🌍🕌 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 manifestation of this process.

⚔️🕌 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.

🕊️ Sham, Sacred Trust, and the Identity of Gog: Rethinking Ezekiel 38–39 Beyond Modern Muslim Nations

The prophetic geography of both Biblical and Islamic eschatology repeatedly converges upon one sacred region: Sham—the blessed land of the Levant, the land of prophets, revelation, and sacred history.

The Prophet Muhammad ﷺ said:

فَإِنَّ اللَّهَ عَزَّ وَجَلَّ تَوَكَّلَ لِي بِالشَّامِ وَأَهْلِهِ

“Indeed Allah, Mighty and Majestic, has taken special charge of Sham and its people for my sake.”

This narration, found in the Musnad of Ahmad ibn Hanbal, establishes a theological principle:

Sham is not merely land.

It is divine trust.

And its people are under divine concern.

This presents a serious challenge to a popular modern interpretation of Ezekiel 38–39: the claim that Gog’s coalition refers to Muslim nations such as modern Iran and Turkey.

That identification becomes deeply problematic when viewed through both historical and theological lenses.

📜 The Problem of Modern Geopolitical Mapping

Many contemporary interpreters identify Ezekiel’s “Persia” with modern Iran and “Meshech” and “Tubal” with modern Turkey.

At first glance, this seems straightforward.

But history complicates the matter.

Ancient prophetic geography is not always identical to modern national or religious identity.

More importantly:

religious identity changes.

ethnic identity changes.

civilizational identity changes.

Thus, “Persia” in Ezekiel need not mean Islamic Persia.

Nor must Anatolian/Turkic regions mean Muslim Turks.

👑 Persia and the Jewish Conversion Factor

The Book of Esther takes place in the Persian Empire under Xerxes I. Following the Jews' salvation, Esther 8:17 notes that numerous Persians adopted Judaism and aligned themselves with the Jewish community.

This is crucial.

Persia was not merely a political empire hosting Jews—it became a realm of Jewish influence and conversion.

Thus, Ezekiel’s “Persia” need not point to Islamic Iran.

It may preserve the memory of a Persian sphere partly absorbed into Jewish identity long before Islam existed.

In that sense, the “Persia” of Gog could reflect a Judaized Persian legacy, not Muslim Persia.

🏹 Turkey and the Khazar Question

Likewise, identifying Ezekiel’s northern coalition with Muslim Turkey ignores another historical layer:

the Khazar conversion to Judaism.

The Khazars were a Turkic polity whose ruling elite embraced Judaism in the 8th century.

This matters because it introduces a Judaized Turkic historical stream into Eurasian history.

If Turkic peoples are part of Gog’s coalition, their religious identity in prophetic memory may not be Islamic at all.

It could reflect post-conversion Judaized Turkic elements.

This makes simplistic “Turkey = Muslim Gog” readings historically weak.

🕌 The Islamic Position Toward Sham

Islamic prophecy consistently frames Sham as sacred and protected.

The Qur’an repeatedly blesses the surrounding land:

“the land We blessed for all peoples”

(Qur’an 21:71)

And the Prophet ﷺ repeatedly directed the believers toward Sham in the final age.

This is not incidental.

It is structural.

The ummah’s relationship to Sham is custodial.

Not destructive.

To identify Muslim nations as Gog would mean identifying the Prophet’s own community as violators of the very land entrusted to them.

That creates theological contradiction.

⚔️ Gog Invades — The Ummah Protects

Ezekiel’s Gog comes as aggressor.

Islam’s believers come as protectors of sacred trust.

These are opposite prophetic functions.

The Gog coalition seeks invasion.

The believers seek preservation.

Thus the Muslim ummah cannot coherently be Gog.

🔥 A More Coherent Alternative

A stronger reading emerges:

* Ezekiel’s Persia may refer to a Persian-Judaic imperial memory shaped by mass Jewish conversion in the Esther era, rather than Islamic Iran.

* Ezekiel’s northern Turkic elements may reflect Judaized Khazar heritage, not Muslim Turks.

* The Muslim ummah, by Prophetic mandate, stands on the side of preserving Sham.

This removes the contradiction.

And it better aligns Biblical geography with Islamic sacred responsibility.

🧭 Final Reflection

Prophecy should not be read through headlines.

It must be read through sacred history.

When the Prophet of Islam places Sham under divine trust, that creates a theological boundary.

The guardians of Sham cannot be its apocalyptic destroyers.

And if Ezekiel’s Gog includes Persia and northern Turkic powers, their prophetic identities may belong to older Judaized civilizational streams—not the Muslim nations of today.

That distinction changes everything.

📰 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.

— Azahari Hassim

Founder, The World of Abrahamic Theology