---

Azahari Hassim

Sham vs. Mecca

⚖️ Divine Blessings Compared: Sham’s Inherent Sanctity and Mecca’s Prayer-Bestowed Honor in the Qur’an

The difference between the divine blessing of the land of Sham (Greater Syria, including Palestine) as mentioned in Surah 21:71 and the blessing of Mecca (Makkah) in the Qur’an lies in the source and nature of the sanctity attributed to each location.

Here’s a structured comparison:

⸻

📍1. Sham (Greater Syria / Holy Land / Jerusalem) – Direct Divine Blessing

🔹 Qur’anic Reference:

Surah Al-Anbiya’ (21:71):

“And We delivered him [Ibrahim] and Lot to the land which We had blessed for the worlds.”

(وَنَجَّيْنَاهُ وَلُوطًا إِلَى ٱلْأَرْضِ ٱلَّتِى بَـٰرَكْنَا فِيهَا لِلْعَـٰلَمِينَ)

🔸 Key Point:

• The land itself is blessed by Allah directly, without mentioning any human prayer or intervention.

• Classical and modern scholars identify this “blessed land” as Sham, specifically Palestine, including Jerusalem.

• This indicates intrinsic and pre-existing sanctity granted by divine will.

⸻

📍2. Mecca (Makkah) – Blessed Through Prophetic Prayer of Abraham

🔹 Qur’anic References:

• Surah Al-Baqarah (2:126):

“And [remember] when Abraham said, ‘My Lord, make this a safe city and provide its people with fruits…’”

• Surah Ibrahim (14:35–37):

“My Lord, make this city secure and keep me and my sons away from worshipping idols… I have settled some of my descendants in an uncultivated valley near Your sacred House…”

🔸 Key Point:

• Mecca was originally a barren valley (valley of Bakkah) without vegetation.

• Its sanctity and blessings came as a result of Abraham’s prayer and the subsequent building of the Kaʿbah (House of God).

• The Qur’an presents Mecca’s blessing and safety as a response to prophetic supplication.

⸻

⚖️ Summary of the Difference

Source of Blessing:

        • Sham / Holy Land: Direct divine declaration — “…the land which We had blessed…” (Surah 21:71).

• Mecca / Makkah: Blessed through Abraham’s prayer (Surah 2:126, 14:35–37).

Timing of Blessing:

        • Sham / Holy Land: Already blessed when Ibrahim and Lut arrived.

•       Mecca / Makkah: Became blessed due to Abraham’s prayer for the settlement of his offsprings.

Nature of Sanctity:

        • Sham / Holy Land: Inherent, natural sanctity as a land for all nations.

• Mecca / Makkah: Earned sanctity through prophetic action and ritual significance.

Historical Role

        • Sham / Holy Land: Site of many prophets (e.g., Ibrahim, Musa, Isa).

• Mecca / Makkah: Site of the Kaʿbah and the final prophet Muhammad ﷺ.

⸻

🧭 Theological Implications

• Sham is viewed as a blessed land for all peoples and times, with spiritual, historical, and eschatological significance (e.g., place of Jesus’ return, land of many prophets).

• Mecca stands as the spiritual epicenter of Islam — the qiblah of all Muslims and the destination of the Hajj — yet its blessed status in the Qur’an is portrayed not as an inherent quality from the beginning, but as a divine bestowal granted in response to the supplication and devotion of Prophet Ibrahim عليه السلام.

Biblical Rights, Modern Politics, and the Islamic Reading of Abrahamic Inheritance

🌍 A Controversial Claim Raises Deeper Theological Questions

     The claim that Israel has a “biblical right” to take over the Middle East is not merely a political statement. It is a claim loaded with theological assumptions, historical implications, and moral consequences.

     Such a claim is often challenged by Muslim theologians and critics of religious nationalism, who argue that sacred scripture should not be used as a justification for modern territorial expansion.

📜 Scripture and the Limits of Political Power

     From this perspective, no scripture should be treated as a blank cheque for conquest, displacement, or domination. The covenant with Abraham is understood not as a licence for oppression or ethnic supremacy, but as a sacred responsibility tied to faith and moral conduct.

In the Qur’anic worldview, divine covenant is connected to righteousness, justice, submission to God, and moral accountability. It is not based merely on race, ethnicity, or political control over land.

🐪 Ishmael and the Abrahamic Covenant

     A central point in the Islamic reading of Abrahamic history concerns the identity of the son associated with the great sacrifice. While Jewish and Christian traditions generally identify Isaac, Islamic tradition identifies Ishmael.

     This distinction is theologically significant because Ishmael is not viewed in Islam as an outsider to the Abrahamic covenant. Rather, he is seen as central to the universal continuation of Abraham’s mission.

     Through Ishmael came the line associated with Prophet Muhammad ﷺ. Through Prophet Muhammad ﷺ, Muslims believe that the Abrahamic message of pure monotheism was restored in its final form.

🏞️ Land, Covenant, and the Religion of Abraham

     Within this Islamic theological framework, the inheritance of the land from the river of Egypt to the river Euphrates is not viewed merely as a question of ethnic descent or political possession.

     Rather, it is interpreted as a covenantal fulfilment linked to the eradication of idolatry and the restoration of the religion of Abraham.

     Historically, this interpretation sees the spread of Islam across the lands associated with the Abrahamic promise as a fulfilment of that covenantal inheritance. Through the descendants of Ishmael and the followers of Prophet Muhammad ﷺ, the message of the oneness of God (tawḥīd) spread across the region.

🔥 The Triumph of Tawḥīd Over Idolatry

     In this reading, the land was not inherited through racial superiority, ethnic nationalism, or modern state power. It was inherited through the triumph of Abrahamic monotheism over shirk, or the association of partners with God.

     The deeper issue, therefore, is not merely who controls territory, but whether the land is associated with the worship of the One God and the rejection of idolatry.

     The true mark of Abrahamic inheritance, according to this view, is not bloodline alone, but faithfulness to Abraham’s creed: submission to God, rejection of false gods, and commitment to divine justice.

📖 Jacob, Israel, and the Religion of Abraham

     Another important Qur’anic passage in this discussion is Surah al-Baqarah 2:133, where Jacob asks his sons what they will worship after him, and they answer that they will worship the One God — the God of Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, and Jacob — and submit to Him. In an Islamic theological reading, this verse presents the true descendants of Jacob, or Israel, as those who ultimately return to the religion of Abraham, understood in Islam as submission to the One God.

     Some interpreters extend this idea by arguing that the true descendants of Israel who sincerely preserve the Abrahamic faith would eventually be absorbed into Islam, the final form of the religion of Abraham. Within this view, groups such as Palestinians — sometimes linked by certain historical arguments to ancient Judah — and Afghans — sometimes associated in popular traditions with the Ten Lost Tribes of Israel — are seen as possible examples of Israelite-descended peoples who entered Islam. Nevertheless, the debate surrounding these ethnic identifications persists, despite the endorsement of some Israeli historians.

⚖️ Biblical Promise and Moral Accountability

     Even within the biblical tradition, the land promise is not always presented as detached from obedience to God. The prophets repeatedly warned the Israelites that injustice, arrogance, bloodshed, and oppression would bring divine judgment.

     For this reason, critics argue that a claim of “biblical right” without justice becomes deeply problematic. It risks turning sacred covenant into political ideology dressed in religious language.

🕊️ Abraham Was Not a Nationalist Conqueror

     From an Islamic perspective, Abraham was neither a nationalist conqueror nor a tribal supremacist. He was a model of pure monotheism, submission, hospitality, and moral uprightness.

     To invoke Abraham as a justification for dispossessing another people is therefore seen by critics as a betrayal of the ethical spirit of Abrahamic faith.

🌐 No Sacred Licence for Dispossession

     The Middle East, in this theological view, does not belong to any modern government by automatic divine entitlement. It belongs to God, who commands justice among all peoples — Jews, Christians, Muslims, and others.

     Therefore, no state should claim sacred permission to dominate, expel, or dispossess another people in the name of religion.

🧠 Toward a More Honest Abrahamic Theology

     A more honest Abrahamic theology would reject the use of scripture as a weapon of domination. It would insist that divine covenant must be joined with justice, mercy, and submission to God.

     In this reading, the true heirs of Abraham are not those who expand borders by force. They are those who uphold the oneness of God (tawḥīd), reject idolatry, practice justice, and submit sincerely to the One God, following the religion of Abraham in faith, worship, and moral responsibility.

Ya’juj and Ma’juj, Jerusalem, and the Promise of Inheriting the Holy Land in Surah al-Anbiyā’

📖 Introduction

Surah al-Anbiyā’ contains a fascinating sequence of verses when read as a whole. The surah begins with the migration of Prophet Abraham (Ibrahim) to the blessed land, then moves to the emergence of Ya’juj and Ma’juj (Gog and Magog) near the end of time, and finally concludes with the promise that the earth will be inherited by the righteous servants of Allah.

Some researchers view this arrangement of verses as a historical and eschatological narrative centered on the Holy Land of Palestine and the city of Jerusalem (Bayt al-Maqdis). According to this reading, Surah al-Anbiyā’ portrays a historical journey that begins with the granting of the Holy Land to Prophet Abraham, followed by the rise of a great power in the end times that comes to dominate Jerusalem, and ultimately concludes with the return of the Holy Land to the believers through Divine intervention.

