View source for Creating a New Islamic Ethos of Jerusalem (Book chapter)

The title is the fourth chapter of the book “Jerusalem and Its Role in Islamic Solidarity” by Yitzhak Reiter published by Palgrave Macmillan in 2008. The following is the chapter.<ref>https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=bZbFAAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=%22Islamic+solidarity%22&ots=Gdb_y6fmkV&sig=KmqQNtIs1YwhI6yI7IPKEissOFo</ref>

=Introduction=

The texts, books, and articles used in this study of the issue of Jerusalem deal with the shaping of an Arab-Islamic identity of Jerusalem by rewriting the history in an effort to trace Palestinian and Arab-Muslim national identity back to one of the ancient peoples.
Scholars concerned with the ways in which national identities are forged agree that this process of "tracing-back" is a modern one. They differ, however, over the issue of whether the process of nation-building is one of imagination or of invention. While Ernest Gellner contends that nations are an invention born of the modernization process,' Benedict Anderson writes that the question of whether a nation is an invention or an existing fact is not important. What is important is the way in which the nation is imagined. 2 An imagined community creates a joint linguistic and historical past of "subjective antiquity" that justifies national patriotism in the present through the shaping of a belief in shared values.3 Anthony Smith distinguishes between two types of conceptualization of national identity in accordance with the cultural and historical rootedness of the community in question: there are nations that have a shared history at their core, which he refers to as ethnie, and a culture that serves as a source for "imaginings," and there are nations that lack such a core history and are, therefore, obliged to reinvent everything.4 Even in cases of invention, there is still a need for an "imagining" process to ensure that the new collective identity will be accepted by the members of the new community. History is thus a key tool in the formation of group identities. 5 The story that a nation tells itself about its distant past need not be precise and in extreme cases it may certainly be an invention.6 Bernard Lewis describes three techniques of historical writing, one of which is invention, which enable nations and rulers to base their identity in history in order to justify their present actions.'

While theorists of nationalism have described the masses as followers of elites who imagine or invent identities for them, Hedva Ben-Israel believes that the creators of nations have had to act within the framework of popular culture and consciousness. They must be acquainted from the outset with religious, linguistic, and cultural traditions and have to contend with them before they can begin to shape them according to their aims. 8 Religion is thus an effective cultural element, one that nation-builders employed during the premodern era as well. Religious symbols, declarations of the homeland as sacred territory and processes of sanctification of the nation, the nation's founding fathers, national heroes, and areas of the military front, have all been effective tools via which nationalist elites have, consciously or unconsciously, imagined and composed narratives and activated and mobilized their nations.9 As will be shown below, Jerusalem has seen more than its share of use as a religious symbol in the advancement of political ends.

The accumulative research on nationalism reveals that rewriting the history in order to shape a national identity is a universal phenomenon and questions whether there is any national collective that was not shaping and reshaping its history according to its aspired national identity. However, when we study the process of rewriting history, it is interesting to ask the following questions: what was the historical trigger for the rewriting process; what are the political interests of the "history producers'; and how far does the new "product" stand from solid historical sources. I will address these questions in the following analysis of the formation of the post-1967 Muslim-Arab ethos of Jerusalem.

Let me begin with a remarkable note concerning history writing by
the Arabs. In the preface to the Hebrew version of Benedict Anderson's Imagined Communities, Azmi Bishara, an Israeli-Arab intellectual (who was also heading an Arab-nationalist party-Balad-in the Israeli Parliament), wrote:

Modern Arab nationalism behaves as though the fact that it developed during the nineteenth century, like all of the other nationalisms, detracts from its worth or its validity. It feels obliged to nationalize the history of the Arabic-speaking community and to turn it into a national history that began before the Islamic era and continues into our day... The Palestinian national movement, particularly during periods of crisis in its relations with the Arab world, and in competition with Zionism over the past, has anchored its early history in the Canaanite era. By doing so it simultaneously attains two objectives: a source of geographic particularity for the Palestinians-a particularity which distinguishes them from the other Arabs-and a source of historical particularity, one which reflects greater seniority in "the Land" than that of the Hebrew tribes, to which Zionism claims to be the natural successor. Arab nationalism has responded to these attempts to seek legitimacy outside of the Arab context by claiming that all of the peoples mentioned-the Phoenicians, the Babylonians, the Canaanites, and the ancient Egyptians-are really Arabs, just like the Arab tribes that inhabited the Arabian Peninsula."

Within the context of the struggle for Jerusalem, the picture becomes more interesting, as we shall see below: a claim to antiquity with a strong Jerusalem emphasis will be found. As the Arab-Islamic narrative of Jerusalem was newly reconstructed with the aim of responding to the current Israeli historical outlook, I shall begin by outlining the Israeli-Jewish narrative.

The Israeli metanarrative of Jerusalem underlines 3,000 years of continuous Jewish connection to the city of Jerusalem from its establishment as the holy city during the time of the biblical figure of King David, to the present day. In 1995, Israel announced plans to celebrate these 3,000 years.11 A special series of three postal-stamps indicating Jerusalem as a Jewish city was issued showing David, the Temple, and the Knesset, indicating the historical continuity of these events over the 3,000 years.12

The Israeli-Jewish narrative of Jerusalem is based on both the biblical and rabbinic texts (the traditions of the Mishna and Talmud, and the broader corpus of the writings of Chazal), as well as on other historical writings about the ancient world, including works of the historian Josephus Flavious. In addition to referring to these traditional texts, Jewish scholars draw on recent archaeological findings. Particularly in the rabbinic texts, Jerusalem is often known by the name "Zion," which is the mountain where King David's fortress was said to be built and where, according to legend, David was buried. Although there are different Jewish historical interpretations and narratives,' one 
can highlight a metanarrative stressing the centrality of Jerusalem to Judaism and the Jewish people that is accepted by the majority of the Jewish people and by most Israelis at both the official and the grass-root strata of society.

The first dimension of this narrative is Jerusalem's antiquity. The official Web site of the current Jerusalem Municipality states: "Archaeological findings show that Jerusalem has been inhabited since 4,000 BCE. The city of Shalem is mentioned in ancient scrolls as early as 2,500 BCE."14 Indeed, archaeological excavations reveal the antiquity of the human urban presence in what is today called Jerusalem since the middle-bronze age, between 3,300 and 2,200 BC. The existence of the city was mentioned in ancient Egyptian scripts and in the Tel al-Amarna correspondence.15 The Israeli narrative, thus, admits that there was an urban presence in the ancient space of today's Jerusalem, which existed before the emergence of Judaism and before the ancient Hebrews crystallized as a given people or nation. It was called Shalem and Yevus before the Hebrew era. However, the Israeli story stresses on the event that turned the ancient pagan urban space into a central city, a political capital-on a founding event that is purely Jewish: King David's conquest of Yerushalayim or the City of David (Ir David), which in ca. 1000 BCE became the focal center of the Jewish nation.16

According to the biblical narrative, accepted by most Jews, David was not permitted to build a temple to God because he was a man of war, but one of his sons, Solomon was directed to build the First Temple. In the Book of Kings, the building of this structure is described in some detail. The First Temple was built around 960 BC by David's son, Solomon, and the united Israeli kingdom lasted until ca. 928 BC, when the Hebrews divided into two kingdoms: the southern kingdom of Judea and the northern kingdom of Israel." The First Temple existed for 374 years until it was destroyed in 586 BC and the Hebrew elite were expelled to Babylon. It was there that the psalm "By the Waters of Babylon" was believed to have been composed"If I forget thee, Oh Jerusalem, may my right hand lose its cunning." Following the defeat of the Babylonian Empire by Cyrus the Great of Persia, the Jews were allowed to return to Jerusalem 48 years after their expulsion, in 538 BC. 22 years later, in 519 BCE, the building of the Second Temple was completed by Governor Zerubavel and the Hebrew returnees from Babylon.18

