Eurasia Press & News
Exposing the superficial religious attitude, the prophet Isaiah recorded: “This people draw near to me with their mouths and honour me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me.” (Isaiah 29:13) This piercing critique cuts through the veneer of hollow devotion like a knife through butter, revealing a faith that is skin-deep.
Let us not forget the fact that liberal theologians within the Protestant sect, out of sympathy for the hardships suffered by a people in the name of the Holocaust, supported the idea of a homeland for the Jews. Like a ship caught in a storm, their intentions were driven by compassion, but their course was charted without a compass of deeper understanding. Like the Zionists, they were eager to implement the 1948 UN plan for the partition of Palestine. These included Reinhold Niebuhr (1892-1971), Paul Tillich (1886-1965), Daniel Pauling (1946-), and William Albright (1944-1998). They also contributed to accelerating the Jewish influx into Palestine. (1)
This support was a well-meaning but blind leap into the abyss, without deep insight or investigation, with a declaration of advancing humanity. It was presented as a solution to the horrors of the anti-Semitic series and the Holocaust. Yet, like a wolf in sheep’s clothing, it united all the evil forces behind them to repeat the atrocities once again. They showed no justice or compassion for the people who had been living in Palestine for centuries, as if their history and rights were mere dust in the wind.
The statement made by Reinhold Niebuhr before the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry in 1946 later became a key claim of Christian Zionism:
“The Arabs have vast territories in the Middle East. The Jews have nowhere else to go, and the ‘Arab hegemony’ in the disputed territory must certainly be sacrificed for the construction of a homeland for world Jewry.”
The idea that Jews have nowhere else to go is as absurd as claiming the ocean has no water. Every nation has the right to live in the land of its birth. Those who committed atrocities in the name of anti-Semitism only needed to withdraw from it. Those who dared not do so, while maintaining the same evil feelings, should not be justified in the name of Jesus by preparing to sacrifice another nation on a sacrificial stone. To do so is to pour salt on the wounds of history.
Is Religion Guilty?
All ideas have been misused by the powers that be for their own interests. Like a double-edged sword, religion and science alike have been wielded to cut down the vulnerable. It cannot be denied that they have used not only religion but also science.
No one can deny that the spread of the theory of evolution has strengthened racism. Since there is no fixed pace of progress, the ‘humanoid’ (anthropoid), interpreted as being at the bottom of the evolutionary hierarchy, is not necessarily considered a brother. Only the concept that man, as a species, is a special creation of God can save the upper class from racism, anchoring humanity in the bedrock of divine equality. (2)
The Fourth Geneva Convention is an important international humanitarian law principle established in 1949 to criminalize the atrocities of the Nazi regime. Yet, like a broken shield, it fails to protect the oppressed from the injustices of the Zionists who are building settlements in the territories captured in the 1967 war. Judeo-Christian Zionists do not have even this morality.
It is unbiblical to say that God approves of the atrocities of the chosen people. For example, it was Jehovah who turned the Assyrians against Israel in the north. (3) Later, it was Jehovah who turned the Babylonians against the southern Jewish nation. (4) Israel’s dominion over the kingdom of Canaan was subject to specific conditions. The biblical book of Joshua states this precisely. (5) The condition was to live in accordance with God’s will and to live a life free from injustice and violence. Jesus Christ considered only those who desire peace to be fulfilling God’s will. (6)
Christianity, which upholds love, compassion, mercy, sacrifice, humility, and a sense of justice as its core values, is fundamentally opposed to fascism and Zionism. Yet, like a mirror cracked, this reality is being distorted through misinterpretation. It is not the Christian-Jewish philosophies that are to blame here, but their distortions through misinterpretation.
Christian Zionism’s Move Against Christians
The global media is turning a blind eye to the fact that Arab Christians are being oppressed in the Middle East, just like Arab Muslims. Christian Zionism has given Zionist Israel an open license to persecute Christians, as if the cross has been replaced by a sword.
We can see the deviation of religions from fundamental values throughout history. In his work (7), Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Chris Hedges accuses the Christian right of adopting a style comparable to the fascist movements in Italy and Germany in the early 20th century. He even uses the term ‘Christo-fascists’. Jesus Christ is a great figure who lived in opposition to and conflict with the interests of the religious and political empires of his time; it should not be forgotten that he was subjected to terrible persecution for this, a lamb among wolves.
