With the triad of the Israelites’ rejection to enter the Holy Promised Land, the account of Qabil’s murder of Habil, and the reminder of the Israelite principle that emphasized the sanctity of human life - the Qur'an summarizes the fundamental principles of the early ethics of jihad that revolved around the Promised Land, which is essentially the first part of this article).

However, if not for Prophet Muhammad and the Qur’an as the final revelation - i.e. the final Testament to the world, remedying and overshadowing the Old and New Testaments – this truth would have never been brought to light.

So as to avoid contradicting their traditions and practices and to prevent embarrassment, the Israelites worked tirelessly to manipulate the relevant episodes of history and passages of their scriptures to fit their defiant behaviours and shallow nationalistic tendencies. It is undeniable that the moral principles of jihad were the most important components that needed attention.

Hence, the original magnanimous religion of Judaism, affiliated with some of the greatest prophets in history, in due course evolved into a socio-cultural and jingoistic concoction, and the noblest idea of jihad into the schemes of decadent nationalistic conquests and the ensuing struggles for survival. These processes reached the peak with the emergence of Zionism whose character is defined by the unspeakable crimes connected with it. The unlawful creation of the state of Israel in 1948 was the net product, an illegitimate geopolitical “offspring.”

The Jewish ideology of ethnic supremacy

To begin with – for illustrative purposes – when the Old Testament, or Jewish Bible, speaks about the prospect of entering the Promised Land during the time of Moses (Prophet Musa), and about the eventual conquest under the leadership of Joshua, there are no references whatsoever to the elements of the sublime war (jihad) ethics. The focus is rather on the sheer material and national interests of the Israelites and, indirectly, on their incompatibility with other nations and their own interests.

Obviously, those were the days when the first seeds of the Jewish nationalism, their ethnocentrically mutilated religiosity, and materialism as a preferred creed – what the Jews have been known for throughout history and continue to be known for today - were planted.

Even when there are scant allusions to God - such as Joshua’s and Caleb’s words while reporting about the Promised Land, in the wake of the forty-day surveillance operation, that “if the Lord is pleased with us, then He will bring us into this land and give it to us”, “only do not rebel against the Lord”, and “their protection is gone from them (nations in the Promised Land), and the Lord is with us; do not fear them” (Numbers 14:8-9) – those allusions are to the God of Israel exclusively, who is in charge of the destiny of His “children”, His “chosen people” and His “beloved” (al-Ma’idah 18).

Those biblical allusions furthermore serve as the indicators of the Jewish ideology of ethnic supremacy, which is clearly reinforced in numerous passages of the scriptures. It is said, for instance, that the Israelites “are a people holy to the Lord your God. The Lord your God has chosen you out of all the peoples on the face of the earth to be his people, his treasured possession” (Deuteronomy 7:6).

The Qur’an refutes these assertions as ludicrous, emphasizing to the Jews - and Christians - that they are but a part of humanity with a designated civilizational purpose - similar to other nations - which nevertheless they have failed to fulfil. The Qur’an reminds: “But the Jews and the Christians say: ‘We are the children of Allah and His beloved.’

Say: ‘Then why does He punish you for your sins?’ Rather, you are human beings from among those He has created. He forgives whom He wills, and He punishes whom He wills. And to Allah belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth and whatever is between them, and to Him is the (final) destination” (al-Ma’idah 18).

A nation or many nations in the Promised Land

Unlike the Qur’an, which asserts that in the Promised Land there was only one nation or community, the Bible claims that the Land was dotted with nations. Some reports indicate that there were as many as seven nations (Deuteronomy 7:1).

This necessitated a decisive and stern approach. In order to carry out the programs of the conquest, appropriation and Israelization of the Promised Land successfully, the “crowded” Land had to be cleansed and the enemies exterminated. No traces of them and their existence were to be left, in case they might one day wish to disrupt the plans and developments of the Israelite nation.

God thus commanded the Israelites as to the nature and purpose of the conquest of the Promised Land:

“When the Lord your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you many nations - the Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites, seven nations larger and stronger than you – and when the Lord your God has delivered them over to you and you have defeated them, then you must destroy them totally. Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy. Do not intermarry with them. Do not give your daughters to their sons or take their daughters for your sons, for they will turn your children away from following me to serve other gods, and the Lord’s anger will burn against you and will quickly destroy you. This is what you are to do to them: Break down their altars, smash their sacred stones, cut down their Asherah poles… The Lord did not set his affection on you and choose you because you were more numerous than other peoples, for you were the fewest of all peoples. But it was because the Lord loved you and kept the oath he swore to your ancestors that he brought you out with a mighty hand and redeemed you from the land of slavery, from the power of Pharaoh king of Egypt. Know therefore that the Lord your God is God; he is the faithful God, keeping his covenant of love to a thousand generations of those who love him and keep his commandments” (Deuteronomy 7:1-9).