The Second Temple survived some 589 years, and the two temples' combined lifetime was 963 years. The presence of the Hebrews in the Holy Land from the thirteenth century BCE until their expulsion by the Roman general Titus in 70 CE lasted about 1,400 years. Judea survived as a Hebrew province under the Persian, Ptolemaic, and Seleucid Empires. For about one century between 152 and 63 BCE, Judea enjoyed self-rule under the Hashmoneans. After Herod's death in
4 BCE, the Romans took over direct rule of the colony of Judea, with the Jews undertaking two great revolts against their oppressive rule, in 67-73 CE and 132-135 CE. The second revolt of Bar Kochba against the Romans ended in a disastrous defeat in 135 AD. The Jews who were estimated as a people of 1.3 million people in Palestine lost half of its population during the revolt. Hadrian changed the name of the province of Judea to Syria-Palestina-a place that was later on known as Palestine and as the Arabic Filastin. In addition, Hadrian rebuilt Jerusalem as a pagan city, renaming it Aelia Capitolina and forbidding Jews to enter except on Tisha B'Av, the Ninth of Av, the date commemorating the destruction of the two Temples.19

The Jewish narrative goes on to claim that even after the Bar Kochba Revolt, the Jews were in majority on the Holy Land, but their center of gravity moved to the Galillee-first to Usha, then Tzippori, and later Tiberias. The Jews were recognized as a people and a cult under the Roman Empire and they enjoyed autonomous political institutions (HaNesi'ut-patriarchy of the community), theological institutions (Sanhedrin), local municipal authorities, and intracommunity tax collection both in the land of Israel and across the Diaspora. However, when Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire in the fourth century, the position of the Jews deteriorated as they became subject to anti-Jewish legislation. In the early fifth century, they lost their autonomy and institutions of nationhood as the patriarchy and the Sanhedrin ended. Because of Christian persecution, the center of Jewish life moved to Babylon by the middle of the fifth century and Jews were no longer the majority in the land.

When the Muslim Arabs conquered Palestine in 636 CE, Jerusalem was populated by Christians, who had continued the Roman policy of excluding Jews. The Israeli narrative claims that throughout the entire period from David's conquest in 1,000 BCE until 636 CE, Jerusalem was Judaism's spiritual center-even after Jews were excluded from entering it (after 70 CE), and central parts of Palestine, such as Judea, Samaria, and the Galilee, were mostly populated by Hebrew Jews. It admits that during the Byzantine period, Jerusalem lost its Jewish gravity in favor of the Christians, but it argues that Jews were still substantially present in the Holy Land." This seams to be exaggerated, because Jews were a weak minority from the fifth century CE. 

Under the Muslim dynasties from the Ummayads to the Ottomans, the Jews were considered an inferior community; they enjoyed the protection of the Muslim state (dhimma) and were also granted internal autonomy. Their situation varied, depending on the political leadership, vacillating between toleration and discrimination. Only under the Crusaders were Jews excluded from Jerusalem. Indeed, during the first crusade, all the Jews living in Jerusalem were gathered together in the main synagogue that was then set alight, destroying the whole Jewish community in Jerusalem at the end of the twelfth century. Thus, Jews supported the Muslims in their battle against the Christian Crusaders.

The Jewish narrative tells of their continuous presence under Islam in Palestine in general and in Jerusalem in particular throughout the centuries to the present time.21 Whereas research accounts for the Jewish group as a minority in Jerusalem until the second half of the nineteenth century, Jews' popular narrative maintains that they consisted a significant proportion of the population from the period of Saladin to the present, whilst recognizing that centers in the Galilee, particularly Tiberias and Safed, were more important in the later medieval period. However, the Israeli narrative usually refrains from mentioning that during the Muslim period the Jews in Palestine were a tiny minority.

The current Jerusalem municipality Web site states that after EnglishJewish leader and parliamentarian, Sir Moses Montefiore purchased land in 1855 and established the first neighborhood outside the Jerusalem walls called Mishkenot Shaananim, "By 1900 there were 60 Jewish neighborhoods outside the walls" of Jerusalem.22

The Israeli ethos maintains that Jerusalem was the only capital of the Jewish people in their history and is considered as the holy city in Judaism. The Jewish metanarrative tells of the yearning and longing of Jews in exile for 2,000 years to return to Zion, to rebuild Jewish Jerusalem, and to resurrect the Jewish Temple. Jerusalem assumes an important place in Jewish spirituality, in Jewish liturgy, as seen in Psalm 1376-7, "IF I forget thee oh Jerusalem," in daily prayers, in the central feasts and worship, and in the writings. The narrative highlights that the Jewish connection to Palestine remained consistently steadfast throughout the ages, with ongoing efforts to return, even if it was only to die and be buried on the Mount of Olives. All Jews, both in the Holy Land and in Diaspora, pray in the direction of Jerusalem, they mention its name constantly in their prayers and end the Passover service with the words: "Next Year in Re-built Jerusalem." The return and rebuilding of Jerusalem is mentioned at least four times in the blessings recited at the end of each meal. The destruction of the Temple looms large in Jewish consciousness: remembrance takes such forms as a special day of mourning; Tisha B'Av, which next to the Day of Atonement (Yorn Kippur) is the only 25-hour fast day in the Jewish calendar; a corner of a house left partially unfinished; a woman's makeup or jewelry remaining incomplete; and a glass smashed during the wedding ceremony. As well, when a person is buried, they are buried with some soil from the Holy Land to strengthen their connection to Zion.

The national political strife between Palestinian-Arabs and Zionist Jews erupted at the beginning of the twentieth century and was exacerbated after the British conquest of Palestine and the Balfour Declaration. During the Mandate, Jews did not claim rights to the Temple Mount but only to its outer remnant of the Second Temple-the Western Wall. The Jewish claims and actions to establish their rights to public prayer (including a divider between the sections for male and female worship at the Wall) in this particular site was the trigger for the 1929 riots, in which 113 Jews were massacred by Arabs in Hebron and elsewhere.? The Temple Mount/al-Haram al-Sharif was exclusively ruled by the Supreme Muslim Council headed by Hajj Amin al-Husseini. The British Mandate government respected the Ottoman status quo and the immunity of this shrine. The investigation committee of the Western Wall incident concluded that although the Western Wall plaza is Muslim-owned, the Jews had over the past established rights of access and prayer at the site. However, the Jews were ordered to refrain from expanding their ritual facilities.

East Jerusalem and the Old City were restored to Muslim rule following the 1948 War and the Rhodes Ceasefire Agreement of 1949. However, the Jordanians failed to make any arrangements to safeguard Jewish access to the Western Wall and the Mount of Olives Jewish cemetery.28 Jordan decided not to elevate Jerusalem as the Hashemite Kingdom's capital and actually favored Amman over Jerusalem in almost every aspect. Israel declared Jerusalem as its capital. One should also remember that King Abdallah I was assassinated in July 1951 by a pro-Husseini group while entering the al-Aqsa Mosque.

After Israel took over Jerusalem in June 1967, the situation of the city and of the Temple Mount compound was profoundly changed. The Western Wall was appropriated by the state, in addition to its piazza and the Jewish Quarter; the Temple Mount was left for Waqf clerics administration, but the Israeli Police Force guards its interior and its surroundings. Israelis keep two strategic assets of the compound: they have the keys to the Western Gate and the Mahkama building is occupied by police forces overlooking and controlling the order inside the site.29 Jerusalem's municipal boundaries were expanded to include Jordanian Jerusalem and its rural periphery (28 villages). Since then, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has focused more on issues related to the future of the city and its holy places. Israel in its peace accords with Jordan committed itself to giving priority to the Jordanian role in future peace negotiations with the Palestinians regarding the holy shrines of Islam.

