As a people generally led and governed by prophets for ages, and as the recipients of numerous revelations from God, the Children of Israel (Israelites and Jews) must have been familiar with the canon that espouses the sanctity of human life.

That is why the Qur’an refers to the Jews – and Christians - as the “People of the Book”, which is as much an honour as accountability. The Qur’an thus instructs Muslims not to argue with them except in a way that is best, “except for those who commit injustice among them.”

The crux of Muslim involvement in discussions and disagreements with the People of the Book should emanate from the essence of these Qur’anic normative words: “We believe in that which has been revealed to us and revealed to you. And our God and your God is one; and we are Muslims (in submission) to Him” (al-‘Ankabut 46).

The first to engage in jihad

The Jews (Children of Israel as the followers of Prophet Musa or Moses) were the first in history to be instructed to engage in jihad, setting a precedent. In passing, jihad denotes an utmost struggle by the legitimate means in order to render the Word of Allah the highest on earth, the ultimate form of which – if warranted – is holy war.

Commencing with the creation of man on earth and with the first human civilizational footprints on earth, God did not command the believing segments of humankind led by their prophets and succeeding religious leaderships to defend themselves and their Islamic faith against the injustices and tyrannies of nonbelievers by means of jihad.

Rather, as per the heavenly sunan (divine constants and methods of operation), the believers were asked to remain steadfast and endure patiently until God Himself decides to intervene and help the believers overcome their and God’s enemies. It was normally the direct involvement of the power of God that was responsible for the victories of the believers, during which the disobedient, defiant and cruel nonbelieving communities, most of the time, were utterly wiped off the face of the earth.

Attending to the heartlessness and evil of the supporters of falsehood, either by means of God’s direct interventions or by means of jihad, was necessary, first, because of the rule that confrontations between good and evil will be unceasing and brutal, wherefore the forces of evil, as a rule, will be the main culprits; and second, because of the fact that Satan and his followers (hizb al-shaytan, according to the Qur’anic terminology) never rest; they are constantly preparing and arming themselves, recruiting new members, and diversifying, as well as intensifying, their operating procedures.

For example, the rebellious people of Prophet Nuh were destroyed by the great flood (deluge), the people of Prophet Hud, ‘Ad, by a furious, bitter wind, the people of Prophet Salih, Thamud, by a terrible storm of thunder and lightning, the people of Prophet Shu’ayb, the Medianites, by a mighty earthquake, the people of Prophet Lut by a shower of stones of clay, and finally, Pharaoh and his army by drowning in the Red Sea.

However, after the exodus of the Israelites from Egypt, and after they had been presented with a chance to live in their own (promised) land and under the aegis of their own rules and regulations - thereby essentially placing their individual and collective destinies into their own hands, and elevating their status from the level of a mere people (qawm) to the level of an ummah (an exemplary foremost community propelled by a magnanimous and shared philosophy, vision, mission and goals) – the Israelites were commanded to undertake the sacred duty of jihad.

The stipulations of jihad

The new legislation, certainly, was a natural consequence of the gradual implementation of the special template intended for the social and cultural enrichment of the Israelites, which resided at the heart of the Abrahamic Covenant, yet stood for its focal point and even soul.

The jihad legislation was also an integral part of the rapid developments that pertained to the evolution of the civilization-making processes.

Though through the jihad mandate the principal onus was placed on the believers, that by no means implies that God wished to stay inactive, and that the believers, left to fend for themselves, were assigned to accomplish all tasks and, against all the odds, always triumph in the end. More accurately, God was still there and on the side of the believers, but the believers were responsible for inducing and activating divine interventions.

The believers were the cause, the latter the effect. The divine help was quiescent, as it were, waiting for instigation.

The following messages of the Qur’an affirm the mentioned subtleties of jihad. The Qur’anic texts are explicit that Almighty God inevitably helps but only the (true) believers; that surely God will help the one who helps Him (His cause) (al-Hajj 40); that if the believers help God (His cause), He will help them and plant firmly their feet (Muhammad 7); that patience, piety, remembrance of God, obedience, cooperation and adequate preparations, are the prerequisites of God’s assistance and victory (Alu ‘Imran 125; al-Anfal 46-47, 60, 66).

Against the above provisions is one supposed to read and understand the somewhat general precepts to the effect that the help of Almighty God is ever near (al-Baqarah 214); that there is neither help nor victory except from God (Alu ‘Imran 126); that God is competent to give anybody victory (al-Hajj 39); that God gives victory to whom He wills (al-Rum 5); and that helping the believers is ever incumbent on God (al-Rum 47).

In the same vein is the gist of these words of the Qur’an as well: “Indeed, Allah will not change the condition of a people until they change what is in themselves” (al-Ra’d 11); and: “That is because Allah would not change a favour which He had bestowed upon a people until they change what is within themselves” (al-Anfal 53).

