Part 3: The Jewis Qiblah, Bayt al-Maqdis and Jerusalem

Series: The Change of Qiblah

In the previous part, we saw that the phrase قِبْلَتِهِمُ الَّتِي كَانُوا عَلَيْهَا (qiblatihimu allatī kānū ʿalayhā), which means “their qiblah upon which they used to be,” refers to the qiblah that Prophet Muhammad S.A.W. and the Muslims used to face before the change of qiblah to Masjidil Haram took place.

The hadiths also explain that the former qiblah was Bayt al-Maqdis. In the common historical understanding, Bayt al-Maqdis is associated with Jerusalem. This direction is also associated with the qiblah of the Jews.

Do we need to stop there? If this was merely an issue involving a change of direction, why did the Jews object so strongly? Why did the change of qiblah become a matter used to question the Prophet S.A.W.? Then why did Allah answer that objection with this specific wording:

لِلَّهِ الْمَشْرِقُ وَالْمَغْرِبُ

“To Allah belong the east and the west.”

This answer from Allah is not merely a general answer about direction. It leads us to consider a much larger question about Bani Israel, the land that was inherited, and the position of Jerusalem in the Jewish narrative. If you ignore this subject, there is a high possibility that you will go astray in interpreting many matters of fitan.

The Jews Are Not the Same as the Obedient Bani Israel

The first matter we need to separate is the distinction between Bani Israel and the Jews. This is something we must truly understand. Not all Bani Israel are Jews. Not everyone who carries the Jewish name represents Bani Israel who were obedient to the prophets of Allah.

The original Bani Israel were a people who had been led by prophets. They had been led by Prophet Musa A.S. and Prophet Harun A.S. They received commands, guidance, and a journey that had been set by Allah.

However, throughout that historical journey, not all Bani Israel were obedient. Only some followed the prophet. Others objected. Others turned away. Some among them built their own religious framework after becoming disconnected from the original path brought by the prophets.

This is where we need to understand that the Jewish millah is not necessarily a pure millah that came directly from Allah. It is a framework formed by a portion of Bani Israel after they rearranged direction, land, identity, and scripture according to their own framework.

Therefore, when we mention “the qiblah of the Jews,” we are not speaking about the original command of Allah to Prophet Musa A.S. in its pure form. We are speaking about the qiblah within the framework of the Jewish millah that took shape later. Please read the article Jews and Nasrani Are Not the Names of Revelatory Religions That Allah Assigned to the Prophets, But Names Created by Human Beings for a clearer understanding.

Bani Israel and the Inheritance of Mashriq and Maghrib

The Qur’an gives us a major indication about Bani Israel and the land that was inherited by them.

Allah S.W.T. says:

وَأَوْرَثْنَا الْقَوْمَ الَّذِينَ كَانُوا يُسْتَضْعَفُونَ مَشَارِقَ الْأَرْضِ وَمَغَارِبَهَا الَّتِي بَارَكْنَا فِيهَا

“And We caused the people who had been oppressed to inherit the places of sunrise on the earth and its places of sunset, which We had blessed.”

Surah al-A‘raf 7:137

This verse does not use the word Jerusalem. This verse does not say that the inheritance was centered only on one city called Jerusalem.

Instead, this verse uses a broader wording:

مَشَارِقَ الْأَرْضِ وَمَغَارِبَهَا

“the places of sunrise on the earth and its places of sunset”

This is important because when Allah answers the objection concerning the qiblah to the Prophet in Surah al-Baqarah 2:142, Allah also uses wording related to direction:

لِلَّهِ الْمَشْرِقُ وَالْمَغْرِبُ

“To Allah belongs the place of sunrise and the place of sunset.”

Here, we can see a very significant relationship of meaning behind Allah’s answer to the objectors. The objection concerning the qiblah came from a party with a long history connected to Bani Israel. Bani Israel, in the Qur’an, had also been connected to the inheritance of the mashriq and maghrib of the earth. Therefore, Allah’s answer concerning al-mashriq and al-maghrib when answering the qiblah objection is not a small matter.