=4.2 The Islamic Narrative of Jerusalem-Islamization and Arabization of the City's Pre-Islamic History=

The political challenge that the Six-Day War posed to the Muslim world can be seen in the abundance of scholarly and semi-academic books produced, and in the many texts composed by leading Muslim clerics that deal with the history of Jerusalem. Various details and nuances may distinguish the writers, one from the other, but they all belong to the new, revised ethos of Jerusalem that has emerged against the background of the present political challenge. Palestinians are also disturbed by the archaeological excavations and public education exhibitions conducted by Israel, that narrate the Jewish outlook. Thus, a press release dated December 13, 2005 of the Palestinian Authority (PA) refers to the new Visitors' Center inaugurated by Israel close to the Western Wall Archaeological Park by stating that "[it] shows a fabricated heritage that might help them to deceive foreign visitors into believing that it is a historical place of the Jews."

New political myths of Jerusalem-some imaginary and some based on fact-that have wide currency today in the Arab world and in Muslim communities engage the religious myths of al-Aqsa and turn the al-Aqsa stories into a spirited, active, living struggle. Muslims at the opposite end of the Middle East and elsewhere hear or see on their television screens the stories of the Palestinian struggle for their holy place, and they easily internalize, via the political story, the revived religious traditions.

Religious myths develop to serve political ends. The enterprise devoted to elevating Jerusalem's religious status in the Arab and Muslim world has a clear political agenda and, as will be elucidated below, this agenda is not covert but is rather openly declared. Several techniques are used in the efforts to introduce al-Aqsa and Jerusalem into the political sphere and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict: the dissemination of the belief that Jerusalem and Palestine are one and the same and the claim 
that both Jerusalem and the rest of Palestine are Muslim waqf, no part of which may be subject to compromise, and that Jerusalem thus belongs to the entire Arab and Muslim world, making it the responsibility of all Arabs (including the Christians among them) and all Muslims to seek to liberate the city and to aid and strengthen the Palestinians.

Most books dealing with the history of Jerusalem have placed the beginnings of its Arab history at the start of the Muslim period." After 1967, a significant change is discernible in historical writing on Jerusalem. In many books published during the last generation, Jerusalem's prehistory undergoes a process of lslamization, Arabization, and de-Judaization. History is rewritten in an Arab-Islamic attempt to refute Jewish-Zionist claims to a Jewish historical right to Jerusalem and Palestine.31 The new writing is characterized by three elements.

The first of these is the invention of a new myth according to which the Jebusites were the precursors of the Arabs. This represents an expansion of the myth of the Palestinians' Canaanite origins within a concrete Jerusalem context. The second element is the transformation of biblical figures into Islamic ones while ignoring their Israelite origin. The third element is the contention that the al-Aqsa Mosque was built during the Creation of the world, or that it existed from ancient times.

Islamic public discourse and Arab writing dispute the official public Israeli version of Jerusalem's history, according to which it was established as a central city by King David over 3,000 years ago. It should be noted that this dating of Jerusalem as a seat of power (in contrast to Jebus, which was a noncentral locality) is the accepted one in modern scholarship. Most contemporary Arab authors contest the accepted history (including the relevant biblical story) according to which Jerusalem and most parts of Palestine were under continuous Jewish control for about 1,000 years, from the time that David conquered Jerusalem until the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE (except for several decades between the Babylonian exile and Cyrus' decree allowing the exiles to return), and that there was a significant Jewish community in Palestine up until the fifth century CE when, among other things, the Jerusalem Talmud was compiled during the fourth century CE. The Muslim authors claim that Jerusalem existed long before King David and that it was actually under the rule of ancient Arab (in this context, Jebusite) tribes. Thus, for example, as early as 1961, 'Arif al-'Arif wrote that "[t]he Islamic conquest of the city was preceded by Arab conquest and settlement 44 generations before the Babylonian invasion," that is, long before the Hebrews arrived in Palestine, and that "[t]he Canaanites and the Jebusites and the Amalekites came to Palestine from the Arabian Peninsula.' The modern scholarship supports the opinion that the Jebusites appeared in Jerusalem only between the fourteenth and the twelfth centuries BCE, that is, a relatively short time before the Hebrews and not thousands of years before them.

The Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) Web site admits that Jerusalem was holy before Islam to both Judaism and Christianity, adding that the Christians had the upper hand in the city. By citing archaeologist Kathleen Kenyon's finding that Jericho was not destroyed as described in the book of Joshua, the OIC narratives aims at undermining the Bible as an historical source." Another example is what appears in this regard on the Arab League Web site that states that "The Arab Canaanites migrated from the Arab Peninsula to al-Quds 5000 years ago." It claims that the many names of the city reflect its history long before the Jews arrived in Canaan and King David's subsequent conquest and establishment of his capital in the city. The Jebusites and Canaanites are identified as Arab tribes who roamed the region 5,000 years ago (alternatively put, 45 generations ago), and that the Arab Jebusites were those who built the city some 2,500 years BC. The Arab founding myth of Jerusalem aims at emphasizing that Arabs preceded the ancient Hebrews in the city in particular and in Palestine in general. The same chronology appears on the ore Web site.38

Another example from a non-Palestinian is that of the writings of Dr. Ahmad Abu Zayd, a sociologist from Alexandria University in Egypt, who published in May 5, 2007, an article saying that "there is a [Jewish] campaign to distort the history of Jerusalem by claiming that it was built as a Jewish city but the truth is that it was built thousands of years-twenty generations before the Jews who arrived the city after it was already civilized by the Arab Jebusites who were raised in the Arab Peninsula." He added that "the Canaanite Arabs built the city in 3,000 years BCE and it remained Arab until the invasion of King David ... then the Romans invaded the city and remained there until the Islamic conquest by 'Umar b. al-Khattab in 637CE returning to be an Arab-Islamic city as it originally was ... the Hebrew Jewish invasion of the city lasted only a number of years."39

The myth of Jebusite origin, like the myth of the Palestinians' Canaanite origin, highlights the national-territorial identity of the Palestinian-born Arabs" and it corresponds to the Lebanese and Syrian myth of Phoenician origin, to the Iraqi myth of Babylonian origin, to the contemporary Egyptian myth of Pharaonic origin, and to the myth of the Nabatean origin of certain Jordanian tribes. Historical writing in the contemporary Arab world cultivates local history by placing an emphasis on inter-Arab or inter-Islamic events that, whether coincidentally or non coincidentally, happen to have taken place in a particular geographic location. Thus, for example, Mu'tah and Yarmuk in Jordan hold a prominent place in the new historical writing due to the important battles that took place there during the early Islamic period. It may be asked, how do Muslims resolve the tension between their Arab ethnic-national identity and their Islamic identity in a historical context while acting to strengthen the Islamic dimension of Jerusalem? The answer is that the Jebusite myth does not end with the ethnic, national, or geographic context. It is also employed in an Islamic religious context: quite a few authors inform us that both the Jebusites and the Canaanites had a well-developed culture, and that in contrast to the Hebrews they preserved the faith in the Supreme God (Malkizedek, for example), and accepted Muhammad's message.

The Palestinians' Canaanite origin is a myth that has already achieved the status of well-known fact. The Palestinians' affiliation with the Canaanites who lived in Palestine before the ancient Arabs is meant to undermine the Jews' claim to seniority in the land and historical rights to it. By making the Canaanites an ancient Arab tribe from whom the Palestinians descended, those who disseminate this myth seek to persuade their audience that the Palestinians were there before the Jews and that they maintained a continuous presence in Palestine over thousands of years (3,000 years before the Israelites).41

There are also some who associate the Palestinians with the ancient Philistines, pointing out the similarity between their names.42 Now Muslim historians are adding an additional element to the issue of who should have sovereignty over Jerusalem. Their main contention is that the Jebusites, who were in Jerusalem before King David and from whom David purchased the plot of land upon which to place the Ark of the Covenant, were actually an ancient Arab tribe with whom the Palestinians also associate themselves.43 By quoting verses from the Torah that mention the ancient Jebusites, the authors feel that they are substantiating their claim.