By the way, consisting of several sub-communities, the Canaanites - descendants of Canaan, the grandson of Prophet Nuh (Noah) – are often said to have inhabited the whole of the Promised Land. However, the same people are also occasionally referred to as merely one of the nations living in the Land.

It is therefore unclear which single nation the Qur’an, and which multiple nations the Bible, aim at exactly. Those varying accounts yet prompted some scholars today to “consider the Canaanites more of an ethnic unit than a nation, per se. Some even consider them to be a specific social class (merchants)” (Mike Leake, Who Were the Canaanites, and Why Did God Order Their Destruction?).

The sanctioned acts of genocide

All things considered, it can be deduced that the Old Testament granted the Israelites the authority not only to take lives, but also to carry out mass exterminations of the peoples occupying the Promised Land, in order to purify it from their spiritual and national impurities.

In other words, the Israelites were granted a licence to engage in acts of genocide, causing mass murders and destroying entire cultural and civilizational legacies, all in the name of God and to fulfil a divine promise. Total annihilations were good, praiseworthy and sought after, functioning as the foundation of the Kingdom of Israel and as the quintessence of an Israelite collective consciousness as well as existence.

Some texts of the Old Testament are so graphic and gory that they should not be categorized as materials for public consumption, especially for children. A disclaimer should be included to request the readers discretion. There is no one, whether a believer in Judaism, Christianity, or any other faith, who does not struggle to reconcile those texts with the demands of pure human nature, reason (nous) and common sense.

For example, when Moses (Musa) was mandated to take vengeance on the Midianites for the sons of Israel, the Israelites were instructed by God to be determined and merciless. Doing what God had commanded them, the Israelite army, consisting of twelve thousand soldiers, a thousand from each tribe, killed every male, took captive the women of Midian and their little ones; and they plundered all their cattle, all their flocks, and all their property. Then they burned all their cities where they lived and all their encampments.

The Israelite army took the plunder and the spoils, both of people and of livestock, to Moses, who nevertheless became angry with his military officers for they have spared women. Seeing the foreign women as a potential source of peril, Moses exclaimed: “Have you spared all the women? Behold, they caused the sons of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to be unfaithful to the Lord in the matter of Peor, so that the plague took place among the congregation of the Lord!”

Moses then ordered, so as to execute the Lord’s vengeance on Midian: “Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known a man intimately. However, all the girls who have not known a man intimately, keep alive for yourselves” (Numbers 31:1-18).

The book of Deuteronomy as the fifth book of the Torah and the Old Testament, delineating Israel’s relationship with their God, is perhaps most uncompromising. In it, God insists that He is the God of Israel. Consistent with His primordial promise, God is always there for His people, blessing them and doing them various favours.

He thus assured them that they will lend to many nations but will borrow from none, and will rule over many nations but none will rule over them. Moreover, in order to maintain the national supremacy and cultural purity, God emphasized that the rulers of Israel must be from fellow Israelites. A foreigner, one who is not an Israelite, cannot rule in the land of Israel and over the Israelites.

However, with the object of facilitating the above, the Israelites were directed to drive out and utterly destroy all the nations whose lands God was giving the Israelites. Once they have done so and have settled in their towns and houses, the Israelites were further commanded not to learn to imitate the repugnant ways of the earlier nations which had lived in the Land. The prescribed protocol dictated a complete separation from others. This indicates that apart from people, all traces, material or otherwise, were to be eliminated, displaying all signs of not only a physical, but also cultural, genocide.

In the context of the “Israelite war ethics”, the core principle is that God is always with His chosen people and His beloved, and it is He who does fighting for them. Thus, the Israelites were told not to be fainthearted or afraid “for the Lord your God is the one who goes with you to fight for you against your enemies to give you victory.”

The following are the ways the Israelites were supposed to deal with their enemies in general, and with those that were to be exterminated in the Promised Land in particular. “When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labour and shall work for you. If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. When the Lord your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the Lord your God gives you from your enemies. This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby. However, in the cities of the nations the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. Completely destroy them – the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites - as the Lord your God has commanded you. Otherwise, they will teach you to follow all the detestable things they do in worshiping their gods, and you will sin against the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 20:1-18).

