If you could step into the year 622 and walk through the streets of Yathrib, today’s Medina, you would find a city poised between hope and collapse. The sun beating down on palm groves surrounding mud-brick homes, while inside the city, the air feeling thick with decades of unresolved tension. Two major Arab tribes, Aws and Khazraj, carried the scars of long-running feuds. Several powerful Jewish tribes, Banu Qaynuqa, Banu al-Nadir, and Banu Qurayza, held their own alliances and grievances. Add to that a small Christian presence and a handful of new Muslim migrants fleeing persecution in Mecca, and you would find a city whose diversity was both its strength and its vulnerability.

Against this backdrop, an extraordinary meeting took place. Representatives of Yathrib’s communities gathered as a scribe recorded an agreement that would provide a new framework for life in the city: the formation of a one nation – an Ummah.  

“They form one nation”

This was the opening sentiment of what is now known as the Medina Charter (Sahifat al-Madinah) document that many scholars regard as one of the earliest written constitutional agreements governing a religiously and tribally diverse society. Rather than erasing differences, it sought to establish a framework through which the city’s various communities could coexist while sharing certain rights and responsibilities.

The Charter was not simply an attempt to end cycles of conflict. It outlined a political order based on mutual obligations, justice, consultation, and collective security. More than fourteen centuries later, it continues to attract the attention of historians, legal scholars, and students of interfaith relations as an early example of negotiated pluralism.

Many of the questions the Charter addressed remain familiar today. To understand why, we must first understand the city in which it emerged.

A city ready for change

Yathrib was shaped by strong tribal loyalties, and longstanding disputes permeated everyday life. Aws and Khazraj, the main Arab tribes, worshipped Manat and lived through long stretches of intermittent warfare. Jewish tribes had been in the city for centuries, with their own customs, legal practices, and alliances. Trade connected Yathrib to the wider region, yet local politics often reinforced division rather than cooperation.

By the early 600s, people wanted an arbitrator who could actually be accepted across factions. Their own leaders could no longer contain the conflicts, and every settlement risked reopening the next week. One name kept returning in these discussions: Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). He was known in Arabia for integrity, and for his refusal to bend to wealth or status.

His migration (Hijrah) to Yathrib in 622 CE, an event that marks the beginning of the Islamic calendar, represented a turning point in the city’s history. Soon afterward, the Charter of Medina was drafted, providing a framework for regulating relations among its diverse communities and addressing many of the challenges that had long divided the city.  

A constitution ahead of its time

Many early political agreements spoke to only one group. A ruling elite. A single tribe. One religion, or one people. The Medina Charter moved in a different direction; it treated Muslims, Jews, and other groups living in Yathrib as part of a shared political community, without asking them to surrender their own religious or cultural lives. Rather than erasing differences, the Charter acknowledged them and established a set of shared rights and responsibilities.

The document’s significance lay not in abstract political theory but in its practical concerns. It addressed issues that shaped everyday life: dispute resolution, collective security, financial obligations, religious freedom, and the responsibilities communities owed to one another. Its provisions were intended to guide the daily life of a diverse city rather than merely express political ideals.  

Its structure rested on four guiding principles. Together, these principles shaped how peace and cooperation were maintained in Yathrib, and they continue to resonate in discussions of governance, pluralism, and social cohesion today.  

1. Unity without erasing identity

One of the Charter’s central features was its conception of the ummah: a community defined not simply by blood or tribe, but by shared responsibility. Yet the Charter did not demand uniformity. Article 2 affirmed that tribes could preserve many of their customary practices, including established methods of dispute resolution.  

The Charter did not require people to abandon tribal loyalties in order to participate in a broader political community. Instead, it recognized those loyalties while placing them within a shared framework of rights and obligations. Differences were not treated as problems to be erased. They were acknowledged, respected, and placed inside a shared set of duties. The Medina Charter represents an early attempt to address that balance—one that continues to invite comparison with similar challenges faced by modern constitutional systems.

2. Engineering cooperation through daily habits

One noble feature of the Charter was its use of everyday routines to build trust between groups. It wasn’t enough to declare peace; people needed to live it.

Article 22 required soldiers from different tribes to share their ride, literally sitting side by side in situations of danger. These small acts of interdependence slowly weakened tribal boundaries.

Article 21 required shared contributions toward common defense expenses. The same principle can be seen in modern security alliances, including, for example, shared defense spending negotiations in NATO. The Charter reflected a principle that continues to appear in modern systems of collective governance: cooperation is sustained when responsibilities are shared. These provisions were intended to shape everyday interactions, encouraging trust, familiarity, and a sense of shared responsibility across tribal boundaries.

3. Collective security and mutual protection

Another important feature of the Charter was its commitment to collective security. Article 38 stated that if any community bound by the Charter came under attack, the other signatories were expected to come to its defense. Communities that had once been divided by rivalry now assumed a shared responsibility for one another’s security.

At the same time, the Charter balanced that shared commitment with practical responsibility. Article 37 required each tribe to bear its own wartime expenses while contributing to the common defense. In doing so, it established a framework that combined mutual protection with clearly defined obligations, helping to reduce disputes over unequal burdens.

4. A trusted platform for justice

A central concern of the Medina Charter was the administration of justice. It recognized that peace could not endure unless disputes were resolved through an accepted legal authority. When disagreements arose that the Charter itself did not address, Article 42 required the parties to refer the matter to the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). Rather than allowing conflicts to escalate into cycles of retaliation, the Charter established a recognized forum for resolving disputes across tribal and religious boundaries.

The Charter also articulated an important ethical principle:

“Whoever is wronged must be helped, regardless of identity.”

This was a far cry from the tribal norms of the time and remains a model for contemporary peacebuilding.

What made the Medina Charter so modern?

Viewed through the lens of political science and constitutional history, the Medina Charter addresses questions that remain central to modern governance. It outlines principles of collective security, cooperation among religious communities, shared responsibility for public welfare, legal accountability, freedom of religion, financial obligations, and mechanisms for resolving disputes.