An Egyptian scholar of Palestinian origin, Dr. Ahmad Sidqi al-Dajani asserted in an article published by the Arab Information Center in Cairo in December 1998 entitled "Matlub Qira'a Sahiha li-Ta'tikh al-Quds" (A Correct Reading of the History of al-Quds is Needed), that Jerusalem was built by the Canaanites in the fourth millennium BCE and thus it was under Arab control 20 generations before King David. Jerusalem's inhabitants were always "the people of Palestine" and thus the historical right to sovereignty over the city belongs to the Palestinians, the Arabs, and the Muslims.44 He added that the Zionist narrative of Jerusalem needs to be challenged in light of the Israeli government's Jerusalem 3000 festivities.45

In contrast, Dr. Kamil 'Amran, a Damascus University sociologist, writes that Jerusalem was founded by the Emorites before the Jebusites appeared, in the third millennium BCE, as evidenced by the name given to one of city's hills: Mount "Moriah" (that is, the mountain of the Emorites). In Amran's opinion, the Jebusites were a Canaanite tribe who arrived in Jerusalem after the Emorites. The author does not leave the reader in suspense and immediately goes on to discuss the origin of the Israelites. The Hebrews, according to him, were uncivilized nomadic tribes who lived by thievery and came to Canaan in the thirteenth century BCE. They assimilated into the peoples who inhabited the land, primarily the Canaanites. They practiced a religion that was Canaanite in form, while the region's original inhabitants, who had never disappeared, accepted Islam and the Arabic language and were the true natives of Palestine.46

The new Muslim historians manage to find even "Islamic" roots among the ancient Jebusites. Basing themselves on the Tel el-Amarna tablets, these Muslim authors assert that it was the Jebusite king Malkizedek who builtJerusalem47 and attribute to him both Palestinian ethnicity and Muslim religious faith. Thus, for example, Egyptian historian and archeologist Ibrahim Anani (whose name would seem to indicate Palestinian origin) wrote a book in 2002 that, in his words, was intended to refute Israel's alleged historical and religious rights to Jerusalem." Anani wrote that Malkizedek was "a king and religious leader, one of the native sons of Palestine who built Jerusalem for Allah the Supreme." The words Allah al-a'la, which Anani uses in order to identify the biblical (Genesis 14:18) concept of "EI-Eyon" (Most High God) with "Allah," indicate the author's intention of Islamizing the ancient pagan concept. According to him Malkizedek was "the first Palestinian king in history." Those who invented the Jebusite myth associate Malkizedek with monotheism via Abraham, whom, as is known, Islam regards as the father of faith in one God (hanif). Anani relates that when Abraham entered the city of Shalem (ancient Jerusalem), he prayed together with Malkizedek and that all this happened long before the Jews emerged as a people. The author adds that when the "Israelites infiltrated Palestine" they found there Jebusites, Edomites, Moabites, Ammonites, Canaanites, and other peoples who were all Arabs, that is, members of the same Semitic, geographically Arab race who converted to Christianity during the Roman and Byzantine periods but retained their Semitic ethnicity and afterward returned to Islam and remained Semitic Arabs.49

Abu Aliya Islamizes both Abraham and Malkizedek and writes that "[i]t is likely that Malkizedek received Islam from Ibrahim [Abraham] and that he practiced a Muslim form of worship on the site where the al-Aqsa Mosque now stands." He further writes that one must not rule out the possibility that the Temple built by Malkizedek was actually the al-Aqsa Mosque." Shurab repeats this version when he writes that Jerusalem was home to monotheism before Abraham arrived there, since Allah had commanded that al-Aqsa be built as a house of worship of Him and since Malkizedek had worshiped Him there. Malkizedek was Abraham's friend and, therefore, a monotheist.'


The following are a few of the many instances in which the myth of ancient Jerusalem's Arab character is disseminated via historical literature: during the opening session of a scholarly symposium on Jerusalem held in London in December 1979, Saudi minister of state Sheikh Muhammad Ibrahim Masud read aloud the words of King Fahd: "The Arabs were in Jerusalem about two thousand years before the time of Moses." Palestinian archeologist Dr. Dimitri Baramki made the claim in his lecture at the same conference that there is no truth to the assertion that the Jewish people have had a 3,000-year connection to Jerusalem.52 Dr. Bassam Aliq, another author, writes that "[t]he Arab-Jebusite presence in Jerusalem has lasted for 10,000 years, according to reliable scholars. It was sacred to the Arabs (the Jebusites) before it was sacred to the Hebrews.5 Other articles on the same Web site claim 5,000 years of Arab presence inJerusalem.54
One of the most striking examples of the new Islamic narrative appears in Sheikh Yusufal-Qaradawi's book Jerusalem-Every Muslim's Problem.55 This book is actually an anthology of sermons that he has delivered in recent years on the topic of Jerusalem, in which he summarizes various narratives taken from popular Islamic polemical works of an anti-Jewish tone to which Qaradawi attributes scientific validity. Qaradawi writes that the earliest inhabitants of Jerusalem were the Jebusites, who were "an ancient Arab tribe" that migrated from the Arabian Peninsula along with the Canaanites, about 3,000 years BCE. According to him Abraham [the Patriarch], who came from Iraq, was a landless foreigner in "Palestine" and when his wife Sarah died he asked the "Palestinians" for permission to bury her on their land. The three Patriarchs and their progeny lived in Egypt for less than 200 years, according to his calculation, with no landed property of their own, and Jacob's descendents lived in Egypt for 430 years. The period of Saul, David, and Solomon's reigns and of the kingdoms  of Judah and Israel lasted 434 years, according to his sources, and even at its most flourishing point the Davidic monarchy had dominion over only a small portion of "Palestine."57

Despite the short duration of the Israelite presence in Palestine, writes Qaradawi, they seek to gain control over the entire globe and not just over Palestine, based on the Book of Joshua in which the divine promise appears: "Every place that the sole of your foot shall tread upon, that have I given unto you, as I said unto Moses.58 This is taken as proof that the Jews also want Egypt, where Jacob and his descendents had lived. Qaradawi also writes: "The Babylonians and, later, the Romans destroyed their temple, annihilated them, dispersed the survivors and forbade them from residing in Jerusalem. When Caliph 'Umar ibn al-Khattab captured Jerusalem he received the keys of the city from the Patriarch Sophronius on condition that he would maintain the tradition of preventing the Jews from living there; nevertheless the Jews managed to steal into the city without the knowledge of the Muslim rulers, ultimately receiving protected status within Islam but constituting a negligible minority in the city."59 Qaradawi devotes an entire discussion to the issue of the divine promise that appears in the Torah. He emphasizes the importance of refuting the Jews' claim in light of the Christian acceptance of and belief in the Old Testament. He does not dispute what is written in the biblical text but rather asserts that the divine promise of the Land was given to Abraham and his descendents on the condition that they adhere to the true faith; however, according to Qaradawi, the Jews breached their commitment, abandoned their faith in God, and, therefore, lost their right to the Land. In contrast, Ishmael the Muslim was also a son of Abraham and thus only those descendents of Abraham who preserved the original faith have rights to the Land, since they are the ones who have fulfilled the promise and maintained a presence in the Land for 1,400 years."
The idea of the Palestinian Arabs' ancient origin and of the Jebusites as an early Arab people is not a new one. As early as 1951, it appears in the writings of Palestinian historian and public figure 'Arif al-'Arif, who added that the ancient Hebrews had assimilated into the Canaanite and Jebusite culture, hinting that the Israelites had no unique civilization of their own that could have been preserved to the present day.