With the decree-cum-honour of jihad came a huge responsibility. If misconstrued and mishandled, certain elements of jihad could be distorted and so, lead to some dire repercussions.

Thus, no sooner had jihad been enacted, than a form of jihad ethics (jus in bello or moral laws of war) was ordained. This positively means that since the Israelites were entrusted with the duty of jihad first, they were also entrusted with its moral code and principles first.

The Qur’anic reference to the Promised Land

It all began when the Israelites arrived at the threshold of the Promised Land under the leadership of Prophet Musa (Moses), whereupon they refused to make some nominal sacrifices and enter (liberate) the Land. The initiative culminated in their entry into the Land forty years later under the leadership of (Prophet) Joshua.

There are two versions of those events: the Qur’anic version and the one found in the Old Testament (Hebrew Bible). Based on the Qur’anic narrative, as a requirement for entering and attaining the Promised Land, which God had assigned to the Israelites - wherein their forefather Prophet Ya’qub (Jacob, also named Israel) had already lived with his family prior to their migration to Egypt, and where the al-Aqsa mosque had already been established and had been beckoning – the Israelites needed to overcome the challenge of “a people of exceeding and tyrannical strength” (al-Ma’idah 22).

From this Qur’anic reference, three conclusions can be made – and Almighty Allah knows best. First, in the Promised Land there was only a people (nation), not peoples or nations. This connotes that the Land either was not as extensive as customarily thought, or was but was not densely populated. Accordingly, given that the timeframe of the events in question represents the genesis of human civilization when mass migrations were a common phenomenon, the Land must have been sparsely occupied and could certainly accommodate more than a people.

Second, the Land was regarded as holy and pure because of its perennial association with the legacies of prophets and holy revelations, at the core of which the idea and socio-cultural reality of the Israelites stood. As stated by the majority of the commentators of the Qur’an, the Land was designated for the Israelites right from the beginning and inside the Preserved Tablet (al-lawh al-mahfuz). That is to say, the Land was given to the Israelites before it was even created.

Hence, the Israelites were returning from Egypt not only to a specific geographic location, but also to their ontological milieu. They were returning to the very essence of their existence, to their true home where they (Prophet Ya’qub as Israel and his household that consisted of twelve sons as the originators of the twelve tribes of Israel) had previously lived.

And the third conclusion drawn from the above Qur’anic mention is that the problem lied neither with the Israelites nor the prospect of their return to their divinely promised Land, but with the people of exceeding and tyrannical strength who had come and settled in the Land.

The adjective “jabbarin”, which means “extremely big and strong, tyrannical and despotic”, reveals that those people were impossible to coexist with. Tolerating them was not an option either. Owing to their repressive nature and generally evil ways, they did not (could not) know about the primordial promise of God to the Israelites.

Without doubt, if they by any degree and at any point of their national existence were inclined to the truth, the “jabbarin” people would have known something about the Abrahamic Covenant as one of the most consequential moments in history, and would have been disposed to accommodating the realization of a divine plan for the Israelites.

Just as the truth of the Almighty God is welcoming and accommodating for all humans, so is His earth, including the Promised Land with all the boons and blessings entailed in its bosom.

Entering the Promised Land by the Israelites spelled the assertion of the truth and the application of justice as well as goodness. Only the misguided and evil ones could see the matter otherwise.

It was apparent that the tyrannical people in the Promised Land refused to change their ways, rejecting the opportunity to be big enough and have capacity for both the Israelites and the truth, due to which the first instance of jihad was prescribed against them.

However, inasmuch as the Israelites eventually betrayed Prophet Musa and the entire Promised Land mission - whereby they were sentenced to a forty-year wandering in the wilderness – the actual fighting was not resorted to during the time of Musa. The same, it is safely assumed, came to pass later when (Prophet) Joshua, Musa’s successor, led the Israelites into the Land.

While still on the topic, although it is understood here that there was only one nation in the Promised Land, the Qur’anic text – as a matter of fact - does not rule out the possibility of there being more than one. Looking at it from a different especially linguistic perspective, the text could also suggest that there were multiple nations, yet only one was deemed as “jabbarin.”

The first jihad ethics

As expected, the prescription of jihad also entailed the prescription of jihad, or war, ethics. The two are intertwined and cannot operate separately. The first hint of the existence of the moral principles that had to be observed in relation to the entry into the Promised Land was the fact that the Land was holy and blessed and that entering it was an injunction from God, which pointed towards the necessity of the highest spiritual and moral standards that had to preside over the whole enterprise.

