Question
The Jewish people claim that God has promised them the Holy Land, and as such, the Palestinians have no right to the land. Is this true, and does this not cause injustice in the world?
Answer
The Hebrew Bible clearly states that God promised the land of Canaan to Abraham and his descendants. In Genesis 12:7, God says, “To your offspring I will give this land.” In Genesis 15:18, the promise is expanded: “To your descendants I give this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the Euphrates.” Genesis 17:8 even calls it “an everlasting possession.”
Yet the Torah also makes clear that the land ultimately belongs to God, not to any people as an unconditional ethnic entitlement. In Leviticus 25:23, God declares: “The land shall not be sold permanently, for the land is Mine; for you are strangers and sojourners with Me.” The Israelites are therefore described not as absolute owners, but as tenants and custodians.
This custodianship was explicitly conditional. Deuteronomy 28 warns that obedience would result in security in the land, but disobedience would lead to exile: “You shall be plucked off the land that you are entering to take possession of it. And the LORD will scatter you among all peoples” (Deut. 28:63–64). Leviticus 18:28 uses even stronger language, warning that the land will “vomit you out” if it is defiled. The prophets repeated this theme. Jeremiah declared, “Amend your ways and your deeds… and I will let you dwell in this place” (Jer. 7:3–7). Ezekiel rebuked those who invoked Abraham while committing injustice, asking how they could claim the land as an inheritance while shedding blood (Ezek. 33:24–26).
In the New Testament, Jesus intensifies this moral dimension. In the Parable of the Tenants (Matthew 21:33–46), he describes a landowner who removes the vineyard from corrupt tenants who mistreated the messengers. He concludes, “The kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people producing its fruits” (Matt. 21:43). The imagery draws from Isaiah’s vineyard metaphor for Israel and emphasizes accountability. The issue is not ancestry, but conduct.
Similarly, in John 8:39, when confronted with claims of Abrahamic descent, Jesus responds: “If you were Abraham’s children, you would do the works of Abraham.” Biological descent is relativised; moral and spiritual continuity become the criterion.
The Qur’an acknowledges the historical grant of the land to the Children of Israel. Moses says: “O my people, enter the Holy Land which God has prescribed for you” (Qur’an 5:21). It also recounts that they were settled there (Qur’an 17:104). Yet the Qur’an, like the Torah and the Gospel, ties this grant to accountability. In Qur’an 17:4–8, the Israelites are warned that corruption would bring punishment and loss of authority, though repentance could bring restoration. The pattern is consistent: divine favor is linked to faithfulness and justice, not ethnicity alone.
Qur’an 17:1, which speaks of the Night Journey “to the Farthest Mosque whose surroundings We have blessed,” affirms the sacred character of Jerusalem. But it does not declare a perpetual political entitlement for any group. Rather, when read with the verses that follow, it situates Jerusalem within a moral history in which communities are judged by how they uphold the trust given to them.
Taken together, these scriptures do not support the idea that divine promise grants an unconditional and everlasting political monopoly over this land regardless of justice or conduct. The land is portrayed as God’s, entrusted to human communities under moral conditions. Authority can be granted, withdrawn, and restored, but it is never detached from righteousness.
In the present era, absent ongoing revelation and prophetic judgment, appeals to ancient covenant alone cannot nullify the rights of others. Both the Bible and the Qur’an ultimately ground legitimacy not in bloodline, but in fidelity to God and justice among human beings.
I hope this helps.
Mushfiq Sultan
Al-Mawrid