Palestinian Christians, who have been persecuted and expelled from the Bible, are in a crisis of faith. Palestinian-Anglican theologian Naim Ateek has noted: “With the exception of a small minority, Christians in the Middle East are not atheists. But they are raising serious questions about the nature of God. How does God act? What is God’s relationship to the state of Israel? Is God partial only to the Jews? Is God a God of justice and peace?” (8)
The central idea in Palestinian theology is that human rights are given along with human creation. See how theologian Elias Chacour emphasizes this: “I am a Christian. I was born as a child; we are all created in the image of God.” (9)
Listen to the words of Palestinian Lutheran pastor Mitri Raheb: “A theology of creation, where different peoples can live in harmony, is important for us in the Middle East. Such a theology must agree on the point that every person of any religion and nationality is a creation of God. Protecting human rights is important in divine law.” (10)
Palestinian Christian thinker Naim Ateek proposed the Palestinian liberation theology known as ‘Sabeel’ in 1994. (11)
Naim Ateek hits the nail on the head by accurately identifying Christian Zionism as a theological justification for imperialism, colonization, occupation, mass murder, blasphemy, incitement to racial hatred, war mongering, apartheid, and oppression. Sabeel stands firm in rejecting the claim that God promised Israel to the Jewish people. (12) Sabeel pulls no punches in accusing Christian Zionists of being racists, claiming that Christians are the true Israel. (13) Like a lighthouse in a storm, biblical scholar Gary Burg explains that the Bible links the right to the land to the fulfilment of a covenant with God. (14)
Jesus Christ, a beacon of peace and justice, told Pilate that his kingdom was not of this world (John 18:36). With the heart of a shepherd, Jesus was opposed to the use of power to uphold unjust political systems. He was a torchbearer for justice, truth, and human dignity.
The ‘Kairos Palestine Document’, released in December 2009, is a thunderous voice in the Christian world, attacking Zionism ideologically. The document does not mince words, accusing Israel of being worse than the apartheid that existed in South Africa before the 1990s. (15) It calls for the Palestinians, caught between Israel’s iron boots, to be rescued through a strong blockade. The document poignantly states that Jesus Christ weeps like a mother over her suffering child over the injustices taking place in Jerusalem.
More than fifty thousand Christians live in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, standing as a testament to resilience. 8% of the seats in the Palestinian Legislative Council are held by Christians, a small but mighty force. The ‘Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine’, founded by Dr. George Habash (1926-2008), was the first Palestinian movement to confront Israel using force, lighting the spark of resistance.
Although Christian Zionism is the chief architect of global terrorism, it should not be assumed that they are the only proponents of orthodoxy who believe in imposing laws by force. For example, Christian Reconstructionists, marching to the beat of a different drum, are post-millennialists who argue that the millennial reign will occur before the second coming of Jesus. Although they oppose Christian Zionism, they believe in Christian theocracy, rejecting pluralism. (16) They argue that the kingdom blessing has been transferred from Israel to the Christian church. (17) Jews, they claim, have no theological, historical, or legal right to the land of Palestine. (18) Meanwhile, the Christian Reconstructionist movement clings to the past, emphasizing conservative values such as patriarchy and the implementation of ancient Israelite laws. (19)
Jimmy Carter’s Transformation
Jimmy Carter (1924 –2024) was a staunch believer in Christian Zionism when he became president of the United States (1977). During the 1976 presidential election, Carter declared, with the fervour of a preacher: “As a human being, as an American, and as a religious person, Israel is the fruit of Bible prophecy to me.” (20) However, by 1985, having seen the writing on the wall after witnessing the suffering of the Palestinian people, Carter had abandoned his Christian Zionist perspective. In a book published that year, he declared that his theology had grown like a tree, branching out to include connections with other religions, including Islam, and that he had been liberated from his narrow perspective. Carter also acknowledged that the Palestinians, like the Jews, consider their land to be their holy land. (21)
Carter’s observations, sharp as a surgeon’s scalpel, underline the contemporary realities in the Middle East:
Most Arab states have recognized the existence of Israel. (22) Israel has been the powder keg of unrest in the Middle East since at least 1988. (23) Israel is the lone wolf that consistently fails to keep its promises. Despite the UN mandate to withdraw from territories captured in 1967, Israel, which is obligated to comply with resolutions (242 and 338), continues to build illegal settlements, flouting peace like a rebellious child. (25) The Israeli Prime Minister, Menachem Begin (1913-1992), played fast and loose with the truth, using deceitful evasion to justify the violation of the agreement. (26) The United States, quick to point fingers, blamed Yasser Arafat for the violation, despite its clear recognition of the breach. (27) Israel has an apartheid system where two classes of citizens exist in one country, a house divided against itself. (28) It is no surprise that the Palestinians are protesting against Israel, which is relentless as a storm, shelling, destroying houses and trees, and carrying out arrests. (29) Citing the words of the Palestinian Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh (1962-2024) that his Hamas government is ready for talks with Israel, Carter points out that the opportunity to implement the Camp David Accords has arrived. (30) He recalls that Israel must withdraw from the territories captured in 1967 under the Camp David Accords. (31) Carter also calls for the United States to cut the umbilical cord supporting Israel’s colonial and terrorist policies. (32)
Jewish-Muslim Relations: A Historical Tapestry
After 70 and 135 AD, the Jews, scattered like seeds in the wind by the Roman authorities, found peaceful coexistence in Muslim lands. Muslim Spain (711-1492) is etched in history as the golden age of Jewish history. During the European anti-Semitic persecutions, Jews found refuge in Ottoman territories, a safe harbour in a stormy sea. The Quran (5:5) envisages a Jewish-Muslim relationship that even allows marriage, a bridge between two faiths. Prophet Muhammad founded a state in Medina that was a mosaic of Jews and Muslims. There was no serious conflict or war between Jews and Muslims before 1920, a time when harmony reigned.
