In his book Societal Psychology and Empathy, published by Timaş Publishing, Prof. Nevzat Tarhan, President of Üsküdar University, compares the Universal Declaration of Human Rights with the Constitution of Medina, one of the foundational reference texts of the modern world, from a sociological and psychological perspective.
Emphasizing that the Constitution of Medina goes even further than the Magna Carta, Prof. Tarhan notes that the document offers a vision beyond modern human rights texts. One of its most striking features, he argues, is its clear stance against racism and slavery and its deep respect for diversity, in contrast to modern ideologies that aim to produce uniform individuals. Remarkably, this vision was articulated thirteen centuries ago.
Highlighting that the Constitution of Medina places social empathy, mutual responsibility, and justice at its core, Prof. Tarhan states that it would not be an exaggeration to describe it as a contract capable of preventing a third world war in today’s climate of global tension. At a time when income inequality and hostility toward wealth are intensifying, he argues, the perspective offered by this agreement is more necessary than ever.
According to Prof. Tarhan, the humanitarian and universal values that the Western world reached in 1948 in the aftermath of the devastation of World War II had already been realized by Islamic civilization in 622 through the Constitution of Medina, fully 1,326 years earlier.
The Constitution of Medina as the first written constitution
Drafted in 622 under the leadership of the Prophet Muhammad to include Muslims, Jews, and pagan communities, the Constitution of Medina is recognized not merely as a peace agreement, but as a comprehensive social contract defining rights, responsibilities, and principles of coexistence among communities of different beliefs and cultures.
Describing the Constitution of Medina as the first written constitution in human history, Prof. Tarhan states: “The Constitution of Medina clearly defines the boundaries between individuals, cultural groups, and political authority. It places social empathy, mutual responsibility, and justice at its center. In this respect, it represents not only a religious transformation but also a sociological and psychological revolution.”
A culture of empathy and coexistence
Prof. Tarhan points out that both the Constitution of Medina and the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights emerged in the aftermath of profound sociological and psychological traumas. However, he emphasizes that the fundamental difference between the two texts lies in their perspective.
“The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is based primarily on a vertical relationship regulating the rights of individuals vis-à-vis the state,” he explains. “The Constitution of Medina, by contrast, prioritizes horizontal relationships between individuals, dialogue, and social consensus.”
A vision beyond modern human rights texts
According to Prof. Tarhan, the Constitution of Medina offers a vision that, in some respects, goes beyond even modern human rights documents. One of its most distinctive aspects is the concept of a plural legal system, which is absent from many contemporary constitutions and declarations.
“The Constitution of Medina granted Jewish communities the right to live according to their own religious laws and to regulate their civil affairs accordingly. This represents a profound respect for differences, in contrast to modern ideologies that seek to create uniform individuals,” he states.
A thirteen-century-old stand against racism and slavery
One of the most remarkable aspects of the Constitution of Medina is its stance against racism and slavery. Prof. Tarhan explains that the principle stating that a protected person is considered equal to the one providing protection reflects a revolutionary approach aimed at gradually abolishing slavery and eliminating othering.
“While the Western world still struggles with xenophobia and lifestyle-based racism today, the Constitution of Medina articulated an understanding of equality based on human dignity thirteen centuries ago,” he notes.
Social empathy and the concept of “Reasonableness”
Prof. Tarhan also draws attention to the frequent use of the concept of “reasonableness” in the Constitution, describing it as a language of reconciliation and a call for empathy.
“With its principles mandating assistance to anyone who is oppressed, regardless of religion, language, or ethnicity, the Constitution of Medina offers a universal understanding of social responsibility. The principle of helping the oppressed forms the foundation of modern human rights discourse, and in Medina, it was implemented as a binding legal norm,” he explains.
More advanced than the Magna Carta
Comparing the Constitution of Medina with the Magna Carta, one of the key texts in Western legal history, Prof. Tarhan argues that the former is even more comprehensive.
“The first social contract of the modern world is the Constitution of Medina. The Magna Carta represents its second stage, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights its third. The Constitution of Medina goes beyond the Magna Carta, yet unfortunately, it is not widely known or taught,” he says.
The seeds of wisdom were sown in the East
The analyses presented in Societal Psychology and Empathy demonstrate that the struggle for human rights is not solely a modern, Western achievement. Rather, its roots lie in the Islamic civilization’s long-standing tradition of justice, empathy, and coexistence.
A contract that could prevent a Third World War
Referring to contemporary global tensions, Prof. Tarhan concludes by stating: “It would not be wrong to call the Constitution of Medina a contract capable of preventing a third world war. At a time when income inequality and hostility toward wealth are increasing, we are in great need of the perspective offered by this agreement.”
