Israel in the Qur'an

Who Is Israel?

The question may seem to have been settled for centuries: Israel is Jacob.

But when we set this answer aside for a moment and return to the Qur'an alone, a more intriguing question emerges: where does the Qur'an say that Israel is Jacob?

The Qur'an explicitly mentions Jacob by name:

﴿وَوَهَبْنَا لَهُ إِسْحَاقَ وَيَعْقُوبَ﴾ (And We bestowed upon him Isaac and Jacob.) [الأنعام: ٨٤]

It also mentions Israel by name:

﴿كُلُّ الطَّعَامِ كَانَ حِلًّا لِّبَنِي إِسْرَائِيلَ إِلَّا مَا حَرَّمَ إِسْرَائِيلُ عَلَىٰ نَفْسِهِ مِن قَبْلِ أَن تُنَزَّلَ التَّوْرَاةُ﴾ (All food was lawful for the Children of Israel, except what Israel forbade himself before the Torah was revealed.) [آل عمران: ٩٣]

Yet we find no verse that explicitly says: Israel is Jacob. Here the journey begins.

What if the Qur'an intended us to know Israel not through a narration (riwāya) outside the text, but through his trajectory within it? What if his identity does not appear in a single verse, but unfolds when we place the verses alongside one another: from Israel before the revelation of the Torah… to the Children of Israel… to the first murder in human history… to the words of the Most High:

﴿مِنْ أَجْلِ ذَٰلِكَ كَتَبْنَا عَلَىٰ بَنِي إِسْرَائِيلَ أَنَّهُ مَن قَتَلَ نَفْسًا بِغَيْرِ نَفْسٍ أَوْ فَسَادٍ فِي الْأَرْضِ فَكَأَنَّمَا قَتَلَ النَّاسَ جَمِيعًا﴾ (For that reason, We prescribed for the Children of Israel that whoever kills a soul, unless for a soul or for corruption in the land, it is as though he has killed all humankind.) [المائدة: ٣٢]

Then to killing, corruption, and arrogance… then to the leading astray by humans and jinn:

﴿رَبَّنَا أَرِنَا الَّذَيْنِ أَضَلَّانَا مِنَ الْجِنِّ وَالْإِنسِ﴾ (Our Lord, show us the two who led us astray, from among jinn and humans.) [فصلت: ٢٩]

Are we, then, faced with two trajectories of leading astray? One from among the jinn, represented by Iblis. The other from among humans… who, then, is he? Could Israel be the key that connects this entire trajectory?

This is not an attempt to replace an inherited narration (riwāya) with a new narration (riwāya). It is an attempt to pose the question from the very beginning: if we read the Qur'an through the Qur'an, without imposing a predetermined identity for Israel upon it, what will the Qur'an say about Israel?

I do not ask you to believe the hypothesis, but to test it: if Israel is Jacob, then bring forth proof from the Qur'an; and if he is not, then who is the Israel of whom the Qur'an speaks before the revelation of the Torah?

What Does the Qur'an Explicitly Say about Israel?

The first point that cannot be overlooked is that the Qur'an uses “Israel” as the name of a person, then uses “the Children of Israel” to designate a group affiliated with him by descent.

Israel is spoken of in the singular: ﴿مَا حَرَّمَ إِسْرَائِيلُ عَلَىٰ نَفْسِهِ﴾ (what Israel forbade himself), followed by mention of ﴿بَنِي إِسْرَائِيلَ﴾ (the Children of Israel). Most importantly, this was ﴿مِن قَبْلِ أَن تُنَزَّلَ التَّوْرَاةُ﴾ (before the Torah was revealed).

Thus, in the Qur'an we have a person named Israel, with descendants who trace their lineage to him, and he precedes the revelation of the Torah in time. But where does the Qur'an explicitly say that Israel is Jacob?

We find no direct statement to that effect in the Qur'anic text. Here the space for Tadbur begins. The question is not: could Israel be Jacob? Rather, the prior question is: where did this identification originate in the first place? Is it Qur'anic information, or a narration (riwāya) that came from outside the Qur'an and then became a basis for reading the verses?

