Muslim Perspectives
on Zionism
March 03, 2006
What is the Muslim perspective
on Zionism? On its face, this is a rather odd
question given that, and I am sure it comes as
no great shock, Muslims are not Zionists. By this
I mean that essentially no Muslims accept the
basic premises and tenets of Zionism as an ideology.
This does however beg the question, why aren’t
there Muslim Zionists?
To take it from the other side, given that Muslims
have great reverence for the Hebrew prophets,
that the central human figure in the Qur’an
is Moses, and that the Qur’an affirms there
was a covenant granting the land of Israel to
the Hebrews in exchange for obedience to God’s
laws, it would seem that Muslims should be, if
not actually Zionists, then at least sympathetic.
So what then is the Muslim critique of Zionism?
Well, there is no single critique; in fact, there
are at least three, with perhaps some additional
variants on the core critiques. I would label
these three critiques as the theological, the
chauvinistic, and the justice critique. Each one
of these has significant adherents, and some Muslims
may subscribe to some combination of the three.
Let me briefly touch on each one.
The theological critique is based on religious
dogma. The Qur’an has many verses that deal
with the Hebrews and their history, and with Jews
as members of a religious community. Some are
laudatory while others are critical. Read in totality,
the Qur’an essentially commends Jews when
they are faithful to God’s commands, and
condemns them when they are not. Now recall that
the Qur’anic revelation dates from the early
7th century CE, and for the new Muslims, the question
was not why did the Jews get Israel, but why did
they lose it over 600 years earlier. The long
and short of it was that the Hebrews did not fulfill
their part of the covenant, and so lost the land.
The new covenant is through the Islamic revelation,
and therefore the Jewish religious claim to Palestine
is not valid.
The chauvinistic critique is one that is espoused
by Wahhabism and the Jihadis, but is also widespread
among many Muslims. It essentially sees the Muslim
community or Ummah as a sort of super tribe, and
Muslims are obligated to defend the tribe and
maintain its power and prestige. As such, any
entity which seeks to reduce the Muslim Ummah,
geographically, culturally, politically, militarily,
or otherwise, should be opposed. Sixty years ago,
the only Muslims not living in European colonies
were the Turks and the Saudis. This legacy of
weakness is one that still resonates among Muslims.
The Muslim chauvinist is hard to distinguish in
his worldview from the rabid nationalists that
have plagued humanity in the last 100 years. The
difference though is that instead of focusing
his loyalty on his nation or ethnic group, the
focus is on the community of believers. The secular
corollary of Muslim chauvinism was Arab nationalism,
which had its heyday 40 years ago, but has been
diminished by its visible failures. The chauvinistic
critique views Zionism as just one more assault
on the Muslim Ummah. Israel is a latter-day version
of the Crusades, during which Palestine was under
European rule for over 100 years before finally
succumbing to Muslim power. The occupation of
the Dome of the Rock and the Al-Aqsa mosque in
Jerusalem is particularly grating, though all
Muslims do want those shrines to be part of Palestine.
The justice critique is based on the perceived
rights of the Palestinian people themselves. Proponents
of this view argue that Zionism, while not necessary
inherently wrong, in practice was a direct assault
on the Palestinian people, and therefore is morally
unacceptable. This view argues that regardless
of how benighted, ignorant, sparsely populated,
illiterate, or uncouth the inhabitants of Palestine
were in 1900, and no matter how poorly developed
their sense of national identity may have been,
they had inherently the right to refuse the Zionist
project, and neither the British government nor
Europe’s Jews could override that. Simply
put, to use a medical analogy, Zionists were obligated
to get informed consent from the Palestinians
themselves before embarking on their project.
Some Muslims would also argue that the dispossession
of the Palestinians was an inherent feature of
Zionism, and that there was no other way in the
real world to realize the goal of a Jewish state,
even though that was not explicit intent of all
Zionists.
Given these critiques, what does this imply for
Zionism and the future of Israel? Is implacable
opposition by the Muslim world the only possible
outcome? Conversely, must Muslims somehow be convinced
about the rightness of Zionism for there to be
a resolution of the conflict? I have no definite
answers to this question, but I would point out
a similar situation that exists in South Asia.
Pakistan was carved out of British India by Muhammad
Ali Jinnah and the Muslim League party that he
headed. Jinnah espoused a view called the “two-nation
theory”, which claimed that South Asia contained
two nations, one Hindu and the other Muslim, and
therefore the Muslims of South Asia were entitled
to a state of their own. On the back of this theory,
which incidentally was opposed by religious leaders
while supported by secular ones, he rallied the
Muslims of British India to the cause of Pakistan.
This movement was strongly opposed by the Congress
Party and the Hindu majority, which had a “one-nation”
theory that posited that all the inhabitants of
India were a single nation, and should be granted
independence as a single state.
Ever since partition, no Indian leader has accepted
the validity of the two- nation theory, and most
Indians continue to view the partition as wrong
and an historical calamity. Among Pakistanis there
remains a lingering suspicion that India would
undo the partition if it ever could. Despite this
India recognizes Pakistan as a reality and deals
with it as a legitimate nation.
I think this model, one in which the Muslim world
accepts the reality of Israel, while not becoming
Zionist, would be a route toward a final peace.
Such a model would not work too well with Muslims
who have strong theological or chauvinistic view,
but will work with Muslims whose critique of Zionism
is justice based. But to get there, those Muslims
must perceive that the legitimate justice issues
have been resolved in an acceptable fashion. This
would mean an end to the occupation, a truly sovereign
and viable Palestinian state, and a just resolution
of the refugee issue. Comments can reach me at
Nali@socal.rr.com.