If we analyse the history of Palestine, we will find that all Abrahamic religious groups had rights there, a shared inheritance that has been trampled underfoot by modern conflicts.
Abraham lived in the ancient sands of time around 1800 BC, a figure whose legacy would echo through the ages. The Exodus, led by Moses, unfolded in 1290 BC, a journey that would forge a nation out of the wilderness. Under Joshua’s leadership, the Hebrews conquered Canaan in 1250 BC, a land flowing with milk and honey. David, a shepherd turned king, ruled for 39 years until 961 BC, while Solomon, the wisest of all, reigned from 970 to 931 BC, building a kingdom that shone like a beacon of prosperity. However, the tides of fortune turned when the Assyrians attacked and conquered Israel, shattering its unity like a fragile vase. In 586 BC, the Babylonian emperor Nebuchadnezzar swept through Judah like a storm, enslaving the children of Israel. Yet, hope was not lost, as Cyrus freed the Israelites in 520 BC, a light in the darkness of exile.
From 161 to 104 BC, Israel gained independence under the Maccabees, a flame of resistance that burned for 57 years. But the weight of empires proved too heavy, and the Romans seized control of Palestine and Syria. In 70 AD, the Romans expelled the Jews from Jerusalem, a wound that would bleed for centuries, and massacred them in 135 AD. Under Roman and Byzantine rule, Jews were barred from Palestine, a door slammed shut for generations. It was not until 638 AD, when Umar al-Khattab (582-644) opened the gates of mercy, that Jews were allowed to return. From 638 AD until the 1930s, Muslims and Jews shared a bond of friendship, a tapestry woven with mutual respect. Umar’s capture of Jerusalem in 638 was a bloodless revolution, a testament to tolerance. Between 638 and 1918, Palestine was free of Muslim rule for only 88 years (1099 to 1187), during which the Crusaders unleashed a reign of terror, brutally massacring Jews and Muslims alike. The Jews’ right to live in Palestine endured until the 1930s, but the winds of change blew harshly as Zionists expelled 700,000 Muslims, a bitter irony for those who had once extended a helping hand.
Jerusalem fell into Israel’s hands only after the 1967 war, a prize won through conflict. It is crucial to note that for 13 centuries, Muslims ruled Palestine by their own strength, standing tall like an oak. In contrast, Zionist rule since 1948 has relied on the crutch of imperialist support from the United States. Without this backing, Israel would crumble like a house of cards.
Jimmy Carter observes that the promise to Abraham’s seed, a covenant as enduring as the stars, includes both Isaac and Ishmael. He emphasizes that Abraham’s blessing stemmed not from his race but from his unwavering faith, a beacon for all believers. Hagar, Abraham’s wife—not a mere concubine, as some have mistakenly claimed (see Genesis 16:3, wherein the word “wife” is used unambiguously)—bore Ishmael, making Arabs, like the Israelites, descendants of Abraham and branches of the same ancient tree.
Modern Jews are primarily Sephardic and Ashkenazi, with less than 10% being direct descendants of Abraham. The remaining 85% are Ashkenazi, descendants of Caucasian converts, a mosaic of history and faith. Zionists, however, stand outside the Abrahamic circle, both ethnically and ideologically, their religious affiliation diverging from the ancient covenant.
