Ashraf and the com­plaint of the Jews and the Mushrikun about this to the Mes­sen­ger — that the Prophet invit­ed them to draw up a doc­u­ment between them and him­self, to which they could refer to in the future. So the Prophet had a doc­u­ment writ­ten between them, him­self, and the Mus­lims in gen­er­al”. It is known that the killing of Ka?b ibn al Ashraf hap­pened after Badr, so we must rec­on­cile this event with the his­tor­i­cal reports. Accord­ing to the con­di­tions of the hadith schol­ars, this report is stronger than the reports of the his­to­ri­ans which I men­tioned ear­li­er. But as long as it is pos­si­ble to rec­on­cile them, there is no need to dis­miss all oth­er his­tor­i­cal reports, because it is pos­si­ble that after the killing of Ka’b, the Doc­u­ment was rewrit­ten in order to affirm and renew it, to restore the feel­ing of secu­ri­ty after this event which had fright­ened the Jews and Mushrikun.

Al Bay­haqi men­tioned the fol­low­ing report with a dif­fer­ent chain of nar­ra­tors from that of Abu Dawud, and with more detail : The Mes­sen­ger of Allah had the doc­u­ment writ­ten beneath the palm tree at the res­i­dence of Bint al Harith. After the death of the Mes­sen­ger of Allah, the doc­u­ment was in the keep­ing of Ali ibn Abu Talib.”[21]

The doc­u­ment between the Muha­jirun and the Ansar was writ­ten after the doc­u­ment of the treaty with the Jews, in the sec­ond year of the hijrah. Among the events of the sec­ond year, al Tabari men­tions, it is said that in this year the Mes­sen­ger of Allah had the texts of a doc­u­ment writ­ten, and it was attached to his sword.”[22] The name of this sword was Dhu al Fiqar, which he had tak­en as booty at the Bat­tle of Badr.[23]

These ma?aqil which were attached to the sword were the texts of the doc­u­ment between the Muha­jirun and the Ansar, as the report of Ibn Sa’d indi­cates : “ Ubayd Allah ibn Musa told us that Isra’il told him from Jabir from ?Amir, who said : I read on the scab­bard of the sword of the Mes­sen­ger of Allah, Dhu al Fiqar : All believ­ers should pay blood mon­ey, nobody should be des­ti­tute in Islam, and no Mus­lim should be killed in return for a Kafir.”[24] After­wards, Ali kept the sword with the doc­u­ment. On one occa­sion, Abu Juhayfah[25] asked Ali about the doc­u­ment, and on a sec­ond occa­sion, al Ashtar[26] asked him. He told them about it either by giv­ing the mean­ing or by quot­ing it, and he also men­tioned its con­tents briefly in one of his sermons.[27]

For exam­ple, Ali said : We did not write down any­thing from the Prophet except the Qur’an and what is in this doc­u­ment. The Prophet said : Mad­i­nah is a sanc­tu­ary from the Air moun­tain to such-and-such a place, and who­ev­er per­pe­trates there an heresy or com­mits a sin, or gives shel­ter to such a per­pe­tra­tor will incur the curse of Allah, the Angels and all the peo­ple ; none of his com­pul­so­ry or option­al good deeds of wor­ship will be accepted.”[28] Ali also point­ed out that the dif­fer­ent types (ages) of camel required in com­pen­sa­tion for injuries were stip­u­lat­ed in the doc­u­ment. He once added : A Believ­er should not be killed in return for a Kafir, and the one who is par­ty to an agree­ment can­not be killed so long as the agree­ment remains in force.”[29]

Ahmad report­ed it from the chain of ref­er­ences of Amr ibn Shu’ayb from his father and from his grand­fa­ther that the Prophet judged that a Mus­lim should not be killed in return for a Kafir.[30]

He also men­tioned that it con­tained the words : Blood mon­ey and ran­som of the cap­tives also.”[31] The com­pan­ions of Ali read in the said document :