🌿🕋 The Beginning of the Holy Land’s History: Prophet Abraham and the Blessed Land

Allah says:

“And We delivered Abraham and Lot to the land which We had blessed for all peoples.”

(Surah al-Anbiyā’ 21:71)

Classical Muslim commentators generally understand this verse as referring to the region of Greater Syria (Bilād al-Shām), which includes Palestine, Jerusalem, and its surrounding areas.

This verse demonstrates that Palestine is not merely a geographical territory, but a land chosen by Allah as a center of prophetic history. It was here that many prophets were sent, revelation descended, and the struggle for monotheism unfolded throughout history.

From this perspective, Surah al-Anbiyā’ begins its narrative with the granting of the blessed land to Prophet Abraham عليه السلام, the father of the prophets and a central figure in the Abrahamic tradition.

🕌⏳ Jerusalem and the Signs of the End Times

Allah then says:

“And it is forbidden for a city which We have destroyed; they should not return.”

(Surah al-Anbiyā’ 21:95)

According to this eschatological interpretation, the city (qaryah) mentioned in this verse refers specifically to Jerusalem (Bayt al-Maqdis), the holy city that has repeatedly experienced destruction, conquest, exile, and changing political control throughout history.

The verse is interpreted as indicating that Jerusalem will once again flourish and attract worldwide attention once the prohibition is lifted through the release of Ya’juj and Ma’juj.

🌊🌍 The Release of Ya’juj and Ma’juj

Allah says:

“Until when Ya’juj and Ma’juj (Gog and Magog) are released, and they surge down from every elevation.”

(Surah al-Anbiyā’ 21:96)

The majority of Muslim scholars understand Ya’juj and Ma’juj (Gog and Magog) as real human peoples who will emerge shortly before the Day of Judgment.

However, some symbolic interpretations view Ya’juj and Ma’juj (Gog and Magog) as a civilizational movement or global force that produces major transformations in world history.

Within this interpretive framework, Ya’juj and Ma’juj (Gog and Magog) are associated with modern Zionism, which succeeded in gathering Jewish communities from across the world into Palestine and Jerusalem.

Supporters of this interpretation argue that the connection between verses 95 and 96 is highly significant. Verse 95 speaks about the return of the inhabitants of a city that had previously been subjected to a Divine prohibition, while verse 96 describes the release of Ya’juj and Ma’juj (Gog and Magog).

According to this interpretation, the sequence of verses suggests a cause-and-effect relationship: the release of Ya’juj and Ma’juj marks the lifting of the divine prohibition over Jerusalem, allowing the city to be restored through the Zionist movement and repopulated by Jewish communities from the diaspora. Some also associate this restoration with Jewish aspirations to rebuild the Third Temple. Within this interpretive framework, Ya’juj and Ma’juj are understood as representing the modern Zionist movement or the wider global forces associated with it.

According to this reading, the phrase:

“they surge down from every elevation”

is understood as depicting the convergence of a global movement arriving from many nations and continents to resettle Jerusalem. The large-scale migration of Jewish diaspora communities to Palestine during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries is viewed as the historical 

⚔️🕌 Jerusalem as the Center of End-Time Conflict

In numerous authentic hadiths, the region of Greater Syria (Shām) is described as a blessed land and the focal point of many major events preceding the Day of Judgment.

The Prophet ﷺ said:

إِذَا فَسَدَ أَهْلُ الشَّامِ فَلَا خَيْرَ فِيكُمْ

“When the people of Shām become corrupted, there will be no goodness left in you.”

This hadith presents Shām, with Jerusalem at its spiritual center, as a barometer of the moral and religious condition of the Muslim Ummah.

The Prophet ﷺ signaled that when Shām and its people become corrupted, that corruption reflects a broader corruption within the Muslim community, because Shām is one of the centers of blessing, faith, and struggle in the end times.

For this reason, some researchers view the conflict centered on Jerusalem as more than merely a geopolitical conflict; they regard it as part of an eschatological drama long foretold in revelation.

Within this framework, Zionist control of Jerusalem is seen as a historical phase preceding Divine intervention at the end of time.

📜✨ Allah’s Promise in the Psalms (Zabur)

After mentioning Ya’juj and Ma’juj (Gog and Magog), Surah al-Anbiyā’ presents a profound promise:

“And indeed We have written in the Psalms after the Reminder that My righteous servants shall inherit the earth.”

(Surah al-Anbiyā’ 21:105)

Some commentators explain that the “Reminder” refers to the Torah, while the “Psalms” refer to the Book of David (Dawud).

They also interpret the term al-ard (“the land” or “the earth”) in Surah al-Anbiyā’ 21:105 as referring specifically to the Holy Land of Shām and Palestine rather than the entire world in a general sense.

This interpretation is based on the context of the verse, which mentions the Torah and the Psalms, two scriptures closely connected with the history of the Israelite prophets in that land. Accordingly, the verse is understood as a promise that the Holy Land will ultimately be inherited by Allah’s righteous servants.

Thus, the verse indicates that the promise of the righteous inheriting the land of Shām had already been established in the earlier scriptures.

In the context of Palestine, the verse is interpreted as a guarantee that the rule of any power opposing Allah’s will cannot endure forever. Rather, the Holy Land will ultimately return to those who uphold justice and believe in Allah.

🌟🕊️ The Return of Jesus and the Final Victory

Authentic hadiths explain that Jesus (ʿĪsā) عليه السلام will descend in the end times to defeat the Antichrist (Dajjāl) and establish justice on earth.

After the era of great tribulation comes to an end, peace will return and a government founded upon truth and justice will be established.

Within this interpretive framework, Surah al-Anbiyā’ depicts three major stages in the history of the Holy Land:

1. 🌿 The granting of the blessed land to Abraham and his faithful descendants (21:71).

2. 🕌 The transformation of Jerusalem into a global center and prosperous city through large-scale Zionist Jewish settlement associated with the release of Ya’juj and Ma’juj (Gog and Magog) (21:95–96).

3. 📜 The inheritance of the Holy Land by Allah’s righteous servants as promised in the Psalms (21:105).

The descent of Jesus عليه السلام is viewed as the culmination of this process, when oppression is ended and Allah’s promise concerning the inheritance of the land is finally fulfilled.

🌅 Conclusion

When read thematically, Surah al-Anbiyā’ may be seen as a narrative that begins with Abraham in the land of Palestine and ends with the victory of the righteous in that same land.

According to this eschatological interpretation, verse 21:71 refers to the beginning of the Holy Land’s history under Abraham, verses 21:95–96 foretell the return of Jerusalem as a center of world attention following the release of Ya’juj and Ma’juj (Gog and Magog), while verse 21:105 promises that the land will ultimately be inherited by Allah’s righteous servants.

Within this reading, the rise of Zionism and the flourishing of Jerusalem under Jewish settlement are viewed as one of the final phases of history preceding the descent of Jesus عليه السلام, before the fulfillment of Allah’s promise that the blessed land will return to those who believe and establish justice.

Is the Destroyed City in Surah al-Anbiyā’ Jerusalem?

📖 Surah al-Anbiyā’ 21:95–96 in Arabic

وَحَرَامٌ عَلَىٰ قَرْيَةٍ أَهْلَكْنَاهَا أَنَّهُمْ لَا يَرْجِعُونَ ۝٩٥

حَتَّىٰ إِذَا فُتِحَتْ يَأْجُوجُ وَمَأْجُوجُ وَهُم مِّن كُلِّ حَدَبٍ يَنسِلُونَ ۝٩٦

🌍 Basic Translation

21:95
“And it is forbidden for a town which We have destroyed that they should return.”

21:96
“Until, when Ya’juj and Ma’juj are released, and they descend swiftly from every elevation.”

A more interpretive translation:

“It is impossible for a destroyed city whose people We have destroyed to return, until Ya’juj and Ma’juj are released, and they rush down from every high place.”

⸻

🔍 Lexical Explanation of Verse 21:95

وَحَرَامٌ — wa-ḥarāmun

The word ḥarām here means forbidden, prohibited, impossible, or prevented.

It does not necessarily mean “religiously unlawful” in the legal sense. In this verse, it carries the meaning of a Divine barrier or impossibility.

So the phrase suggests that something is blocked by Allah’s decree.

⸻

عَلَىٰ قَرْيَةٍ — ʿalā qaryatin

Qaryah usually means a town, city, settlement, or inhabited community.

It does not only refer to a small village. In Qur’anic usage, qaryah can refer to a major city or civilization, depending on context.

For example, Makkah is also referred to as Umm al-Qurā, “Mother of the Cities.”

So qaryah here may mean a destroyed city or community.

⸻

أَهْلَكْنَاهَا — ahlaknāhā

This comes from the root هلك / h-l-k, meaning to destroy, ruin, perish, or cause to fall.

Ahlaknāhā means:

“We destroyed it.”

The pronoun -hā refers back to qaryah, the town or city.

This destruction may refer to physical destruction, the destruction of its people, or the collapse of its social and religious order.

⸻

أَنَّهُمْ لَا يَرْجِعُونَ — annahum lā yarjiʿūn

This phrase means:

“that they shall not return.”