In a more comprehensive history of Jerusalem that al-'Arif published a decade later (1961), he goes on to state that "[t]he Jews' claim that they had a civilization of their own in Palestine is incorrect ... They learned civilization from the Canaanites." "They came there with weapons and fire and wrought destruction (see Joshua 6:21). They destroyed, plundered, killed and raped, and during the course of their conquests they revealed their iniquity in all of its forms. This was a fertile land and the Hebrews added nothing to it."62 At this point al-Arif's tone degenerates into one of blatant anti-Semitism.63 A similar approach characterized Egyptian military indoctrination prior to 1967.64

After al-'Arif, Muhammad Adib al-Aamiry wrote the following in his 1978 book on Jerusalem's Arab character:

Many foreign writers, and indeed some Arabs too, commit a common error by suggesting that the Arabs inhabited Palestine only from the year AD 638, the beginning of Muslim rule. They ignore the fact that the Arabs, under various ancient tribal names, were the dominant inhabitants of the country from the beginning of its human inhabitantion ... The native inhabitants, Christians and pagan, were descendents from the original Carmel Man of Palestine, and from the Semitic Arab tribes of Amorites, Canaanites, and others who had entered the land from Arabia in migratory waves. The Jebusites, who built Jerusalem, were a subgroup of the Canaanites...Modern historical investigation, based on the findings of archaeology, shows that the Hebrews of the Old Testament were a limited group, that their rule in Jerusalem as a city-state was of short duration ... The invasions by Hittites, Hyksos, Hurrians, Persians, Greeks, and Romans were generally more extensive and lasted longer.65

Al-Aamiry also writes that "all the historical names of Jerusalem are of Arabic origin" and that the prevalent culture and language in ancient Jerusalem were Arab-Canaanite and that the Jews assimilated into them.66

Another example is Muhammad al-Halayqa's book, in which the author bases himself on the writings of Holocaust denier Roger Garaudy, and on other popular works. Halayqa emphasizes the Arabs' and Palestinians' Canaanite origin, writing that the Canaanites were an Arab-Semitic tribe from the Arabian Peninsula that was the first to settle in Palestine, prior to the arrival of the Hebrews. He adds that "[h]istorians have determined" that the Jews were an inferior culture to that of the Canaanites and that the Jews of today are not genetically related to the ancient Israelites-thereby refuting any historical claim of theirs to the land.67

The myth of the Palestinian Arabs' ancient origin appears to have penetrated the historical consciousness of large portions of the world Arab population. Thus, Ahmad Kuftaro, Syria's former grand mufti, stated in a lecture delivered at al-Azhar University in Cairo that it is not the Jews who had a historical right to Palestine, but rather the Jebusite and Canaanite Arabs.68 Mahmud Masalha, an Israeli-Arab academic who served as principal of a high school in the village ofDaburiyya and has close ties with the Islamic Movement, claims in a book he wrote that the Torah itself testifies to Palestine's Arab character, based on their presence in the land of the seven ancient peoples.

The claim regarding Jerusalem's ancient Arab character is not restricted to scholarly and polemical works. It features in an official context on the Internet site of the OIC to which 57 Muslim countries belong. Thus, one document states that "Jebus was already a magnificent city when the Israelites arrived there."7 The document's author deplores the Jewish tradition of dating Jerusalem's history from the time of David and the consequent disregard of the city's pre-Davidic period; he asserts that "[t]he land of Palestine has always been inhabited by the Palestinian people."

From Arabizing and Islamizing ancient Jerusalem, the new Muslim historians move on to denying Jewish history and to contending that the Jews have falsified history; they assert that Jerusalem is Islamic-Arab and that the Jews have no connection to it. The above-mentioned Ibrahim Anani wrote that the Jews have claimed their history to be rooted in divine revelation [the Torah], while in actuality they cite folk traditions of other ancient peoples such as the Canaanites, with the Code of Hammurabi being evidence of this.73 Dr. Faruq al-Shunaq of the Jordanian Royal Committee for Jerusalem Affairs has written that there is no genetic relationship between the Israelites mentioned in the Torah and the Jews of today, who, according to him, are of Khazar origin.74

The delegitimization of the Jewish connection to Jerusalem is also based on religious belief, as described by Shurab. He writes that Jerusalem was first given in trust (waqf, literally meaning religious endowment) to the Israelites, but that "when they violated the laws of God they were cursed and God decided to withdraw prophecy from them forever ... until it passed to the Prophet Muhammad and from the Children of Israel (Jacob) to the children of lshmael (the Arabs) and the Arab Prophet inherited the commands given to Abraham, to Ishmael, to Isaac and to Jacob, and he fought to disseminate them and he was the one who linked the past with the present and brought them all to believe in one truth." According to Shurab, the al-Aqsa Mosque was also transferred to Islam and this interpretation is supported by the fact that, according to tradition, the Prophet Muhammad's Night Journey followed the same route by which Abraham, the father of the prophets, had arrived in Palestine-from Mecca to the Blessed Land. He placed Hagar and Ishmael in Mecca whilst he placed Isaac in Palestine. The argument is further supported by the tradition that describes how the Prophet Muhammad assembled all of the prophets together in his journey. Ever since then Jerusalem has been a Muslim trust (amanah), writes Shurab, and this is proved by the fact that the Muslims liberated it from the Crusaders, while the Jews did not raise a finger in this regard.75
The issue of continuity of inhabitance and presence in Jerusalem as one of the bases for claiming historical rights to the city also preoccupies the new Muslim historians. Two main facets of this topic are exhaustively addressed: first, the historical evidence of arab and Islamic presence, and second, the claim that the Jews ruled the land during the reigns of David and Solomon only, for a period that according to them lasted only about 70 years.76 The Muslim conquest of Jerusalem is presented by certain authors as a second Arab conquest, preceded by the original Canaanite-Arab one. Abu Aliya writes: "The Arab presence in Palestine and Jerusalem has never ceased, and indications of Arab civilization and of an Arab population have remained in the city even from the periods during which it was controlled by the Hebrews, the Persians, the Greeks and the Romans.T? It is obvious that the Muslim authors are duplicating the Zionist claim regarding presence as the basis for territorial rights, but as a mirror image.

Another claim found in Muslim writings that cite the Book of Genesis on Jerusalem is that Abraham, the Israelites' ancient patriarch, was alien to Palestine and arrived there for only a short time and only as an immigrant. This claim leads Abd al-Tawab Mustafa to the conclusion that the Jews have no sovereign right whatsoever over any part of Palestine, but only rights of political asylum and religious pilgrimage, which are temporary rights granted by those who have sovereignty over the land (that is, the Muslim Arabs).

