Any discussion of the problem of soveignty
over Jerusalem necessarily means involvement in a kind of
investigation that has political, cultural, psychological and
religious implications. For a Jew or a Muslim,
religious or secular, thinking of Jerusalem means to feel
reason and sentiment mingled together. In this paper I
do not want to enter into specific features directly
connected with politics but, as a Muslim scholar and a man of
religion, only to try and determine whether, from an Islamic
point of view, there is some well-grounded theological reason
that makes it impossible for Muslims to accept the idea of
recognizing Jerusalem both as an Islamic holy place and as
the capital of the State of Israel.
First, I would like to underline that the
idea of considering Jewish immigration to Eretz Israel as a
western "invasion" and Zionists as new
"colonizers" is very recent and has no relation to
the basic features of Islamic faith. According to the
Qur'an, no person, people or religious community can claim a
permanent right of possession over a certain territory, since
the earth belongs exclusively to God, Who is free to entrust
sovereign right to everyone He likes and for as long as He
likes:
"Say: 'O God, King of the
kingdom, Thou givest the kingdom to whom Thou pleasest,
and Thou strippest off the kingdom from whom Thou
pleasest; Thou endurest with honour whom Thou pleasest,
and Thou bringest low whom Thou pleasest; all the best is
in Thy hand. Verily, Thou hast power over all
things." (Qur'an, Sura 3:26)
From this verse one can deduce a basic
principle of the monotheistic philosophy of history:
God can choose as He likes as to relationships between
peoples and countries; sometimes He gives a land to a people,
and sometime He takes His possession back and gives it to
another people. In general terms, one might say that He
gives as a reward for obedience and takes back as a
punishment for wickedness, but this rule does not permit us
to say that God's ways are always plain and clear to our
understanding.
The idea of Islam as a factor that prevents
Arabs from recognizing any sovereign right of Jews over
Palestine is quite recent and can by no means be found in
Islamic classical sources. To see anti-Zionism as a
direct consequence of Islam is a form of explicit
misunderstanding which implies the transformation of Islam
from a religion into a secularized ideology. This was
originally done by the late Mufti of Jerusalem, Amin
al-Husseini, who was responsible for most of the Arab defeats
and during World War II collaborated with Adolf Hitler.
Later, Jamal el-Din Abd el-Nasser based his policy on
Pan-Arabism, hate for the Jews and alliance with the Soviet
Union. All these doctrines were the real cause of Arab
backwardness, and most of Nasser's mistakes were afterwards
corrected by the martyr Anwar Sadat. After the defeat
of Nasserism, the fundamentalist movements made anti-Zionism
an outstanding part of their propaganda, trying to describe
the so-called "fight for liberation of Palestine"
as rooted in Islamic tradition and derived from religious
principles.
This plan for ideologization of Islam as an
instrument of political struggle nevertheless encounters a
significant obstacle, since both Qur'an and Torah indicate
quite clearly that the link between the Children of Israel
and the Land of Canaan does not depend on any kind of
colonization project but directly on the will of God
Almighty. As we learn from Jewish and Islamic
Scriptures, God, through His chosen servant Moses, decided to
free the offspring of Jacob from slavery in Egypt and to make
them the inheritors of the Promised Land. Whoever
claims that Jewish sovereignty over Palestine is something
recent and dependent on political machinations is in fact
denying the history of revelation and prophecy, as well as
the clear teaching of the Holy Books. The Qur'an cites
the exact words in which Moses ordered the Israelites to
conquer the Land:
"And [remember] when Moses said to
his people: 'O my people, call in remembrance the
favour of God unto you, when he produced prophets among
you, made you kings, and gave to you what He had not
given to any other among the people. O my people,
enter the Holy Land which God has assigned unto you, and
turn not back ignominiously, for then will ye be
overthronw, to your own ruin." (Qur'an, Sura
5:22-23)
Moreoever -- and fundamentalists always
forget this point -- the Holy Qur'an quite openly refers to
the reinstatement of the Jews in the Land before the last
judgment, where it says:
"And thereafter We said to the
Children of Israel: 'Dwell securely in the Promised
Land.' And when the last warning will come to pass,
We will gather you together in a mingled
crowd." (Qur'an, Sura 17:104)
The most common argument against Islamic
acknowledgement of Israeli sovereignty over Jerusalem is
that, since al-Quds is a holy place for Muslims, they cannot
accept its being ruled by non-Muslims, because such
acceptance would be a betrayal of Islam. Before
expressing our point of view about this question, we must
reflect upon the reason that Jerusalem and the al-Aqsa Mosque
hold such a sacred position in Islam. As everyone
knows, the definition of Jerusalem as an Islamic holy place
depends on al-Mi'raj, the Ascension of the Prophet Muhammad
to heaven, which began from the Holy Rock.