It is as though it brings us back to the original map of Bani Israel, not Jerusalem. This matter will be easier to understand if you read the journey of Bani Israel with Prophet Musa and Prophet Harun after being pursued by Pharaoh until they reached the promised land in the series Melaka Is the Promised Land.

The Major Problem of the Jews Is the Orientation of Jerusalem

Within the Jewish framework, Bayt al-Maqdis in Jerusalem became the center of their religious orientation, land, and identity. Without Jerusalem, they have no identity of their own. But we cannot accept this claim blindly. We need to go back and see for ourselves how Jerusalem is constructed in the texts of the Old Testament.

For context, the Old Testament, or Perjanjian Lama, is the early part of the Bible used by Jews and Christians. It contains books that they attribute to the history of Bani Israel, earlier prophets, the law of the Torah, the story of the kingdom of Israel, Zion, and Jerusalem. For Muslims, the Old Testament is not a source of creed that supersedes the Qur’an.

We refer to it here only to see how the Jewish and Christian narratives build their understanding of Jerusalem. Then we compare that with the more preserved guidance of the Qur’an. In the Old Testament, the word “Jerusalem” is mentioned very clearly and literally. For example, we may look at the verses below:

In 2 Tawarikh / 2 Chronicles 6:6, it is mentioned that Jerusalem was chosen so that the name of the Lord would be there.

In 2 Raja-Raja / 2 Kings 21:7, “this temple and in Jerusalem” is mentioned as the place chosen from all the tribes of Israel to place the name of the Lord.

In Mazmur / Psalm 132:13, Zion is mentioned as a chosen place.

In Yesaya / Isaiah 2:3, it is mentioned that the law shall go forth from Zion and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.

In Daniel 6, lihat sekitar ayat 10-11, Daniel is described as praying with his windows open toward Jerusalem.

This shows that in the Old Testament texts that have reached Jews and Christians today, Jerusalem is not merely a place name. Jerusalem has become the center of worship, the center of land, the center of identity, the center of law, the center of religious hope, and their direction, especially regarding the end times.

This is where we must pay very close attention, and here we will see the problem, including for us. When we return to the Qur’an, the verse about the inheritance of Bani Israel does not mention Jerusalem. Allah does not mention at all that the people who had been oppressed were made to inherit Jerusalem. Instead, Allah says:

وَأَوْرَثْنَا الْقَوْمَ الَّذِينَ كَانُوا يُسْتَضْعَفُونَ مَشَارِقَ الْأَرْضِ وَمَغَارِبَهَا الَّتِي بَارَكْنَا فِيهَا

“And We caused the people who had been oppressed to inherit the places of sunrise on the earth and its places of sunset, which We had blessed.”

Surah al-A‘raf 7:137

This difference is very great, and it negates Jerusalem in the Old Testament. The Old Testament as it exists today leads its readers to believe in Jerusalem literally and repeatedly. In contrast, the Qur’an, when mentioning the inheritance of Bani Israel, brings us to the wording mashariq al-ard and magharibaha, meaning the places of sunrise on the earth and the places of sunset on the earth.

So all of you should begin asking yourselves why the Old Testament so clearly binds Bani Israel to Jerusalem. Why does the Qur’an not use the word Jerusalem in that verse of inheritance? Why does the Qur’an use the wording mashariq al-ard and magharibaha?

This is where the Jerusalem qiblah orientation within the Jewish millah begins to appear as a major issue. If the obedient Bani Israel had been directed toward the mashriq of the earth, then Jerusalem can no longer be read as the center of the story of Bani Israel. Jerusalem is located within the region of Sham, in the Arabian Peninsula, and in the middle of the earth. It is not the mashriq of the earth in the larger picture of a journey toward the east.

Was Jerusalem made into a new center in Jewish texts and narratives after some of them lost the trail of the obedient Bani Israel? In our reading, the problem of the Jews is not merely that they faced Bayt al-Maqdis. The greater problem is that their entire religious narrative was built with a Jerusalem orientation, while the Qur’an brings us to a broader map, namely the mashriq and maghrib of the earth.

