The reasons behind the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are numerous, but central to the whole confrontation between those two warring parties is the alleged sacred nature of what has become known as the Holy Land. Some Jews regard the area covering Israel and the Palestinian territories as holy because it is their Promised Land, a piece of territory that God had allegedly given to his Chosen People to keep eternally. Numerous Muslims, however, believe that the Holy Land should be theirs, since- they point out- it is where one of their holiest shrines is located, namely Al Masjid Al-Aqsa (the Farthest Mosque). According to Muslim accounts, Islam’s prophet Muhammad traveled from Mecca to Jerusalem on a winged creature called Al-Buraq, supposedly a cross between a donkey and a mule. This journey became known as Al-Isra’ (Night Journey). Some Muslim accounts claim that Muhammad was then taken up to the heavens to meet with various prophets and speak with God, although other Muslim accounts claim that this occurred on another occasion. The latter became known as Al-Mi’raj (The Ascension). As a result, the dispute over who is entitled to this particular piece of land widened to include not just the Palestinians, but Muslims as a whole, since Al-Aqsa Mosque is seen as belonging to all Muslims.

Part of the problem surrounding Al-Aqsa Mosque relates to the fact that it was first partly built during the days of the caliphate of Omar Bin Al-Khattab, the second Muslim caliph (successor to Muhammad) following the death of Muhammad and Abu Bakr (the first caliph). The construction of Al-Aqsa Mosque was completed during the reign of the Umayyads. So what did the Quran mean when it stated, “Glory be to Him Who carried His servant by night from the Sacred Mosque (in Mecca) to the Farthest Mosque (in Jerusalem)” (Al-Isra’, Chapter 17, Verse 1)? Was it referring to the Jewish Temple? Muslim exegetes seem to think so. However, that would be puzzling, considering the fact that the Temple had not been rebuilt, following its destruction by the Romans six centuries earlier. Was the Quran then referring to the actual land upon which the Jewish Temple had been built, rather than to the building itself? If true, then that piece of land was a particularly Jewish area, rather than a Muslim one, for the claim that Muhammad visited Jerusalem does not in any way mean that the Holy Land became Muslim. In fact, there have been suggestions indicating that the story of the Night Journey to Jerusalem was a fabrication. Proponents of this viewpoint maintain that Al-Aqsa Mosque mentioned in the Quran was actually situated in a place called Ju’ranah- which is about twenty kilometres away from Mecca- and not in Jerusalem, and they base their allegation on some notable scholarly Muslim sources, such as those of Al-Waqidi, Al-Fakihi, Al-Azraqi, and Al-Sharwani. The advocates of this position point out that in their political rivalry with Abdullah Ibn Al-Zubayr who controlled Mecca, the Umayyads- who were based in Damascus and controlled Jerusalem- wanted to enhance their political prestige by making pilgrimage to Jerusalem as good as pilgrimage to Mecca, thereby diverting numerous Muslims from the latter where Al-Zubayr held sway. The supporters of such a view assert that it is no coincidence that most of the famous scholars who provided exegesis of the Quran, the collection of hadith (Muhammad’s sayings), and accounts of Muhammad’s life lived under the Umayyads and were to a significant extent manipulated by them. They explain that that was how the story of the Night Journey entered Muslim literature as a journey to Jerusalem, rather than one to Ju’ranah. This is an analysis that has been highly controversial in the Muslim world.

The Quran itself does mention that God had given the Holy Land to the Israelites. In one of its chapters, Moses says to the Israelites, “O my people, enter the Holy Land which God has ordained for you and do not turn back in flight, or you will end up as losers.” (Al-Mai’idah, Chapter 5, Verse 21). Is this verse not valid anymore? Admittedly, there have been instances in the Quran where some verses were abrogated by others, e.g. Muslims were initially told to pray in the direction of Jerusalem, before the Quran told them to pray in the direction of Mecca. Another example relates to the drinking of wine: to begin with, Muslims were allowed to drink, but were forbidden from praying while intoxicated, before they were instructed to shun drinking altogether. The Quran does acknowledge the existence of such abrogation: In one of the verses, it states, “Whatever verse We abrogate or We make you forget, We bring in its place a better one or the like of it. Do you not know that God has power over all things?” (Al-Baqarah, Chapter 2, Verse 106). Yet, the said verse in which God ordained the Holy Land for the Israelites was never abrogated. Moreover, the Quran does not contain any verse in which God gave the Holy Land to Muslims. Whence then do Muslims derive the idea that Jerusalem is theirs?

The answer to this question lies in the firm Muslim belief that Islam has replaced the other Abrahamic religions of Judaism and Christianity and that, consequently, Muslims are the rightful heirs to what once belonged to those religions. It therefore stands to reason that the Holy Land belongs to the world of Islam, or so Muslims believe. In support of this view, Muslims quote the Quran, “Whoever desires a religion other than Islam, it shall not be accepted from him, and in the Hereafter he shall be among the losers.” (Aal Imran, Chapter 3, Verse 85). This is ample proof, many Muslims contend, that only Islam is now valid and, therefore, they are the true inheritors of God’s bounty. The Holy Land- including Jerusalem- is ours, they conclude. This exclusionary attitude lies at the very heart of Muslim rejection of Israel. But does the Quran actually say what countless Muslims think it says? Does the Quran really say that all that is not Muslim is to be dismissed without further ado? Doubts have been raised about this very point.

In one of the Quran’s verses (An-Nissa’, Chapter 4, Verse 48), it says, “God forgives not that anything should be associated with Him. But He forgives other than that of sins to whomever He wills. Whoever associates anything with God, then he has indeed committed a great sin.” That means that God may forgive anyone who acknowledges the Oneness of God. This verse seems to contradict the aforementioned verse stating that only Islam can be accepted from people. How then is one to resolve this contradiction? The answer lies in how the word “Islam” is understood. It appears that Islam is sometimes used in the Quran to mean the recognition of the Oneness of God, and that may well be the real meaning of the above-mentioned verse in Aal Imran 3:85. In other words, what God will not accept from people is the failure to acknowledge His Oneness. This interpretation easily brushes aside the apparent contradiction with the aforementioned An-Nissa’ 4:48 which states that God may forgive anything except associating Him with others. There are other verses in the Quran that lend support to such an interpretation: In Al-Baqarah, Chapter 2, Verse 132, Abraham and Jacob urge their children not to die except as muslimoun, or Muslims. In Aal Imran, Chapter 3, Verse 52, Jesus’s disciples tell him that they are muslimoun. In both of these verses, it is patently clear that the Arabic word muslimoun does not mean Muslims in the conventional sense, since according to religious accounts, Abraham, Jacob, and Jesus had lived centuries before the advent of Islam. Instead, muslimoun seems to mean those who recognize the Oneness of God.

The reinterpretation of the above-mentioned verse (which states that anything other than Islam shall not be accepted) may have very significant implications for the potential resolution of the dispute over who is entitled to the Holy Land. In other words, with this different interpretation, the exclusiveness of Islam would give way to inclusiveness, recognition of the Other, and respect for their faith. Such inclusiveness would not see any need to take possession of everything belonging to Judaism or Christianity. In this approach, Islam would be seen as complementing, rather than replacing and nullifying, the other religions. The vigorous insistence on taking the whole of the Holy Land including Jerusalem would thus become redundant. This would open the door to compromise so that Muslims- especially Palestinians- and Israelis could live side by side in genuine amity, mutual respect, and recognition of each other’s rights and privileges. Terrorism would then find no fertile ground in which to grow, while peace and justice between Muslims and Jews would flourish unhindered.