Duly implementing the prescribed “war ethics”, when Joshua captured the city of Jericho, after God had delivered it into his hands as the successor of Moses, “they (the Israelite army) devoted the city to the Lord and destroyed with the sword every living thing in it - men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep and donkeys” (Joshua 6:21). The only person saved was Rahab the prostitute and all who were with her in her house, because she hid some spies that Moses had sent to scout out the Promised Land (Joshua 6:17).

Also, when capturing the Canaanite city of Ai, Joshua and the Israelites did the same thing. They killed everyone, leaving neither survivors nor fugitives. There were two stages of the battle: one in the fields and in the wilderness where the Israelites had hunted the people of Ai, and the other in the city itself.

“When Israel had finished killing all the men of Ai in the fields and in the wilderness where they had chased them, and when every one of them had been put to the sword, all the Israelites returned to Ai and killed those who were in it. Twelve thousand men and women fell that day - all the people of Ai. For Joshua did not draw back the hand that held out his javelin until he had destroyed all who lived in Ai. But Israel did carry off for themselves the livestock and plunder of this city, as the Lord had instructed Joshua. So Joshua burned Ai and made it a permanent heap of ruins, a desolate place to this day. He impaled the body of the king of Ai on a pole and left it there until evening. At sunset, Joshua ordered them to take the body from the pole and throw it down at the entrance of the city gate. And they raised a large pile of rocks over it, which remains to this day” (Joshua 8:1-29).

As Joshua continued his unstoppable march into the Promised Land, conquering one city after another especially in the Southern and Northern sectors of the Land – because it was the Lord who was “fighting for Israel” – the recurring theme of the reports detailing the campaigns is that in each city everything was destroyed, everyone who breathed was put to the sword, nothing was left intact and there were no survivors. The rulers of those cities were not just killed, but also humiliated and extensively tortured (Joshua 10:16-43; 11:1-23).

That the same Israelite “war ethics” was a norm and was observed even after the conquest of the Promised Land, testifies a passage in the Old Testament (1 Samuel 15:1-35). The content of the passage revolves around Saul, the first monarch of the United Kingdom of Israel, whose rule signified the Israelite transition from a scattered tribal society to an organized state.

According to the passage, the first kingly assignment of King Saul was to punish the Amalekites - who were predominantly nomads living in the northern Sinai Peninsula – for attacking the Israelites immediately after their exodus from Egypt. King Saul was requested to totally destroy the Amalekites and all that belonged to them. The orders were precise and were delivered to Saul from God by Prophet Samuel: “Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys” (1 Samuel 15:3).

King Saul obeyed the command, but chose to save the life of Agag, the ruler of the Amalekites. He also spared the best of the sheep and cattle, the fat calves and lambs - everything that was good – as the spoils of war. “These they were unwilling to destroy completely, but everything that was despised and weak they totally destroyed” (1 Samuel 15:9).

However, since King Saul did not carry out the duties to the letter – that is, to completely destroy the Amalekites; to wage war against them until they are wiped out (1 Samuel 15:18) – God regretted that He had made him the king of the Israelites. King Saul’s saving of Agag and taking the best of the sheep and cattle of the Amalekites as the plunder, God perceived as turning away from Him and failing to carry out His instructions.

Prophet Samuel was also upset unconsolably as a consequence. In the end, Prophet Samuel was the one responsible for killing the chained Agag, the Amalekite king, as a last resort to somewhat mitigate the unfortunate development (1 Samuel 15:33).

The sly schemes of the Israelites

The Israelites were able to tolerate, yet epitomize, the lack of authentic war ethics, at the centre of which stood the respect for the sanctity of human life, because of their much bigger crimes against God, prophets, revelations and the truth. As a matter of fact, the former was merely the corollary of the latter.

Which means if the Israelites did not harbour any concerns over their unceasing transgressions against God, did not fret over their ethos of twisting the revealed scriptures and distorting the truth, and did not hold the lives of their prophets sacred, one wonders why the Israelites - above all if their personal materialistic and collective nationalistic interests were at stake – would care about any other “less relevant” sanctity, value and life.

The truth is that they do not care, and the most compelling modern evidence is the creation of the state of Israel, whose each historical and socio-political aspect is soaked in the blood of the innocent Palestinian population. Living in their own jingoistic cocoons, oblivious to the criticism and condemnations of the majority of the international community, they are happy to be isolated and ostracized.

They are happy to be the world’s pariah. To them, that is the price for being special, chosen and above-the-rest. The world, an assemblage of the communities of the Canaanite and Amalekite ilk, is too myopic and too dumb to understand the truth, to come to terms with who is who in the grand scheme of things.