Ibrahim sanc­ti­fied Makkah, and I sanc­ti­fy the whole of Mad­i­nah between its two Har­rahs (areas of vol­canic rock). No one is to pick the wild plants or to hunt the wild ani­mals. It is not per­mit­ted to keep any­thing which you find with­out announc­ing it. We should not cut down any trees, except for a man to feed his camel, and no weapon for fight­ing should be car­ried here.”[32]

It is clear that most of these extracts cor­re­spond exact­ly with what was report­ed in the doc­u­ment. They cov­er most of the claus­es of the doc­u­ment which deal with the duties of the Mus­lims ?both Muha­jirun and Ansar ? toward each oth­er, but they do not give any indi­ca­tion of the claus­es which deal with the peace treaty with the Jews. This makes it more like­ly that the doc­u­ment is com­posed of two treaties, and that the doc­u­ment which was attached to the sword of the Prophet, and which lat­er came into the pos­ses­sion of Ali, was in fact the doc­u­ment between the Muha­jirun and the Ansar

It is worth adding that there are some texts which cor­re­spond with the doc­u­ment between the Muha­jirun and the Ansar, but they are attrib­uted to oth­er doc­u­ments which the Prophet had writ­ten. For exam­ple, ?Amr ibn Hazm report­ed that the Mes­sen­ger had a let­ter writ­ten to the peo­ple of al Yaman which includ­ed the fol­low­ing : ?Whoso­ev­er is con­vict­ed of killing a believ­er with­out good rea­son will be sub­ject to retal­i­a­tion unless the next of kin is sat­is­fied (with blood money).[33] This let­ter was sent after the doc­u­ment was written.

Some of the reports make it clear that on the day of the lib­er­a­tion of Makkah, the Prophet said : No believ­er can be killed in return for a Kafir.”[34] These texts are con­sid­ered to have been writ­ten at a lat­er date when the doc­u­ment was writ­ten. But this does not prove that the doc­u­ment is a col­lec­tion of let­ters which were writ­ten at dif­fer­ent times and then added to the document.[35] There is noth­ing to sug­gest that the Prophet did not men­tion some of the claus­es of the doc­u­ment in his let­ters. We should be aware of the fact that there are no claus­es con­cern­ing the Jews in the doc­u­ment which deals with the forts (ma’aqil). This makes it more like­ly that the doc­u­ment of the peace treaty with the Jews was inde­pen­dent of the doc­u­ment with the forts. This view is sup­port­ed by the hadith of Anas ibn Malik : The Mes­sen­ger of Allah made an alliance between the Muha­jirun and the Ansar in the house of Anas ibn Malik”.[36] Anas did not men­tion the pres­ence of the Jews in this alliance.

It is also sup­port­ed by the hadith of Amr ibn Shu’ayb, from his father, from his grand­fa­ther, that : The Prophet had a doc­u­ment writ­ten between the Muha­jirun and the Ansar, which stat­ed that they should pay the blood mon­ey, redeem their pris­on­ers with kind­ness and make peace among the Muslims.”[37] The Jews are not men­tioned in this doc­u­ment. This is prob­a­bly sup­port­ed by the fact that al Bay­haqi iden­ti­fies the claus­es deal­ing with the Muha­jirun and the Ansar with an isnad men­tioned by Ibn Ishaq. There is no ref­er­ence to the Jews, and the claus­es cor­re­spond with what Ibn Hisham report­ed from Ibn Ishaq.

The reports which I have iden­ti­fied make it more like­ly that there were two sep­a­rate treaties. The first one dealt with the rela­tion­ship with the Jews and was writ­ten before Badr, when the Prophet first came to Mad­i­nah. The sec­ond dealt with the alliance between the Muha­jirun and the Ansar, and was writ­ten after Badr. The his­to­ri­ans joined the two treaties togeth­er under one document.


