Muhammad's 'Constitution' is likewise a 'Sham'! (#13)

So, is Muhammad's 'Constitution of Medina' historical, or is it simply another fake?

The 'Constitution of Medina', according to the Standard Islamic Narrative (SIN), is a document supposedly written by Muhammad as an agreement between the 3 major groups living in Medina in 622 AD, the Ansar (native Arabs), the Jewish families, and the newly arrived 'Muhajiroun' (Muhammad's followers from Mecca).

Today Muslims believe that the Constitution is a “model for all of mankind”, and many would like to use it today as a constitution for everyone.

But there are many problems with it:

1) It is pro-Jewish, yet there is no Jewish record of it, which the Jews would have certainly retained, since it would have helped them greatly with the many troubles they have encountered in the past 1400 years at the hands of Muslims.

2) More problematic, there is no archaeological evidence of any Jews living in Medina at all that early, and that far south, so they certainly couldn't have been party to such a constitution.

3) It contradicts the Sira and the Hadith’s treatment of Jews, which is much more cruel in their punishments of Jews.

4) The Isnads (chain of names) for the Constitution are confused, with different versions contradicting each other, suggesting they were created sometime in the 9th century.

5) The Qur’an does not refer to any Constitution made in Medina, yet it would since it was so important for Muhammad's role so early on.

6) From an internal analysis, no Jew would ever sign a treaty which gave Muhammad the authority between man and God, nor would I if I were there at that time.

7) The first time it even appears is in the Sira of Ibn Hisham in 833 AD, a good 200 years later, which is much too late to be authentic.

8) Muslims shouldn’t accept the treaty, as it contradicts so much of the Qur’an’s and the Tradition's view of Jews, and makes the historical credibility for those traditions likewise problematic.

My conclusion:
The Historians (Dr Hoyland, and Dr Andrews) consider it a fraud because there were no Jews that far south in the early 7th century, and the only source for the Constitution comes from the much later 9th century Muslim Traditions (thus, too late and too far away), and I trust their research.

I, like them, conclude that the 'Constitution' is ‘legendary’.

The ‘Constitution’, consequently, cannot support any notion that Muhammad existed in the 7th century.

© Pfander Centre for Apologetics - US, 2021
(49,570) Music: Reaching the Sky, by Alexander Nakarada, from filmmusic-io