The verb yarjiʿūn comes from رجع / r-j-ʿ, meaning to return, come back, revert, or restore.

The key question is: return to what?

Classical interpretations often understand it as:

They will not return to worldly life after destruction.

However, some thematic or eschatological readings understand it as:

The inhabitants of a destroyed city will not return to it, or the city will not be restored, until a later end-time event.

This second reading is more interpretive and should be presented carefully.

⸻

🔍 Lexical Explanation of Verse 21:96

حَتَّىٰ إِذَا — ḥattā idhā

This phrase means:

“until when…”

It introduces a turning point or a major event.

Here, it links verse 95 to verse 96. This connection is important because verse 96 begins with ḥattā, suggesting that the situation described before continues until a major eschatological event occurs.

⸻

فُتِحَتْ — futiḥat

This comes from the root فتح / f-t-ḥ, meaning to open.

Futiḥat is passive:

“are opened” or “are released.”

This may imply that Ya’juj and Ma’juj were previously restrained, blocked, or contained, and then a barrier is opened for them.

This wording connects with Surah al-Kahf 18:94–99, where Dhul-Qarnayn builds a barrier against Ya’juj and Ma’juj, and near the end of time that barrier will collapse by Allah’s decree.

⸻

يَأْجُوجُ وَمَأْجُوجُ — Ya’jūj wa Ma’jūj

These are the Arabic names for Gog and Magog.

In mainstream Islamic belief, they are real human peoples who will emerge near the end of time.

Some symbolic interpretations understand them as representing destructive civilizational forces, chaotic global powers, or mass movements. However, that symbolic reading is not the dominant classical interpretation and should be identified as interpretive rather than definitive.

⸻

وَهُم مِّن كُلِّ حَدَبٍ — wa-hum min kulli ḥadabin

This means:

“and they, from every ḥadab…”

Ḥadab means a raised place, elevation, hill, slope, ridge, or high ground.

The phrase min kulli ḥadab means:

“from every elevation”
“from every high place”
“from every hill and slope”

It gives the image of a vast multitude spreading rapidly from all directions.

⸻

يَنسِلُونَ — yansilūn

This comes from the root نسل / n-s-l, meaning to move quickly, rush, hasten, or stream forth.

So the phrase:

مِّن كُلِّ حَدَبٍ يَنسِلُونَ

means:

“They rush down from every elevation.”

The image is not slow movement. It is rapid, overflowing, and overwhelming movement, like a flood of people descending from many high places.

⸻

🧠 Semantic Explanation

Semantically, the two verses form a powerful sequence:

Verse 95 speaks of a destroyed qaryah, a city or community, whose return is blocked or forbidden.

Verse 96 then introduces the release of Ya’juj and Ma’juj as a turning point:

“Until, when Ya’juj and Ma’juj are released…”

This creates a strong literary link between the blocked return/restoration in verse 95 and the great end-time upheaval in verse 96.

However, the meaning depends on the interpretive approach.

📚 Mainstream Classical Reading

In many classical tafsīr works, verse 95 is understood to mean that when Allah destroys a sinful town or people, they do not return to worldly life. Their opportunity for repentance and worldly action has ended.

Then verse 96 moves to the final signs of the Hour, especially the release of Ya’juj and Ma’juj.

According to this reading, the verses describe:

destruction, no return to worldly life, then the approach of the final Hour.

🕌 Eschatological-Thematic Reading

In a thematic reading, verse 95 may be understood as referring to a destroyed city whose return or restoration remains blocked until a later end-time development.

Because verse 96 immediately mentions the release of Ya’juj and Ma’juj, some interpreters see a connection between:

the return/restoration of a destroyed city,
the release of Ya’juj and Ma’juj,
and the great upheavals before the Day of Judgment.

But it is important to phrase this carefully. The verse itself does not explicitly name Jerusalem. Identifying the qaryah as Jerusalem is an interpretive proposal, not the plain literal wording of the verse.

☀️ Conclusion

Although Surah al-Anbiyā’ 21:95 does not explicitly name Jerusalem, the identification of the qaryah as Jerusalem becomes more plausible when compared with Surah al-Baqarah 2:259. In that verse, the Qur’an speaks of a man who passed by a ruined town and wondered how Allah would restore it after its destruction. Many commentators have associated that ruined town with Bayt al-Maqdis, or Jerusalem, especially in relation to its historical destruction and later restoration.

This parallel is significant because both passages speak of a destroyed qaryah and the question of its return or restoration. Therefore, supporters of this interpretation argue that Surah 21:95 may also allude to Jerusalem as a city once destroyed, placed under a Divine restriction, and later restored in connection with the great events preceding the Hour.

Search

Search

---

Azahari Hassim

Ezekiel’s Prophecies, the Khazar Hypothesis, and Ben-Gurion’s Paradox of Ancestry

📜 Introduction

The establishment of the modern State of Israel in 1948 has often been framed as the fulfillment of biblical prophecy. Many point to Ezekiel 37—the “valley of dry bones”—as the divine foretelling of Israel’s national resurrection. Yet competing perspectives challenge this narrative. Some scholars argue that the prophecy of Ezekiel 37 remains unfulfilled and that the events surrounding the modern state may instead align with Ezekiel 38–39, where Gog and Magog rise against the land. This interpretive debate is further complicated by the Khazar hypothesis  regarding Ashkenazi origins and by a paradoxical statement from David Ben-Gurion, Israel’s first Prime Minister, who acknowledged that many Palestinians may be direct descendants of the ancient Jews.

⸻

The Khazar Hypothesis and Ashkenazi Identity 🏰✡️

The “Khazar hypothesis” proposes that Ashkenazi Jews largely descend from the Khazars, a Turkic people whose ruling class converted to Judaism in the 8th–9th centuries. While contested and not universally accepted, this theory has influenced theological interpretations, especially among those who question the legitimacy of modern Zionism in biblical terms.

If modern Ashkenazim descend primarily from converts rather than the exiled tribes of Israel, then the biblical framework of “return” to the land becomes less clear. Critics argue that in such a scenario, the establishment of Israel would not represent Ezekiel’s vision of restored Israel, but rather a foreign incursion upon it.

⸻

Ezekiel 37: The Vision of Restoration 🌄✡️

Ezekiel 37 presents a powerful vision of dry bones coming to life, symbolizing not only physical restoration to the land but also spiritual renewal:

“I will put My Spirit in you, and you shall live, and I will place you in your own land” (Ezek. 37:14).

Proponents of Zionism often point to Israel’s rebirth after the Holocaust as a miraculous fulfillment of this passage. Yet critics note that the modern state is largely secular and political, lacking the covenantal transformation envisioned in the text. For them, the true restoration of Israel described by Ezekiel 37 has not yet taken place .

⸻

Ezekiel 38–39: Gog and Magog in the Holy Land ⚔️🌍

Ezekiel 38–39 describes the invasion of the holy land by Gog of Magog and his allies, leading to a climactic confrontation in which God Himself intervenes.

Some interpreters argue that modern Israel, rather than fulfilling Ezekiel 37, fits more closely with this apocalyptic scenario. By this reasoning, the presence of Khazar-descended Jews in the land could correspond to the role of Gog and Magog—outsiders whose settlement sparks the eschatological conflict.

⸻

Ben-Gurion’s Paradox: Palestinians as Descendants of Ancient Jews 🌿☪️

David Ben-Gurion himself complicated the Zionist narrative. He acknowledged the belief that many Palestinians were descendants of the ancient Jews who had remained in the land after the Roman expulsions of 70 CE and 135 CE. Over time, these communities converted—first to Christianity  and later to Islam—while retaining cultural and agricultural continuities with their ancestors.

Ben-Gurion’s rationale rested on several perspectives:

1. Historical Continuity: Not all Jews were exiled; many remained and gradually assimilated into the local population.

2. Sociological Evidence: Palestinian fellahin (peasants) preserved agricultural practices and customs resembling those of ancient Israelites.

3. Ideological Reflection: If Palestinians were indeed descendants of ancient Jews, then the paradox arises that those seen as “strangers” by Zionism might actually be the truer heirs of the land promised in scripture.

⸻

Theological and Political Implications ⚖️

This paradox destabilizes the neat narrative of prophecy fulfillment. If Ashkenazim are linked to Khazars, while Palestinians carry Israelite ancestry, then the lines between “restoration” and “intrusion” blur.

Ezekiel 37 may then point toward a future yet to come—a spiritual return of covenant fidelity—while Ezekiel 38–39 foreshadows the current geopolitical struggle involving outsiders in the land.

⸻

Conclusion 

The convergence of the Khazar hypothesis, Ezekiel’s prophecy, and Ben-Gurion’s reflections highlights the complexities of modern Israel’s identity.

Is the state a fulfillment of the valley of dry bones, or is it the stage for Gog and Magog? Is the true Israelite heritage found in the Jewish immigrants of Europe, or in the Palestinians  who never left the land?

These questions reveal not only theological tensions but also the paradox at the heart of Israel’s national story: prophecy, history, and identity remain contested and unresolved.

Was There a Roman Expulsion of the Jews?