This is how the Qur’an portrays the malicious attitude, as well as the psychological state, of the prevalent rebellious sections of the Israelites: “Then your (the Israelites’) hearts hardened after that, so that they were like rocks, rather worse in hardness; and surely there are some rocks from which streams burst forth, and surely there are some of them which split asunder so water issues out of them, and surely there are some of them which fall down for fear of Allah, and Allah is not at all heedless of what you do. Do you (Muslims) then hope that they would believe in you, and a party from among them indeed used to hear the Word of Allah, then altered it after they had understood it, and they know (this)? (al-Baqarah 74-75).

“So for their (the Israelites’) breaking of the covenant We cursed them and made their hearts hard. They distort words from their (proper) usages and have forgotten a portion of that of which they were reminded. And you will still observe deceit among them, except a few of them. But pardon them and overlook (their misdeeds). Indeed, Allah loves the doers of good” (al-Ma’idah 13).

The absence of authentic Israelite war ethics is a compelling indication of the ongoing falsification and forgery schemes among the Israelites. At the receiving end was also the story of Qabil’s murder of Habil and the ruling that an innocent life is equivalent to the whole human race, both of which were intended to serve as a blueprint for formulating and monitoring the implementation of the missing ethical system.

The Qabil-versus-Habil (Cain-versus-Abel) incident

It is evident how spiritually rich the Qur’anic narrative about the Qabil-versus-Habil (Cain-versus-Abel) incident is. However, the same does not hold true with the Old Testament counterpart. The latter is presented as a mere story, an event in the sea of other supplementary events, rather than an episode that has had a lasting impact on the course of human history and on the fundamental nature of human consciousness and destiny.

The biblical narrative, instead of representing a microcosm of faith and the human spiritual purpose and mission on earth, has been stripped of its spirituality and resembles more of a myth or folk legend.

What is more, Qabil the murderer was only partly punished, to live marked under a curse, and to be a restless wanderer on the earth. He was partly forgiven and protected too. Even though it may seem like God abandoned him, there was still a small opportunity for redemption.

Thrust into a life of ups and downs, joys and sorrows - all under the infinite grace of the Almighty God - there was always a glimmer of hope for Qabil. He needed to learn to live with the consequences of his sin, embrace them - however painful they were – make necessary adjustments, and move on. The open-ended nature of his case was meant to convey the idea that hope knows no limits and possibilities are endless in life. Both the Qur’anic and biblical versions of Qabil’s murder epitomize the case of the Israelites.

With reference to the Qur’an, according to Abdullah Yusuf Ali in his translation and commentary of the Qur’an, “among the Christians, Qabil was the type of the Jew as against Habil the Christian. The Jew tried to kill Jesus and exterminate the Christian. In the same way, as against Prophet Muhammad, the younger brother of the Semitic family, Qabil was the type of the Old Testament and New Testament people, who tried to resist and kill Muhammad and put down his people.”

The Qur’an uses the story of the first murder on earth to warn especially the Israelites – and through them the rest of the world - that any unjustified murder, regardless of motives and aims, is an outrageous crime leading to serious consequences.

Moreover, according to al-Maududi in his commentary of the Qur’an (Tafhim al-Qur’an), “the story of the two sons of Adam has been related to reproach the Jews in a subtle manner for their plot to kill the Holy Prophet and some of his eminent Companions. The similarity between the two incidents is quite obvious. The Jews plotted against the Holy Prophet and his Companions for the same reason for which the erring son of Adam had slain his pious brother. The Jews became jealous of the Holy Prophet and his Companions because God withdrew His Favor from them and bestowed it upon the un-lettered Arabs just because the former lacked piety and the latter were God-fearing. Instead of considering the matter coolly and considering why they had been condemned and making up for their error which had brought God's wrath on them, they plotted to kill those whom God had blessed with His favours. And they did so in spite of the fact that they knew it well that their evil reaction could not win the favour of Allah but would make them even more condemnable than before.”

As far as the biblical version is concerned, the Qabil-versus-Habil story has been edited and adjusted to conform to the newly-found exclusivist and confrontational penchant of the Israelites. Torn between the wants of the self and the pressures of heaven, the instance of Qabil was an embodiment of the instance of Israel, which, too, lived torn between the debased individual and nationalized requisites and the eternally binding terms of the covenants with God.

While they could not completely avoid shouldering the burdens of sins, including those that pertained to taking the life of others, in particular the life of non-Israelites, the Israelites could at least find some solace in the fate of Qabil. Despite the despicable nature of his crime, his fate was still encompassed by the unconditional compassion and love of God.

