The Myth of ‘Democratic Islam’: A Response to Abdullah Öcalan’s Claims Regarding the Charter of Medina

Given recent statements by Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) leader Abdullah Öcalan, who cited the Medina Charter as a foundational model for recognizing non-Muslim nations within a political framework and used it as evidence for his concept of “Democratic Islam”[1], it is important, for scholarly accuracy, to clarify several scientific and methodological facts that this argument overlooks. These oversights result in projections that are both historically and politically inaccurate.

The widely accepted story of the Medina Charter was reported by Ibn Ishaq (d. 151 AH) without an isnād (transmission chain). According to rigorous academic standards, this makes it a historical account subject to analysis rather than a definitive foundation for a political system or governance theory. Therefore, considering this document as a modern “constitution” or a permanent model of governance is an epistemological overreach that contradicts established historical research methods.

Even if one accepts the historical existence of the Medina Charter, it only outlines Medina’s territory broadly, under a single leadership and a basic legal framework that applies to all residents in this small area, ensuring security and peace. The charter lacked a formal administrative body to enforce its rules; instead, its implementation and interpretation depended solely on the Prophet of Islam, without any official institutional or political structure. This indicates that the charter was a temporary, transitional arrangement rather than a complete system of governance or an institutional political order.

Some modern Islamic political theorists and even thinkers outside the Islamic field overly rely on the Medina Charter as a foundation for Islamic foreign policy. This approach is a significant methodological mistake because the charter was originally meant only to govern relations within Medina during its early days. It was never intended to serve as a basis for international relations or foreign policy in the Islamic political framework. Using the charter’s clauses to interpret Islam’s global relationships or to develop ideas of “pluralism” and “democracy” in foreign policy is both scientifically and historically inaccurate.

When the pact was made with the Jews of Medina, Muslims were a small community, economically vulnerable after emigrants left their possessions in Mecca, politically isolated in a hostile Arab environment under Quraysh control, and inexperienced in governance, economics, and international affairs. Due to these circumstances, a peaceful approach, both internally and externally, was driven by necessity rather than ideology, and it was not meant to serve as a lasting model for governance or international relations.

The Islamic political system has undergone three distinct phases in international relations:

1. A period of around three years characterized by local peaceful coexistence, which was enforced by Muslim weakness.
2. A phase of regional balance between Medina and Mecca and their respective allies.
3. A final and lasting phase was initiated with the revelation of the “Verse of the Sword” and the commands to fight in Surat al-Tawbah in 8 AH, during which international relations were based on expansion, conflict, and offensive jihad.

Subsequent Qur’anic revelations, authentic prophetic traditions, and the practical conduct and legal reasoning of the first Caliphs, Abu Bakr and Umar ibn al-Khattab, abrogated earlier provisional policies that were based on circumstances of weakness.

Promoting coexistence and balance strategies as the core of Islamic international relations, arguing that they align with modern political theories, is a clear case of intellectual misrepresentation. It cherry-picks elements that have been historically and legally abolished, portraying them as central to the Islamic political system, while hiding the definitive strategic framework that does not fit the “global political market.” This tactic is similar to deceptive marketing, where products promoted do not necessarily reflect reality.

Ultimately, citing the Medina Charter to support the idea of “Democratic Islam” or to depict Islam as a static, pluralistic political system aligned with modern standards is not based on a scholarly interpretation or an evolutionary view of texts, laws, and history. Instead, it reflects a modern projection influenced by current demands onto a temporary and superseded historical phase, which was shaped by weakness, rather than representing the ultimate governance and political model in Islam.