🏛️ Reexamining the Post-Temple Historical Record

📜 The argument that there was no expulsion of the Jewish people after the destruction of the Second Temple by the Romans is based on several points:

📖 The biblical sources do not mention any Roman mass deportation or exile of the Jewish people after the destruction of the Second Temple, unlike the Assyrian captivity of the northern Kingdom of Israel and the Babylonian captivity of Judah, both of which are described in detail in the Hebrew Bible.

🏡 Many Jews continued to live in Judea and other parts of Palestine under Roman rule, as evidenced by archaeological finds, literary sources, and rabbinic traditions. Some of these Jews participated in later revolts against the Romans, such as the Bar Kokhba revolt of 132–135 CE, which resulted in further devastation and repression.

🏺 The archaeological evidence does not support the idea of a large-scale expulsion or depopulation of Judea by the Romans. On the contrary, many Jewish settlements continued to exist and flourish in the region after 70 CE, as attested by coins, inscriptions, pottery, and other artifacts. Some of these settlements were even fortified and rebelled against the Romans again in the Bar Kokhba revolt of 132–135 CE, which shows that there was still a significant Jewish presence and resistance in Judea.

🏛️ The historical evidence indicates that many Jews remained in Judea under Roman rule, either as farmers, artisans, merchants, or soldiers. Some of them even attained high positions in the Roman administration, such as Tiberius Julius Alexander, who was the governor of Egypt and a close friend of Titus, the destroyer of Jerusalem.

✝️ During the later Roman and Byzantine periods, however, the religious landscape of the Holy Land changed significantly. As Christianity became increasingly dominant within the empire, especially after the fourth century CE, many inhabitants of the region — including some people of Jewish background and related local populations — gradually adopted Christianity. Conversion occurred through a variety of social, economic, political, and religious processes, though the scale and extent remain debated among historians.

☪️ Following the Muslim conquest of the Holy Land in the seventh century CE, another major transformation took place. Over subsequent centuries, Islam spread gradually throughout the region. Some local populations, including some with Jewish and Christian ancestry, eventually converted to Islam through complex processes involving social integration, taxation structures, intermarriage, cultural interaction, and changing political realities. Conversion was generally a gradual process extending across generations rather than a single sudden event.

🧭 Therefore, based on these points, some scholars argue that there was no expulsion of the Jewish people after the destruction of the Second Temple by the Romans, but rather a continuation and transformation of Jewish life in Judea and elsewhere.

🌾 In this context, some Israeli scholars, including Shlomo Sand, have argued that some Palestinian fellahin, or rural farming communities, may be descendants of ancient local populations of the land, including biblical Jews who remained in Palestine rather than being exiled.

According to this view, over many centuries, some of these communities gradually adopted Christianity and later Islam, while continuing to live on the same land. This interpretation challenges the simple idea that the ancient Jewish population disappeared entirely from the region after the Roman destruction of Jerusalem.

Reevaluating the Link Between Modern Israel and Biblical Israel: A Theological Analysis

In recent years, certain theological interpretations—particularly within Christian Zionism—have claimed a direct and unbroken continuity between the modern State of Israel and the Israel of the Bible. A central tenet of this belief is that divine blessing is contingent upon supporting the current nation-state of Israel, often based on Genesis 12:3: “I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse.” However, a deeper examination of the relevant scriptures, both in the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament, challenges the theological foundation of this view.

📖 The Misapplication of Genesis 12:3

Genesis 12:3 refers specifically to Abraham and his descendants, not to a political entity known as “Israel.” In fact, the term “Israel” does not appear in this verse at all. The promise is made to Abraham’s lineage, which, according to both the Torah and the Qur’an, is defined by righteousness and obedience, not merely by ethnic or genetic descent. The notion that supporting a modern political state guarantees divine favor lacks direct biblical substantiation when examined in its original context.

📚 The Role of the Scofield Reference Bible

The widespread acceptance of this interpretation in Western Christianity is often traced to the 1909 Scofield Reference Bible. Financed and promoted by American Zionist interests, this annotated Bible interpreted Genesis 12:3 as a divine command to unconditionally bless and support the Jewish people and, by extension, the modern State of Israel. This reading has heavily influenced Christian Zionist theology, despite its relatively recent origin and its selective use of Scripture.

✝️ Redefining Israel in the Synoptic Gospels

The Synoptic Gospels present covenant identity as something defined not merely by ethnic descent, but by faithfulness, obedience, repentance, and response to God’s kingdom.

In Matthew 3:9, John the Baptist warns that physical descent from Abraham is not enough to guarantee covenant status. In Matthew 8:11–12, Jesus teaches that many from “east and west” will enter the kingdom, while some presumed heirs (including some within covenant Israel) may be excluded. This shifts the focus from ancestry to faith and response to God.

Jesus deepens this idea in Matthew 12:46–50, where he defines his true family as those who do the will of the Father. The clearest expression appears in Matthew 21:33–43, where Jesus says the kingdom of God will be taken away from the unfaithful tenants—often understood as the religious leadership of Israel—and given to a people who produce its fruits.

Thus, the Synoptic Gospels portray Jesus as reshaping the meaning of God’s covenant people. Israel is no longer understood only through lineage or national identity, but through spiritual fruitfulness, obedience, and participation in God’s kingdom.

📜 The New Covenant and the End of the Old

The New Testament echoes the prophecy of Jeremiah 31:31, speaking of a “new covenant” that redefines the terms of God’s relationship with His people. This covenant, centered on Jesus, supersedes the old covenant tied to ethnicity and geography. The destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE is often interpreted in Christian theology as the end of a distinct covenantal relationship with ethnic Israel, particularly in light of widespread rejection of Jesus as Messiah.

⚠️ Concerns About Christian Zionism

The theological and political implications of Christian Zionism raise serious concerns. The movement is often marked by what critics describe as “eodolatry”—the idolization of a specific ethnic group—and “fedism,” an unquestioning reliance on faith divorced from reason and scriptural context. This blind allegiance to a secular state, often at odds with core Christian values, undermines the central message of the New Testament.

Some prominent figures within strands of Christian Zionism have made controversial theological claims that critics argue diminish or redefine Christ’s messianic role. For instance, John Hagee made contentious remarks regarding Jesus’ messianic mission, which critics viewed as downplaying Jesus’ self-identification as the Messiah to the Jewish community. Many evangelical Christians argued that such wording appeared to conflict with the Gospel portrayal of Jesus as the promised Messiah.

🌍 Geopolitical Implications

The misinterpretation of Genesis 12:3 within a theological context cannot be considered in isolation. It has significant real-world consequences, particularly in justifying geopolitical actions, including war and occupation, under the guise of fulfilling divine prophecy. By conflating spiritual promises with political agendas, Christian Zionism risks endorsing injustice while claiming divine sanction.

✅ Conclusion

The belief that supporting the modern State of Israel is a biblical mandate is built upon a selective and decontextualized reading of Scripture. When examined through the broader lens of both Old and New Testament theology, it becomes clear that the promises to Abraham were ultimately fulfilled in Christ and extended to all who follow Him. Within this reading of the New Testament, covenant identity becomes increasingly associated with faith, obedience, and participation in God’s kingdom rather than solely with ethnic descent or political nationhood.

Christians are called not to adhere to politicized interpretations of Scripture, but to ground their faith in the teachings of Jesus and the apostles, who redefined what it means to be God’s people. Any theology that places a political state above the gospel risks distorting the heart of the Christian message. 

Search

Search

---

Azahari Hassim

The Abrahamic Blessing: Islam, Christian Zionism, and the State of Israel

📖 Genesis 12:3 is one of the most important verses in the Abrahamic tradition. In this verse, God says to Abraham:

“I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse; and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you.”

The verse contains two major ideas: first, that Abraham carries a special divine blessing; second, that this blessing is ultimately meant to reach all nations, not remain limited to one ethnic group alone. (biblehub.com)

🕋 From an Islamic standpoint, Abraham is not viewed merely as the ancestor of one nation. He is viewed as a universal prophet of tawḥīd, the pure worship of the One God. The Qur’an presents Abraham as neither Jew nor Christian, but as a ḥanīf, a true monotheist who submitted himself to Allah. Therefore, the blessing of Abraham is understood as a spiritual and prophetic blessing rooted in faith, obedience, righteousness, and submission to God.

🤲 This is where Ṣalawāt Ibrāhīmiyyah becomes deeply meaningful. In the prayer taught by Prophet Muhammad ﷺ, Muslims say:

“O Allah, send Your blessings upon Muhammad and the family of Muhammad, as You sent Your blessings upon Abraham and the family of Abraham.”

This wording appears in authentic hadith collections, including Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī. (sunnah.com)

🌙 Theologically, this prayer connects the mission of Prophet Muhammad ﷺ to the Abrahamic line of blessing. Muslims are not asking for a separate blessing disconnected from Abraham. Rather, they are asking Allah to bless Muhammad ﷺ and his family in continuity with the blessing already given to Abraham and his family. This means that, in Islamic theology, the Abrahamic blessing reaches its universal expression through the final prophethood of Muhammad ﷺ.

🧭 From this perspective, Genesis 12:3 is not about political loyalty to a modern state. It is about alignment with the divine mission of Abraham: worship of the One God, rejection of idolatry, moral responsibility, and guidance for all peoples. To “bless Abraham” means to honour his true religion, his prophetic legacy, and the universal message of submission to God.