While remembering this, we must admit that
there is no real link between al-Mi'raj and sovereign rights
over Jerusalem, since when al-Mi'rah took place the City was
not under Islamic, but under Byzantine administration.
Moreover, the Qur'an expressly recognizes that Jerusalem
plays the same role for Jews that Mecca has for
Muslims. We read:
"...They would not follow thy
direction of prayer (qibla), nor art thou to follow their
direction of prayer; nor indeed will they follow each
other's direction of prayer..." (Qur'an, Sura
2:145)
All qur'anic commentators explain that
"thy qibla" is obviously the Kaba of Mecca, while
"their qibla" refers to the Temple Area in
Jerusalem. To quote just one of the most important of
them, we read in Qadi Baydawi's Commentary:
"Verily, in their prayers Jews
orient themselves toward the Rock (sakhrah), while
Christians orientated themselves eastwards..."
(M. Shaykh Zadeh, "Hashiyya ala tafsir al-Qadi
al-Baydawi", Istanbul, 1979)
As opposed to what "Islamic"
fundamentalists continuously claim, the Book of Islam -- as
we have just now seen -- recognizes Jerusalem as the Jewish
direction of prayer; some Muslim exegetes also quote the Book
of Daniel as proof of this (Daniel 6:10). After
exhibiting the most relevant qur'anic passages in this
connection, one easily concludes that, as no one wishes to
deny Muslims complete sovereignty over Mecca, from an Islamic
point of view there is no sound theological reason to deny
the Jews the same right over Jerusalem.
If we consider ourselves as religious men, we
must necessarily include justice among our qualities.
As regards the argument, we have to admit that the same idea
of justice requires that we treat Jews, Christians and
Muslims equally. No community can demand for itself
privileges that it is not ready to recognize to others.
We know that Roman Catholics consider Rome their own capital,
and the fact that that city has the largest mosque in Europe
and an ancient Jewish community does not alter its role as
the center of Catholicism. Even more can be said of
Mecca: it is the main religious center for Muslims the
world over and is completely under Islamic
administration. Respecting this principle of
fair-mindedness, we necessarily conclude that the Israelis as
a nation and the Jews as a religion must have their own
political and ethical capital, under their sole
administration, even though it contains certain places
regarded as sacred by the other two Abrahamic faiths.
To my mind, this is the only realistic ground
for any discussion of the future of the Holy City. The
other parties must understand that Jews will never agree to
have less rights than the other religions, andthat Israelis
will never agree to see David's City divided into two
parts. If everyone was happy to see the Berlin Wall
destroyed, it was because the very idea of forced separation
within a single city is something offensiveto human
sensitivity. We cannot even think of creating another
Berlin in the heart of the Middle East. Of course, the
idea of "two Jerusalems", if ever realized, will by
no means be a solution, but a source of new troubles and
conflicts.
It is quite clear that the future of
Jerusalem must depend on a general agreement, and in our
opinion the only reliable partners for Israel seem to be the
Holy See and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. They must
understand that Israelis will never agree even to discuss the
possibility of dividing their capital and spiritual center,
while Israel must grant them considerable autonomy in the
administration of their respective Holy Places. Those
who speak of Jerusalem as the future capital of "two
different states" know very well that this kind of
proposal has no basis in reality. It is time to suggest
imaginative solutions, to become involved in a global project
for the development of the Middle East as a whole, so that
peaceful coexistence with Israel can make a real contribution
to overcoming the backwardness of most of the Islamic
countries.