The Qur'an Identifies Jacob by Name

﴿أَمْ كُنتُمْ شُهَدَاءَ إِذْ حَضَرَ يَعْقُوبَ الْمَوْتُ﴾ (Or were you witnesses when death came to Jacob?) [البقرة: ١٣٣]

Before us in the Qur'an is a clear name: Jacob. And before us is another clear name: Israel. There is no verse that says they are one person. This does not prove that Israel is not Jacob, but it does establish an important methodological point: the identification of Israel with Jacob is not an explicit Qur'anic statement, and so we should not make it our starting point before testing it.

Where Did the Account of Jacob's Name Being Changed to Israel Originate?

When we move beyond the Qur'an and seek the origin of the detailed narration (riwāya) that establishes Jacob = Israel, we find it in the Book of Genesis. Here we are not speaking merely of a difference in names, but of an entire account upon which Israel's identity is constructed.

The Book of Genesis recounts that Jacob wrestled with someone until daybreak, and that this person asked Jacob to let him go because dawn had broken, while Jacob insisted that he would not let him go until he blessed him. Then comes the striking question: “What is your name?” He answers: “Jacob.” He is then told that his name will no longer be Jacob, but “Israel”; the naming of Jacob as Israel recurs subsequently in other passages of the book.

This establishes the narration (riwāya) from which the identification was transmitted: Jacob ← Israel. That is, Israel is not another figure, but another name for Jacob.

Yet the Account Itself Raises Major Questions

Who is this being who wrestles with Jacob? How can a human being enter into a wrestling match with God? How does this being not know Jacob's name, and then ask him: “What is your name?” If God is meant, how can a human being be asked his name? Then why does Jacob ask God for a blessing after wrestling with Him? Indeed, the narration (riwāya) itself has Jacob say: “For I have seen God face to face, and my life has been preserved.”

From the perspective of the Qur'an, these are not merely peripheral details. When the Qur'an speaks of God, it does not present Him in this human form, make God's knowledge dependent on asking a human being his name, or base the relationship between human beings and God on physical wrestling.

﴿لَيْسَ كَمِثْلِهِ شَيْءٌ﴾ (There is nothing like Him.) [الشورى: ١١]

﴿لَا تُدْرِكُهُ الْأَبْصَارُ وَهُوَ يُدْرِكُ الْأَبْصَارَ﴾ (Vision does not encompass Him, but He encompasses all vision.) [الأنعام: ١٠٣]

﴿وَمَا قَدَرُوا اللَّهَ حَقَّ قَدْرِهِ﴾ (They have not accorded God His due measure.) [الزمر: ٦٧]

Thus, when I place the Torah's narration (riwāya) alongside the Qur'anic method, I find a clear gap in the manner of presenting the deity, His attributes, and the nature of the relationship between God and human beings. This does not mean that I need to enter into a battle to prove the Torah's validity or invalidity; the question I am investigating is simpler and deeper: is this account, in the first place, what the Qur'an intends us to use as the basis for establishing Israel's identity?

The Qur'an does not recount Jacob's wrestling with God, God's asking Jacob his name, or the changing of Jacob's name to Israel, nor does it say anywhere: Israel is Jacob.

Thus, we have a narration (riwāya) outside the Qur'an that offers a ready-made explanation of Israel's identity, followed later by the Islamic inherited tradition, with narrations (riwāya) that explicitly identify Israel with Jacob. Here the methodological question becomes more forceful: did the account of the change of name pass from the Israelite narrations (riwāya) into the Islamic inherited tradition, with the identification then becoming an accepted fact in Islamic reading?

I do not say that its absence from the Qur'an alone proves that it is of Israelite provenance, but I do say that its source must be investigated, and that we should not place it within the Qur'an and then read the Qur'an through it.

The method I adopt here is this: I do not approach the Qur'an with prior information and then search for verses that agree with it. Rather, I begin with the Qur'an and let the Qur'an reveal to me who Israel is.

What Happened When the Narration (riwāya) Entered the Islamic Inherited Tradition?

Within the Islamic inherited tradition, there is a narration (riwāya) attributed to Ibn Abbas, in which the Prophet ﷺ is reported to have said to the Jews: “Do you know that Israel is Jacob?” This narration (riwāya) appears in hadith sources, including the Musnad of Ahmad, but not in Sahih al-Bukhari or Sahih Muslim in this wording.