When Abraham promised to make his name great (Genesis 12:2), he envisioned a legacy where his descendants would uphold the torch of faith, illuminating the world with justice and equality. God extended the same promise to Ishmael (Genesis 17:20), a bond unbroken by time. The Quran clarifies that this promise applies only to the righteous, a reminder that virtue is the true measure of legacy.
History refutes the claim that Arab Muslims are anti-Semitic. Islam absolved Jews of responsibility for the death of Jesus, a gesture of reconciliation. While the Israelites ruled Palestine for less than 400 years, the Ishmaelites governed for 1,280 of its 3,200-year history, a testament to coexistence and harmony.
Neo-Orientalism and Islamophobia
Einstein once said, “It is more difficult to break prejudice than to split an atom.” This rings especially true when examining the historical and cultural tensions between Islam and the West. Islam posed a dual threat to Christians: religious and political. The spectre of Islam engulfing Europe loomed large, casting a long shadow over the continent as early as 1529 and 1683. (37)
This perceived threat ignited a culture war, which found its voice in Orientalist writings. Edward Said, a towering intellectual, argued that the West had developed a “monolithic blame game,” pinning every societal ill on Islam. He wrote that the West had become “unanimous in blaming Islam for everything we did not like.” (38)
One of the most destructive myths propagated was the claim that Islam spread by the sword. This narrative, however, has been debunked by numerous Western scholars. H.G. Wells (1866-1946), for instance, noted that “Islam was a religion of compassion, generosity, and brotherhood, simple and easy to understand. It was only natural that the innate sense of adventure of the desert should appeal to the innate sense of the common man.” (39)
Islam’s revolutionary ideas also played a pivotal role in its spread. For the first time in history, women were granted property rights, a radical departure from the norms of the time. (40) The religion proclaimed the oneness of the human race, breaking down barriers of race and class. (41) It called for an economic system that sought to bridge the gap between the rich and the poor. (42) Above all, it exalted absolute justice as the cornerstone of society. (43)
After the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1990, the United States, in its quest for global dominance, sought a new adversary. The “red scare” of communism was replaced by the “green scare” of Islam, giving rise to a global wave of Islamophobia. This sentiment reached a fever pitch after the tragic events of September 11, 2001.
In this climate of fear, consider the words of Pat Robertson (1930-2023), a Christian Zionist leader and a former Republican presidential candidate, who declared:
“Gentlemen, the whole world is undoubtedly in the grip of a religious war today. This war is not about money or territory; it is not about the poor for money; it is not about ancient tradition and modernity. But it is about who is greater, Hubal, known as the moon god of Mecca, or Jehovah, the Jewish Christian God of the Bible. This message is echoing throughout the Muslim world: ‘Allah is greater than Jehovah. All the promises that Jehovah made to the Jews are meaningless. Let us now, in the name of Allah, crush the Jews and drive them out of Allah’s land.’”
Robertson’s rhetoric is a stark reminder of the “poisoned well” of Christian Zionist ideology, which is steeped in religious fanaticism, war-mongering, and blasphemy. It stands in stark contrast to the Quran’s message of universal humanity, as stated in the verse 29:46: “My God and your God are one.”
Historically, Muslim rulers allowed freedom of belief in their conquered territories. During the Ottoman period, forcing Christians and Jews to convert to Islam was punishable by death. In 1173, Byzantine Emperor Manuel I wrote to the Orthodox Patriarch of Constantinople, expressing his preference for Muslim rule over Western influence: “I would prefer that Muslims rule over us in external matters, as Latins do in spiritual matters. I am sure that the Muslim will not impose his faith on me. But if the Latin Church were to unite with the Roman Church, I would be separated from my God.” (44)
The rise of Islamophobia in the West is a continuation of the colonial-era Orientalist strategy to assert dominance over the Muslim world. Even the term “holy war” did not originate with Islam; it was the Latin term “bellum sanctum” that described the Crusades against Muslims. True jihad, in its essence, is a sacrificial effort for justice, not a call to violence.
Another facet of neo-Orientalism is the alleged subjugation of women in Muslim societies. This narrative gained traction during the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan. Lord Cromer, who oversaw Britain’s occupation of Egypt in 1882, claimed that the invasion was justified to “rescue” Muslim women from their supposed degradation. (45) The proposed solution was to impose Western cultural values wholesale. (46)
However, Islam granted women rights that were revolutionary for their time, particularly in matters of divorce and property ownership. (47) Scholars like Asma Barlas argue that the Quran is not inherently misogynistic but has been misinterpreted and misrepresented. (48) Laila Ahmed adds that the gender divisions prevalent in the Christian Byzantine Empire were imported into Muslim cultural and social spheres. (49)
Edward Said (1935-2003), the Palestinian thinker, observed that Europe viewed Islam as “the eternal other,” a culture diametrically opposed to its own. (50) This relentless alienation has had real-world consequences: 22% of Americans now harbour hostility toward Muslims as neighbours. (51)
In conclusion, the narrative of Islamophobia and neo-Orientalism is not merely a modern phenomenon but a “ghost of colonialism” that continues to haunt the West. It is a story of fear, misunderstanding, and, above all, the failure to recognize the shared humanity that binds us all.