The administration of the Holy Places in
Jerusalem is a quite complicated issue, and it is ot possible
here to enter into details. We would nevertheless like
to mention something that appears unbearable for any person
of religious consciousness: the fact that at present
the Islamic adminstration of bayt al-maqdis permits Jews to
visit the Temple Mount, but not to pray there. There
are special officials in the area whose taks is to ensure
that Jewish visitors on the Temple Mount are not moving their
lips in prayer. To my mind, this is clearly opposed to
Islamic prescriptions and rules. We have seen that the
Holy Qur'an declares the Rock a qibla for Jews; how, then, is
it possible that -- in the name of Islam -- someone dares to
forbid Jews to pray in the place that God has appointed as
their qibla? This is a clear example of a case in which
pseudo-religious principles may work against the real spirit
of religion. Moreover, we must ask: is it possible for
someone who believes in God to forbid another human to
pray? What kind of religion can let us interfere in the
relationship between the Creator and His creature? On
this point the Qur'an says:
"When My servants ask thee
concerning Me, I am indeed close to them: I answer
the prayer of every suppliant who calleth on
Me..." (Qur'an, Sura 22:186)
This verse explains that God is always close
to His servants when they are praying. Wherever we are
and whoever we are, according to the Qur'an we can be sure
that God is listening to our prayers and will answer them,
although, of course, we are not always able to understand His
response. This being the case, no-one who believes in God can
possibly prevent others praying, notwithstanding the fact
that they belong to another religious tradition. The
very idea of opposing someone's prayers reveals a really deep
lack of faith.
As to Jewish-Muslim relationships, we
heartily agree with the decision of Samuel Sirat, President
of the Council of European Rabbis: till now
inter-religious dialogue has been hampered by political
reasons; but, from a theological point of view, dialogue
between Jews and Christians is easier than, say, dialogue
between Jews and Christians.
In the past, Ibn Gabirol [Avucebri],
Maimonides, Ibn Sina [Avicenna] and Ibn Rushd [Averroes] were
not isolated intellectuals, but part of an intercommunication
game that went beyond confessional links. If we reflect
on the level of inter-religious dialogue in past centuries,
we must frankly admit that in this respect we have been
moving backwards. True, one can blame this on the
political situation, but that does not free intellectuals and
men of religion of their responsibility. Today, looking
toward the future, we must again create the same kind of
intellectual atmosphere, till it will become common for
Islamic theologians to read Buber and Levinas, and for Jewish
scholars to study the works of Sha'rawi and Ashmawi.
Israeli intellectuals, for their part, must
be ready to understand that a new attitude is emerging among
some Islamic thinkers. Many of us are now ready to
admit that hostility for Israel has been a great mistake,
perhaps the worst mistake Muslims have made in the second
half of this century. For those Muslim leaders who live in
Europe, in democratic countries and not under dictatorship,
this declaration is not so dangerous as for those of our
brothers who live in the Arab countries. We know that,
in those countries too, there is a certain part of the
educated population that does not blindly accept anti-Israel
propaganda; but freedom of expression is considerably limited
in those countries. It is very important for us to
verify that we are not alone in our cultural activity, in our
efforts not to repeat past mistakes; we must know that there
is someone else who appreciates and shares our goals.
Readiness to understand the signs of the
times means that we must recognize that times are ready for
Jews and Muslims to recognize each other once again as a
branch of the tree of monotheism, as brothers descended from
the same father, Abraham, the forerunner of faith in the
Living God. In the field of comparative studies, there
are broad prospects for common work. We can investigate the
past and understand the common features in the development of
Kabbalah and Tasawwuf, or study the mutual influence of
Jewish Halakhah and Islamic Sharia. Apart from these
examples, our general guideline must be the principle that,
the more we discover our common roots, the more we can hope
for a common future of peace and prosperity.
Sheikh Professor Abdul Hadi Palazzi