The Israeli–Palestinian conflict is often described in the language of geopolitics—borders, security, refugees, and international diplomacy. But beneath these visible disputes lies a far deeper conflict, one that spans millennia: a theological battle over God’s covenant, His promises, and His chosen people. At the heart of this conflict lies a simple yet profound question: Who was chosen, and to whom did God give the Land of Israel?
The biblical narrative, affirmed by thousands of years of Jewish and Christian tradition, teaches that God chose Abraham, then Isaac (not Ishmael), and then Jacob (renamed Israel) to inherit His covenant—including the Land of Canaan. In contrast, Islamic theology reinterprets these stories, claiming that Ishmael (as opposed to Isaac) was the chosen son and that the Bible has been corrupted to hide this truth.
Let’s begin by examining the biblical narrative first…
Abraham’s Legacy: The Sons of Promise
The Bible presents Abraham as the father of many nations, but only one covenantal line—through Isaac. In Genesis 17, God says unequivocally:
Sarah your wife shall bear you a son indeed; and you shall call his name Isaac: and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him.
(Genesis 17:19)
In the following verse, God blessed Ishmael, promising that he too would become a great nation: “As for Ishmael, I have heard you: I will bless him… I will make him a great nation” (Genesis 17:20). But when Abraham, in Genesis 21:10–12, is told by Sarah to send Hagar and Ishmael away, God affirms her words, declaring: “In Isaac shall your seed be called.”
In Islamic tradition, Ishmael—son of Abraham and Hagar—is considered a forefather of the Arab people, particularly through his descendants who settled in the Arabian Peninsula. The Qur’an and Hadith literature link Ishmael to the lineage of the Prophet Muhammad, reinforcing his role as both a spiritual and ancestral figure.
However, according to the Bible, the twelve tribes of Israel came from Isaac’s son, Jacob, whose name God changed to Israel (Genesis 32:28)—not from Ishmael.
While both Isaac and Ishmael are Abraham’s sons, only Isaac is the son of promise. The promise includes:
- A people: “I will make nations of you, and kings shall come from you” (Genesis 17:6).
- A land: “I will give to you and to your offspring… all the land of Canaan for an everlasting possession” (Genesis 17:8).
- A covenantal relationship: “I will be their God” (Genesis 17:8).
Biblically speaking, the people of Israel and the Land of Israel are inseparable — they are bound together in covenant, promise, and destiny.
Yet, there is another vital element in the covenantal promise given to Isaac — one that carries profound theological implications. This isn’t a small theological disagreement — it’s a foundational contradiction. According to both Jewish and Christian tradition, Jesus the Messiah is traced through the covenantal line of Isaac, not Ishmael. The biblical lineage flows from Abraham to Isaac, then to Jacob, through the tribe of Judah, to King David — and finally to Jesus Christ. This genealogical line is essential, not incidental. It’s what roots Jesus in the promises given to Abraham and fulfills the messianic prophecies of Scripture.
So if Islam is right — if Ishmael, not Isaac, is the true heir of the covenant — then Jesus could not be the Messiah. His entire messianic legitimacy would collapse. Christianity, in that case, would be built on a false foundation.
This isn’t just a different perspective — it’s a theological earthquake. You can’t affirm both lines at once. If Ishmael is the chosen son, then the gospel itself unravels.
However, Ishmael was never given these promises. In fact, God gave his descendants territory outside of Canaan (see Genesis 25:18). He was blessed—but not chosen.
Islamic theology reverses this. The Qur’an never mentions Isaac in connection with the covenant, and instead places Ishmael at the center. According to Islamic Hadith, it was Ishmael, not Isaac, who was almost sacrificed by Abraham (contrary to Genesis 22). This is more than a historical disagreement; it’s a theological counter-narrative that undermines the biblical foundation of Israel’s covenant.
Thus, the Islamic view depends on the denial of the biblical narrative and claims that the Scriptures were corrupted by Jews and Christians—a claim that the Qur’an made without any textual or historical evidence.
The Land of Canaan: A Divine Inheritance
The land promised to Abraham was not symbolic—it was geographical and specific. God declares: “I will give to you and to your offspring after you the land where you are now an alien, all the land of Canaan, for a perpetual holding, and I will be their God.” (Genesis 17:8).
This promise is later reaffirmed to Isaac (Genesis 26:3) and again to Jacob (Genesis 28:13). No such promise is ever extended to Ishmael or his descendants. While Ishmael is promised to become a great nation (Genesis 21:13, 18), his inheritance is distinct from and geographically separate from Canaan (Ancient Canaan largely overlaps with today’s Israel and surrounding regions).
The divine grant of Canaan to the descendants of Isaac is repeatedly described as an everlasting covenant. In Exodus 6:8, God says: “ I will bring you into the land that I swore to give to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; I will give it to you for a possession. I am the Lord.” These covenantal declarations define Israel’s claim to the land not only historically but theologically.
In order to counter the biblical narrative, Islam had no choice but to assert that the original Scriptures were altered—claiming that the Jewish and Christian texts were corrupted to distort the true message.
Islam’s Theological Reversal and Political Recasting
Islam emerged in the 7th century with its own scriptural narrative—the Qur’an—which differs markedly from the Hebrew Bible and New Testament. The Qur’an never states directly that the Land of Israel belongs to the Jews. On the contrary, Islamic theology reinterprets the covenant to center on Ishmael, asserting Jews and Christians altered their Scriptures to conceal this truth. Yet, scholars point out that the Qur’an never offers evidence for this claim — a serious weakness, especially given that the oldest manuscripts of the Hebrew Bible predate Muhammad by many centuries and show remarkable consistency across both Jewish and Christian traditions.