One may form an impression of the degree to which the myth of ancient Palestinian presence in Jerusalem has gained currency in the Arab world from statements appearing in an Egyptian eleventh grade textbook that deal with the Arab wars. In the book it is written that "Jerusalem was first founded and inhabited by Arab tribes who migrated there from the Arabian Peninsula about 4,000 years BCE. The Israelites attempted to gain control of Jerusalem, but the Romans defeated them and they remained there until they were expelled by the Muslims.79 

In the publications of radical groups one finds even the claim that, for the Jews, Palestine is merely a springboard for the conquest of the entire Arab and Muslim world (something that is hinted at in the aforementioned book by Qaradawi). Behind the dissemination of this idea lies, apparently, the desire to make the Palestinian issue a matter of urgency for Muslims in other parts of the globe. This, for example, is the claim set forth in the popular Egyptian pamphlet (that
I purchased at the Cairo Book Fair) entitled Jerusalem Is Muslim, published in 1994 by a radical group opposed to the current regime as part of the series Historical Mistakes that Must Be Corrected. The pamphlet's rhetorical structure is that of a dialogue between two sons of a father who denies that Abraham is regarded as a patriarch in Judaism, as well as the time-honored Muslim belief that Ibrahim was the first monotheist (hanif); the father contends that Abraham was a Muslim, along with Isaac and Jacob, David and Solomon. According to him, Muslims inhabited Palestine and Jerusalem from the time of Adam, from the day of Creation, and thus Jerusalem is a Muslim capital. As evidence of the Jews' use of Palestine as a springboard for conquest of the Arab world, the authors note the fact that in 1903 the Zionist movement gave consideration to a program for settling in the Sinai. This claim is aimed at the Egyptian reading public, since the Sinai is under Egyptian sovereignty. The authors also assert that at the Zionist Congress in Basel the Zionists set themselves the goal to be realized in 100 years' time, that is, in 1997 (3 years after this pamphlet was published) of establishing a state from the Nile to the Euphrates." This pamphlet's publication, as with all other books in Egypt, took place with the approval of the Egyptian National Printing Authority, despite the fact that it also indirectly attacks the country's current regime ("the Arab rulers betrayed Islam"). The pamphlet was published shortly after the signing of the peace agreements between Israel and the PLO and Jordan.

=4.3 The 'Umar Conquest=

The new historical ethos' second component employs, as a lead narrative, Jerusalem's conquest during the early Islamic period by Caliph Umar ibn al-Khattab. The story of Jerusalem's conquest begins with traditions claiming that the Prophet Muhammad foresaw the city's capture after his death. The story goes on to describe how the Prophet sent armies on three occasions to conquer Jerusalem (and the entire al-Sham region).81 The aim of these traditions is to show that Jerusalem was not neglected by the Prophet Muhammad, but rather that the opposite is true. It is further described how during the caliphates of Abu Bakr and 'Umar I, large, special armies and celebrated military leaders were selected for the mission of conquering Palestine and Jerusalem. The story of Jerusalem's conquest-by agreement with the Christian patriarch and not by battle-is also meant to emphasize the event's importance. The military commander Abu Ubayda ibn al-Jarrah laid siege to the city, surrounding it with seven battalions and calling upon the Christian leaders to surrender, convert to Islam, or pay a poll tax. The Christians refused to surrender and the siege continued over four months of battles, until the Patriarch Sophronius sought an agreement in which the terms of surrender would be set together with Caliph Umar I in person. When Umar received Abu Ubayda's letter informing him of this, he assembled his advisors and after hearing their various opinions decided to accept 'Ali b. Abu Talib's proposal that he himself go to Jerusalem. Upon reaching the outskirts of the city, Umar met with the military commanders and reprimanded them for not having ended the affair with a treaty (sulhan) as had been done with other cities. The military commanders explained to Umar that the Christians of Jerusalem feared that if they should surrender, the Muslims would not keep their promises (as had occurred elsewhere) due to Jerusalem's sacredness to Islam that was liable to lead them to destroy the Church of the Holy Sepulcher; the Christians also feared that the Muslims would avenge themselves for the loss of life that had resulted from the lengthy siege. The Christian patriarch, accompanied by his priests, rode out of the city to welcome the caliph, and Umar ultimately recorded the terms of surrender in the document known as "the Pact of Umar" (al-Uhda al- Umariyya, or Ahd Umar) a document whose content, which establishes the status of protected non-Muslims (unrelated to the Jerusalem issue), is attributed by scholars to Abbasid Caliph Umar ibn 'Abd al-'Aziz (Umar II). Part of the myth of conquest lies in the very multiplicity of traditions related to the city, assembled in such a way as to call attention to the large number of Companions of the Prophet (the sahaba, who hold a high and important status within Islam) who participated in Jerusalem's conquest. 'Arif al-'Arif presents a list of 19 names of Muhammad's Companions, along with several dozen other important figures of the period.

The story of the Islamic conquest of Jerusalem seeks to emphasize the city's importance to Muslims, based on the fact that the conquest is connected with 'Umar, the most important figure in Islam after the Prophet Muhammad (Hava Lazarus-Yaffe has defined him as "Islam's
Saint Paul"84). The takeover of Jerusalem by treaty of surrender and not
by force is presented as additional proof of the city's high degree of sanctity in Islam. The negotiations with the Christian patriarch Sophronius over the terms of surrender, the traditions describing Umar's visit to the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, Sophronius's proposal that Umar pray in the church and the latter's refusal, and his later discovery of the Rock and instructions to build a mosque upon it-all of these details are interwoven within the fabric of a story in which Jerusalem figures as a place of importance in Islam from the religion's formative period, even before Caliph Abd al-Malik built the Dome of the Rock.

In his book on Jerusalem, for example, Dr. Ahmad Fahim Jabr of al-Quds University highlights the traditions describing Jerusalem's conquest during the period of Caliph 'Umar I. About the tradition relating to the treaty of surrender with the Christian patriarch Sophronius, he writes that the agreement (which states, among other things, that Jews will not be permitted to return and settle in Jerusalem) "emphasizes the city's sanctity."85

=4.4 The City's Continuous Islamic Character=

A third element of this ethos is the argument regarding Jerusalem's ongoing Islamic character. Those making this claim cite the names of the important Islamic figures associated with Jerusalem since the Islamic conquest and up to the present day." Thus for instance, Ahmad Fahim Jabr mentions such Companions of the Prophet Muhammad as Ubada ibn al-Samit, appointed by Caliph Umar I to serve as the qadi (shari 'a judge) of Palestine and a teacher of Qur'an, who died in 34h. (655 CE). The very existence of a Muslim qadi in Jerusalem indicates, according to Jabr, the distinctly Islamic status of a city functioning in accordance with shari 'a law. Moreover, Jabr states, Jerusalem was a pilgrimage destination for caliphs, ulema, Sufi sheikhs, and simple folk, who left their traces and whose descendents gave their lives in the city's defense.87 One article mentions, for example, the existence of 400 madrasas in Jerusalem as evidence of Muslim continuity in the city.88

There is no factual support for such a number. The Arab-Muslim narrative underlines the Abbasid Caliphate's connection to the city by maintaining that the Caliph al-Ma'mun visited the city and ordered that coins be struck with the Arabic name of the city "al-Quds" instead of former "Iliya" (Aelia Capitolina). In order to counter the Jewish claim that the city was never a political capital under Muslim rule, it claims that Jerusalem was an administrative center since the Mamluk period." The numerous Islamic monuments in Jerusalem are living symbols of the importance of the city to all rulers. This last argument is evident in the city's architectural fabric, but Israeli scholars tend to ignore it.

=4.5 Saladin's Liberation=

A fourth component is the emphasis placed on Jerusalem's liberation from Crusader control by Saladin, and the expression of the hope that a second Saladin will arise to return Jerusalem to Islamic sovereignty (see further discussion of this topic in chapter 5.5).