Abrahamic Restoring Ethics: A Path to Co-operation
To conclude that religion is the root cause of the problems in the Middle East is to miss the forest for the trees. It is a classic case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Using religion as a scapegoat to exacerbate the conflict is not only reductionist but also counterproductive. However, it is not reductionist to argue that religion, when properly interpreted, can be a powerful tool for resolving these very issues. Like a double-edged sword, religion can either divide or unite, depending on how it is wielded.
The Abrahamic religions—Judaism, Christianity, and Islam—are not fundamentally at odds on a moral level. They are like branches of the same tree, rooted in the ethical teachings of Abraham. Together, they have the potential to build a world of unity based on shared Abrahamic ethics. Each of these faiths offers its own explanation of humanity’s origin, destiny, and future. Listening to one another is not just a courtesy; it is the cornerstone of peace. The first step toward this unity is to reject the misguided notion that Abraham is the founder of a superior race. Such a view is a house built on sand, destined to collapse under the weight of its own prejudice.
Let us briefly review the bedrock principles of Abrahamic ethics:
• God does not judge a person by their physical characteristics (52).
• The Israelites are commanded not to oppress foreigners, for they too were once foreigners (53).
• Anti-war sentiment is a cornerstone of Abrahamic ethics (54).
• Faith without truth and justice is as hollow as a drum (55).
• Lying and bearing false witness must be abandoned (56).
• Terrorist acts are condemned with stern warnings (57).
• Innocent blood must not be shed (58).
• Injustice must not be tolerated (59).
• Evil must be resisted, and justice must prevail (60).
• Mercy must be shown to the weak (61).
• A life without human rights is a road to ruin (62).
• Following God’s commandments is the key to reclaiming the land (63).
These principles are not just words on a page; they are the moral compass that guides humanity toward righteousness.
Jesus Christ echoed the words of Isaiah, who proclaimed freedom for the captives. (64) The Ten Commandments (65) are distilled into Jesus’ teachings (66). Even his famous prayer (67) finds echoes in Jewish writings of his time, including the Old Testament, the Apocrypha, rabbinical teachings, and Essenian literature (68). The desire for peace is not a fleeting wish but a divine mandate that must be fulfilled (69). Jesus’ core message for inheriting eternal life is crystal clear: “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbour as yourself.” (Luke 10:27). Those who claim to follow Jesus cannot walk this path without embracing this commandment (70).
The word ‘agape’ appears 116 times in the Bible, with 105 instances in the New Testament (71). This term signifies a love that transcends human understanding—a boundless, unconditional love and mercy. It is the kind of love that flows like a river, nourishing everything in its path. Jesus Christ emphasized this humanity, urging his followers to love even their enemies (72). To love one’s enemy is to extinguish the fire of hatred with the water of compassion.
The Quran calls humanity to return to the ethics of Abraham. (73) It is a clarion call to walk in the footsteps of the patriarch, whose legacy is a beacon of moral clarity. Abraham’s children are expected to act as he did. (74) The Quran affirms that prophets have been sent to all nations (75), that they have been given scriptures (76), and that no discrimination should be made among them. (77) This underscores the unity of the divine message, which flows like a river from the same eternal source. Each prophet came when the truths of their predecessors had been tarnished by time. Thus, it is said that only one religion was revealed to the world, a truth that shines like a diamond, unbroken and eternal.
The Quran uproots the weeds of racism by declaring that humanity is one family. (78) It presents Isaac and Jacob as righteous figures (79) and reiterates the Old and New Testament commandments to love one’s neighbour (80). This is not mere repetition but a reinforcement of the Abrahamic ethic, like adding bricks to a foundation. The Quran emphasizes repelling evil with good (81), protecting even idolaters (82), and treating all people with justice and kindness (83). It also brings greater clarity to the Ten Commandments (84). The Quran, while rebuking the Jews for denying the sanctity of Jesus and Mary (85), mentions Jesus 25 times, with 11 references addressing him as ‘the Messiah.’
