By Dr. Tim Orr
On November 28, 2024, Palestinian-American author Susan Abulhawa took the stage at the Oxford Union during a debate on the motion: “This House Believes Israel is an Apartheid State Responsible for Genocide.” Her speech was fiery and filled with provocative statements, including her claim that Jews are “foreigners” from Poland and Ukraine who “will never truly belong to that land.” While this may sound like a political attack, it’s rooted in a much deeper religious and ideological framework that views Israel as conquered Muslim territory.
In traditional Islamic theology, Islam is seen as the final and complete revelation, superseding Judaism and Christianity. This belief, often called supersessionism, isn’t just spiritual—it has political implications. Once Muslims have ruled a land, it becomes part of Dar al-Islam (the Abode of Islam), and many scholars argue it must remain under Muslim control. The concept of waqf takes this even further, treating lands like Palestine as a permanent religious endowment reserved for Muslims alone (Peters, 1979).
When Abulhawa dismissed Jewish ties to Israel as a “myth” and said Jews should remain in Poland or Ukraine, she was channeling this view. It’s not just about modern politics—it’s the idea that Jewish sovereignty over land once ruled by Muslims is illegitimate. This perspective often ignores the historical reality that Jews have lived in the land of Israel for thousands of years and maintained a spiritual and cultural connection to it even in exile (Lewis, 1984).
What makes statements like Abulhawa’s so problematic is that they erase history while fueling an ideological vision that leaves no room for coexistence. By framing Jews as “outsiders,” she’s not just dismissing Zionism; she’s tapping into a worldview that sees Israel as a violation of Islamic territorial sovereignty.
This rhetoric, delivered at one of the most prestigious debating platforms in the world, reflects a deeper problem. It shows how religious doctrines, like supersessionism, can be weaponized to delegitimize entire peoples. But if we’re ever going to move toward peace, we need to break free from these zero-sum narratives. Both Jews and Palestinians have deep ties to the land. A better future can only be built on recognizing both peoples' shared humanity and history—not erasing one to elevate the other.
In the Qur’an, the Children of Israel are indeed described as inheritors of the Holy Land, as seen in Surah Al-Ma’idah (5:20-21):
“Moses said to his people: ‘O my people, enter the Holy Land which Allah has assigned to you.’”
Yet, later verses, particularly Surah Al-Baqarah (2:40-61), emphasize Jewish disobedience and divine punishment, which some Islamic scholars interpret as the nullification of Jewish claims to the land.
From this perspective, the Jewish people’s covenant with God is deemed broken, and Islamic rule over the land becomes theologically justified. The speaker builds on this narrative by dismissing any Jewish connection to the land as a “mythos and folklore”—a claim rooted in a centuries-old theological assertion that once Muslims rule a land, it becomes part of Dar al-Islam (the Abode of Islam) and remains a permanent waqf (religious endowment).
This idea was codified in Islamic jurisprudence by figures like Ibn Taymiyyah and remains a cornerstone of Islamist ideologies today. For groups like Hamas, the land of Palestine is explicitly considered an Islamic waqf, a status that precludes any non-Muslim sovereignty. In this framework, Zionism—a movement of Jewish self-determination—becomes not just a political challenge but a religious violation.
By declaring, “Your ancestors will always be buried in your actual homelands of Poland, Ukraine, and elsewhere around the world,” the speaker not only denies Jewish indigeneity but invokes the theological stance that Jews have no rightful place in the land. This is not a neutral political argument; it is a religious rejection of Jewish history, identity, and existence in the land of Israel.
Dehumanization: Dhimmitude and Anti-Jewish Qur’anic Narratives
The speaker’s language—describing Israelis as “sadistic,” “diabolical,” and reveling in “glee and joy” while committing atrocities—is more than vitriol; it reflects specific religious and cultural biases deeply rooted in Islamic history. In traditional Islamic thought, Jews were relegated to the status of dhimmi—protected but subordinate under Muslim rule. They were tolerated but viewed as morally and spiritually inferior, consistent with Qur’anic passages that describe Jews as:
- “Cursed by Allah” and turned into apes and swine for their disobedience (Surah Al-Baqarah 2:65, Surah Al-Ma'idah 5:60).
- “Breakers of covenants” and deserving of divine wrath (Surah Al-Baqarah 2:100).
While these verses have diverse interpretations and contexts, extremist groups and ideologues often weaponize them to justify antisemitic rhetoric and violence. The speaker’s assertion that Israelis derive “pleasure” from Palestinian suffering evokes these long-standing prejudices, portraying Jews as inherently malevolent and untrustworthy.
This dehumanization aligns with the theological discomfort that Jews—formerly subordinated under Islamic rule—are now sovereign people with power. The speaker’s portrayal of Jews as sadistic aggressors flips the historical power dynamic, weaponizing old stereotypes to frame Israeli self-defense as inherently evil. Such rhetoric does not criticize specific policies; it strips Jews of their humanity, reducing them to archetypes of moral corruption that have fueled antisemitism for centuries.
When she claims, “The harm they do is diabolical, and yet they expect you to believe that they are the victims,” she reflects a narrative deeply embedded in parts of Islamic history, where Jews were cast as conspirators undermining Muslim societies. This framing taps into cultural memories and extremist propaganda that portray Jews as perpetual villains, reinforcing hatred rather than addressing reality.