✝️ Christian Zionism often reads Genesis 12:3 differently. Many Christian Zionists interpret the verse as a continuing divine command to support the Jewish people and, by extension, the modern State of Israel. The International Christian Embassy Jerusalem, for example, describes Genesis 12:3 as one of the most frequently cited biblical mandates for Christians to “stand with Israel” and bless the Jewish people. (ICEJ)

🇮🇱 In this Christian Zionist reading, blessing Israel is not merely a private spiritual attitude. It can become political, financial, diplomatic, and even military support for the State of Israel. Some Christian Zionist arguments claim that nations which support Israel receive divine favour, while those that oppose Israel risk divine judgment. Recent reporting on evangelical support for Israel notes that Genesis 12 is frequently used as a foundation for this belief. (Houston Chronicle)

⚖️ However, not all Christians accept this interpretation. Some Christian theologians argue that Genesis 12:3 should not be used as a direct theological justification for supporting every policy of the modern State of Israel. Ligonier Ministries, for example, argues that there may be political reasons for supporting some Israeli policies, but Genesis 12:3 itself does not provide a theological reason to support the modern nation-state unconditionally. (Ligonier Ministries)

🌿 The key difference is this: Christian Zionism often links Abraham’s blessing to ethnic Israel and the modern State of Israel, while the Islamic perspective links Abraham’s blessing to tawḥīd, prophethood, righteousness, and the continuation of Abraham’s spiritual legacy through Muhammad ﷺ. In Islam, Abraham’s blessing is not cancelled, but universalized. It flows through the family of Abraham, includes the line of Ishmael, and reaches the nations through the final Messenger.

🕌 Therefore, Ṣalawāt Ibrāhīmiyyah can be seen as a powerful Islamic response to Genesis 12:3. Every time Muslims send blessings upon Muhammad ﷺ and his family “as” Allah blessed Abraham and his family, they are affirming that the Abrahamic promise is alive — not as a narrow ethnic nationalism, but as a living spiritual covenant centred on worship, mercy, guidance, and submission to Allah.

🌍 In conclusion, Genesis 12:3 can be understood in two very different ways. Christian Zionism often reads it as a mandate to bless and support the State of Israel. Islam reads the Abrahamic blessing through the lens of tawḥīd and prophethood, fulfilled in the universal mission of Muhammad ﷺ and remembered daily through Ṣalawāt Ibrāhīmiyyah. The real blessing of Abraham, from the Islamic standpoint, is not the domination of one nation over another, but the spread of divine guidance to all families of the earth.

Surah 17:104, Surah 21:105, and the Question of Israel’s Establishment

🔹 Some pro-Israel and Zionist-leaning interpreters claim that Surah 17:104 is a prophecy about the modern establishment of the State of Israel.

📜 The verse says that after Pharaoh, God told the Children of Israel to live in the land. It also says that when the final promise comes, God will bring them together in one gathering.

🕍 Because of this, Zionists argue that the return of Jews to Palestine and the creation of Israel in 1948 fulfilled this Qur’anic verse.

⚖️ However, this reading is not complete.

🌿 The Qur’an does not give land inheritance as an unconditional ethnic right. It repeatedly connects inheritance, authority, and divine favour with righteousness, justice, and obedience to God.

📖 This is where Surah 21:105 becomes very important. It says:

“My righteous servants shall inherit the land.”

🧭 This verse gives a moral condition. The land is not simply inherited by race, tribe, nation, or political power. It is inherited by the righteous.

🚫 Therefore, if a state is established through military conquest, mass displacement, and the destruction of another people’s society, it becomes difficult to present that event as a fulfilment of a righteous divine promise.

🏚️ The State of Israel was not established peacefully on empty land. Its creation was connected to the 1948 war, the mass displacement of Palestinians, the destruction or depopulation of many villages, and what Palestinians remember as the Nakba.

🕊️ For Palestinians, the Nakba was not merely a political event. It was the loss of homes, land, villages, family memory, and national life.

❗ This creates a serious theological problem for the Zionist reading of Surah 17:104. If the return mentioned in that verse is interpreted as a divine gathering, then it must still be judged by the wider Qur’anic principle of justice.

📌 Surah 21:105 does not say that the land belongs automatically to one ethnic group. It says the land is inherited by God’s righteous servants.

🌱 In Qur’anic terms, righteousness is not proven by military victory. It is proven by justice, mercy, faithfulness to God, and respect for the rights of others.

⚠️ A state built through displacement and dispossession cannot easily be described as the fulfilment of a promise reserved for the righteous.

🕯️ This does not mean the Qur’an denies the historical connection of the Children of Israel to the Holy Land. The Qur’an clearly recognizes their history, prophets, trials, and covenantal past.

⚖️ But recognition of history is not the same as approval of injustice. Additionally, Ashkenazi Jews are thought to be the offspring of Khazars who underwent conversion and were not indigenous to the sacred territory.

📚 The Qur’an honours the Children of Israel when they obey God, but it also criticizes them when they fall into arrogance, corruption, or oppression. This is consistent with the Qur’an’s wider moral message: no community is above divine accountability.

🧩 From this perspective, Surah 17:104 cannot be used alone as a simple proof-text for modern political Zionism. It must be read together with Surah 21:105 and the Qur’an’s broader demand for justice.

🌾 The deeper Qur’anic principle is clear: land inheritance belongs to righteousness, not conquest.

🚧 If the land is gained through oppression, then the claim of divine fulfilment becomes morally weak. If the land is inherited through justice, humility, and obedience to God, then it aligns with the Qur’anic vision.

🔎 In the end, Surah 21:105 challenges any political movement that claims sacred land while ignoring the rights of the people already living there.

✨ The Qur’an does not sanctify ethnic supremacy. It sanctifies righteousness.

🤲 And righteousness cannot be separated from justice.

Abraham’s Land Promise and the Covenant of Ishmael: A Different Reading of Genesis 15

📖 The land promise in Genesis 15 remains one of the most debated passages in Abrahamic theology. In this text, God promises Abraham’s “seed” a vast territory stretching from the River of Egypt to the Euphrates.

🗺️ While many Christian Zionists and Messianic Jews interpret this as a divine mandate for a “Greater Israel” belonging exclusively to the descendants of Jacob, a closer look at the biblical timeline suggests an alternative reading.

👶 When the promise was made, neither Isaac nor Jacob had been born or named. The immediate successor in the biblical sequence is Ishmael, Abraham’s firstborn.

🌙 This timing implies that the foundational Abrahamic covenant was initially attached to Abraham’s broader lineage, with Ishmael as Abraham’s firstborn standing naturally within that covenantal horizon before the distinct Israelite nation emerged.

📜 Recognizing the theological distinction between the original Abrahamic covenant and the later Sinai covenant completely reframes the territorial narrative. The Sinai covenant, established much later through Moses, granted the Israelites a specific, narrower territory in Canaan, while the broader Abrahamic promise — from the River of Egypt to the Euphrates — may be understood as fulfilled through Abraham’s wider lineage, especially Ishmael and his descendants.

⚖️ Crucially, as outlined in texts like Leviticus 26, this Sinai inheritance was highly conditional, tied directly to Israel’s obedience, justice, and faithfulness to God’s Law.

🏛️ The Israelites historically realized this inheritance during the pre-Islamic period through leaders like Joshua, David, and Solomon. However, conflating this conditional, geographically limited covenant with the expansive, unconditional promise of Genesis 15 creates significant theological friction.

🕌 From a comparative theological perspective, the broader Genesis 15 promise finds its historical fulfillment in the descendants of Ishmael rather than in a modern political project. The subsequent spread of Islam and Arab civilizations across the very lands described — from Egypt to the Euphrates — serves as a realization of God’s initial promise to Abraham’s firstborn.

🕊️ By separating the conditional Sinai covenant from the broader Abrahamic legacy, the modern pursuit of territorial expansion becomes theologically unnecessary. Acknowledging that both lineages received their respective historical inheritances invites a paradigm shift away from conquest, urging a renewed focus on humility, justice, and peace among all who trace their roots to Abraham.

Greater Israel: A Controversial Biblical and Political Idea

🗺️ The poster presents the idea of “Greater Israel,” also known in Hebrew as Eretz Yisrael HaShlemah. It shows a symbolic map stretching from Egypt and the Nile region toward Mesopotamia and the Euphrates. The image makes clear that this is not a map of current borders, but a political and religious concept based on a particular reading of biblical land promises.

📜 At the center of this idea is Genesis 15:18, where God is described as promising Abraham’s descendants land “from the river of Egypt to the great river, the Euphrates.” Supporters of the Greater Israel concept interpret this verse as a divine promise that could include lands far beyond the modern State of Israel.

🏛️ The poster also connects this vision to religious justification. It refers to the Abrahamic covenant and the phrase “land of milk and honey,” which is often associated with biblical descriptions of the promised land. For religious supporters, the map represents not only geography, but sacred destiny.

⚖️ However, this interpretation is highly controversial. Critics argue that using ancient scripture to justify modern territorial expansion can encourage regional conflict and political extremism. They also warn that such ideas may ignore the rights, histories, and lives of the people already living in those lands.