And yet, Muhammad still managed to convince many 7th-century Arabs — despite offering no evidence — that the biblical texts had been corrupted. This was likely due, in part, to the fact that most of his audience was illiterate and largely disconnected from the Judeo-Christian tradition, making them more susceptible to such claims.
For instance, Surah 2 of the Qur’an—part of Surah Al-Baqarah—addresses the early Muslim community and their expectations regarding the People of the Book — Jewish groups in Medina at the time of Muhammad. According to Qur’an Surah 2:
Do you ‘believers still’ [Muslims] expect them [Jews] to be true to you, though a group of them would hear the word of Allah then knowingly corrupt it after understanding it?…So woe to those who distort the Scripture with their own hands then say, “This is from God”—seeking a fleeting gain!
(Surah 2:75,79)
This rhetorical question is directed at the Muslim believers, cautioning them not to be optimistic that the Jews would accept the message of Islam. It refers to Jews as those who had previously received divine revelation (the Hebrew Scriptures), understood it, and yet knowingly corrupted its meaning.
From a purely logical standpoint, Islam’s foundational claim — that the Bible was corrupted thus we must follow Islam instead — is built on a classic case of circular reasoning, or the Begging the Question fallacy. This is not an argument; it’s a self-referential claim that assumes what it needs to prove.
Begging the Question (Circular Reasoning):
Islamic theology asserts that Jews and/or Christians changed their scriptures to conceal the “truth” that the covenant centers on Ishmael. But the only basis for this claim is Islamic scripture itself, which presupposes its own correctness while denying the authenticity of previous scriptures without independent evidence. It assumes what it needs to prove: that the Islamic version is the original and correct one, and the Jewish/Christian texts are corrupt—rather than demonstrating this with external proof.
Special Pleading / Ad Hoc Rescue:
To deflect challenges to this assertion, Muslim apologists often resort to the fallacy of Special Pleading — exempting the Qur’an from the very standards of scrutiny they apply to all other religious texts. They argue that the Qur’an, being divinely revealed, requires no external validation, while simultaneously dismissing the Bible and other scriptures as corrupted simply because they are not considered “God-given” by Islamic doctrine.
When confronted with evidence that contradicts the Islamic claim (i.e., the unchanged texts of Jewish and Christian scriptures over centuries), the argument retreats to an untestable assertion: “They were changed.” This avoids having to provide historical or textual evidence, applying a rule (scriptural change/corruption) only when convenient.
This accusation serves an ideological purpose: it allows Islam to claim Abrahamic legitimacy while invalidating Jewish theological claims to the land. The story of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is rewritten, and in its place stands a theology in which Muslims, through Ishmael, are the rightful heirs of God’s blessing—and the Land.
Jerusalem and the Islamic Reimagining of Sacred Space
While Jerusalem is not mentioned by name even once in the Qur’an, it holds central theological significance in both the Hebrew Scriptures and the New Testament — with over 800 references throughout the biblical text: it is the city chosen by God (2 Chronicles 6:6), the place of the Temple, and the prophetic center of Messianic hope (Isaiah 2:2–4). In Islamic tradition, however, Jerusalem’s sanctity is not rooted in the Qur’an itself—its significance arises later, through Hadith literature and political necessity.
The Dome of the Rock, built on top of the Jewish Temple Mount in 691 CE by Caliph Abd al-Malik, was not simply an architectural feat—it was a theological statement: Islam has come to replace Judaism and Christianity. The structure stands over the ruins of the Jewish Temple, claiming dominance not just physically, but spiritually.
Muslim reverence for the Dome of the Rock/Temple Mount is not only about holiness—it is also a focal point of eschatological warfare. Islamic movements teach that control over Jerusalem is essential to establishing global Islamic rule. Groups like ISIS, Hamas and Hezbollah, as well as Muslim nations such as Iran, openly declare their goal to “liberate Jerusalem,” not simply as nationalists, but as warriors of Allah in a divine cause.
Sacrificing for Palestine: Religious Martyrdom and Apocalyptic Ideology
The Islamic concept of martyrdom (shahada) goes beyond patriotism; it is a sacred duty. Children are taught that dying to “Free Palestine” is not a tragedy but a triumph—a direct entry to paradise. Palestinian school textbooks, sermons, and TV programs glorify child martyrs and promote the idea that the land must be “freed from the Zionists” at all costs.
This is not a fringe belief. It is institutionalized. Hamas’s charter states: “The land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Muslim generations until Judgment Day… There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad.”
The glorification of martyrdom is reinforced by Islamic eschatology, which teaches that the end of days will involve a great battle with the Jews. Hadiths cited by groups like ISIS and Hamas describe a future in which Muslims kill Jews in an apocalyptic war.
Conclusion: A Battle for the Promise
At its root, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not merely about land or politics, but a spiritual battle over the truth of God’s covenant and the integrity of His Word. The Bible presents a clear and consistent narrative: the land of Israel was given to the descendants of Abraham through Isaac and Jacob. This inheritance is not symbolic; it is historical, theological, and eternal.
Islamic theology challenges this by denying Isaac’s covenantal role, alleging scriptural corruption, and reassigning God’s promises to Ishmael. But these claims are unsubstantiated, driven more by ideological and imperial ambition than divine truth.
To deny Israel’s right to the land is to deny the very nature of the God who keeps covenant. As the psalmist declares:
He remembers His covenant forever, the word He commanded, for a thousand generations, the covenant He made with Abraham, the oath He swore to Isaac. He confirmed it to Jacob as a decree, to Israel as an everlasting covenant: “To you I will give the land of Canaan as the portion you will inherit.”
(Psalm 105:8–11)
God does not lie. He does not revoke His promises. And though the world rages, the covenant remains.
This was an excerpt from my upcoming book “The Elephant in the Middle East: The Hidden Theological Context of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict.“