The Israelites continually pushed the boundaries of God's patience, ultimately becoming experts in that forbidden “skill”. Their incessant crimes notwithstanding, the Israelites never wanted to severe their relationship with their God beyond repair and, hence, to live completely detached from His love and mercy. That is why distorting the account of Qabil’s murder was critical. By manipulating it, the Israelites were able to turn it to their advantage, working in their favour, instead of against them.

The Israelites did not want to silence the pleas of their nationalized all—loving and all-forgiving God. They yearned for the echoes of their God's implorations to fill the background of their lives and to resound within the deepest recesses of their souls. The echoes were a constant source of comfort, as God’s love for His people was unbreakable.

An example are the words of the Israelite Prophet Hosea, which are featured in the Book of Hosea. The book depicts the Israelite culture of rebellion and stubborn unfaithfulness to God, “yet Israel’s infidelity and stubbornness are not enough to exhaust the redemptive love of God which surpasses human ability to understand” (Timothy Andrew, Bible Summary Guide).

God bewails in the Book of Hosea (14:1-7) thus: “Israel, return to the Lord your God. You have stumbled because of your sins. Return to the Lord, and say these things to him: Forgive all our sins, and kindly receive us. Then we’ll praise you with our lips. Assyria cannot save us. We won’t ride on horses anymore. We will never again say that the things our hands have made are our gods. You love orphans.

The Lord says: ‘I will cure them of their unfaithfulness. I will love them freely. I will no longer be angry with them. I will be like dew to the people of Israel. They will blossom like flowers. They will be firmly rooted like cedars from Lebanon. They will be like growing branches. They will be beautiful like olive trees. They will be fragrant like cedars from Lebanon. They will live again in God’s shadow. They will grow like grain. They will blossom like grapevines. They will be as famous as the wines from Lebanon.’”

A form of religious snobbery and arrogance

This outlook of the Israelites led them to adopt a form of religious snobbery and arrogance. The Qur’an thus cautions them not to exceed the limits in their religion by believing in and practicing something other than the truth (al-Ma’idah 77). Knowing that their spiritual lives were conflicted between their sins and God’s grace, some of the perceptions of the Israelites bordered on the preposterous, such as their claim that they will only spend a certain number of days in the hellfire for their sins (for walking in the steps of Qabil), after which they will be saved (when the unconditional love of God for His people will prevail).

The Qur’an accordingly charges the Israelites: “Do you not consider, (O Muhammad), those who were given a portion of the Scripture? They are invited to the Scripture of Allah that it should arbitrate between them; then a party of them turns away, and they are refusing. That is because they say: ‘Never will the Fire touch us except for (a few) numbered days,’ and (because) they were deluded in their religion by what they were inventing. So how will it be when We assemble them for a Day about which there is no doubt? And each soul will be compensated (in full for) what it earned, and they will not be wronged” (Alu ‘Imran 23-25).

It is no surprise that, while it is said in a Jewish biblical exegesis titled “Midrash Rabbah” that there are four desires on earth, two of such existential desires are the desire of the tempter (sin personified) which is for none but Cain (Qabil) and his associates, and “the desire of the Holy One, blessed be He, (which) is for none but Israel: ‘(I am my beloved's), and His desire is toward me’ (Song of Solomon 7:10-11). We are weak, yet though weak (i.e. deficient in good deeds), we still hope for the salvation of the Holy One, blessed be He.”

The two desires are mentioned together because the Israelites could not escape the extensive defilement of Qabil’s sin, which is nevertheless mitigated, yet neutralized, by the sweeping divine preferences for Israel. The former is the reality of earth, the latter of heaven. The latter furthermore acts as the antidote for the former. Qabil’s sin wants to control – and ruin - Israel, but Israel must control and rise above it instead, albeit not by means of their feeble faith and virtually non-existent determination, but by means of the unqualified affections and interventions of their God.

It follows that the life of Israel is a constant battle between the sin of Qabil, which “is crouching at the door” (Genesis 4:7), and the love, together with magnanimity, of God, which will not reject the chosen people - God “will never forsake His inheritance” (Psalms 94:14).

Though a mother “can forget the baby at her breast and have no compassion on the child she has borne, I will not forget you (O Israel)! See, I have engraved you on the palms of My hands; your walls are ever before Me” (Isaiah 49:15–16).

Not only that, God's love for Israel is so great that it extends to those who are good to it: “I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse; and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you” (Genesis 12:3). Also: “Pray for the peace of Jerusalem: ‘May those who love you be secure’” (Psalms 122:6).

If the Israelites could not be of Habil’s ilk, they did not want to be of Qabil’s either. Likewise, if they could not become paragons of faith and love, they did not want to be categorized as Qabil’s associates either. A concerted effort was made to find a middle way.