The Israelites were likewise asked to be obedient and steadfast, lest they turn ignominiously in flight and become losers. Moreover, describing Joshua and Caleb - the two individuals from a minority group who remained loyal and did not disappoint Prophet Musa, willing to enter the Land and confront its oppressive inhabitants – as God-fearing on whom God had bestowed His grace, implies the range and profundity of the newly-introduced jihad ethics.

When the two rightly-guided men partially counselled and partially admonished their disobedient and cowardly compatriots, emphasizing that the proven formula for victories was a combination of excellent war tactics and an attitude that involves belief in and reliance upon God, the development of a new behavioural ethos was accomplished (al-Ma’idah 20-23).

That is why at that particular juncture the Israelites had no choice but to make a final stand against the dictates of heaven, insolently telling Prophet Musa: “O Musa, indeed we will not enter it (the Holy Promised Land), ever, as long as they (the tyrannical people) are within it; so go, you and your Lord, and fight. Indeed, we will sit here (and watch)” (al-Ma’idah 24).

Musa, too, was then left with no other option but to respond in like manner, delivering a final verdict on the Israelites and sealing their spiritual-qua-civilizational fate once and for all. Musa declared that he did not belong to his disobedient people, nor did they belong to him, hence Musa’s plea to God to separate him from them and their evil deeds.

Musa conclusively depicted the renegades who constituted the overwhelming majority as “the defiantly rebellious and evil-doing group (fasiqun).” The Qur’an says about this: “He (Musa) said: ‘O my Lord! I have power only over myself and my brother; so separate us from this rebellious people (evil-doers, fasiqun)!’” (al-Ma’idah 25).

Answering the prayer of Musa, and at the same time confirming that the majority of the Israelites were fasiqun, who did not have what it takes either to enter the Promised Land by dint of the jihad institution or to dwell therein, God prohibited the Israelites from entering the Land for forty years to allow for the transition from a depraved and unqualified generation to a worthier one capable of fulfilling the Israelite destiny.

The Qur’an says: “(Allah) said: ‘So it (the Promised Land) shall surely be forbidden to them for forty years, they shall wander about in the land (the earth), therefore do not grieve for the nation of transgressors (fasiqun)’” (al-Ma’idah 26).

The sophisticated and intense nature of the jihad ethics

When after the last verse cited above the Qur’anic discourse suddenly turns to the story of the two sons of Prophet Adam: Qabil (Cain) and Habil (Abel), whereby the former murdered the latter for no other reasons except malice, jealousy, selfishness and greed, the Qur’an wishes to lay emphasis on the sophisticated and intense nature of the jihad ethics.

Such signified a segment of a format containing a universal moral code that encompassed the whole of humanity, all contexts and all times. The code placed the sanctity of innocent human life in general on a pedestal, perceiving it as the measure of all things and of all human terrestrial undertakings. The components of the truth and faith reinforce the paradigm and elevate it to the topmost realms of spirituality and the Hereafter.

As part of Prophet Musa’s divine teachings, the story of the first unjust murder on earth and its wide-ranging consequences struck a chord with the Israelites. The story served as a regular reminder for them to assess the lessons they could gain from it.

The substance of the derived morals revolved around the notions of devotion, virtue, wisdom, courage, and success or failure at once in the earthly and spiritual kingdoms. After the trajectories of the models of Qabil and Habil had been outlined, the Israelites were warned as to which trajectory they wanted to adopt: the wicked, inhuman, cowardly and self-destructive one of Qabil, or the virtuous, benevolent, fearless and approving one of Habil.

Indeed, the Israelites stood at the crossroads. They were the first to be tasked with institutionalizing and nationalizing either the Qabil or Habil patterns.

Unfortunately, as history has shown, the majority were inclined to the former option. For that reason does the Qur’an demand accountability from the Israelites for their (mis)conduct, urging them to contemplate on their misdeeds and the inherited convictions that have shaped their behaviour over the course of time. The commencement of the Qur’anic narrative concerning the Qabil and Habil incident says it all.

The Qur’an begins the account with the words: “And recite (O Muhammad) to them (the Israelites) the story of Adam's two sons…” (al-Ma’idah 27).

This means that in his capacity as the seal of prophets and the last messenger of God to mankind - including the Israelites or Jews - Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him and his family), whose primary prophetic duty was to rectify the past, recalibrate the present, and set the stage for the emergence of the brightest future humanity has ever known, was to remind the Israelites not only of their crimes - in the process setting the records straight - but also of the given ideological foundations and conceptual frameworks which they have readily tampered with in order to fit their unholy religious and nationalistic agendas.

Finally, the Qur’anic verse that comes after the Qabil and Habil story puts the finishing touches to the original and everlasting jihad ethics, and also to the Israelites’ ill-disposed relationship with it. The Qur’an underscores that, owing to the despicable nature of murder (taking innocent human lives) and its equally despicable psychological and societal corollaries - all of which had been exhibited throughout the episode of Qabil’s murder of Habil - the apex of the jihad ethics first revealed to the Israelites was the unequivocal sacredness of an innocent human life.