'Arif al-'Arif relates the story of Saladin and Jerusalem according to sources that he specifically selected and that underscore emotional and image-related aspects of the conquest: After the Battle of Hittin in July 1187, Saladin's army took the remaining Crusader cities and made its way to Jerusalem under his golden flag. One tradition relates that when Saladin was warned that if he captured Jerusalem he would lose an eye, the great warrior replied that for the sake of Jerusalem he was willing to lose the use of his eyes altogether. However, before he could take Jerusalem he first had to capture the coastal cities and prevent the arrival of Crusader reserve forces, as well as to secure the eastern flank, from the direction of Transjordan. After he proposed that the besieged Crusaders surrender Jerusalem without bloodshed and was refused, Saladin undertook to capture Jerusalem by force in order to exact vengeance upon the Crusaders who had sown death and fear during their own conquest of the city. However, when the besieged Crusaders threatened to kill 5,000 Muslim hostages inside the city, he accepted their surrender on condition that the Christians pay a poll tax and leave Jerusalem within 40 days. Jerusalem fell to Saladin's forces on October 2, 1187the date associated with the Prophet Muhammad's Night Journey-27 Rajah. The Islamic narrative extols Saladin's merciful treatment of the Christians after the conquest. The first thing that, according to this account, Saladin did in Jerusalem was to remove the Christian elements from al-Aqsa and to wash the Rock with rose-water in order to purify it from the Crusader defilement. He also saw to the restoration of the original pulpit used by Caliph Umar I and had the minbar constructed under the orders of Nur al-Din Zangi (the one that was burned in August 1969) brought from Aleppo. Saladin also built a Sufi (Muslim mystics) center known as al-Khanqah al-Salahiyya (near the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, a location in which the monks' dwellings were also located), along with an additional Sufi zawiya (lodge), a bimaristan (hospital), a madrasa (religious school), and other structures.91

=4.6 The Link Between al-Quds and Palestine= 

The fifth element of the new Islamic ethos of Jerusalem is the emphasis placed on the connection between Jerusalem and the entire territory of Palestine, through the development of the following myths:

The Entire Land of Palestine Is Islamic Waqf.

The claim that Jerusalem in particular and Palestine in general are Islamic endowment-waqf was first invented in 1988 by the Hamas but was later adopted by senior PA officials (before Hamas rose to power in the PA). Waqf, according to Islamic law, is property that may not be sold or changed in any way; it follows, say those who promote this view of Palestine's status as waqf, that such property may not be relinquished.93
The Hamas movement introduced this idea into public discourse when it included in its charter the claim that all of Palestine is Muslim waqf that may not be given up.94 Article 11 of the charter provides the historical and legal-Islamic justification for this claim:

The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic waqf land [endowed] for the benefit of Muslims throughout the generations and until the Day of Resurrection. It is forbidden to abandon it or part of it or to renounce it or part of it. No Arab State nor the aggregate of all Arab countries, and no Arab King or President nor all of them in the aggregate, have the right to do so; nor does any organization or the aggregate of all organizations, be they Palestinian or Arab, because Palestine is an Islamic waqf for the benefit of the Muslim generations to the Day of Resurrection. This is its [Palestine land's] rule in the Islamic sharia. This rule applies like any other land conquered forcefully by the Muslims, since the Muslims endowed it at the time of conquest as waqf for the benefit of Muslims throughout the generations and until the Day of Resurrection. This [rule also] took place when the commanders of the Muslim armies, upon completing the conquest of al-Sham [Greater Syria] and Iraq, sent [a message] to the Caliph of the Muslims, Umar ibn al-Khattab, consulting him as to what to do with the conquered land, whether it should be partitioned between the troops or left in the possession of its population, or otherwise. Following discussions and consultations between the Caliph of Islam, Umar ibn al-Khattab, and the Companions of the Messenger of Allah, peace and prayer be upon him, they decided that the land should remain in the hands of its holders to benefit from it and from its wealth; but the abstract ownership (raqaba) of the land ought to be endowed as a waqffor all generations of Muslims until the Day of Resurrection, while the [original] owners would have usufruct rights (manfaa) only, and this waqf will endure as long as heaven and earth last. Any action regarding Palestine [lands] that contradicts this rule of Islamic law is void and those who conducted it will bear the responsibility.

On July 23, 2000, the day on which Yasser Arafat decisively rejected President Clinton's proposals at the second Camp David peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians, the then mufti of Jerusalem and the PA Sheikh Ikrima Sabri issued a fatwa according to which Muslims in Palestine are strictly prohibited from accepting compensation for land taken from them by the Zionists in 1948, as an alternative to exercising their right of return. Sabri's justification for this position is that "Palestine in its entirety is a holy waqf (endowment), and thus the land may not be sold" and that it is, therefore, forbidden to receive compensation for it." Sabri's fatwa in effect reiterated the statement issued a day earlier by the Hamas during a demonstration in the Gaza Strip. The PA mufti seems to have adopted the Hamas line in order to distance Arafat and the PA from any appearance ofbeing willing to give up the Holy Land within the framework of a peace treaty with Israel. He was able to do this because, apparently, he already knew that Arafat had rejected Clinton's proposals for a compromise on Jerusalem and the refugees.

Despite the fact that there is no basis for the idea that Palestine is holy waqf in Islamic law and that the Hamas was simply manipulating a tradition taken from another context, the message was received and internalized by various groups in the Muslim world. Thus, for example, in a popular Egyptian work on the al-Aqsa Mosque written by Dr. Mustafa Rushwan, a lecturer at al-Azhar University (mentioned in chapter 2.8), one finds the assertion that all of Palestine is Muslim waqf that the Muslims inherited from the Canaanites and from the "Philistine" (Palestinian) Arabs. An examination of the author's sources reveals that he is basing himself on the views of Palestinian Mufti Ikrima Sabri and on al-Aqsa Mosque preachers.98 Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi has also adopted the claim that Palestine in its entirety is waqf.99 The fact that many Islamic endowments have been established in Jerusalem is mentioned by various authors as additional evidence of the city's sanctity."

The myth of Palestine as waqf has been employed for one purpose only-to establish Muslim sovereignty over the territory in question. Thus, Abd al-Tawab Mustafa writes that over a billion Muslims make the pilgrimage to Mecca and not one of them claims that he, rather than the Saudis, has sovereignty over the Hijaz, and that the billions of Christian pilgrims who visit Jerusalem do not claim sovereignty over it as do the Jews who view it as their holy city, even though Jerusalem was to them merely a direction of prayer and a spiritual center, making their claim to ownership of it unjustified. In the three monotheistic religions, adds Mustafa, the holy places belong to God and it is forbidden to claim ownership over them according to the waqfprinciple that exists in all of the religions. It is, therefore, permissible for the Jews to visit Jerusalem and their holy sites, but they must not claim ownership of the city."

Palestinian Territory in Its Entirety Has Been Blessed by Allah According to the Qur'an With regard to the Quranic verse (17:1) that tells of the Prophet Muhammad's Night Journey from the Sacred Mosque to the al-Aqsa Mosque, about which it is written, "whose precincts We did bless," contemporary commentators tend to identify the blessed territory in question as Palestine, while in the past it was identified as the entire al-Sham region (greater Syria, including Palestine as well) because under Islam Palestine was never identified as a political or administrative territory carrying the name Filastin." Thus, Qaradawi calls Palestine ard al-baraka (the blessed land)."The Palestinian mufti Sheikh Ikrima Sabri has also, in an interview with the weekly al-Ahram al-Arabi, referred to Palestine as "the remainder of the blessed land." Another example of this may be found in the statement made by Palestinian minister of waqf and religious affairs, Yusuf Salama, that "[t]he blessed land mentioned in the Quran is Jerusalem, since most of the prophets were sent by Allah to this land and since it was also the place where the Prophet Muhammad prayed."I06  The Hamas movement, in contrast, refers to Palestine as aknaf al-Quds, based on the belief that Palestine as a whole constitutes the "wings" of Jerusalem. According to the Jerusalem Waqf administration, most Quranic commentators interpret the "precincts" of al-Aqsa as referring to al-Sham, with the divine blessing's force intensifying the closer one gets to the al-Aqsa Mosque." According to this interpretation, the al-Aqsa Mosque refers in the Quran to the entire area in whose center stood the exalted Rock, and not to the structures, since these had not existed during the Prophet's lifetime. Another religious ruling published by the Jerusalem Waqf on its Web site states that the al-Isra' verse in the Qur'an does not refer to any particular structure but rather to land"to the land of the al-Aqsa Mosque which is blessed in its entirety," and that the problem at hand is one of "occupation and desecration of blessed and holy land." An additional example from Iran: the Teheran representative to the Iranian parliamentAli Akbar Muhtashemi-has stated in one of his speeches that "Jerusalem is the only blessed land in the Quran. All of the prophets appeared there ... and it is the most exalted and favored land on the earth."107

In conclusion, viewing Jerusalem as part of the blessed territory mentioned in the Quran is a grounded interpretation of the Qur'an. Israeli scholar (and Qur'an translator into Hebrew) Uri Rubin holds that the Quranic term "blessed territory" is the Holy Land (without identifying the particular boundaries of that "holy land."I Thus, the current Arab-Muslim identification of the blessed land as "Palestine" is ahistorical, but not baseless or unreasonable.

