❖ The Principle of Argument and Authority: Guidance for the Layman ❖
◈ The Madinan Charter and the Misguided Claim of a Secular State
Certain secular circles attempt to promote the erroneous notion that the state established by the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ in Madinah was not based on religion. As evidence, they present the Charter of Madinah, arguing that since it involved agreements with people of various religions and ethnicities, it represents secularism and multiculturalism.
However, such a claim is intellectually unfounded and detached from historical reality.
To claim that the State of Madinah was secular based on the Charter is akin to suggesting that the United States is an Islamic state just because some Muslims live there or serve in its military.
This form of reasoning is a clear indication of ignorance and intellectual bankruptcy.
The claim of a secular Madinan state completely ignores the following essential facts:
The Prophet Muhammad ﷺ held absolute authority over the state and all its decisions.
This leadership was not a result of democratic consultation or voting, but divinely sanctioned Prophethood.
After the Prophet’s ﷺ passing, no non-Muslim was ever consulted in the selection of a Caliph, nor was any non-Muslim ever considered for such a role.
Non-Muslims were not appointed as governors or to any decisive positions within the state that could affect its governance.
When the Jews of Madinah violated the Charter, the Prophet ﷺ took decisive action without any parliamentary approval—including expulsions and military campaigns.
The laws implemented in the Madinan state were explicitly Islamic, including:
The Charter of Madinah was primarily a defensive and administrative pact, aimed at including other tribes in the defense of Madinah due to the initial military weakness of the Muslims.
Non-Muslim parties were not involved in war-related decision-making, nor were they granted veto power.
As the Islamic state expanded, it implemented the obligation of jizyah upon non-Muslims, in accordance with the teachings of the Qur’an.
This is contrary to secular democracies, where religion is progressively excluded from public life and legislation.
The opening line of the Charter itself affirms the Islamic character of the agreement:
"هَذَا كِتَابٌ مِنْ مُحَمَّدٍ النَّبِيِّ"
“This is a document from Muhammad, the Prophet of Allah.”
This authoritative tone proves that it was not a democratic social contract, but an Islamic agreement under prophetic leadership.
Claiming that the State of Madinah was secular is a blatant misreading of history and an intellectual deviation from well-documented facts.
Anyone making this claim is willfully ignoring reality. If we accept this flawed logic, then we must also declare the United States a Dār al-Islām—a conclusion so absurd that it exposes the fallacy of the argument itself.
◈ The Madinan Charter and the Misguided Claim of a Secular State
✔ The Secular Claim: Was the State of Madinah Secular?
Certain secular circles attempt to promote the erroneous notion that the state established by the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ in Madinah was not based on religion. As evidence, they present the Charter of Madinah, arguing that since it involved agreements with people of various religions and ethnicities, it represents secularism and multiculturalism.
However, such a claim is intellectually unfounded and detached from historical reality.
➤ Comparing the Claim to Absurdity
To claim that the State of Madinah was secular based on the Charter is akin to suggesting that the United States is an Islamic state just because some Muslims live there or serve in its military.
This form of reasoning is a clear indication of ignorance and intellectual bankruptcy.
◈ Overlooked Realities in the Secular Argument
The claim of a secular Madinan state completely ignores the following essential facts:
① Leadership and Decision-Making Authority
The Prophet Muhammad ﷺ held absolute authority over the state and all its decisions.
This leadership was not a result of democratic consultation or voting, but divinely sanctioned Prophethood.
② Continuity of the Caliphate
After the Prophet’s ﷺ passing, no non-Muslim was ever consulted in the selection of a Caliph, nor was any non-Muslim ever considered for such a role.
③ No Administrative Authority Given to Non-Muslims
Non-Muslims were not appointed as governors or to any decisive positions within the state that could affect its governance.
④ Dealing with Treaty Violations
When the Jews of Madinah violated the Charter, the Prophet ﷺ took decisive action without any parliamentary approval—including expulsions and military campaigns.
⑤ Enforcement of Islamic Laws
The laws implemented in the Madinan state were explicitly Islamic, including:
- Prohibition of interest (riba)
- Implementation of the ḥudūd (Islamic penal laws)
- The well-known execution of the ḥadd punishment for adultery upon Mā‘iz al-Aslamī (رضي الله عنه) occurred in Madinah itself.
⑥ The Real Nature of the Charter
The Charter of Madinah was primarily a defensive and administrative pact, aimed at including other tribes in the defense of Madinah due to the initial military weakness of the Muslims.
Non-Muslim parties were not involved in war-related decision-making, nor were they granted veto power.
⑦ Expansion of the State and Religious Supremacy
As the Islamic state expanded, it implemented the obligation of jizyah upon non-Muslims, in accordance with the teachings of the Qur’an.
This is contrary to secular democracies, where religion is progressively excluded from public life and legislation.
⑧ The Opening Words of the Charter
The opening line of the Charter itself affirms the Islamic character of the agreement:
"هَذَا كِتَابٌ مِنْ مُحَمَّدٍ النَّبِيِّ"
“This is a document from Muhammad, the Prophet of Allah.”
This authoritative tone proves that it was not a democratic social contract, but an Islamic agreement under prophetic leadership.
Conclusion
Claiming that the State of Madinah was secular is a blatant misreading of history and an intellectual deviation from well-documented facts.
Anyone making this claim is willfully ignoring reality. If we accept this flawed logic, then we must also declare the United States a Dār al-Islām—a conclusion so absurd that it exposes the fallacy of the argument itself.
