📰 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.

🌍 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.

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.

— Azahari Hassim

Founder, The World of Abrahamic Theology