Its significance lies not only in its religious context but also in its civic vision. It functioned as a contract between diverse communities, rooted in the belief that justice is a shared human obligation.

Scholars such as Muhammad Hamidullah and Karen Armstrong have described it as the world’s first written constitution, while historians such as Said Amir Arjomand, Michael Lecker, R. B. Serjeant, Uri Rubin, and F. M. Denny have examined its legal, social, and communal dimensions in detail. Whether one emphasizes that constitutional claim or its broader sociolegal significance, the Charter stands well before the Magna Carta and later European social contract traditions as an early model of pluralistic governance.

The charter as a model of ethical leadership

The Charter also reflected the Prophet Muhammad’s (peace be upon him) approach as a political leader. The way he led mattered for how the agreement functioned. Consultation informed decision-making, and moral commitment placed limits on the exercise of power. He demonstrated that authority could be firm without sliding into coercion, and that justice could be treated as an obligation rather than a slogan. His description of believers as “a single body” speaks to moral solidarity within the Muslim community; the Charter extended the search for order into a wider civic framework shared by Muslims, Jews, and other groups in Yathrib.

Differences did not disappear under the agreement; they were managed through shared responsibilities. Religious freedom did not appear as a temporary compromise, since it sat inside the structure of the community itself. Many societies still struggle with the same tensions, especially when identity politics deepen and legal order feels thin. The Charter continues to offer a historical example of how unity can be pursued without requiring uniformity.

Why the Charter still matters today

Contemporary peacebuilding literature often points to a few conditions that help diverse societies coexist. One is inclusion, understood today as attention not only to formal representatives but also to groups that may otherwise be absent from the process. Another is legitimate justice, since fair procedures and trusted forums reduce the pull of retaliation and private violence. A third is shared responsibility, since agreements fail when burdens fall on one side for too long.

The Medina Charter fits that pattern. It brought groups into one political community, and it did so without turning identity into a precondition for membership. It also directed disputes toward recognized procedures, reducing the likelihood that conflicts would return to cycles of private retaliation. Rights were accompanied by responsibilities, and authority was vested in a forum accepted by the Charter’s signatories.

Similar principles continue to appear in many contemporary peace agreements and constitutional frameworks, including those developed through the United Nations, the African Union, and other international institutions.

Conclusion

Return now to that small room where the Charter was signed. Picture the leaders of tribes that had long been caught in cycles of retaliation now placing their hopes in a shared agreement. Their differences remained, yet they chose cooperation over division, responsibility over revenge, and law over retaliation.

The Charter did not transform Medina overnight. Its significance lay in the way it guided everyday conduct, established shared expectations, and helped a divided city gradually reshape its habits. It asked little of shared identity, but much of character. Little of ritual, but much of restraint. Little of ideology, but much of responsibility.

The Medina Charter is often regarded as a landmark because it offered a framework for governing a divided city without requiring its communities to become the same. It sought to foster unity through shared obligations while recognizing the distinct identities of the groups it brought together. Rather than treating difference as an obstacle, it established common responsibilities that allowed diversity and cooperation to coexist.

More than fourteen centuries later, many societies face familiar pressures. Polarization deepens divisions, and public trust often erodes faster than institutions can respond. The Charter continues to invite reflection because it illustrates a sequence that remains relevant: define the community, establish shared responsibilities, provide trusted mechanisms for resolving disputes, and reduce the space for private retaliation. It is not a solution to every conflict, but it offers an enduring historical example of how peace can be sustained through shared commitments that people are willing to embrace.

References

1. Abu-Nimer, Mohammed. (2001). “Conflict Resolution, Culture, and Religion: Toward a Training Model of Interreligious Peacebuilding.” Journal of Peace Research, 38(6), 685-704. doi:10.1177/0022343301038006003

2. Arjomand, Said Amir. (2009). “The Constitution of Medina: A Sociolegal Interpretation of Muhammad’s Acts of Foundation of the Umma.” International Journal of Middle East Studies, 41(4), 555-575. doi:10.1017/S002074380999033X

3. Armstrong, Karen. (2006). Muhammad: A Prophet for Our Time. New York: Atlas Books/HarperCollins. ISBN 978-0-06-115577-2.

4. Denny, F. M. (1977). “Ummah in the Constitution of Medina.” Journal of Near Eastern Studies, 36(1), 39-47. doi:10.1086/372530

5. Druckman, Daniel, and Lynn Wagner. (2019). “Justice Matters: Peace Negotiations, Stable Agreements, and Durable Peace.” Journal of Conflict Resolution, 63(2), 287-316. doi:10.1177/0022002717739088

6. Hamidullah, M. 1975. The First Written Constitution in the World: An Important Document of the Time of the Holy Prophet. Lahore, Pakistan: Ashraf Printing Press.

7. Hamidullah, M. 1993. The Emergence of Islam: Lectures on the Development of Islamic World-view, Intellectual Tradition, and Polity. Islamabad, Pakistan: Islamic Research Institute.

8. Lecker, Michael. (2004). The “Constitution of Medina”: Muhammad’s First Legal Document. Princeton, NJ: Darwin Press.

9. Nilsson, Desiree. (2012). “Anchoring the Peace: Civil Society Actors in Peace Accords and Durable Peace.” International Interactions, 38(2), 243-266. doi:10.1080/03050629.2012.659139

10. Rubin, Uri. (1985). “The ‘Constitution of Medina’: Some Notes.” Studia Islamica, 62, 5-23.

11. Serjeant, R. B. (1978). “The Sunnah Jami’ah, Pacts with the Yathrib Jews, and the Tahrim of Yathrib: Analysis and Translation of the Documents Comprised in the So-called ‘Constitution of Medina’.” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, 41(1), 1-42.