The Quran praises Christians for their mercy and love (86) and acknowledges that salvation is attainable for Jewish and Christian believers (87). It reminds the world that the Torah contains light (88) and promises an unfailing reward for those who submit to God (89). These teachings are not just words; they are a bridge connecting the Abrahamic faiths.
Jesus set forth the criterion that “the nature of the tree can be known by its fruit” (90). In other words, actions speak louder than words. The Prophet Muhammad’s policy was rooted in peaceful coexistence and interfaith harmony, granting religious freedom to Christian and Jewish communities (91). His approach was like a garden where diverse flowers bloom in harmony.
The Quran describes Moses as God’s chosen one (92) and an honoured figure (93). It glorifies the prophets revered by the Jews, emphasizing their shared heritage. Muslims find a model in the Prophet’s strong social and spiritual ties with the non-Muslims of Mecca (94). A good society, the Quran teaches, must prove its superiority through its actions (95). It is not enough to talk the talk; one must walk the walk.
The Medina Charter envisioned all citizens of the city-state as a single community, respecting their religious differences (96). This was not an anomaly but a reflection of the Quran’s central theme: the oneness of humanity beyond religious boundaries (97). The Quran itself recognizes Jews, Christians, and Sabians as People of the Book (98). This inclusivity is a testament to the universality of its message.
Three years after the Prophet’s death (in 13 AH), Saurashtra was recognized as People of the Book. After the conquest of Sindh in 71 AH (711 AD), Islamic scholars in Damascus recommended that Buddhist and Hindu sects be considered akin to the Sabians. This was not mere tolerance but a profound acknowledgment of shared spiritual truths.
The Ottoman Empire (1299–1922) exemplified this spirit by offering refuge to Jews fleeing the horrors of the Inquisition in Europe. Like a shelter in a storm, the Ottomans provided safety and dignity to those in need.
During the First Crusade in 1099, a tide of blood washed over Jerusalem as all Muslim males were massacred. The streets ran red with horror as all Jews were slaughtered by the Crusaders. (99) However, when Saladin recaptured Jerusalem in 1187, his mercy shone like a beacon in the darkness. Instead of seeking revenge, he safeguarded Christian holy places and treated the Crusaders with dignity and respect.
When Umar ibn al-Khattab (590–644) conquered Jerusalem, centuries of religious persecution and colonial rule came to an end. Except for the dark interlude from 1099 to 1198, Jerusalem remained a sanctuary where faiths coexisted like different rivers flowing into the same ocean. Umar allowed other religious groups to share in the sanctity of Jerusalem. (100) Muslims began to respect them rather than ignore them. (101) He laid the cornerstone of peaceful coexistence, embracing diversity like a garden that flourishes with flowers of different hues. Karen Armstrong argues that rekindling this spirit of mutual respect is the need of the hour. (102)
In the Hebrew Bible, prophets and psalmists teach that righteousness is the bedrock upon which Jerusalem must stand as a place of peace. (103) The prophet Hosea laments that the people are perishing not from famine or war, but from the famine of knowledge. (104)
Until the Zionist occupation of Palestine, Jews in the Muslim world enjoyed a security that was as rare in Europe as rain in the desert. They still live in harmony in Iraq, Yemen, Egypt, Morocco, Iran, and Turkey.
Any ideology that promotes the superiority of one group at the expense of others is a wolf in sheep’s clothing—cloaked in righteousness but steeped in hypocrisy, falsehood, and exploitation. Some Christians support the racist atrocities of Zionist Israel, forgetting the divine call to “let justice roll down like waters” and turn away from oppression. Jesus Christ’s lament for Jerusalem’s failure to understand him (105) still echoes in the corridors of history. Jews and Christians need to join hands in prayer for the establishment of justice and peace in Jerusalem. (106)
Abrahamic religions are not in conflict with one another; rather, they are branches of the same sacred tree, rooted in the soil of divine wisdom. They should be united on the basis of common values to foster friendship. (107) Houses of worship—be they mosques, churches, or synagogues—must be sanctuaries, not battlegrounds. (108) It must not be forgotten that when God made promises to Abraham and his descendants, His covenant was not the exclusive inheritance of one people but a divine trust that embraced even the Arabs. (109)
The Quran states that the Holy Land was given to the followers of Moses. (110) But they broke their covenant. (111) However, divine justice does not play favourites. The Quran makes it clear that the descendants of Ishmael should not be denied their rightful place in the land, even if it was long given to the descendants of Abraham (2:124). The sanctity of the Al-Aqsa Mosque, described in the Quran as “the distant mosque” (17:1), must be respected by all.