Weaponizing Palestinian Suffering: Martyrdom, Jihad, and the Theology of Resistance
The speaker’s glorification of Palestinian resistance aligns closely with Islamic concepts of jihad and shahada (martyrdom). In Islamic tradition, jihad has two forms: the “greater jihad,” a personal spiritual struggle, and the “lesser jihad,” a physical struggle against oppression. For centuries, the lesser jihad has been invoked as a religious duty in conflicts involving Muslim lands, particularly against non-Muslim rulers.
The speaker elevates Palestinian fighters as heroic martyrs, describing one man fighting “even when all he had was one functioning arm.” This rhetoric resonates with Qur’anic verses like Surah Al-Baqarah (2:154):
“Do not say of those who are slain in the way of Allah: ‘They are dead.’ Nay, they are living, though you perceive it not.”
By framing Palestinian resistance as sacred and inevitable, the speaker taps into a broader ideology where fighting against Israel—a state viewed as an illegitimate occupier of Islamic land—is not just a political act but a religious obligation. Palestinian suffering, then, becomes a tool to justify violence and elevate it to the level of divine struggle.
At the same time, the speaker’s refusal to mention Hamas or Palestinian leadership’s failures reflects a selective moral outrage that aligns with jihadist propaganda. Groups like Hamas and Hezbollah frame Palestinian suffering not as a tragedy to be alleviated but as a necessary sacrifice in a holy war against Israel. The speaker adopts this narrative wholesale, weaponizing Palestinian pain to demonize Israel while offering no real solutions for peace or coexistence.
Colonialism and Apartheid: Rejecting Jewish Sovereignty as a Religious Violation
The accusations of “colonialism” and “apartheid” are rooted not only in modern political rhetoric but in religious objections to Jewish sovereignty over Islamic land. The speaker claims, “Palestine will be free,” a euphemism that reflects the Islamist goal of dismantling Israel entirely.
In Islamic jurisprudence, once a territory is part of Dar al-Islam (the Abode of Islam), it is considered a permanent endowment to the Muslim community. The presence of a Jewish state in such a land is viewed not as a political reality but as a religious violation. This belief is enshrined in the Hamas charter, which states:
“The land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Muslim generations until Judgment Day.”
The speaker’s repeated assertion that Jews must “leave” reflects this religious worldview, where non-Muslims may reside in Muslim lands only under conditions of subordination (dhimmitude). Jewish sovereignty disrupts this hierarchy, and Zionism becomes not just a political challenge but a theological affront.
When she says, “Zionism is a blight onto Judaism,” she exploits this framework to delegitimize Jewish self-determination. Rather than acknowledging Israel as a homeland for historically displaced people, she frames it as an inherently oppressive movement that must be dismantled.
Rejecting Coexistence: A Vision Rooted in Religious Supremacy
The speaker’s vision leaves no room for coexistence or mutual recognition. By declaring that Palestinians will “restore” the land, she envisions a future where Jewish sovereignty is eradicated and Palestinians reclaim sole ownership. This vision is not about equality; it is about religious and cultural supremacy.
Islamist ideologies often frame coexistence as conditional on Muslim dominance. Non-Muslims may exist, but only as second-class citizens under Islamic rule. The speaker reflects this sentiment when she declares:
“You will either leave, or you will finally learn to live with others as equals.”
This is not a call for peaceful coexistence. “Equality” in this context means the subordination of Jewish identity and sovereignty to a Palestinian (and implicitly Islamic) framework. It demands not compromise but capitulation.
Conclusion: Ideology Masquerading as Justice
The speaker’s arguments are not driven solely by concern for Palestinian suffering but by a deeply ideological worldview rooted in Islamic supremacism, martyrdom theology, and theological rejection of Jewish sovereignty. Her rhetoric reflects centuries of religious biases, weaponized into modern political slogans to inflame hatred and reject any path toward peace.
True justice requires a vision that transcends these ideologies—one that makes room for both peoples, recognizes their shared history, and builds a future where Palestinians and Israelis can live with dignity, security, and freedom. This speech offers none of that. It weaponizes religion, history, and pain to perpetuate hatred, leaving no room for reconciliation or coexistence. To move forward, we must reject this rhetoric and build a vision rooted in shared humanity, not religious or ideological supremacy. Anything less is not justice—it is vengeance cloaked in moral outrage.
References
Firestone, R. (2008). An Introduction to Islam for Jews. Jewish Publication Society.
Lewis, B. (1984). The Jews of Islam. Princeton University Press.
Peters, F. E. (1979). Jerusalem: The Holy City in the Eyes of Chroniclers, Visitors, Pilgrims, and Prophets from the Days of Abraham to the Beginnings of Modern Times. Princeton University Press.
Tim Orr is a scholar of Islam, Evangelical minister, conference speaker, and interfaith consultant with over 30 years of experience in cross-cultural ministry. He holds six degrees, including a master’s in Islamic studies from the Islamic College in London. Tim taught Religious Studies for 15 years at Indiana University Columbus and is now a Congregations and Polarization Project research associate at the Center for the Study of Religion and American Culture at Indiana University Indianapolis. He has spoken at universities, including Oxford University, Imperial College London, the University of Tehran, Islamic College London, and mosques throughout the U.K. His research focuses on American Evangelicalism, Islamic antisemitism, and Islamic feminism, and he has published widely, including articles in Islamic peer-reviewed journals and three books.
Sign up for Dr. Tim Orr's Blog
Dr. Tim Orr isn't just your average academic—he's a passionate advocate for interreligious dialogue, a seasoned academic, and an ordained Evangelical minister with a unique vision.
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.