👑 The poster describes a possible political vision linked to this idea, including Jerusalem as the capital and an imagined state reaching major cities such as Cairo and Amman. This reflects a maximalist ideological vision rather than a recognized international political reality.

🌊 Geographically, the map covers a vast area, including parts of Egypt, the Levant, Mesopotamia, Anatolia, the Arabian Peninsula, and the Red Sea coast. This broad scope is one reason the concept raises serious concerns among neighboring peoples and states.

🔥 To supporters, Greater Israel may be seen as the fulfillment of a divine promise. To critics, it appears as a dangerous form of territorial ambition that could legitimize conquest, displacement, and permanent conflict.

🧭 The deeper issue is not only what the ancient text says, but how it is used today. A religious promise interpreted without moral limits can become a political weapon. Any serious discussion of sacred land must also address justice, human dignity, and the rights of all communities who live there.

📌 In the end, the poster portrays Greater Israel as a symbolic and ideological vision, not as an accepted political map. It is best understood as a contested interpretation of scripture with major religious, political, and ethical consequences.

🌙 From an Islamic theological perspective, the broader divine promise to Abraham is understood not as a mandate for ethnic domination or endless territorial expansion, but as a promise fulfilled through faith, righteousness, and the spread of tawḥīd (the uncompromising oneness of God, free from any association of partners).

In this reading, the rise of Islam and its civilization across the lands between the Nile, the Levant, Arabia, and Mesopotamia fulfilled the divine promise in a deeper and more universal sense. It was not fulfilled through political borders or ethnic supremacy, but through the establishment of Abrahamic monotheism, the worship of the One God, and a civilization rooted in revelation, law, knowledge, justice, and moral responsibility.

Search

Search

---

Azahari Hassim

🌍 Abraham’s Land Promise: A Different Reading of Genesis 15

📖 The land promise in Genesis 15 is one of the most debated passages in Abrahamic theology. In that chapter, God tells Abram that his “seed” will be given land stretching “from the River of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates.” For many readers, this verse has become the foundation for major religious and political claims about the land.

🗺️ Many Messianic Jews and Christian Zionists interpret this promise as a divine grant of “Eretz Yisrael,” or Greater Israel, to the Israelites or the Jewish people. In this view, the promise belongs specifically to the descendants of Jacob and continues to support Jewish claims over a wide territory in the modern Middle East.

⚖️ However, another interpretation argues that Genesis 15 should not be read only through the later history of Jacob’s descendants. The passage speaks of Abraham’s “seed,” but it does not yet name Isaac, Jacob, or the Israelite nation. At this point in the biblical story, the promise is still attached directly to Abraham and his wider line of descent.

👶 This detail is important because the next major birth narrative after Genesis 15 is the birth of Ishmael, Abraham’s firstborn son. Ishmael appears before Isaac in the biblical sequence, and he is traditionally understood as the ancestor of many Arab peoples. From this perspective, the timing of the story suggests that Ishmael, as Abraham’s firstborn son, stands within the Abrahamic covenantal legacy before the later Sinai covenant is given to Jacob’s descendants.

🌙 From this perspective, the “seed” of Abraham in Genesis 15 can be understood as referring to Ishmael, Abraham’s firstborn son, who remained under the Abrahamic covenant. By contrast, Isaac’s descendants through Jacob entered a later and more specific covenant: the Sinai covenant, given through Moses and conditioned upon faithfulness to God’s Law.

📜 This distinction between the Abrahamic covenant and the Sinai covenant is central to the argument. The Abrahamic covenant is seen as older, broader, and connected to Abraham’s direct promise. The Sinai covenant, however, came later through Moses and was given specifically to the children of Israel after the Exodus.

⚖️ Under the Sinai covenant, Israel’s blessings in the land were repeatedly linked to obedience, faithfulness, and keeping God’s commandments. Leviticus 26, for example, presents security in the land as conditional. If the Israelites obey God, they receive blessing; if they rebel, they face punishment, exile, and loss.

✝️ From a Christian and Islamic perspective, this raises a serious theological question. If the religious authorities among the Israelites rejected the Messiah when he came, can the land still be claimed unconditionally under the same covenantal terms? This interpretation argues that covenant privilege cannot be separated from covenant responsibility.

📏 The argument also points out that later biblical descriptions of Israel’s land, such as those found in Numbers, Deuteronomy, and Ezekiel, often describe a smaller territory than the vast region mentioned in Genesis 15. This suggests that the wide promise from Egypt to the Euphrates may belong to a broader Abrahamic horizon rather than only to the later national borders of Israel.

🕌 Supporters of this reading argue that the spread of Ishmael’s descendants and the later expansion of Islam across a vast region — including lands between Egypt and the Euphrates and even beyond — may be understood as a historical fulfilment of God’s promise to Abraham through Ishmael. In this view, the promise was not left unfulfilled, nor does it need to be revived through a modern political project of Greater Israel.

🏞️ Under this interpretation, the broad land promise of Genesis 15 was fulfilled through Abraham’s firstborn line, especially through the descendants of Ishmael and the spread of Islam. The later covenant with Israel at Sinai had its own separate land framework, but it was narrower, more specific, and conditional upon obedience to God’s Law.

🕊️ This reading therefore challenges the claim that Genesis 15 automatically supports modern territorial expansion in the name of Greater Israel. It argues that such a claim may confuse two different covenants: the Abrahamic covenant associated with Ishmael, and the Sinai covenant associated with Jacob’s descendants.

📌 The deeper issue is not only geography, but covenant theology. If Ishmael is acknowledged as Abraham’s firstborn and as standing within Abraham’s covenantal legacy, then the promise made to Abraham’s “seed” can be interpreted as applying to Ishmael. At the same time, the descendants of Israel also had their own historical inheritance in the land of Canaan before the coming of Islam, beginning with Joshua and continuing through the kingdoms of David and Solomon.

🧭 In this view, the Israelites did receive and rule the land within their own biblical history. However, that inheritance belonged to the later Sinai covenant, which was given through Moses and tied to obedience, justice, and faithfulness to God’s Law. Therefore, it should not be confused with the broader Abrahamic covenant, which this interpretation connects especially with Ishmael as Abraham’s firstborn, Abraham’s wider covenantal legacy, and the later spread of Islam among Ishmael’s descendants.

🌿 The conclusion of this interpretation is that the struggle for Greater Israel today is theologically unnecessary and may even contradict the will of God. The land of Canaan had already been inherited by the Israelites in the pre-Islamic period through Joshua and later ruled under King David and King Solomon, while the wider Abrahamic promise may be understood as fulfilled through Abraham’s broader family, especially through Ishmael and the spread of Islam. Therefore, the proper response is not conquest or endless territorial expansion, but humility, justice, and peace among the peoples who trace their story back to Abraham.

The Abrahamic Blessing: Islam, Christian Zionism, and the State of Israel

📖 Genesis 12:3 is one of the most important verses in the Abrahamic tradition. In this verse, God says to Abraham:

“I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse; and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you.”

The verse contains two major ideas: first, that Abraham carries a special divine blessing; second, that this blessing is ultimately meant to reach all nations, not remain limited to one ethnic group alone. (biblehub.com)

🕋 From an Islamic standpoint, Abraham is not viewed merely as the ancestor of one nation. He is viewed as a universal prophet of tawḥīd, the pure worship of the One God. The Qur’an presents Abraham as neither Jew nor Christian, but as a ḥanīf, a true monotheist who submitted himself to Allah. Therefore, the blessing of Abraham is understood as a spiritual and prophetic blessing rooted in faith, obedience, righteousness, and submission to God.

🤲 This is where Ṣalawāt Ibrāhīmiyyah becomes deeply meaningful. In the prayer taught by Prophet Muhammad ﷺ, Muslims say:

“O Allah, send Your blessings upon Muhammad and the family of Muhammad, as You sent Your blessings upon Abraham and the family of Abraham.”

This wording appears in authentic hadith collections, including Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī. (sunnah.com)

🌙 Theologically, this prayer connects the mission of Prophet Muhammad ﷺ to the Abrahamic line of blessing. Muslims are not asking for a separate blessing disconnected from Abraham. Rather, they are asking Allah to bless Muhammad ﷺ and his family in continuity with the blessing already given to Abraham and his family. This means that, in Islamic theology, the Abrahamic blessing reaches its universal expression through the final prophethood of Muhammad ﷺ.

🧭 From this perspective, Genesis 12:3 is not about political loyalty to a modern state. It is about alignment with the divine mission of Abraham: worship of the One God, rejection of idolatry, moral responsibility, and guidance for all peoples. To “bless Abraham” means to honour his true religion, his prophetic legacy, and the universal message of submission to God.