Israel and Palestine must recognize each other and break free from the vicious cycle of prejudice, violence, and vengeance that has shackled them for generations. The soil of Jerusalem, blessed by the footsteps of Jesus Christ, must not be stained with the blood of its children. Israel must withdraw from the occupied territories and support the establishment of an independent Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza.
East Jerusalem should be governed by a bi-religious administration that embodies the spirit of shared heritage. West Jerusalem should be the capital of Israel, and East Jerusalem should be the capital of Palestine. A situation should be created where faith replaces fear—where representatives of all three Abrahamic religions can visit their sacred sites without restriction. Israel must turn the key that locks out displaced Muslim and Christian Arabs, welcoming them back with equal rights and dignity.
The dream of the prophet Isaiah (112) is not just a relic of ancient prophecy; it remains a timeless vision waiting to be realized—a future where swords are beaten into ploughshares, and former enemies gather together in harmony around the table of peace.
Bibliography:
(1) Rosemary Radford Ruether, Herman J. Reuther, The Wrath of Jonah, Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2002, p.84
(2) Genesis: 2:7, Quran 2:30,
(3) Isaiah 10:134
(4) Jeremiah 25:810
(5) Joshua 23:1416
(6) Luke 2:14
(7) Chris Hedges, The American Fascists: The Christian Right and war on America, New York: Free Press, 2007
(8) Naim Ateek, Justice and Only Justice: A Palestinian Theology of Liberation, Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 1989, p.78
(9) Elias Chacour, Empty Tomb and Risen Lord, in Jerusalem: What Makes for Peace! A Palestinian Christian Contribution to Peace Making, Naim Ateek, Cedar Duaybis, Marla Schrader, (Editors), London: Melisendo, 1997, p.13
(10) Mitri Raheb, I am a Palestinian Christian (Tr. Ruth C.L. Gritsch), Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1995, p.44
(11) Paul Richard Wilkinson, For Zion’s Sake: Christian Zionism and the Role of John Nelson darby, Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2007, p.49
(12) www.sabeel.org
(13) Stephen Sizer, Christian Zionism: Road-Map to Armageddon? Leicester: Intervarsity Press, 2004, p.205.
(14) Gary M. Burge, Whose Land? Whose Promise? – What Christians Are Not Being Told about Israel and the Palestinians, Cleveland: Pilgrim Press, 2003, p.74
(15) www.kairospalestine.ps
(16) Wayne House, Thomas Ice, Dominion Theology: Blessing or Curse?, Portland: Multnomah Press, 1988, p.397
(17) Gary DeMar, Peter J. Leithart, The Reduction of Christianity: Dave Hunt’s Theology of Cultural Surrender, Texas: Dominion Press, 1988, p.213
(18) James Jordan, The Sociology of the Church, Texas: Geneva Ministries, 1986, p.183
(19) http://chalcedon.edu
(20) Paul C. Merkley, American Presidents, Religion and Israel, Westport: Praeger, 2004
(21) Jimmy Carter, The Blood of Abraham, Boston: Miffin, 1985, p.14-14121)
(22) Jimmy Carter, Palestine: Peace Not apartheid, New York: Simon Schuster, 2006, p.14
(23) Ibid, p.14
(24) Ibid, p.16
(25) Ibid, p.38-39
(26) Ibid, p.46
(27) Ibid, p.160
(28) Ibid, p.215
(29) Ibid, p.154
(30) Ibid, p.180
(31) Ibid, p.215
(32) Ibid, p.216
(33) Ibid, p.143
(34) Ibid, p.144
(35) Quran 2:124
(36) Quran 4:157
(37) John L. Esposito, The Islamic Threat: Myth or Reality? New York: Oxford University Press, 1992, p.46
(38) Edward W. Said, Covering Islam, New York: Vintage, 1997, p.7