So sacrosanct is a human life in the sight of God that it is equivalent to the lives of all human beings. As a result - the Qur’an brings to light - “if anyone killed a person not in retaliation of murder, or (and) to spread mischief in the land - it would be as if he killed all mankind, and if anyone saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of all mankind” (al-Ma’idah 32).

As an illustration of the idea entailed in this verse, Prophet Muhammad said that “no human being is killed unjustly but a part of responsibility for the crime is laid on the first son of Adam who invented the tradition of killing (murdering) on the earth” (Sahih al-Bukhari).

The reason for this is obvious, based on the Qur’anic precept mentioned: so dire and so far- reaching were the implications of Qabil’s indefensible crime that they encompassed “all mankind.” In reality, an attack on one innocent life is an attack on all lives.

If a single person feels unsafe, the whole world is unsafe. “To kill or seek to kill an individual because he represents an ideal is to kill all who uphold the ideal. On the other hand, to save an individual life in the same circumstances is to save a whole community” (Abdullah Yusuf Ali, The Holy Quran - Text, Translation and Commentary).

The Qur’an is explicit that the above breathtaking, yet dramatic, precept had been decreed upon the Israelites. The precept exemplified a vital part of the clear signs and proofs a plethora of Israelite and other messengers never stopped communicating to the Israelites. However, many members of the Israelite community, “even after that, throughout the land, remained transgressors” (al-Ma’idah 32).

Henceforth, the Israelites have gained notoriety as transgressors, distorters of holy scriptures, abusers and even slayers of prophets, and exterminators of communities that obstructed their subsequent conquest of the Promised Land. Instead of leading the world and setting the best example for other nations, the Israelites did the opposite. They constantly put themselves at odds with the world and heaven, as well as with people and God.

As a nation cursed by God, angels, prophets and people, none of broadmindedness, coexistence, inclusivity, and acceptance were ever their strong suit. Forging transnational friendships and alliances based on good and moral causes was anomalous to them, with nationalistic preferences, self-centredness and matter-worship being the main driving factors for engaging in enterprises, inspired works and creative initiatives.

God’s covenant with the Children of Israel and the case of twelve leaders or naqibs

The essence of the first jihad ethics was also encapsulated in the words of the Qur’an when it highlighted that, following the exodus from Egypt, God had taken a covenant from the Children of Israel. Within the framework of the occurrence, God appointed twelve leaders or chieftains (naqibs), representing the twelve tribes of the Children of Israel. Those leaders - and through them the rest of the Israelites – were informed of the terms of the covenant.

The terms were as follows: “I (Allah) am with you. If you establish prayer and practice regular charity and believe in My messengers and support them and loan Allah a goodly loan, I will surely remove from you your misdeeds and admit you to gardens beneath which rivers flow. But whoever of you disbelieves after that has certainly strayed from the soundness of the way” (al-Ma’idah 12).

What is noteworthy about the covenant and its all-inclusive provisions is that those twelve leaders or naqibs were also the spies whom Prophet Musa had dispatched to survey the conditions of the Promised Land for a period of forty days. It was required of them to present their findings to Musa, upon which a tactical plan for the conquest of the Land was anticipated to be created.

According to the Old Testament, Musa told the twelve Israelite leaders-cum-spies: “See what the land is like and whether the people living there are strong or weak, few or many. Is the land they live in good or bad? Do their cities have walls around them or not? Is the soil rich or poor? Does the land have trees or not? Do your best to bring back some fruit from the land” (Numbers 13:18-20).

It stands to reason that the terms of the covenant were as much general for the lives of the Israelites as specific for the effort to conquer the Promised Land. In the aftermath of the conquest, the community of the Israelites were expected to be ushered into an unprecedented phase of carving out their national identity and territorial integrity, placing them on equal footing with other communities in the arena of shaping history and building civilization. The groundwork of that novel phase would be the manner (ethics) in which they have entered and conquered the Promised Land.

That is to say, the ethics of entry into and conquest of the Land (jihad ethics) was the small-scale version of the general Israelite ethics. It was also the quintessence of everything else that was later constructed in the name of an emerging Israelite culture. Said differently, the jihad ethics was a type of prescriptive or normative ethics whence a more comprehensive system of applied ethics issued, all of which – when all is said and done - were enshrined in the terms of the mentioned covenant.

Hence, the belief in one God and His messengers, establishing prayer, kindness, benevolence, and good work – as the stipulations of the covenant - may have been initially required as part of the ethics of jihad, which were later integrated into the overall ethics of the Israelites.

Alternatively, it could also be that the common denominators of the general ethics were first given, but whose first particularized and implementational aspect was the ethics of jihad.