The Paradox of Islamic Philosophy and the Israel-Palestine Conflict

“Peace cannot be kept by force; it can only be achieved by understanding.”-Albert Einstein

The world is governed by myth and mythology, intertwined with distorted perceptions of religion, which have often exacerbated human existence during perilous moments in history. The advancement of science and technology has not dispelled the shadows from human existence; instead, it has cast a pall over the very essence of humanity, placing it in jeopardy. Religious and political ideologies have precipitated enduring conflicts across the globe. The Israel-Palestine conflict represents a longstanding dispute, characterised by a series of claims and counterclaims regarding territory that holds historical significance for the three major religions: Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. This complex interplay has, at various times, led to direct confrontations among the groups involved. The appropriation of Palestinian territory stems from the unfounded assertions of a Zionist state. The attack by Hamas on Israel on October 7th, followed by Israel’s counteroffensive, has resulted in significant devastation in Gaza. The actions of the Zionist regime appear to align with the expansionist vision articulated by Theodore Herzl in “The Jewish State,” which intertwines with a biblical interpretation of the “Promised Land,” envisioned as the greater Israel extending from the Brook of Egypt to the Euphrates.

The ideological commitment on both sides is profoundly entrenched and holds a sacred quality, making it challenging to retreat and reconcile the existing differences. Currently, the death toll stands at approximately 45,000 Palestinians, 1,700 Israelis, 224 medical aid workers, 140 media personnel, and 150 academics (Al-Jazeera, 25 Oct 24). A significant global outcry has emerged in response to the Israeli aggression, with a notably stronger reaction observed in Western nations compared to Arab states. While a significant number of Arabs express profound solidarity with the Palestinians, the prevailing regimes often align themselves with the Israeli state, prioritising their own national interests. Islamic nationalism, in theory, advocates for a global Islamic identity known as “Umma,” which unites all believers under a singular identity. In contrast, modern nation-states emphasise territorial nationalism, demanding loyalty to their specific territories. This article elucidates the complexities of Islamic philosophy and its real-world ramifications. Why are the Arab masses opposed to the Israeli occupation, while the regimes appear to collaborate with Israel instead?

The Israel-Palestine conflict represents a multifaceted interaction involving Islamic thought, the mechanisms of state authority, and the intricacies of Arab social structures. The Jabariya and Qadriya traditions within Islamic thought significantly shape regional governance and perspectives on Israel, while simultaneously engendering contradictions that impact the stability and conflict dynamics of Arab states. The Jabariya school of thought, grounded in the conviction of absolute authority, offers a philosophical foundation for robust, frequently authoritarian regimes. This framework enables governing elites to validate their authority by presenting themselves as guardians of stability, drawing upon divine rationale for centralised governance (Ibne-Hazm). The principles of Jabariya have historically been employed by numerous Arab regimes to sustain their authority, and this philosophy continues to inform state-sponsored civic organisations that condition citizens to embrace the status quo, placing a higher value on civic stability than on individual liberties. According to the Jabariya perspective, individuals are moulded to endorse the state without reservation, irrespective of its ethical or political stance, provided it maintains social order and governance. Examine the Islamic political history and governance in the era of post four pious Caliphs, where each successive ruler established a new benchmark of totalitarianism, often under the guise of divine justification.

The Qadriya school, in contrast, champions the notion of individual empowerment and advocates for a measured approach to authority, urging individuals to critically engage with and oppose oppressive governance (Hasan-Al-Basri). Qadriya’s emphasis on individual autonomy and logical reasoning has traditionally motivated grassroots movements opposing authoritarian rule and remains a philosophical cornerstone for democratic ambitions in the Arab world. This perspective, by dismissing the unquestionable authority that Jabariya champions, has garnered support among individuals who perceive it as a valid foundation for political and social transformation.

Nevertheless, the concept of Qadriya presents a paradox concerning Israel. As Arab citizens unite around concepts inspired by Qadriya, they channel their collective efforts towards addressing the perceived external threat posed by the Israeli state, while simultaneously advocating for necessary internal reforms. The principles of Qadriya cultivate a sense of solidarity that galvanises Arab populations in opposition to Israel, thereby contesting its influence within the region. This resistance, nonetheless, raises a complex inquiry regarding the viability of Arab governance. Through its advocacy for democracy and its rejection of authoritarianism, Qadriya challenges not only the legitimacy of Israel but also the entrenched power structures within Arab states, which frequently exhibit authoritarian characteristics. This interplay engenders a profound philosophical and political paradox. In the pursuit of moral consistency in opposing Israel, it is posited that Arab states should similarly align their internal political frameworks with the democratic principles advocated by Qadriya. Should these states persist in endorsing Jabariya principles, thereby legitimising authoritarian governance, they forfeit their moral standing to critique Israel for actions that reflect their own internal practices of control and dominance. Consequently, any ideological position adopted in opposition to Israel invariably prompts enquiries regarding the nature of governance within the Arab world itself.

The Muslim Brotherhood exemplifies this paradox remarkably. The movement, influenced by both Jabariya and Qadriya philosophies, has historically fluctuated between endorsing authoritarian principles for the sake of state unity and promoting democratic reforms. Within the framework of the Israel-Palestine conflict, these groups frequently encounter a complex and precarious situation. To authentically challenge Israel’s position, there exists a compelling impetus from Qadriya principles to advocate for internal democratic reform, striving for a governance framework that honours individual liberties. Nevertheless, in order to uphold the necessary stability to withstand external pressures, they might depend on Jabariya’s authoritarian principles, unintentionally reflecting the very structures they criticise in Israel.

This ideological tension carries significant ramifications. Should the leaders of the Arab world adopt Jabariya as the foundation for governance, they would find themselves increasingly aligned with Israel’s state-centric security approach, thereby inadvertently compromising their own position on Palestinian sovereignty and rights. On the other hand, should they completely embrace Qadriya, they would not only stand against Israel but also catalyse calls for democratic reforms domestically, thereby questioning the authoritarian structures that underpin many of their own regimes.

To sum-up, the Israel-Palestine conflict reveals the inherent contradictions present in the political interpretations of Islamic philosophy within the Arab world. It demonstrates why there is contradiction between state and society, why is so much silence within regime and the peoples are against. Arab states, in their pursuit of legitimacy against Israel’s actions, must embody a commitment to justice and self-determination within their own territories, harmonising Qadriya’s principles of individual empowerment with the complexities of governance. The outcome of this ideological conflict will hinge on the ability of these nations to reconcile their quests for democratic legitimacy with the imperative of stability, forging a new trajectory that honours both their philosophical traditions and contemporary political demands.

Dr Md Afroz, Researcher/Author and a faculty in the department of Political Science, (MANUU), Hyderabad.  He has penned many articles in Journals, research papers in national/international seminars/conferences and regularly writes on socio-political subjects for various online/ print domain.