✝️ Christian Zionism often reads Genesis 12:3 differently. Many Christian Zionists interpret the verse as a continuing divine command to support the Jewish people and, by extension, the modern State of Israel. The International Christian Embassy Jerusalem, for example, describes Genesis 12:3 as one of the most frequently cited biblical mandates for Christians to “stand with Israel” and bless the Jewish people. (ICEJ)

🇮🇱 In this Christian Zionist reading, blessing Israel is not merely a private spiritual attitude. It can become political, financial, diplomatic, and even military support for the State of Israel. Some Christian Zionist arguments claim that nations which support Israel receive divine favour, while those that oppose Israel risk divine judgment. Recent reporting on evangelical support for Israel notes that Genesis 12 is frequently used as a foundation for this belief. (Houston Chronicle)

⚖️ However, not all Christians accept this interpretation. Some Christian theologians argue that Genesis 12:3 should not be used as a direct theological justification for supporting every policy of the modern State of Israel. Ligonier Ministries, for example, argues that there may be political reasons for supporting some Israeli policies, but Genesis 12:3 itself does not provide a theological reason to support the modern nation-state unconditionally. (Ligonier Ministries)

🌿 The key difference is this: Christian Zionism often links Abraham’s blessing to ethnic Israel and the modern State of Israel, while the Islamic perspective links Abraham’s blessing to tawḥīd, prophethood, righteousness, and the continuation of Abraham’s spiritual legacy through Muhammad ﷺ. In Islam, Abraham’s blessing is not cancelled, but universalized. It flows through the family of Abraham, includes the line of Ishmael, and reaches the nations through the final Messenger.

🕌 Therefore, Ṣalawāt Ibrāhīmiyyah can be seen as a powerful Islamic response to Genesis 12:3. Every time Muslims send blessings upon Muhammad ﷺ and his family “as” Allah blessed Abraham and his family, they are affirming that the Abrahamic promise is alive — not as a narrow ethnic nationalism, but as a living spiritual covenant centred on worship, mercy, guidance, and submission to Allah.

🌍 In conclusion, Genesis 12:3 can be understood in two very different ways. Christian Zionism often reads it as a mandate to bless and support the State of Israel. Islam reads the Abrahamic blessing through the lens of tawḥīd and prophethood, fulfilled in the universal mission of Muhammad ﷺ and remembered daily through Ṣalawāt Ibrāhīmiyyah. The real blessing of Abraham, from the Islamic standpoint, is not the domination of one nation over another, but the spread of divine guidance to all families of the earth.

From Ancient Conquest to Modern Irony: When Scripture Is Used Against the Worshippers of Abraham’s God

📜 In the Hebrew Bible, the ancient Israelites are described as a people chosen to worship the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Their identity was built around covenant, law, and loyalty to one God. In the biblical story, they were commanded to enter the land of Canaan and remove its inhabitants because those nations were seen as idolaters who practiced corrupt religion and immoral customs.

⚔️ This command appears most strongly in the books of Deuteronomy and Joshua. The Canaanites are presented as nations whose religious practices threatened Israel’s faith. The Israelites were told not merely to live among them, but to destroy their altars, reject their gods, and in some passages, wipe them out completely. This was known as a holy war or a war of total devotion.

🕊️ Whether one reads these passages as literal history, theological memory, or ancient war language, the message is clear: the biblical conquest was framed as a struggle between monotheism and idolatry. The Israelites were not commanded to remove people simply because they were foreign. They were commanded to resist a religious order that the Bible presents as idolatrous and morally corrupt.

🔍 This creates a deep historical irony in the modern Holy Land.

☪️ Today, many Palestinians in the land are Muslims and Christians. They are not idolaters. They worship the God of Abraham. Muslims honor Abraham as a prophet and see themselves as followers of his pure monotheism. Palestinian Christians also worship the God of Abraham through their own religious tradition. In other words, many of the people now facing displacement, occupation, and violence are themselves believers in the Abrahamic God.

🏛️ Yet some modern Israeli political and settler movements use the Bible to justify domination over the same land. They speak of ancient promises, biblical borders, and divine inheritance. Some use this language to defend settlements, expulsions, or the denial of Palestinian national rights.

⚖️ The irony is sharp: in the ancient biblical story, the Israelites were commanded to remove idolaters from the land. In the modern political story, biblical language is sometimes used against Palestinians who are not idolaters at all, but worshippers of the God of Abraham.

📌 There is another irony. Modern Zionism began largely as a secular nationalist project, rather than a religious movement. Many of its early leaders were atheists and secular nationalists. Even today, a large number of Israeli Jews identify as secular or non-observant, while some also identify as atheist or do not believe in God in a traditional religious sense. Yet biblical claims are still used in political arguments over land, sovereignty, and settlement.

🕍 This does not mean all Jews support such policies. Many Jews, including religious Jews, reject occupation, racism, and violence against Palestinians. Many see the prophetic message of the Bible as a call to justice, humility, and protection of the stranger.

⚠️ The problem is not Judaism itself, but political Zionism when it uses scripture selectively to sanctify power, land control, and the denial of Palestinian rights.

🔥 When ancient scripture is used without moral reflection, it can become dangerous. A text that once condemned idolatry can be turned into a weapon against fellow worshippers of God. A story about covenant can be reduced to a claim of ethnic supremacy. A sacred land can become a battlefield of domination rather than a place of justice.

🌿 The deeper question is not only who has ancient roots in the land. The deeper question is whether people who claim Abraham’s inheritance are living by Abraham’s faith: justice, mercy, hospitality, and submission to the One God.

🏞️ If the Holy Land is truly holy, then holiness cannot be measured only by borders, flags, or ancient conquest stories. It must also be measured by how the weak, the displaced, and the oppressed are treated.

💔 The tragedy of the modern Holy Land is that the language of God is sometimes used to deny the rights of people who worship God. That is not the spirit of Abraham. It is the corruption of his legacy.

Sham vs. Mecca

⚖️ Divine Blessings Compared: Sham’s Inherent Sanctity and Mecca’s Prayer-Bestowed Honor in the Qur’an

The difference between the divine blessing of the land of Sham (Greater Syria, including Palestine) as mentioned in Surah 21:71 and the blessing of Mecca (Makkah) in the Qur’an lies in the source and nature of the sanctity attributed to each location.

Here’s a structured comparison:

⸻

📍1. Sham (Greater Syria / Holy Land / Jerusalem) – Direct Divine Blessing

🔹 Qur’anic Reference:

Surah Al-Anbiya’ (21:71):

“And We delivered him [Ibrahim] and Lot to the land which We had blessed for the worlds.”
(وَنَجَّيْنَاهُ وَلُوطًا إِلَى ٱلْأَرْضِ ٱلَّتِى بَـٰرَكْنَا فِيهَا لِلْعَـٰلَمِينَ)

🔸 Key Point:

• The land itself is blessed by Allah directly, without mentioning any human prayer or intervention.
• Classical and modern scholars identify this “blessed land” as Sham, specifically Palestine, including Jerusalem.
• This indicates intrinsic and pre-existing sanctity granted by divine will.

⸻

📍2. Mecca (Makkah) – Blessed Through Prophetic Prayer of Abraham

🔹 Qur’anic References:

• Surah Al-Baqarah (2:126):
“And [remember] when Abraham said, ‘My Lord, make this a safe city and provide its people with fruits…’”
• Surah Ibrahim (14:35–37):
“My Lord, make this city secure and keep me and my sons away from worshipping idols… I have settled some of my descendants in an uncultivated valley near Your sacred House…”

🔸 Key Point:

• Mecca was originally a barren valley (valley of Bakkah) without vegetation.
• Its sanctity and blessings came as a result of Abraham’s prayer and the subsequent building of the Kaʿbah (House of God).
• The Qur’an presents Mecca’s blessing and safety as a response to prophetic supplication.

⸻

⚖️ Summary of the Difference

Source of Blessing:
• Sham / Holy Land: Direct divine declaration — “…the land which We had blessed…” (Surah 21:71).
• Mecca / Makkah: Blessed through Abraham’s prayer (Surah 2:126, 14:35–37).

Timing of Blessing:
• Sham / Holy Land: Already blessed when Ibrahim and Lut arrived.
• Mecca / Makkah: Became blessed due to Abraham’s prayer for the settlement of his offsprings.

Nature of Sanctity:
• Sham / Holy Land: Inherent, natural sanctity as a land for all nations.
• Mecca / Makkah: Earned sanctity through prophetic action and ritual significance.

Historical Role
• Sham / Holy Land: Site of many prophets (e.g., Ibrahim, Musa, Isa).
• Mecca / Makkah: Site of the Kaʿbah and the final prophet Muhammad ﷺ.

⸻

🧭 Theological Implications

• Sham is viewed as a blessed land for all peoples and times, with spiritual, historical, and eschatological significance (e.g., place of Jesus’ return, land of many prophets).

• Mecca stands as the spiritual epicenter of Islam — the qiblah of all Muslims and the destination of the Hajj — yet its blessed status in the Qur’an is portrayed not as an inherent quality from the beginning, but as a divine bestowal granted in response to the supplication and devotion of Prophet Ibrahim عليه السلام.

Search

Search

---

Azahari Hassim

📰 Isaiah 29, the Unlettered Prophet, and the Mummy of Pharaoh: A Sign for the End Times

📖 Isaiah 29 contains one of the most remarkable prophetic echoes in the Bible. It speaks of a book being given to an unlearned man, and it speaks of a “marvelous work and a wonder” that God would bring forth among the people. From an Islamic perspective, these words point directly to two great signs: the revelation of the Qur’an to Prophet Muhammad ﷺ and the preservation of Pharaoh’s body as a warning for later generations.

📜 Isaiah 29:12 says:

“And the book is delivered to him that is not learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I am not learned.” 

For Muslims, this is not a vague statement. It strongly mirrors the first revelation of the Qur’an in the Cave of Ḥirā’, when the angel Jibrīl commanded Prophet Muhammad ﷺ to read, and he replied that he could not read.

🕋 This is why the verse is so powerful. Prophet Muhammad ﷺ was known as al-nabiyy al-ummī, the unlettered Prophet. He did not study scripture under rabbis, priests, philosophers, or scribes. Yet through him came the Qur’an — a book that transformed Arabia, challenged empires, corrected theological corruption, and called humanity back to the pure worship of the One God.

⚡ This is the first miracle in the passage: a divine book delivered through an unlettered man. Human wisdom expected revelation to come through elite scholars or religious institutions. But God chose Muhammad ﷺ, an unlettered Prophet, so that no one could honestly claim that the Qur’an was copied, manufactured, or learned from human teachers.

📖 Then Isaiah 29:14 declares:

“Therefore, behold, I will proceed to do a marvelous work among this people, even a marvelous work and a wonder.” 

This verse points to another divine act — not merely a message, but a visible sign. The phrase “I will proceed” suggests that God would again perform a mighty wonder, just as He had done in the past.

🌊 The language naturally recalls the miracle of Moses at the sea. Pharaoh pursued the Children of Israel with arrogance and military power. Moses appeared trapped. The sea stood before him, Pharaoh behind him, and destruction seemed certain. But God split the sea, saved the believers, and drowned the tyrant who had defied Him.

🏺 Yet the Qur’an brings to light a detail that is not clearly disclosed in the biblical account: Pharaoh’s body would be preserved. In Surah Yunus 10:92, Allah declares that Pharaoh’s body would be saved so that he would become a sign for those who came after him. This is not a symbolic statement only. It is a physical, historical, and visible sign.

📜 This detail also finds an important echo in Psalm 136:15, which states that God “overthrew Pharaoh and his host in the Red Sea.” While the Book of Exodus clearly describes the drowning of Pharaoh’s army, chariots, and horsemen, it does not state as explicitly that Pharaoh himself drowned in the same event. 

Psalm 136:15, however, makes the matter clearer by placing Pharaoh himself together with his forces in the sea. In this way, the Psalms strengthen the understanding that Pharaoh personally met his end in the waters after pursuing Moses and the Children of Israel.

👑 That Pharaoh was Ramesses II. In this Islamic-apologetic reading, the identity of the Pharaoh of Moses is none other than Ramesses II, the powerful Egyptian ruler remembered for his monuments, military campaigns, royal pride, and association with the age of Moses. The discovery and preservation of his mummy in the modern age stand as a stunning confirmation of the Qur’anic declaration.

🔍 This is the “marvelous work and wonder” of Isaiah 29:14: the body of the drowned tyrant, preserved across thousands of years, brought out in the modern age as a silent witness. The man who claimed power, majesty, and divine-like authority became a lifeless sign for the nations.

⚖️ The irony is profound. Pharaoh tried to erase the believers. Instead, his own body was preserved as evidence against him. He pursued Moses to destroy him, but today it is Pharaoh’s body that reminds the world of Moses’ truth. He stood against revelation, yet his preserved remains now serve the message of revelation.

🌍 This sign speaks powerfully to the modern world. In an age that often trusts only archaeology, science, museums, and material evidence, Allah has made Pharaoh’s body a sign that even the modern eye can see. The mummy of Ramesses II is not merely an ancient corpse. It is a theological witness.

🔥 Isaiah 29:12 and Isaiah 29:14 therefore form a connected pattern. First, the book is given to the unlettered Prophet — the Qur’an revealed to Muhammad ﷺ. Then, God brings forth a marvelous sign — the preserved body of Pharaoh, identified as Ramesses II, confirming the Qur’anic warning in Surah Yunus 10:92.

🕊️ The message is clear: God’s signs do not vanish. They may be hidden for centuries, buried beneath sand, locked inside tombs, or ignored by arrogant nations. But when Allah wills, He brings them back into view.

⏳ For the end times, this sign carries a warning. Pharaoh represents tyranny, arrogance, denial, and the persecution of God’s servants. His preserved body warns every ruler, empire, and civilization that power without submission to God ends in humiliation.

📢 The Qur’an did not merely tell a story about the past. It announced a sign for the future. The mummy of Ramesses II stands as that sign — a “marvelous work and a wonder” — reminding humanity that the God who saved Moses, revealed the Qur’an to the unlettered Prophet, and preserved Pharaoh’s body is the same God who will judge the world at the end of time.

A Fourth Era of Miracles? An Islamic Reading of Isaiah 29

📖 Many Bible scholars observe that miracles are concentrated in three major periods of biblical history. The first was during the time of Moses, when God delivered the Israelites from Egypt through extraordinary signs. The second came during the ministries of Elijah and Elisha, when miracles preserved true worship in Israel. The third was the ministry of Jesus Christ, whose miracles accompanied the proclamation of God’s kingdom.

🔍 Some Muslim scholars and apologists argue that the biblical story points to a fourth and final period of divine signs. They believe this period is foreshadowed in Isaiah 29, where two remarkable events appear side by side: a book being given to an unlearned man and God promising to perform “a marvelous work and a wonder.”

📜 Isaiah 29:12 describes a book being given to someone “that is not learned,” who replies, “I am not learned.” From an Islamic perspective, this closely parallels the first revelation of the Qur’an in the Cave of Ḥirā’, where the Angel Jibrīl commanded Prophet Muhammad ﷺ to read, and he responded that he could not read. Muslims regard this as the beginning of the Qur’anic revelation to the unlettered Prophet.

⚡ Isaiah 29:14 then declares that God will perform “a marvelous work and a wonder.” In this Islamic interpretation, the prophecy extends beyond revelation itself to a visible sign for later generations.

🏺 The Qur’an records in Surah Yunus (10:92) that Pharaoh’s body would be preserved as a sign for those who came after him. Many Muslim apologists identify the Pharaoh of Moses with Ramesses II and view the discovery and preservation of his mummy in the modern age as a striking fulfillment of that Qur’anic statement. This identification, while debated among followers of other faiths, is presented by its proponents as a powerful confirmation of the Qur’an’s message.

🌍 According to this reading, Isaiah 29 presents two interconnected signs: first, the revelation of a divine book through an unlettered prophet, and second, a visible historical witness in the preserved body of Pharaoh. Together, these events are understood as marking a final era of divine signs addressed not only to ancient peoples but also to the modern world.

🕊️ For Muslims who hold this interpretation, the message is clear: God continues to reveal His truth in ways suited to each age. The Qur’an serves as the enduring revelation, while the preserved body of Pharaoh stands as a reminder that arrogance and oppression ultimately end in God’s judgment.

Does Psalm 136:15 Refer to the Drowning of Pharaoh?

📖 Hebrew Text of Psalm 136:15:

וְנִעֵר פַּרְעֹה וְחֵילוֹ בְּיַם־סוּף כִּי לְעוֹלָם חַסְדּוֹ׃

🌍 English Translation

A translation close to the Hebrew text would be:

“And He shook off Pharaoh and all his army into the Sea of Reeds, for His steadfast love endures forever.”

The verb “shook off” seeks to capture the nuance of the Hebrew וְנִעֵר, which literally carries the sense of “to shake, shake loose, or cast off.”

🔍 Word-by-Word Explanation

וְנִעֵר — vene’er

This is a verb meaning “to shake, cast off, or forcefully remove.”

It does not simply mean that Pharaoh was “placed” in the sea. Rather, it describes God’s firm and powerful action, as though He “shook loose” the enemy from their position.

👑 פַּרְעֹה — Par‘oh and וְחֵילוֹ — veḵheiló

“Par‘oh” means Pharaoh, the king of Egypt.

“Ḥeiló” means “his army” or “his military force.”

Therefore, the phrase emphasizes that not only the leader was destroyed, but also the entire military power that supported him.

🌊 בְּיַם־סוּף — beYam Suf

Literally, this means “in the Sea of Reeds,” often traditionally rendered as the Red Sea.

It refers to the sea that was divided and then overwhelmed the Egyptian forces in the Exodus story.

This reminds the reader of Israel’s deliverance and Egypt’s judgment happening at the same time.

💛 כִּי לְעוֹלָם חַסְדּוֹ — ki le‘olam ḥasdó

This means, “for His steadfast love endures forever.”

Here, ḥesed refers to firm covenantal love: a combination of love, mercy, covenant faithfulness, and God’s active goodness toward His people.

This phrase is the repeated refrain in every verse of Psalm 136, stressing that every act of God, including judgment against enemies, flows from His steadfast love for His people.

🧭 Overall Semantic Meaning

Psalm 136:15 semantically points to the drowning of Pharaoh and his army by describing God as “shaking off” or forcefully casting Pharaoh and his military power into the Sea of Reeds. The verse presents this not only as an act of judgment against oppression, but also as an act of deliverance for Israel, flowing from God’s everlasting steadfast love.

Thus, based on the meaning of the Hebrew wording, Pharaoh is portrayed as being overwhelmed and drowned in the sea together with his forces.

Search

Search