12. Yildirim, Y., Peace and Conflict Resolution Concepts in the Medina Charter, Peace Review Journal, Taylor & Francis, January-March 2006, Volume 18, Number 1, P 109-119

13. Yildirim, Y., Peace and Conflict Resolution Concepts in the Madina Charter, Peace Review The Fountain, 2006 Issue 53 (January – March 2006) Peace and Conflict Resolution Concepts in the Madina Charter – The Fountain Magazine  

14. Yildirim, Y. (2009). The Medina Charter: A Historical Case of Conflict Resolution. Islam and Christian–Muslim Relations, 20(4), 439–450. https://doi.org/10.1080/09596410903194894

Jefferson, a deist himself, appears in the book uniquely positioned among the Founding Fathers, with his unyielding advocacy of equal rights for all beliefs, including Muslims, Jews, Catholics, and pagans, all of which were despised by the Protestant groups that dominated the young American society at the time. Spellberg traces the origins of his fervor for religious pluralism and his demand for tolerating Muslims and other beliefs to the liberal European thinkers like Locke. A detailed history of European debates on religious freedom and tolerance helps the reader to understand that the current tension in Europe about the rights and place of Muslims in the continent also has ties going back several centuries. We see that hostility against Islam, often based on an inaccurate and incomplete understanding of the religion of Islam and Islamic history, was very visible in the 17th and 18th centuries. It was an exception in those times to paint a relatively objective picture of Muslims and their beliefs. Interestingly, those figures who did that or advocated some form of tolerance for Muslims ended up being labeled as Muslims, which at that time in the Christian world meant being labeled an infidel. Jefferson got his share of this, too: he was called a Muslim or infidel when he advocated for the equality of all religions, including Islam.

Jefferson’s defense of religious freedom and equality is better understood when it is seen in the light of his own view of Islam and Islamic history. He was not different from his contemporaries in this aspect. His purchase of a translation of the Qur’an for his library shows his interest to learn more about the religion, partly caused by his involvement as the US Ambassador to Paris during negotiations with the North African tribes for American hostages. His brief study of Islam didn’t help eliminate his negative perception of Islam. It was an image continuously perpetuated by the surrounding climate of hostility against Islam which was, by and large, an imitation of European attitudes. Nevertheless, his opposition to any type of religious coercion in the hands of the government and his attachment to the ideal of national and religious equality was strong enough to include Muslims as acceptable and legitimate members of American society.

Spellberg finds no historical record showing that Jefferson or his contemporaries officially acknowledged the presence of Muslims in America at the time, even though there were many, at least among the slaves brought from Africa, and perhaps some among Jefferson’s own slaves. In a sense, the talk about religious pluralism in the early years of American government often referred to Muslims (often called Turks, due to the Ottomans) as imaginary members of the society, focusing on what would happen if they were there. For most Americans of Jefferson’s time, there was little or no difference between Muslims and pagans.

It is clear that the notion of religious freedom as championed by Jefferson and others in these conditions required a certain level of unwavering commitment to equality. These years produced a strong foundation upon which today’s Muslims in America, with other religious groups, came to enjoy their equal rights. Under constitutional protection, rights were granted without a demand from real Muslims – and people of all faiths, or no faith at all.

Overall, Spellberg’s book is an important read on the history of European and American perceptions of Islam and religious freedom. Its well crafted story of the process by which religious equality came to be a foundational element of the American ideal is of immense value to any student of American history.

The Fountain organized a three-day conference in Istanbul featuring scholars and academics from diverse disciplines to convene and discuss some philosophical themes The Fountain covers. Aspiring to be a platform for peaceful exchange of ideas, invigorating discussions on the big questions of life, and to generate more of those questions, The Fountain invited 12 international speakers and a dozen intellectuals from within Turkey to participate in this conference. The Fountain, now distributed and read worldwide, has its origins in Turkey which started as an offshoot of global initiatives by renowned Turkish scholar Fethullah Gülen and the Hizmet Movement that grew out of his inspiring ideas.

The themes that were covered in this conference were as follows:

• Fethullah Gülen and The Fountain Worldview
• Cross-cultural Dialogue, Media, Pluralism, Spirituality
• Scientific Thought, Faith, and Philosophy

When the Prophet was forced to immigrate to Medina, the population was “a mixture” (akhlāt) of many different tribes (predominantly Arabic and Jewish), who had been fighting for nearly a century, causing “civil strife,” and it was for this reason that the Prophet was summoned there (Peters 1994, 4). Tribal fighting and a lack of governance in Medina (known as Yathrib) meant disputes were dealt with “by the blade” on many occasions, which deepened the divides and fueled conflicts. Karen Armstrong explains aptly the mentality and workings of the tribal system dispersed through war-torn Arabia, where the Prophet was striving for peace (Armstrong 2006, 19). “The tribe, not a deity, was of supreme value, and each member had to subordinate his or her personal needs and desires to the well-being of the group and to fight to the death, if necessary, to ensure its survival” (Armstrong 2006, 24). Such a system was, in a political sense, representative of the little cooperation between the tribes in the Yathrib. In this region reigned power hungry strategies, an emphasis on arms and strength in military, and a belief that clearly mediation was unachievable except by a trustworthy outsider who had no connections to the issues or the tribes. Not only did the Prophet fit these prerequisites, but his personal ambition as given to him by God was also one of spreading peace and unity, creating a community, or ummah, made up of diverse groups, through the teachings of the Quran and in the name of Islam.

The Quran states that the Lord “teaches by the pen” (96:1–5). This is indicative of the Medina Charter in that it is a reflection of these verses, which show that God is educating people and changing thought patterns through discussion. In this case, the discussion resulted in peace achieved through contemplation and through seeking agreements in which tribes felt they had benefited from the charter and had not been robbed of status or unresolved antagonism from the past. “Many Islamic rituals, philosophies, doctrines, [different interpretations of] sacred texts, and shrines are the result of frequently anguished and self-critical contemplation of the political events in Islamic society” (Armstrong 2006, 14). Islam places great emphasis on reason – the reasoning of the universe, of life, and indeed, of religion too. Al-Ghazzali (1058–1111) said, “Doubt is to find truth. Those who do not have doubt cannot think. Those who cannot think, cannot find truth.” Although this quote is more in reference to the philosophical side of Islam, it reverberates from the heart of reason – something that is central to Islam. Yetkin Yildirim writes about the use of one’s own knowledge and the absolute approach of reason. If the answer is neither in the Quran, Sunnah, or Hadith, then one’s own reasoning or ijtihad is required (Yildirim 2006, 109–117). So the Prophet, through the Medina Charter, was practicing Islam through action. For with reason, discussion, and contemplation, a peace treaty was created.