Despite not receiving much praise, they sought to avoid the direct curses that could immortalize their disgrace, like the one found in the First Epistle of John (3:11-12): “For this is the message that you heard from the beginning: that we should love one another. Be not as Cain (Qabil), who was of that wicked one and slew his brother. And why did he slay him? Because his own works were evil, and his brother’s righteous.”

The precept “whoever saves a life saves the world”

The Qur’an makes known that it had been ordained for the Israelites that unjustly taking an innocent life is as great a sin as murdering all of mankind, and that saving a life is as great a virtue as saving all of mankind (al-Ma’idah 32).

However, one wonders as to the whereabouts of this precept, which - given the gravity of the context in which the Qur’an mentions it and of the issues dealt with therein - undoubtedly held a prominent position within the hierarchy of the Israelite precepts.

One frequently encounters the concept of killing in the Old Testament as either a prohibition or a punishment for certain crimes, such as murder (retributive justice), engaging in sexual intercourse with an animal, practicing occultism and black magic, engaging in same-sex relationships, and committing adultery, but there is no indication that a single innocent life holds the same value as the entire human race.

Taking everything into consideration, the said unambiguously definite precept must have been tampered with by the Israelites, thereby enabling them to more readily twist and manipulate the generic prohibitions of murder. It also somewhat contributed to and facilitated the Christian fabrication that Jesus came to abolish the law of commandments and ordinances altogether.

That there was a serious distortion plot bear witness several accounts in the Babylonian Talmud, which is the textual record of generations of rabbinic debates about law, philosophy and biblical interpretation, and which was compiled in the 5 th century. One of those accounts is as follows:

“If one carries out a precept, or observes one Sabbath, or preserves a soul, it is considered as if he had preserved the entire world. But he who transgresses once, or violates one Sabbath, or destroys one soul, is considered like unto one who has destroyed the entire world” (The Babylonian Talmud, Tract Aboth, Chapter Five).

It is also said: “One soul of an upright (that is, the soul of an Israelite) is equalized to the whole world - i.e. if one kills an upright, he is considered as if he would slay the whole world” (The Babylonian Talmud, Tract Sanhedrin, Chapter Nine).

These two accounts prove that the Israelites were acquainted with the pivotal precept in question, but chose to relativize its importance and strip it of its sacredness. It also suggests that they employed cunning tactics to limit the precept’s universal applicability and diminish, as well as privatize, its all-encompassing nature.

Without a doubt, the precept stands as a fundamental aspect of the Israelite teachings, solely guiding the actions of the Israelite people and aiming at the preservation of their lives. Similar to the doctrines of Sabbath and other Jewish traditions, this precept, too, exhibits a strong sense of particularism, making the notion of sanctity of life a restricted and specific - i.e. Israelite - privilege. The focus is on the “upright” lives, which are the lives of the Israelites.

The Israelite motives become even more apparent in two additional accounts from the Babylonian Talmud, solidifying the previous two accounts. The first account reads:
“Therefore the man was created singly, to teach that he who destroys one soul of a human being, the Scripture considers him as if he should destroy a whole world, and him who saves one soul of Israel, the Scripture considers him as if he should save a whole world” (The Babylonian Talmud, Tract Sanhedrin, Chapter Four).

The second account states: “Lord of the Universe, You have said: ‘He who preserves one soul of Israel is regarded (by Scripture) as if he preserved an entire world’” (The Babylonian Talmud, Tract Aboth, Chapter One).

Here the texts are more categorical about the context of the precept of saving human souls not being the entire earth, but the Promised Land of Israel only, and that the objective is not the lives of all human beings, but the lives of the members of the Israelite nation only.

Moreover, according to al-Maududi in his “Tafhim al-Qur’an”, there are yet more explicit texts on the matter, such as: “To him who kills a single individual of Israel, it shall be reckoned as if he had slain the whole race, and he who preserves a single individual of Israel, he preserves the whole world.” It is also recorded that a judge of the Israelites in a case of murder would warn the witness, saying: “To him who kills a single individual of Israel, it shall be reckoned as if he has slain the whole race.”

The first quote by al-Maududi is from Mishnah, the first major work of rabbinic literature. Its complete original version is as follows: “Therefore but a single man was created in the world, to teach that if any man has caused a single soul to perish from Israel Scripture imputes it to him as though he had caused a whole world to perish; and if any man saves alive a single soul from Israel Scripture imputes it to him as though he had saved alive a whole world.”

The last two extracts leave no room for doubt about the issue. Evidence of attempts to distort and promote an Israeli perspective – that is, to Israelify the truth - can be felt throughout. However, that those are distorted, or, more precisely, interpolated, texts is not just a Muslim contention. There are also Jews who themselves feel inclined to making the same conclusion.
Indeed, the conflicting narratives on such an important topic as the sanctity of human life raise serious questions and cause considerable confusion.

