Why Islamic Conquests and Jewish-Israeli Claims are Not Comparable

Often, a comparison is drawn between the Islamic conquests and the Jewish claims to the Land of Israel. This article aims to clarify why such a comparison is flawed and misleading, focusing on the historical, theological, and practical differences between the two scenarios.

The Islamic Conquests and Darul Islam

Under the principles of Islamic law, land captured by Muslims becomes Darul Islam, meaning Islamic land, even if the natives are non-Muslims. This principle is enshrined in Sharia law and is understood as a permanent change in ownership. If non-Muslims occupy such land, Muslims are duty-bound to fight to reclaim it through jihad.

This has led to the belief among many Muslims that places like Spain and India, despite their non-Muslim populations, are still considered Darul Islam. This concept inspires aspirations for a return of Islamic control over these lands, notably India, through what some refer to as Ghazwa-i-Hind.

The Jewish State and Sharia Law

In contrast, the establishment of the State of Israel is a historical and geopolitical reality, recognized by various international bodies. Jews reclaimed and revitalized what was once their ancient homeland after a long period of exile. According to Islamic law, though, Israeli lands are still considered to be under non-Muslim occupation.

The question of religious and historical ownership is complex and often intertwined with geopolitical realities. The expectation of Muslims to reclaim lands in India or of Jews to reclaim Israel under these exact terms overlook the modern and post-colonial realities that have shaped these regions.

Biological and Ethnological Misunderstandings

A common question posed is why Muslims should return lands to their original owners if they are not Middle Eastern in ethnicity. It's important to note that the diversity of Muslim nations is vast and does not equate to a single ethnic or racial identity. For instance, Indonesia, Kazakhstan, and other Muslim-majority countries have their unique histories, cultures, and ethnic compositions.

The modern Muslim identity is a result of centuries of blending and migration. For example, the Turks of Anatolia are descendants of various ethnic groups, including Greeks, Armenians, Kurds, and Oghuz tribes from the steppes. This highlights that the concept of "native" is subjective and historically fluid.

America and the Red Indians

A parallel comparison might be drawn with the United States, which was originally inhabited by the Red Indian tribes. Some argue that the land should be returned to them, mirroring the sentiment towards Israel. However, this fails to account for the decades of development, multiple waves of immigration, and the complex integration of various ethnic groups into American society.

The situation in Jerusalem is also distinct from the broader Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Jerusalem has been historically significant to both Jews and Palestinians, with the Temple Mount area being of paramount importance to Jews. The Israeli occupation of the West Bank, including settlements on the Golan Heights, is considered illegal under international law, although its status remains a contentious issue.

Conclusion

Comparing Islamic conquests to the Jewish claims to Israel is a simplification that ignores the complexities and nuances of history, religion, and geopolitics. Each claim represents a different period and context, and both need to be understood within their respective frameworks.

It is crucial for all parties to engage in open dialogue, recognizing the diversity of perspectives and the realities of modern nations, in order to find lasting and equitable solutions to these complex issues.