The Struggle forJerusalem and the Struggle for Palestine Are One and the Same Muftis, writers, and public figures seeking to promote the Palestinian or anti-Israeli cause use the issue of Jerusalem as a means of dramatizing the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, by drawing a parallel between the Jerusalem issue and that of Palestine. Thus, the former Palestinian mufti Sheikh Ikrima Sabri said in a lecture in Abu Dhabi that "Jerusalem and Palestine are one and the same matter, and relinquishing one of them constitutes a relinquishment of the other." He argued that Palestine contains most of the holy sites, first and foremost of which is Jerusalem, the crown jewel of them all!" Another example is that of a book by Abd al-Hamid Shaqaldi entitled The History of the al-Aqsa Mosque that also addresses the conflict over Palestine. Explaining why he gave his book this limiting title, the author replied:

Why, in fact, when we say al-Aqsa do we really mean all of Palestine? Because when we say 'the history of the al-Aqsa Mosque' we are also referring to the history of the holy land, the blessed land. I make specific mention of the al-Aqsa Mosque because it is the most important thing in that land... The story of Palestine is a story of mosques over which we are fighting in order to call in them upon the name of Allah. We are not struggling for land or for houses, but for the right to speak the name of Allah there.'10

On August 7, 1979, soon after Ayatollah Khomeini rose to power in Iran, he called to Muslims all over the globe to consecrate the last Friday of the Holy month of Ramadan as al-Quds Day and to proclaim the international solidarity of Muslims "in support of the legitimate rights of the Muslims of Palestine." Since then, every last Friday of Ramadan is celebrated with demonstrations by Muslims in many Muslim constituencies. The Jerusalem Day is used to express solidarity with the Palestinian struggle for Palestine.111

=4.7 Comparing the Jewish-Israeli and the Palestinian-Muslim Narratives=

The Jewish and Muslim narratives of the Holy Land involve three concentric circles, with each side having their own names for each circle. These are: Palestine/Eretz Israel (Land of Israel); Jerusalem/ al-Quds, and finally the Temple Mount/al-Aqsa compound. The innermost circle-the sacred compound in Jerusalem-is the paramount issue. It is a central symbol of national and religious identity for both sides and, therefore, the source of greatest conflict. The battle over the myths and narratives surrounding this compound as well as those surrounding the middle circle of Jerusalem as a whole serve as a vehicle to support the metanarrative of both Israelis and Palestinians over the outer circle-the right to the Holy Land, to Palestine/Eretz Israel.

The current Jewish and Muslim historical narratives of Jerusalem are a mirror image of each other. In the premodern time they were developed independent of each other and reflecting the ultimate religious and collective identity and outlook of each of the two peoples. Since the nineteenth century, they were crystallized to respond to national challenges. The historical debate was intensified after 1967, when the eastern section of Jerusalem, including the holy shrines, were taken over by Jewish Israel. The major conflicting elements of the two current narratives are the following:

The Jewish narrative recognizes the pre-Hebrew antiquity of the city but describes Jerusalem during the period before 1000 BCE as a pagan marginal and peripheral place. Jerusalem became monotheistic (Jewish) and a central "national" capital only under King David, some
3,000 years ago.

The Arab-Muslim version of antiquity claims Arab presence in Jerusalem some 5,000 years ago by arguing that the Jebusites were Arabs. It claims that the al-Aqsa Mosque was built first by Adam and thus was a primordial Islamic site.

 The Jews stress the Temple of Jerusalem as the focal point of religion and sacredness. Its destruction in 70 CE is a Jewish religious trauma and an Israeli official day of mourning.

The Arab and Muslim writings of today deny the existence of the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem and claim that its site was actually a mosque, and that the Western Wall is the place where the Prophet Muhammad tied his steed in his nocturnal journey from Mecca to al-Aqsa. They stress the importance of Jerusalem in Islam and for the Arab people by this event as well as by the fact that it served as the initial direction of prayer for Muslims.

 The Jewish narrative claims a continuous Hebrew hegemonic presence in Jerusalem of 1,400 years from King David until the Byzantine era. Then from the Muslim conquest of Jerusalem until the nineteenth century (another 1,300 years) they were a significant part of the city's population, and the majority since the mid-nineteenth century until 1948.

The Muslim historical perception maintains 1,400 years of a continuous Muslim rule in Jerusalem and Muslims as the majority of its inhabitants, with the exception of one century of Christian Crusader rule. They consider the population of Jerusalem from antiquity to the seventh century and thereafter as being ethnically Arab.

The Jews underline the fact that Jerusalem was their only political capital ever since, and their holiest city. 

The Muslims argue that Jerusalem was a central city in Islam since the Ummayads and continuously during all Muslim dynasties who established Islamic institutions in the city, which can be witnessed to this very day.

Jews also stress their 2,000 years of yearning and longing for Jerusalem from exile, dreaming of the regathering in Zion and rebuilding Jerusalem and the Temple as expressed in many traditions, prayers, liturgy, and popular and religious rituals and services.

Muslims do emphasize the monuments and artifacts that the successive rulers built in the city, as well as the cemeteries that bear witness to the senior Islamic figures who visited the city or lived there and were buried there since the time of Muhammad.

Jews claim that during the Muslim rule in Jerusalem they were prevented from accessing the Temple Mount. They were allowed to pray only privately in front of the Western Wall. They also accuse the Muslims for neglecting the city's upkeep and for the miserable physical condition of the Dome of the Rock. They also claim that while Jerusalem was under Jordanian rule from 1948 to 1967, Jewish synagogues in the Old City and grave stones on the Mount of Olives were attacked and destroyed.

Israeli Jews argue also that in June 1967 Israel decided to leave the administration of the Temple Mount/al-Aqsa compound to the Muslim Waqf clergy, and in the Israeli peace accord with Jordan the interests of Jordan in Jerusalem's Islamic holy places were enumerated.

Muslims however, accuse the Israelis of appropriation of the Western Wall piazza and the Jewish Quarter of the Old City after 1967, and of controlling their holy al-Aqsa compound and using security concerns as an excuse to prevent Muslims from accessing the site.

In conclusion, the new historical outlook of the Muslim Arabs since 1967 addresses the challenges that are being put forward by the Jewish and Israeli narratives, that is, issues of antiquity, religious and political aspects, continuous presence and control, sentimental connection and religious practice, and restriction of access to the sacred compound.

The new Islamic ethos of Jerusalem that has developed since 1967 centers on a rewriting of Jerusalem's history. The main features in this rewriting are an Arab-Islamic past that significantly pre-dates the ancient Hebrews' arrival in Palestine and the Davidic and Solomonic monarchies; an emphasis on the city's Islamic character; and, primarily, the attempt to attribute to the city a status of political importance in Muslim history and to claim that Jerusalem and Palestine are one and the same and that Jerusalem's sanctity is a reflection of the sanctity of Palestine as a whole.

The next chapter moves from discussing the issues of identity and religious and national ideology into analyzing Palestinian and broader Arab action in two dimensions-strategy and its manifestation in the political arena. 

=References=

References are available on the book link of Google Scholar. 

=Notes=