The mere formation of the Charter and peace were tremendous feats, and the content of the Charter itself reflects this magnitude. The formation of an ummah through respect and acceptance resulting in pluralism shows us one of the ways in which the Prophet combated jahiliyyah, or ignorance – the state of mind causing violence and terror (Armstrong 2006, 19). Examining some of the clauses in the Charter also shows how the Prophet managed to take leadership and create a lasting peace. The first clause, “They are a single community (ummah),” (Sajoo 2009, 94) depicts the ultimate message and goal of the rest of the charter. It marked the creation of a community, and the Charter served as a unifying document in a city of diverse groups, cultures, religions, and languages. The Prophet came to Medina with tolerance – an aspect of Islam which is fundamental to the manner in which the religion operates in foreign lands. “It is for this tolerance in the Islamic view that Muslims have looked at the religion of the people in the lands they conquered with respect; they did not intervene with their beliefs nor touch their churches” (Can 2005, 172). Clause 25 epitomizes the level of tolerance in the charter and also serves as an example of Islam in practice. “The Jews … are a community (ummah) along with the believers. To the Jews their religion (din) and to the Muslims their religion” (Sajoo 2009, 96) This statement ties in with the verse from the Quran (2:256) which says, “There is no compulsion in religion.” For in the eyes of God, as it says in the Quran “… those who believe … Jews, Christians, and Sabaeans … and does right – surely their reward is with their Lord” (2:62).

The Medina Charter reflects pluralism both in the content and in the history of the document. F. E. Peters explains that “the contracting parties, although they did not embrace Islam, did recognize the Prophet’s authority, accepting him as the community leader and abiding by his political judgments” (Peters 1994, 199). As there is no account of an uprising in history books and because the Prophet was there at the suggestion of the tribes, we know that he was never rejected. Because of the laws he introduced, the existing groups clearly did not feel threatened by his new presence or his new governance. The society was pluralistic, and it was not repressive. The Prophet – as clause 25 shows – never imposed Islam upon the people of Medina, which meant that they could still practice without disruption their religions and customs, aspects of life that were important to them. He did not create an ummah through denouncing all ways of life except for Islam or by recognizing Islam as the singular religion; instead he united all inhabitants of the city under one banner of ethical living and moral principles – commonalities between all humans and all religions.

The Prophet drew upon the essence of unity, respect, tolerance, and love to combine and create a pluralistic community. Clause 40 exemplifies this: “The ‘protected neighbor’ (jar) is as the man himself so long as he does no harm and does not act treacherously” (Sajoo 2009, 97). People were safe and respected and free to exert their beliefs and would be protected in doing so. This protection, however, could not shield them from treachery or wrong doing.

The Medina Charter is arguably the first constitution ever written incorporating religion and politics (Yildirim 2006, 109–117). And even though the politics of the region have changed since it was written – in recent times for the worst – Islam’s values have continued to spread and are lived throughout the whole Muslim world. Despite the hold of power that some governments still have over their people, the true face of Islam shines through in how people live, communicate, and approach life. I speak from personal experiences when I traveled through Iran, Turkey, and Northern Iraq in January, 2009. And despite what the media had to say about the people in those lands, my time there was spent in the houses of complete strangers, who showered me with hospitality that transcended any I had experienced before. Although the governing body has changed, the points of the Medina Charter and tenets of Islam preached by Prophet Muhammad still exist amongst the people. My heritage was accepted with curiosity and respect – just as the Prophet implemented in Medina between the tribes. My place in the society was welcomed with honest enthusiasm, and I felt a part of a community – like the community that Prophet implemented in Medina. I was exposed to mainstream Islam, which we hear so little about in the West due to the confusion which unjustly joins Islam and extremism together. I saw tolerant Muslims who saw me as another person who wanted peace and respect – not treachery. This is what the Prophet also accomplished in Medina – a community which was not based upon religion or ethnicity but one built on unity and acceptance. One built on tolerance. One built on peace. It seems the Prophet was aware that spirituality and faith cannot be governed, and for this reason alone, he sought unity and respect as opposed to discriminating between tribes and their beliefs.

In contemporary times, an analysis of the Medina Charter can give us insight into Islam and religious pluralism (Sachedina 2001). Medina marked the first real occurrence of coexistence between religions and groups in Islam and mirrors the Quran which “in its entirety provides ample material for extrapolating a pluralistic and inclusive theology of religions” (Sachedina 2001, 26). The Quran is the unquestionable and the absolute; therefore, it is the key to understanding religious pluralism in Islam. Clause 39 of the Medina Charter says, “The valley of Yathrib is sacred for the people of this document” (Sajoo 2009, 97). And so too is the universe, which is sacred to all of humanity. The Quran reveals that “the people are one community” (2:213), so if we are one (which we are) in the world, in the universe, then regardless of religion, it is God’s mercy and compassion which will save us. By differentiating between beliefs, we neglect that under one sun we all pray to a greater entity, a greater being. We were all created by God, so unity seems imperative and practical.

The Medina Charter is very relevant to current tensions existing between the Muslims, Jews, and Christians. Unfortunately, it seems that ignorance and fear, suspicion and disrespect plague the interaction and stereotypes that exist between these three great Abrahamic religions. In the post-September 11th era, a new wave of antagonism has arisen, and people around the Western world generally fear Islam. Sadly, people confuse the actions of nationalists and fundamentalists, who so unjustly hide behind a Holy Book claiming that their intentions are those of God, with what the actual religion promotes. As Rumi believed, the essence of all religions is the same, for they all teach love. The deep philosophical and even deeper spiritual teaching of Rumi is based on a state of mind that seeks mutual vision and dialogue, which I hope will be achieved one day, breaking down the polarized world of different religious thought. Another verse of the Quran emphasizes this need for dialogue, unity, and tolerance: “Surely this community of yours is one community, and I am your Lord; so worship Me” (21:92).

The Prophets action’s in Medina prompt us to use reason in our approach to the wide, diverse beliefs of the world – from Europe to Asia, North, Central, and South America to Africa and everything in between. It prompts us to understand how “the spiritual space of the Quran […] was shared by other religions” (Sachedina 2001, 23). Such an understanding reveals that Islam is a monotheistic religion that respects the rights of other faiths (Stewart 1994, 207). In a globalized world where we are connected so easily, unlike any other period in history, our mutual understanding of one another and our beliefs are the most important means to achieve peace and stability. It is in a contemporary sense, in a globalized world, that the Medina Charter is of such necessity. Inter-religious discussions took place with the Prophet in Medina, for Boase writes about a time when Christians performed their prayers in a mosque after a meeting with the Prophet during their visit (Boase 2005, 252). We can learn how in every country, a community, an ummah, is the single most effective way to produce a pluralistic state. The Medina Charter was a fusion of attributes which all world religions teach: peace, love, freedom, acceptance, and tolerance – resulting in stability.

Peace was achieved in Medina, not through the might of arms or the scale of wealth, but through the unyielding principles of Islam – tolerance, love, reason, and a belief in God – whether the God in the Bible, the Quran, or the Torah. The Medina Charter, arguably the first charter ever written, shows that Islam rejects the use of compulsion in religion and violence and that over centuries of human existence, the most effective way to resolve conflicts comes through mediation. The Medina Charter is an example that should be discussed and referred to in current conflicts. The creation of a community, or ummah, offers pluralism to everyone. For people are not judged on their beliefs, but on their actions. Persecution is the instigator of all tensions, and reason and tolerance is the essence of all peace. Just as in the streets of Medina, through tolerance and respect, we too may one day have a world-wide ummah, where a passing Christian will say, “Peace be upon you” to a Muslim, who will reply, “Peace be upon you too.”

Sean William White has a degree in Islamic history from Monash University, Melbourne.

References

• Armstrong, Karen. 2006. Muhammad: A Prophet for Our Time, New York: HarperCollins.
• Can, Sefik. 2005. Fundamentals of Rumi’s Thought, New Jersey: The Light, Inc.
• Lecker, Michael. “Waqidi’s Account on the Status of the Jews of Medina: A Study of a Combined Report,” in Uri Rubin (ed), The Life of Muhammad, Great Yarmouth, 1998.
• Peters, F. E. 1994. Muhammad and the Origins of Islam, New York: SUNY.
• Ramadan, Tariq. 2007. The Messenger: The Meanings of the Life of Muhammad, London: Allen Lane.
• Boase, Roger. Ecumenical Islam: A Muslim Response to Religious Pluralism, in Roger Boase (ed.). 2005.
• Islam and Global Dialogue, England, Ashgate.
• Sachedina, Abdulaziz. 2001. The Islamic Roots of Democratic Pluralism, New York: OUP.
• Saeed, Abdullah. 2006. Islamic Thought: An Introduction, UK: Routledge.
• Sajoo, Amyn B. 2009. Muslim Ethics: Emerging Vistas, London: Institute for Ismaili Studies.
• Stewart, P. J. Unfolding Islam, Lebanon, 1994.
• Yildirim, Yetkin. “Peace and Conflict Resolution in the Medina Charter,” Peace Review, UK: Routledge, Vol. 18, Issue 1. January 2006.

Notes

1. Muhammad B. Waqidi, ‘Umar al-Waqidi. Kitab al maghazi. Ed. M. Jones. London, 1966, as taken from: Michael Lecker, ‘Waqidi’s Account on the Status of the Jews of Medina: A Study of a Com- bined Report’, in Uri Rubin (ed), The Life of Mu-hammad, Great Yarmouth, 1998, p. 23.
2. www.ghazali.org

One of the main concerns of inter-human dialogue (2) as well as religious pluralism is the concept of the other(s). This concept uses such social/ethnic divisions, categorizations, and labeling as believers/non-believers, Jew/Gentile, Christian/non-Christian to maintain traditional religious polarity. From the very beginning of history, human nature has led people to construct the other(s) and then try to challenge and change it/them. If this goal has not been possible, one side has tried to destroy the other. In this regard, history is full of religious commitments to and wars for absolutism.

Huntington has claimed that the twenty-first century will see clashes of civilizations, by which he means clashes of the others. Marshood echoes this sentiment: Civilizations have always constructed ˜the other’ in forms that serve their own interest, and have treated ˜the other’ very violently history has been very much filled with this kind of violence. Tolerance is rare. Indeed, the term ˜civilization’ implies that a ranking hierarchy is always present and that the social construction of civilization is a product of competing interactions between groups. Although some religions are more exclusionist than others, virtually all of them either assert or imply that their own version of the world is true, thereby rendering competing worldviews inferior. In religious language, ˜the other’ is always evil and dirty. Humans couldn’t have created a loving and caring God without creating evil. It is the creation of a jealous god that can’t coexist alongside that of ˜the other’.(3)

One of religious pluralism’s main concerns is the concept of the other(s), for this attitude is essentially an attempt to understand differences in order to promote life and the universe.

This article considers the following questions: How did Said Nursi (1876-1960), a twentieth-century Turkish Islamic scholar, view others who believe and worship differently? Can believers coexist peacefully within the same societal structure? Is there any way to share the world with those who have different religious practices and beliefs? Is a person of another faith saved? How should unbelievers be treated? His responses to such questions will be used to connect the issue of religious tolerance with contemporary events. Especially after 9/11, we discuss practical aspects of his approach to the other(s), and their different doctrines, ideologies, and religions in order to promote different views of life and the universe that reflect Islamic universalism.

Said Nursi and non-Muslims

According to Nursi, non-Muslims are not the enemies of Muslims. In fact, he even gave a number of reasons why Muslims should see them as friends: They are the means for awakening the Muslims from their centuries of slumber, Muslims could obtain modern scientific knowledge from them, Muslims have an obligation to persuade them that Islam is the religion of peace, and, since they are the Muslims’ neighbors, there must be bonds of friendship between both communities.(4)

Nursi maintained that there was no harm in loving non-Muslims. Since they are developed in science and civilization, such love comes from the improvements they have made in those areas as well as in the public order, which is the basis of all worldly happiness. This type of loving is even mentioned in the Qur’an.5 He wrote: Yet a man is not loved for himself. Maybe the love comes from his attribution or art. It therefore does not necessarily have to be right that all the attribution of a Muslim is Islamic and, contrary to this, all the attribution of an unbeliever is un-Islamic. Nevertheless the attribution or the art which are Islamic might be observed by those who are not Muslim.(6)

The background to Nursi’s approach to tolerance is explained by Michel: Many years before, in 1910-1911, Said Nursi was questioned concerning his desire to build relations of friendship with Christians. He was confronted with the restrictive interpretation that some Muslims had placed on the Qur’anic verse: O you who believe! Do not take the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors (5:51). In the light of this verse, he was asked, why did he say that Muslims and Christians should be friends? His answer is instructive, not only for understanding Said Nursi’s desire to encourage love and friendship between Muslims and Christians, but for his approach to Qur’anic interpretation. In his view, the Qur’anic prescription is not general but absolute and, as such, can be restricted. Time is a great interpreter; if it determines its limits, it cannot be gainsaid. That is, when a matter becomes clear in the course of time, one cannot object to it. Moreover, if the judgment is based on derived evidence, the source of the derivation shows the reason for the judgment.(7)

In applying this principle to the interpretation of this verse, he holds that Muslims cannot be friends with Jews and Christians only when these groups reflect Jewishness or Christianness. But, he concludes, Just as not all of the characteristics of an individual Muslim necessarily reflect the teaching of Islam, so also, not all of the qualities of individual Jews or Christians reflect unbelief.(8)

If Muslims discover that a Jew or Christian possesses certain qualities that agree with Islamic teachings, they should consider those qualities as praiseworthy. Thus, it is those good qualities that form the basis for friendship with Jews and Christians. Can a Muslim love a Christian or Jew? he asks, and replies with an example of a Muslim man who is married to a woman of the People of the Book. Of course, he should love her. His argument is the very fact that the Qur’an permits a Muslim man to marry a Jewish or Christian woman presumes that he can and should love her.(9) Nursi’s understanding and his openness to the an individual’s personal qualities reflect pluralism.

Nursi also indicated his acceptance of pluralism by writing that Muslims should ally themselves with Christians to fight atheism,(10) and that all of the People of the Book should cooperate against the common enemy of atheism or other unreligious ideologies. He wrote: It is even recorded in authentic traditions of the Prophet that, at the end of time, the truly pious among the Christians will unite with the People of the Qur’an and fight their common enemy: irreligion. And at this time, too, the people of religion and truth need to unite sincerely not only with their own brothers and fellow believers, but also with the truly pious and spiritual ones among the Christians, temporarily [disengaging] from the discussion and debate of points of difference in order to combat their joint enemy “ aggressive atheism.(11)

Michel states: Writing during one of the most tragic periods in the history of Anatolia, Said Nursi could not ignore the reality of the deaths of so many innocent persons. It is to his great credit that he rose above sectarian loyalty to address the question of innocent Christians as well as Muslims who fell victim to the times. ˜Even if those innocent people were unbelievers,’ he stated, ˜in return for the tribulations they suffered due to that worldly disaster, they have such a reward from the treasury of Divine mercy that if the veil of the Unseen were to open, a great manifestation of mercy would be apparent in relation to them and they would declare: ˜O Lord, thanks be to You! All praise belongs to God.'(12)

Nursi considered Europe as having two faces. Europe is two. One follows the sciences which serve justice and right and activities beneficial for the life of society through the inspiration it has received from true Christianity. This first Europe I am not addressing. Rather, I am addressing the second, corrupt Europe which, through the darkness of the philosophy of naturalism that considered the evils of civilization to be its virtues, has driven humankind to vice and misguidance.(13)

Nursi and the diversity of truth

Nursi asserted that since truth is not limited to one understanding, there can be many different understandings that vary in form according to time and place. Even sacred laws change according to the times. Indeed, one age may have seen several Prophets,(14) and there were different Prophets and laws in the same continent during the same century.(15)

Regarding the diversity of the schools of law, Nursi replies: If you say: The truth is one; how can the different ordinances of the four, or twelve schools be true? The answer: The same water governs in five different ways in five ill people of different dispositions, thus: for one, the water is a cure for his illness, and according to medicine, necessary. For another, it is like poison for his sickness and harmful, and medically prohibited. For another, it causes a small amount of harm, and is reprehensible medically. For another the water is beneficial and without harm; according to medicine that is sunna for him. And for yet another it is neither harmful nor beneficial; he can drink it with good health, and for him it is medically permissible. Thus, here the truth has become numerous; all five are true. Are you able to say: The water is only a cure, only necessary, and it governs no other way?(16)

On the diversity of Islamic faith, Nursi states: When you know your way and opinions to be true, you have the right to say, ˜My way is right and the best.’ But you do not have the right to say, ˜Only my way is right.’ According to the sense of ˜The eye of contentment is too dim to perceive faults; it is the eye of anger that exhibits all vice,’ your unjust view and distorted opinion cannot be the all-decisive judge and cannot condemn the belief of another as invalid.(17)

Given this context, John Voll opines that Nursi’s approach can be considered pluralistic. Voll writes: In terms of Qur’anic commentary, Said Nursi argues that the verses of the Qur’an reflect the vastness of God’s message and depths of meanings. He then quotes Nursi: As the Qur’an of Miraculous Exposition expresses truths through its explicit, clear meanings and senses, so it expresses many allusive meanings through its styles and forms. Each of its verses contains numerous levels of meanings. Since the Qur’an proceeds from all-encompassing knowledge, all its meanings may be intended. It cannot be restricted to one or two meanings like man’s speech, the product of his limited mind and individual will. It is because of this that innumerable truths contained in the Qur’an’s verses have been expounded by Qur’anic commentators, and there are many more which have not been expounded by them.(18)

According to Voll: This openness to many different levels of understanding reflects a pluralism that is not a relativist position, but rather emphasizes the importance of the role of the individual in the interpretation.(19)

Nursi’s use of metaphors to promote pluralism

Speaking metaphorically, Nursi maintains that the palace of the universe contains four categories of workers: angels, animals, plants and inanimate creatures, and humanity. In a sense, their diverse duties of worship also admit pluralism.(20) His characterization of the universe displays a universal pluralism, for: Man is the place of manifestation of all the Names, but the Names being various has resulted in the universe’s variety and the differences in the angels’ worship, and has also caused a degree of variety among men. The different laws of the prophets, the different ways of the saints, and the different paths of the purified scholars have arisen from this mystery.(21)

Basing himself upon: O humanity, We created you from a single (pair) of a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, that you may know each other, Nursi writes that this can be understood as: I created you as peoples, nations, and tribes, so that you should know one another and the relations between you in social life, and assist one another; not so that you should regard each other as strangers, refusing to acknowledge one another, and nurturing hostility and enmity.(22) Thus, being divided into groups and tribes should lead to mutual acquaintance and mutual assistance, not to antipathy and mutual hostility.(23)

The following metaphor aptly summarizes his recognition of pluralism: If someone is both a teacher, and a policeman, and a clerk of the court, and an inspector in the civil service, in each office he has both relations, and duties, and obligations, and salaries, and responsibilities, and promotion, and enemies and rivals who are the cause of his failures. He appears before the king with many titles, and he sees the king. He seeks help from him with many tongues. He has recourse to many of the ruler’s titles, and seeks his help in many forms in order to be saved from the evil of his enemies. In just the same way, man, who manifests many Names and is charged with many duties and afflicted with many enemies, invokes many of the Names in his prayers and supplications. Muhammad the Arabian (Peace and blessings be upon him), the cause of pride of mankind and truly the most perfect man, supplicated with a thousand and one Names in his prayer, Jawshan al-Kabir.(24)

Using his concept of pluralism, he defended Muhyiddin ibn al-˜Arabi, an Islamic scholar of the Unity of Existence, in the following words; Yes, himself, Muhyiddin was rightly-guided and acceptable, but in all his works cannot be the guide and instructor. However, he himself is free of misguidance. Sometimes, a word may appear to be unbelief, but the one who spoke it is not an unbeliever.(25) He also quoted Muhyiddin: Those who are not one of us and do not know our station should not read our books, for it may be damaging for them.(26)

Nursi’s efforts to legitimize Sufism and to reach common understandings with the Shi˜a also manifest pluralism.(27) Although he opined that some people attached too much importance to Sufism at the expense of serving the cause of spreading the truths of belief, he paid attention to legitimizing sainthood and Sufism and choosing the middle way.(28)

His concept of pluralism even extended to salvation. As we read in The Letters: The two parts of the confession of faith cannot be separated; they either prove each other, comprise each other; one cannot be without the others. Since the Prophet (Upon whom be blessings and peace) was the Seal of the Prophets and the heir of all the prophets, he is at the start of all the ways leading to God. There can be no way to reality and salvation outside his mighty highway. All those with inner knowledge of God and the authorities of these who have researched into reality have said like Sa’di Shirazi: ˜It is impossible, Sa’di, to be victorious on the way of salvation, except by following Mustafa [Prophet Muhammad].’ They also said: ˜All ways are closed except the highway of Muhammad.’ However, it sometimes happens that people may be on the highway of Muhammad and within it, without knowing that it is the highway of Muhammad. And it sometimes happens that they do not know the Prophet, but the road they take is part of the highwayof Muhammad(29)

Nursi spent his life pursuing his quest to strengthen belief and reform society by means of a moral-based discourse.(30) Throughout his long life, he raised a voice of reasonable pluralism in the Islamic world by viewing one person as having numerous personalities, all of which display different qualities.(31) He accepted that truth could be understood in more than one way, and therefore he was neither an absolutist nor a relativist in matters ranging from religiosity to ethnicism, and from moderation to salvation.(32)

Conclusion

In a sense Nursi’s approach to non-Muslims amounts to pluralism. He wrote: Our action towards non-Muslims is persuasion, for we know them to be civilized, and to show Islam to be elevated and worthy of love.(33)

Believing Islam to be the middle way, Nursi emphasized the importance of moderation and keeping away from want and excess saying Too much or too little of anything is not good. Moderation is the middle way….(34) Finally, by advocating a middle way, Nursi communicated a message of hope and tolerance to others (35) when he wrote: The thing which is most worthy of love is love, and that most deserving of enmity is enmity. It is love and loving that render people’s social life secure and that lead to happiness, [it is these] which are most worthy of love and being loved. The time for enmity and hostility is finished.(36)

In conclusion, we can say that Nursi approaches this world and the Hereafter with a pluralistic view. He accepts different views, ideologies, and races, and his understanding of ethnicity demonstrates pluralism. For him, pluralism or tolerance does not necessarily mean integration or conversion; rather, it means the necessity to promote universal life. The importance that he places upon one innocent individual shows an impressive attitude of religious pluralism.

According to Michel: In any study of the development of Christian-Muslim dialogue in the 20th century, special attention must be given to the writings and preaching of Bediuzzaman Said Nursi. As one of the first religious thinkers in the course of this century to propose and promote dialogue between Muslims and Christians, Said Nursi’s advocacy of this dialogue dates back to 1911. This was a full half century before the Catholic Church’s Second Vatican Council urged Christians and Muslims to resolve their differences and move beyond the conflicts of the past to build relations characterized by respect and cooperation. Bediuzzaman’s repeated promotion of Muslim-Christian dialogue is even more striking in that his recommendations frequently date from times of tension and even warfare between Muslim and Christian communities.(37)

Footnotes

1. This article originally appeared as H. Horkuc, New Muslim Discourses on Pluralism in the Postmodern Age: Nursi on Religious Pluralism, The American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences 19, no. 2 (spring 2002): 68-86.
2. As opposed to interfaith or inter-religious dialogue. I consider both of these terms to be too limiting for the issue being discussed.
3. N. Marshood, Religious Pluralism and Social Change. Hudson County Community College. Online.
4. See I. Canan, The Chief Questions Facing the Islamic World and Their Solutions according to Bediuzzaman, in Second International Symposium on Bediuzzaman Said Nursi: The Reconstruction of Islamic Thought in the Twentieth Century and Bediuzzaman Said Nursi (Istanbul: Yeni Nesil, 1992).
5. See B. S. Nursi, Munazarat, in Kaynakli-Indeksli-Lugatli Risale-i Nur Kulliyati (The Epistle of Light), (Istanbul: Nesil Basim Yayin, 1996), 1944.
6. Ibid.
7. T. S. J. Michel, Muslim-Christian Dialogue anda Co-operation in the Thought of Bediuzzaman Said Nursi, The Muslim World 89, nos. 3-4 (1999): 332.
8. Ibid., 325.
9. T. S. J. Michel, Muslim-Christian Dialogue and Co-operation in the Thought of Bediuzzaman Said Nursi, in Fourth International Symposium on Bediuzzaman Said Nursi: A Contemporary Approach towards Understanding the Qur’an: The Example of Risale-I Nur (Istanbul: Yeni Nesil: 1998).
10. In this regard, see John Obert Voll, Bediuzzaman Said Nursi and Religion in the 1950s, The Muslim World 89, no.s 3-4 (1999): 255-56.
11. B. S. Nursi, The Flashes, in Risale-i Nur 1.0 CD. (Istanbul: Yeni Nesil, 200), 203, note 7.
12. Michael, Muslim-Christian Dialogue.
13. Ibid., 160.
14. Compare this with B. S. Nursi, The Words, in Risale-i Nur 1.0 CD (Istanbul: Yeni Nesil, 2000), 501. Then, since with the coming of the Prophet of the end of time, man as though advanced from the primary to the secondary stage, and through numerous revolutions and upheavals reached a position at which all the human peoples could receive a single lesson and listen to a single teacher and act in accordance with a single law, no need remained for different laws, neither was there necessity for different teachers. But because they were not all at completely the same level and did not proceed in the same sort of social life, the schools of law became numerous. If, like students of a school of higher education, the vast majority of mankind were clothed in the same sort of social life and attained the same level, then all the schools could be united. But just as the state of the world does not permit that, so the schools of law cannot be the same.
15. See conclusion in ibid., 500.
16. Ibid., 501.
17. B. S. Nursi, The Letters, in Risale-i Nur 1.0 CD. (Istanbul: Yeni Nesil, 2000), 314.
18. Voll, Bediuzzaman Said Nursi, 255-56.
19. Ibid.
20. Horkuc, New Muslim Discourses, 77.
21. Nursi, The Words, 343.
22. Nursi, The Letters, 379.
23. Ibid., 380.
24. Nursi, The Words, 344.
25. Nursi, The Flashes, 371.
26. For more on this see Ibid., 369-70.
27. See Horkuc, New Muslim Discourses, 80.
28. In one of his treaties concerning the Nine Allusions, Nursi explains the ways of sainthood and Sufism, deals with the definition of the Sufi path, and explains the truth underlying the terms Sufism, path, sainthood, and spiritual journeying. Nursi, The Letters, 518.
29. Ibid., 394.
30. Horkuc, New Muslim Discourses, 81.
31. In this treatise, Nursi explains how a person may have numerous personalities in respect of his different duties. Nursi, The Letters, 377.
32. Horkuc, New Muslim Discourses.
33. Cited in Canan, The Chief Questions
34. Nursi, The Flashes, 43.
35. See Horkuc, New Muslim Discourses, 77.
36. As cited in Michel, Muslim-Christian Dialogue.
37. Ibid., 325.

Diana Eck, leader of Harvard University’s Pluralism Project, introduces readers to America’s new religious landscape of mosques, temples, and monasteries. Focusing mainly on the period after the passage of the 1965 Immigration and Naturalization Act, she calls this change very subtle and largely unnoticed.

She discusses the meaning of religious diversity and freedom. Basing herself on the Great Seal of the United States ”E pluribus unum (From Many, One) ” she asks: What is the measure of our manyness? What is the meaning of our oneness? Each religion and culture, she asserts, has its own way of addressing these questions.

For example, a Muslim imam referred to Qur’an 49:13 in the Chamber of the U.S. House of Representatives: Do you not know, O people, that I have made you into tribes and nations that you may know each other? Hinduism’s Rig Veda (I.64.46) says: Truth is One. People call it by many names.

The author defines pluralism as the dynamic process through which we engage with one another in and through our very deepest differences. Some of its manifestations are Nikes and Reeboks adorning shoe racks in gurdwaras, mosques, and temples; a Muslim Girl Scout who promises to serve Allah and my country; and consecration rituals at a Hindu temple using a mixture of sacred Ganges river water and regular Mississippi river water.

This well-written and thought-provoking book provides an historical context, describes legal battles and pivotal court cases, and addresses stereotypes, religiously motivated hate crimes, how some communities have welcomed religious pluralism, and appropriate models for engagement.