(39) H.G Wells, The Outline of History, London: Cassell, 1925, p.607
(40) Quran 16:97
(41) Quran 49:13, 4:1
(42) Quran 2:173, 47:7, 59:7, 2:177, 2:215, 2:219, 2:261, 9:60, 59:7
(43) Quran 5:2, 5:8, 4:135
(44) Philip Whitting (Ed), Byzantium: An Introduction, Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1971, p.103
(45) Leila Ahmed, women and Gender in Islam, New Haven: Yalae University Press, 1992, p.152
(46) Ibid, p.153
(47) Dilip Hiro, Holy Wars: The Rise of Islamic fundamentalism, London: Routledge, 1989, p.8
(48) Asma Barlas, Believing Women in Islam: Unreading Patriarchal Interpretations of the Qur’an. Austin: University of Texas Press, 2002; V.A. Mohamad Ashrof, Islam and Gender Justice: Questions at the Interface, Delhi: Kalpaz, 2005
(49) Leila Ahmed, Op. cit, p.3-4
(50) Edward Said, Orientalism, New York: Vintage, 1979, p.70
(51) Gallop Poll, August 10, 2006, Anti-Muslim Sentiments Fairly Common Place
(52) I Samuel 16:7
(53) Exodus 23:9, 22:21-24, Leviticus 19:33-34
(54) Ezekiel 45:9, Isaiah 1:17, 10:1-34, Jeremiah 22:17, Genesis 8:17, Psalms 34:14
(55) Micah 7:20, 2 Kings 20:19
(56) Leviticus 19:11, 6:19, Exodus 20:13-17
(57) Ezekiel 18:21-32
(58) Deuteronomy 19:10
(59) Leviticus 19:15-18
(60) Amos 5:10-15, Micah 6:8, Psalm 82:24
(61) Exodus 23:6, 23:11, Leviticus 19:10, 23:22, Deuteronomy 15:7-8
(62) Ezekiel 33:21-26
(63) Leviticus 26:39-45, Deuteronomy 30:110
(64) Isaiah 61:1, Luke 4:16-18
(65) Exodus 20:1-17, Deuteronomy 5:6-21
(66) Matthew 22:37-40, Mark 12:28-34
(67) Matthew 6:9-13
(68) Fred Gladston Bratton, The Crime of Christendom, Boston: Beacon Press, 1969, p.13
(69) Matthew 5:25-26
(70) John 14:15
(71) John 13:34
(73) Quran 2:130
(74) John 3:19
(75) Quran 35:24, 4:164, 2:136, 10:47
(76) Quran 21:7, 29:46
(77) Quran 4: 150-152
(78) Quran 2:213, 10:19, 49:13
(79) Quran 21:72, 38:45
(80) Quran 4:36
(81) Quran 23:96, 41:34
(82) Quran 9:6
(83) Quran 60:8
(84) Quran 47:19, 2:213, 2:224, 42:11, 17:23, 5:38, 5:39, 2:213, 5:32, 17:32, 4:36, 62:9
(85) Quran 4:153-159
(86) Quran 57:27, 5:82
(87) Quran 3:113-115, 3:199, 4:55, 4:155
(88) Quran 5:44
(89) Quran 2:111-113
(90) Matthew 7:16
(91) John L. Esposito, What everyone Needs to Know about Islam, New York: OUP, 2002, p.73
(92) Quran 7:144
(93) Quran 33:69
(94) Muhammad Yasin Mazhar Siddiqi, The Prophet Muhammad: A Role Model for Muslim Minorities, Leicester: The Islamic foundation, 2006, p.194
(95) Ibid
(96) Muhamad N. Miraly, Ethic of Pluralism in the Qur’an and the Prphet’s Median, Montreal: Institute of Islamic Studies McGill University, 2006, p.47
(97) Quran 21:92
(98) Quran 2:62
(99) Tariq Ali, Clash of fundamentalism, New York: Verso, 2002, p.40
(100) Karen Armstrong, sacred Space: The Holiness of Islamic Jerusalem, Journal of Islamic Studies, Volume 1, No: 1, Winter 1997, p.14
(101) Ibid, p.18
(102) Ibid, p.18-19
(103) Ibid, p.7
(104) Hosea 4:6
(105) Luke 19:42
(106) Psalms 122:6
(107) Quran 3:64
(108) Quran 22:40
(109) Genesis 12:1-2, 15:7-21, 17:8
(110) Quran 5:21-22, 5:24-26
(111) Isaiah 1:4, 24:4-5
(112) Isaiah 2:2-5
(This paper is a translation of a chapter from my Malayalam book ‘Christian Zionism: The Ideology of Invasion’, published by the Centre for Research and Advanced Studies, Santhapuram, in 2013 (reprinted in 2021). To access the full book, please visit: https://www.amazon.in/Christhava-Sayanism-Adhniveshatinte-Prathaaysastram-%E0%B4%85%E0%B4%A7%E0%B4%BF%E0%B4%A8%E0%B4%BF%E0%B4%B5%E0%B5%87%E0%B4%B6%E0%B4%A4%E0%B5%8D%E0%B4%A4%E0%B4%BF%E0%B4%A8%E0%B5%8D%E0%B4%B1%E0%B5%86-ebook/dp/B094ZPWTQM)