For example, the author of the article titled “The Origins of the Precept ‘Whoever Saves a Life Saves the World’”, which is published in the magazine “Mosaic, Advancing Jewish Thought”, asks: “Which version of the precept is the original one? That is not a trivial question. It touches on the vexed issue of universalism and particularism in Jewish tradition and of the tension between them. Was the ‘Whoever saves a life’ precept originally a universalistic one stressing the unity of the entire human race, and was it then narrowed by later tradition to include only Jews? Or was it originally a particularistic one referring only to Jews that was subsequently expanded (by Islam and Muslims) to include all of humanity?”

Quoting an authoritative Jewish source, the author is emphatic that differences in narratives are the result of an interpolation: “In an article published in 1971 in the Hebrew journal Tarbitz, the Israeli scholar of rabbinic thought Ephraim Urbach addressed this question by carefully comparing a large number of ancient and medieval rabbinic texts and manuscripts and their early print editions. His conclusions were clear-cut: the original version of the ‘Whoever saves a life’ precept was the one without the limiting phrase of ‘in Israel,’ which was a later interpolation.”

How was that possible? In the author's opinion, the inclusion was partly a deliberate and partly a practical decision. Citing again his Jewish source, the author said: “At first, the words ‘in Israel’ were probably inserted because the situation discussed in Sanhedrin applied only to Jews; in Mishnaic times, Jewish courts in Palestine had no jurisdiction over Gentiles. In the course of time, the addition came to be regarded by many copyists and commentators as an intrinsic part of the precept, to which a more particularistic interpretation was then given.”

The Gaza tragedy as an irrefutable testament

The Zionists, who are responsible for the genocidal crimes against the Palestinian people in Gaza, are considered the most despicable group among the Israelites. They are the true and most faithful descendants of the segments of the Israelites about whom the Qur’an reveals were the murderers of their prophets and saints, were cursed as epitomes of wrongdoing and mischief, and were consumed by jealousy and hatred when, on account of their especially spiritual crimes, God withdrew His favours from them and bestowed them on their brother nation: the Muslims.

The Zionists, furthermore, are religious, historical, cultural and civilizational freaks, who have taken all the negativities associated with the problematic history and dogmas of the Israelites to a whole new level. The two aspects that best fit the diabolical ambitions of the Zionism political ideology are the ideas that the Abrahamic Covenant was exclusive and unconditional, and that the notion of the sanctity of life applies solely to the Israelites as God’s beloved and chosen people.

The Gaza battleground became a site where the most contentious doctrines of Judaism, further misconstrued and misapplied by the hardcore Zionists, are put into effect. For that reason do the innocent lives of the Palestinians, including children and the elderly, hold no value in the eyes of the Zionists. Ignoring criticism from the “normal sections” of the international community, they persist in bombing entire Gaza neighbourhoods, destroying everything in their path, and shattering the lives, dreams and hopes of the defenceless population.

While much of the world sees the actions of the Zionists as a form of genocide, they perceive it as a holy struggle. While the world views the entire Israeli enterprise as a brutal occupation and a systematic program of ethnic cleansing, the Zionists view it as liberation and the fulfilment of heavenly covenants.

Their intentions and objectives are so malicious (their hearts being worse than rocks in hardness, and their intelligence that of a fool - as the Qur’an depicts them) that they cannot align, nor be on the same wavelength, with anyone. It is as though we are reliving the ancient times when the Israelites were against everyone and everyone – even God and His holy prophets - was against them, suffering from the consequences of their unceasing religious lapses and nationalistic follies.

The Zionists are individuals who lack common sense and do not heed reason. They are heartless and emotionless. Their case is similar to that of a serial killer who leaves behind dead bodies wherever he goes. After that, he interacts with his family members, has dinner, and goes to bed as if nothing has happened. The Zionists never wonder if it is correct that they are the only one that is right and the whole world is wrong, if it is acceptable that a small bunch of them are superior and everyone else is inferior, and if it makes sense that they have a licence to do whatever they want without ever being held accountable for their actions.

They never wonder – as most of the world does – what god is that god who would sanction such a travesty and such a double standard, and what religion is that religion which would authorize, yet extol, such behavioural patterns.

The above assertions can be better understood through the following illustrations, all of which are featured in “Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v. Israel)” as a document of the proceedings instituted by South Africa against Israel on 29 December 2023 before the International Court of Justice (ICJ)).