Lost Tribes or Left Tribes?

In Jewish narrative and mainstream history, we often hear the term Lost Tribes of Bani Israel, referring to the tribes of Bani Israel said to have disappeared from their records. However, in the writing you are now reading, I ask you to reconsider whether they were truly lost, or whether they were only lost from Jewish knowledge.

If the obedient Bani Israel had moved toward the mashriq of the earth and reached the Nusantara, then they were not “lost” in the true sense. They were only lost from Jewish records centered on Jerusalem.

They were lost from the Jewish framework, but they were not lost from the knowledge of Allah. Using the Qur’an, what is more interesting to observe is the opposite possibility. The Jewish group itself was actually part of the Left Tribes of Bani Israel, meaning the group of Bani Israel that was left behind from the original journey.

They were the ones who did not reach the mashriq of the earth. They were the ones who lost the trail of the obedient Bani Israel. They were not with the group that moved far into the eastern region. Then they rebuilt their identity, land, qiblah, and millah around Jerusalem.

In other words, the world today hears much of the story of Bani Israel from the group that was left behind, not necessarily from the group that truly reached the destination that had been commanded.

Those whom the Jews call the Lost Tribes were not actually lost tribes. They were only lost from Jewish records. Instead, the Jews themselves are the Left Tribes, meaning the group left behind from the original journey of the obedient Bani Israel.

This is where the story of the qiblah within the Jerusalem narrative begins to appear as a very clear problem. If the group left behind built their religious orientation in Jerusalem, then it is not strange at all that they later read the entire story of Bani Israel through Jerusalem. Later Muslims followed them as well.

However, if the obedient group of Bani Israel has been proven to have moved toward the mashriq of the earth, then the center of the story can no longer be understood as entirely oriented toward Jerusalem alone.

Why Did the Jews Object So Strongly to the Change of Qiblah?

I think now you can understand why the Jewish objection to the change of qiblah was not a small objection. As long as the Prophet S.A.W. and the Muslims faced Bayt al-Maqdis, they could still see the Muslims as facing the same direction as their orientation. But when Allah commanded the Prophet S.A.W. to face al-Masjid al-Haram, the Muslims no longer shared the qiblah of the Jews. Allah was exposing their deviation.

That is why Allah answered their objection with the wording:

لِلَّهِ الْمَشْرِقُ وَالْمَغْرِبُ

“To Allah belong the east and the west.”

This answer did not merely disconnect the Muslims from the Jerusalem orientation. It also reopened the question concerning the land of Allah in the mashriq and maghrib that was inherited by Bani Israel.

The falsehood of the Jews began to be exposed. That is why they objected to the change of qiblah, because the change was not merely a shift in the direction of the Muslims. It shook the position of Jerusalem within the framework of their millah.

Conclusion

After seeing all of this, we need to be more careful whenever we mention Bayt al-Maqdis in any discussion of the qiblah. The hadith mentions that the Prophet S.A.W. once faced Bayt al-Maqdis. Tafsir also mentions that the Jews faced Bayt al-Maqdis. We do not reject this narration. However, what we are examining is the way Bayt al-Maqdis is understood and how it has been locked within the Jerusalem narrative.

The Old Testament leads its readers to Jerusalem clearly and repeatedly. But the Qur’an, when mentioning the inheritance of Bani Israel, does not mention Jerusalem. The Qur’an brings us to the wording mashariq al-ard and magharibaha.

This is where the change of qiblah becomes greater than merely a change in the direction of prayer. It reopens the question of the map of Bani Israel, the land that was inherited, and the position of Jerusalem within the Jewish millah. Thus, the difference between Lost Tribes and Left Tribes becomes important. Who are truly the lost tribes, and who are truly the tribes that were left behind?

In the next part, we will examine why the Nasrani did not object in the same way. This is because the Nasrani were not oriented toward the qiblah of Jerusalem as the Jews were. The qiblah of the Nasrani in tafsir is associated with the east, or mashriq, and this opens another layer of discussion.