[1] The fol­low­ing have been writ­ten about the Constitution :

Dr. Sal­ih Ahmad al Ali, in his arti­cle, Tanz­i­mat al Rasul al Idariyyah fi al Mad­i­nah” (The Admin­is­tra­tive Set-Up of the Mes­sen­ger in Mad­i­nah); Dr. ?Abd al Aziz al Duri, in his book al Nuzum al Islamiyyah and Sergeant, The Con­sti­tu­tion of Med­i­na”, in Islam­ic Quar­ter­ly VIII (1964): 3 – 16.

Oth­ers have also writ­ten about this sub­ject, and are cit­ed by Pro­fes­sor Muham­mad Hamid Allah in his book Maj­mu­at al Watha?iq al Siyasiyyah (The Col­lec­tion of Polit­i­cal Doc­u­ments), pp. 39 – 41

[2] This is the opin­ion of Pro­fes­sor Yusuf al Ish, in his foot­note to al Dawlah al ?Ara­biyyah wa Suqutuha (The Arab State and its Decline), by Well­hausen, trans. by al Ish, p. 20, foot­note no. 4.

[3] Ibn Hisham, al Sir­ah, 1÷5014

[4] Ibn Sayyid al Nas, ?Uyun al Athar, 1÷1978

[5] Ibn Kathir, al Bidayah, 3÷2246

[6] Al Sunan al Kubra, Kitab al Diy­at, 8106

[7] That is, al Hafiz al Huj­jah al Imam Ahmad ibn Abu Khaythamah Zuhayr ibn Harb al Nasa’i (d. 279 AH). The third vol­ume of this his­to­ry has reached us. (See : Akram al Umari, Buhuth fi Tarikh al Sunan al Mushar­rafah, pp. 87 – 90) report­ed the doc­u­ment with the fol­low­ing isnad :

Ahmad ibn Khab­bab Abu al Walid nar­rat­ed that Isa ibn Yusuf nar­rat­ed from his father, and from his grand­fa­ther, that the Mes­sen­ger of Allah estab­lished a treaty in writ­ing between the Muha­jirun and the Ansar, and he assert­ed that it was sim­i­lar to the doc­u­ment which was report­ed by Ibn Ishaq.” (Ibn Sayyid al Nas, Uyun al Athar, 1198).

How­ev­er, it appears that the con­sti­tu­tion was report­ed in that part of the Tarikh of Ibn Abu Khaythamah which is now lost, because it is not extant in those parts of the book which have reached us. The doc­u­ment was also report­ed in Kitab al Amw­al, by Abu Ubayd al Qasim ibn Salam with anoth­er isnad, which reads :

Yahya ibn Abd Allah ibn Bakir and Abd Allah ibn Sal­ih nar­rat­ed to me that al Layth ibn Sad nar­rat­ed that ?Uqayl ibn Khalid nar­rat­ed from Ibn Shi­hab who said : ?I heard that the Mes­sen­ger of God estab­lished this treaty in writ­ing ?” and men­tioned it.”

The doc­u­ment was also report­ed through al Zuhri in Kitab al Amw­al by Ibn Zan­j­awayh (Hamid ibn Zan­j­awayh — d. 247)

[8] See Kitab al Amw­al by Ibn Zan­j­awayh, revised by Dr. Shakir Dhib Fayad, n. 750

[9] See what Ibn Hib­ban said in Ibn Hajar, Tahd­hib, 8422

[10] Yusuf Al Ish, foot­note no.9, p. 20 of al Dawlah al Ara­biyyah wa Suqutuha

[11] Al Bal­ad­huri, Ans­ab, 1286, 308 ; al Tabari, Tarikh al Rusul, 2479 ; al Maq­disi, Kitab al Bad ? wa al Tarikh, 4179 ; Ibn Hazm, Jawa­mi ? al Sir­ah, 95 ; al Maqrizi, Imta ? al Asma 149 ; Ibn Kathir, al Bidayah, 4÷103104, trans­mit­ting from Musa ibn ?Uqbah. He reports that Banu Qurayzah destroyed the paper on which the treaty was writ­ten. This report is giv­en with­out isnad, but when all the reports are put togeth­er they strength­en one anoth­er and reach the lev­el of hasan li ghayrihi.