First, Prime Minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, said in a letter to Israeli soldiers and officers taking part in the Gaza genocide: “This is the war between the sons of light and the sons of darkness. We will not let up on our mission until the light overcomes the darkness -the good will defeat the extreme evil that threatens us and the entire world.” On a couple of occasions, the Prime Minister invoked the Biblical story of the total destruction of the Amalekites by the Israelites, stating: “You must remember what the Amalekites have done to you, says our Holy Bible. And we do remember.” Parenthetically, it should be recalled that the Israelites annihilated the Amalekites due to a “divine instruction”: “Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and do not spare them. But kill both man and woman, infant and nursing child, ox and sheep, camel and donkey” (Samuel 15:3).

Second, President of Israel, Isaac Herzog, made clear that Israel was not distinguishing between militants and civilians in Gaza, including children, underscoring: “It’s an entire nation out there that is responsible…And we will fight until we break their backbone.”

Third, Israeli Minister of Defence, Yoav Gallant, emphasized that Israel was “imposing a complete siege on Gaza. No electricity, no food, no water, no fuel. Everything is closed. We are fighting human animals and we are acting accordingly… Gaza won’t return to what it was before. We will eliminate everything. If it doesn’t take one day, it will take a week. It will take weeks or even months, we will reach all places.” All restrictions on Israeli forces have been removed.

Fourth, Israeli Minister for National Security, Itamar Ben-Gvir, further clarified the Israeli government’s position vis-à-vis Gaza: “When we say that Hamas should be destroyed, it also means those who celebrate, those who support, and those who hand out candy - they’re all terrorists, and they should also be destroyed.”

Fifth, Israeli Minister of Energy and Infrastructure, Israel Katz, said: “All the civilian population in Gaza is ordered to leave immediately. We will win. They will not receive a drop of water or a single battery until they leave the world...Humanitarian aid to Gaza? No electrical switch will be turned on, no water hydrant will be opened and no fuel truck will enter until the Israeli abductees are returned home. Humanitarianism for humanitarianism. And no one will preach us morality.”

Sixth, Israeli Minister of Heritage, Amichai Eliyahu, said: “The north of the Gaza Strip, more beautiful than ever. Everything is blown up and flattened, simply a pleasure for the eyes.”

Seventh, Israeli Army Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories (‘COGAT’) stated: “Hamas became ISIS and the citizens of Gaza are celebrating instead of being horrified. Human animals are dealt with accordingly. Israel has imposed a total blockade on Gaza, no electricity, no water, just damage. You wanted hell, you will get hell.”

Eighth, an Israeli Army reservist said in his “motivational speech” to Israeli soldiers, while being driven around in an Israeli army vehicle: “Be triumphant and finish them off and don’t leave anyone behind. Erase the memory of them. Erase them, their families, mothers and children. These animals can no longer live…Every Jew with a weapon should go out and kill them. If you have an Arab neighbour, don't wait, go to his home and shoot him…We want to invade, not like before, we want to enter and destroy what’s in front of us, and destroy houses, then destroy the one after it. With all of our forces, complete destruction, enter and destroy. As you can see, we will witness things we’ve never dreamed of. Let them drop bombs on them and erase them.”

Ninth, Israeli soldiers in uniform have been filmed dancing, chanting and singing: “May their village burn, may Gaza be erased.” On a separate occasion, they were also seen in Gaza dancing, singing and chanting: “We know our motto: there are no uninvolved civilians” and “to wipe off the seed of Amalekites.”

If truth be told – as a final point - nobody should expect the descendants of the murderers of prophets and saints, and of those who had already obliterated entire nations and communities, to have any compassion for the people of Gaza. For the Zionists, to kill or carry out a genocide, in an effort to eliminate an obstacle hindering their chauvinistic tendencies, is just another day at the office. This is for Muslims in particular and the world in general to understand who they are dealing with and to prepare adequate responses. If the beast continues to behave unrestrained, it might be too late to try to bring it under control in the end. The Zionists were central to some of the biggest tragedies of the past century, and this does not bode well for the future.

Hence, with regard to the ongoing Gaza carnage, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu defiantly said after the International Court of Justice at The Hague had held two days of hearings on South Africa's claims that Israel is committing genocide against Palestinians:

“No one will stop us, not The Hague, not the axis of evil and not anyone else.”

By the same token, a legal representative of the Israeli government audaciously contended that Israel can “legislate anywhere in the world,” that it is “entitled to violate the sovereignty of foreign countries,” and that it “is allowed to ignore the directives of international law in any field it desires” (Middle East Monitor, Israel Declares It is Above the Law).

It is imperative that the world takes heed and be on its guard.