A Comparative Legal Analysis of the Constitution of Medina in the Light of Contemporary Constitutional Law and International Documents

Abstract

The Charter of Medina is one of the most significant political and legal documents of the early Islamic period. It was established after the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ migrated to Medina to regulate relations among its diverse religious and social groups. The Charter addressed issues including security, collective defense, justice, mutual responsibilities, dispute resolution, and protection of the oppressed, and religious freedom. This study examines the constitutional elements and fundamental freedoms reflected in the Charter of Medina and compares them with modern constitutions and international human rights instruments. The research employs a library-based and documentary method with a descriptive-analytical and comparative approach. The findings indicate that although the Charter differs from modern constitutions in its form and institutional structure and does not provide for a modern separation of powers, it contains significant substantive constitutional elements. The right to life, security, justice, protection of the oppressed, religious coexistence, religious freedom, mutual responsibility, and dispute resolution can be identified in the Charter and are conceptually comparable to certain principles of modern constitutional law and international human rights instruments. Nevertheless, differences in religious and historical foundations and the structure of political authority prevent the Charter from being equated entirely with contemporary constitutional and human rights systems. The study concludes that, from a substantive and functional perspective, the Charter of Medina can be regarded as a political and legal document containing significant elements of constitutional law.