[12] Dr. Sal­ih al Ali, Tanz­i­mat al Rasul al Idariyyah fi al Mad­i­nah, pp. 4 – 5. For the con­trast in styles, refer to Majmu?at al Watha’iq al Siyasiyyah

[13] Dr. Sal­ih al Ali sug­gests that it was also writ­ten after Badr, Tanz­i­mat al Rasul al Idariyyah fi al Mad­i­nah, 6

[14] Al Amw­al, no. 518

[15] Al Bald­huri, Ans­ab, 1286

[16] See at Tabari, Tarikh al Rusul, 2402, trans­mit­ting from al Waqidi.

[17] See Ibn Hisham, al Sir­ah, 1595

[18] Al Bal­ad­huri, Ans­ab, 1308

[19] Al Hakim, al Mus­tadrak, 2483, Kitab al Tafsir

[20] Abd al Raz­zaq, al Musan­naf, 5357

[21] Al Bay­haqi, Dalail al Nubuwwah, 3÷446450 ; Abu Nu’aym, Dalail al Nubuwwah 3÷1767

[22] Ibn Hisham, al Sir­ah, 3683 ; Al Bukhari, al Sahih, 311, Mu’al­laq from Ibn Ishaq

[23] Al Waqi­di, al Mag­hazi, 1363 ; Ibn Sa’d, al Tabaqat, 357

[24] Al Sir­ah, 3683.

[25] Al Bukhari, al Sahih, 914 ; al Tir­mid­hi, Sahih, 6182 ; Ibn Majah, al Sunan, 2887 ; Ahmad, al Mus­nad, 179

[26] Ahmad, Al Mus­nad, 1119122

[27] Al Bukhari, al Sahih, 2296

[28] Al Bukhari, al Sahih, 2296 ; Ibn Majah, al Sunan, 2887

[29] Ahmad, al Mus­nad, 119

[30] al Mus­nad 2178. See oth­er ref­er­ence chains for this hadith in Ibn Majah, al Sunan 2887, and al Bukhari, al Sahih 914, 16, and Sahih al Tir­mid­hi, explained by Ibn al Ara­bi, 6182

[31] al Bukhari, Sahih, 914 ; Ahmad, Mus­nad, 179 ; see also al Shawkani, Nayl al Awthar, 710.

[32] Ahmad, al Mus­nad, 1119, see also 427. Also in Sahih Mus­lim with com­men­tary (9÷136) of al Nawawi from Jabir, the Prophet said : I sanc­ti­fy what is between the two Har­rahs of Mad­i­nah : no one is to cut down the bush­es or hunt the wild ani­mals. At the begin­ning of the Umayyad peri­od, the peo­ple were in pos­ses­sion of a doc­u­ment writ­ten on skin, in which the Prophet defined the sanc­ti­ty of Mad­i­nah.” (Ahmad, al Mus­nad, 427 ; and al Khat­ib al Bagh­da­di, Taqyid al Ilm, 72).

[33] Al Shawkani, Nayl al Awtar, 761 ; see also, Hamid Allah’s, Maj­mu’at al Watha’iq, 186, which explains that this is from the Prophet’s let­ter which he had writ­ten to Amr ibn Hazm who was his gov­er­nor in al Yaman.

[34] al Shawkani, Nayl al Awtar, 710

[35] Sergeant sug­gests this in his arti­cle, The Con­sti­tu­tion of Med­i­na”, Islam­ic Quar­ter­ly 8 (1964): 3 – 16.

[36] Ibn Kathir, al Bidayah, 3224. He said that Imam Ahmad, al Bukhari, Mus­lim, and Abu Dawud report­ed it.

[37] Ahmad, al Mus­nad, 1371, 2204. Ibn Kathir (report­ing from Ahmad), al Bidayah, 3224Endmark







Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *