A Muslim Viewpoint of Jerusalem as the Eternal Capital of the Jews

Sheikh Abdul Hadi Palazzi

A Muslim Viewpoint of Jerusalem as the Eternal Capital of the Jews

Any discussion of the problem of sovereignty over Jerusalem necessarily means a kind of investigation that has political, cultural, psychological, and religious implications.

For a Jew or a Muslim, religious or secular, thinking of Jerusalem menas mingling reason and sentiment together.

As a Muslim scholar and a man of religion, I will focus on whether, from an Islamic point of view, there is some well-grounded theological reason that makes it impossible for Muslims to accept the idea of recognizing Jerusalem both as an Islamic holy place and as the capital of the State of Israel.

First, I would like to emphasizethat the idea of considering Jewish immigration to Israel as a western"invasion" and Zionists as new "colonizers" is very recent and has no relation to the basic features of Islamic faith.

The idea that Islam might prevent Arabs from recxognizing Jewish sovereignty over Palestine is quite recent and can by no means be found in Islamic classical sources. To see anti-Zionism as a direct consequence of Islam is a form of explicit misunderstanding which implies the transformation of Islam from a religion into a secularized ideology.

This was originally done by the late Mufti of Jerusalem, Amin al-Husseini, who was responsible for most of the Arab defeats. During World War Two, he collaborated with Hitler.

Later, Egyptian President Jamal el-Din Abd el-Nasser based his policies on Pan-Arabism, hate for the Jews, and affiance with theSoviet Union. These doctrines were the cause of Arab backwardness. Most of Nasser's mistakes were later corrected by the martyr Anwar Sadat.

After the defeat of Nasserism, thefundamentalist movements made anti-Zionism a chief element of their propaganda,trying to describe the so-called "fight for liberation of Palestine" as rooted in Islamic tradition and derived from religious principles.

This plan for the ideologization of Islam as an instrument of political struggle encounters a significant obstacle, since both Koran and Torah indicate quite clearly that the link between the Children of Israel and the Land of Canaan does not depend on any kind of colonization project — but directly on the will of G-d Almighty.

As we learn from Jewish and Islamic Scriptures, G-d, through His chosen servant, Moses, decided to free the off-spring of Jacob from slavery in Egypt and make them the inheritors of the Promised Land. Whoever claims that Jewish sovereignty over Palestine is something recent and dependent on political machinations is in fact denying the historyof revelation and prophecy, as well as the clear teaching of the Holy Books.

The Koran cites the exact words with which Moses ordered the Israelites to conquer the Land:

"And [remember] when Moses said to his people: 0 my people, call in remembrance the favor of G-d unto you, when He produced prophets among you,made you kings, and gave to you what He had not given to any other among the people. 0 my people, enter the Holy Land which G-d has assigned unto you, and turn not back ignominiously, for then will ye be overthrown, to your own ruin." (Koran, Sura 5:22-23, "The Table").

Moreover--and fundamentalists always forget this point-- the Holy Koran quite openly refers to the reinstatement of the Jews in the land before the Last Judgxment, where it says:

"And thereafter We said to the Children of Israel: Dwell securely in the Promised Land. And when the last warning will come to pass, We will gather you together in a mingled crowd."(Koran, Sura 17:104, "The Night Journey")

The most common argument against Islamic acknowledgement of Israeli sovereignty over Jerusalem is that, since al-Quds is a holy place for Muslims, they cannot accept its being ruled by non-Muslims, because such acceptance would be a betrayal of Islam.

Before expressing our point of view on this issue,we must reflect upon the reason that Jerusalem and the al-Aqsa Mosque hold such a sacred position in Isxlam. The definition of Jerusalem as an Islamic holy place depends on al-Mi'raj, the ascension of the prophet Muhammad to heaven,which began from the Holy Rock.

While remembering this, we must admit there is no real link between al-Mi'raj and sovereign rights over Jerusalem, since when al-Mi'raj took place the city was not under Islamic, but rather, Byzantine administration. Moreover, the Koran expressly recognizes that Jerusalem plays the same role for Jews that Mecca has for Muslims.

We read: " . . . They would not follow thy direction of prayer (qibla), nor art thou to follow their direction of prayer; nor indeed will they follow each other's dixrection of prayer... "(Koran, Sura 2:145, "The Cow")

All Koranic commentators explain that "thy qibla" is obviously the Kaaba of Mecca, while "their qibla" refers to the Temple Area in Jerusalem.

As opposed to what "Islamic"fundamentalists continuously claim, the Book of Islam-- as we have just now seen-- recognizes Jerusalem as the Jewish direction of prayer. Some Muslim exegetes also quote the Book of Daniel as proof of this (Daniel 6:10).

After exhibiting the most relevant Koranic passages in this connection, one easily concludes that, as no one wishes to deny Muslims complete sovereignty over Mecca, from an Islamic point of view there is no sound theological reason to deny the Jews the same right over Jerusalem.

If we consider ourselves religious people, we must necesxsarilyinclude justice among our qualities. This requires us to treat Jews,Christians, and Musxlims equally. No community can demand for itself privileges that it is not ready to recognize to others.

We know that Roman Catholics consider Rome theircapital, and the fact that the city has the largest mosque in Eu-rope and an ancient Jewish community does not alter its role as the center of Catholicism.

Even more can be said of Mecca: It is the main religious center for Muslims the world over and is completely under Islamic administration.

Respecting this principle of fair-mindedness, we necessarily conclude that the Israelis as a nation and the Jews as a religion must have their own political and ethnic capital, under their sole administration, even though it contains certain places regarded as sacred by the other two Abrahamic faiths.

To my mind, this is the only realistic ground for any discussion of the future of the Holy City. The other parties must understand that Jews will never agree to have fewer rights than the other religions, and Israelis will never agree to see David's City divided into two parts.

If everyone was happy to see the Berlin Wall destroyed, it was because the very idea of forced separation withina single city is offensive to human sensitivity. We cannot even think of creating another Berlin inthe heart of the Middle East.

Of course, the idea of "two Jerusalems," if ever realized, will by no means be a solution, but a source of new troubles and conflicts.

Our general guideline must be the principle that the more we discover about our common roots, the more we can hope for a common future of peace and prosperity.

*The former Imam of Rome, Sheikh Palazzi is secretary general of the Italian Muslim Association and the Muslim co-chairman of the Root & Branch Islam-Israel Fellowship.