Here we must distinguish between three things: the Qur'an, which does not explicitly state that Israel is Jacob; the Torah's narration (riwāya), which recounts the change of name; and the hadith narration (riwāya), which attributes the explicit identification to the Prophet ﷺ. This distinction is very important, because the transmission of information into the books of the inherited tradition does not automatically make it Qur'anic text.

Could the Account of the Change of Name Be Among the Isrāʾīliyyāt?

This is a historical question that requires studying the chains of transmission of the narration (riwāya) and its early sources, and comparing them with the trajectory through which Israelite reports entered works of exegesis (tafsīr) and hadith. Yet the very presence of the account in the Torah before the emergence of the Islamic narration (riwāya), its absence from the Qur'an, and the subsequent appearance of the identification in some Islamic narrations (riwāya) make the source from which this information was transmitted a legitimate question that cannot be bypassed.

More importantly, the absence of the hadith from al-Bukhari and Muslim does not by itself prove that it belongs to the Isrāʾīliyyāt, just as its presence in another hadith source does not make it Qur'an. The question is not: Did anyone transmit it? Rather: Where did the information originally come from? How was it transmitted? Was its source the Qur'an, the Israelite narration (riwāya), or an independent hadith narration (riwāya)?

Why Did al-Bukhari and Muslim Not Transmit This Narration (riwāya)?

Here we must be precise. It is not valid to say, “Al-Bukhari and Muslim did not authenticate it because it belongs to the Isrāʾīliyyāt,” as though we possessed a statement from them establishing this reason. Their non-inclusion of a particular narration (riwāya) does not by itself constitute a judgment that it is of Israelite provenance or inauthentic.

But a research question can be posed: If this narration (riwāya) is the explicit Islamic source for the statement “Israel is Jacob,” why does it not appear in this wording in the two Sahih collections, even though they included a large number of narrations (riwāya) concerning the prophets and the Children of Israel? This does not settle the matter, but it opens the way to investigating the source of the narration (riwāya) and the trajectory of its transmission.

The Difference Between Beginning with the Inherited Tradition and Beginning with the Qur'an

There is a first path: Israel = Jacob. We then take this conclusion as an established fact and subsequently read all the verses concerning the Children of Israel on that basis.

There is another path: The Qur'an mentions Jacob and mentions Israel, but does not explicitly say that they are one person. We therefore set the identification aside temporarily and begin the inquiry from the Qur'an itself. The aim is neither to prove that Israel is not Jacob nor to prove that the narration (riwāya) in the inherited tradition is erroneous, but one aim alone: to test the identity of Israel within the Qur'an's own network.

Israel Before the Torah

In the verse in Al Imran, the Qur'an does not speak of Israel merely as the name of a group, but says: ﴿مَا حَرَّمَ إِسْرَائِيلُ عَلَىٰ نَفْسِهِ﴾ (what Israel forbade himself). Israel here is a person, and the event precedes the revelation of the Torah. This opens an important avenue: If the Qur'an wants us only to know that Israel is Jacob, why does it not say so explicitly anywhere? And why does it leave the name distributed across different contexts?

Here the Hypothesis Begins

I do not say: Israel is Jacob. Nor do I say in advance: Israel is not Jacob. Rather, I say: Let us set the identification aside and read the Qur'an as it is.

We begin with Jacob by name, then Israel by name, then the Children of Israel, and then investigate the passages in which Israel appears, the events with which the name was associated, and the effects that extended from that trajectory.

If Israel's identity is indeed present within the Qur'an, it may not be present in a single identifying verse, but in a network of verses. Here the issue shifts from “Who said that Israel is Jacob?” to a larger question: What does the Qur'an itself say about Israel?

The Account of Adam's Two Sons

﴿وَاتْلُ عَلَيْهِمْ نَبَأَ ابْنَيْ آدَمَ بِالْحَقِّ إِذْ قَرَّبَا قُرْبَانًا فَتُقُبِّلَ مِنْ أَحَدِهِمَا وَلَمْ يُتَقَبَّلْ مِنَ الْآخَرِ قَالَ لَأَقْتُلَنَّكَ﴾ (And recite to them in truth the account of Adam's two sons, when they offered a sacrifice, and it was accepted from one of them but was not accepted from the other. He said, “I will surely kill you.”) [المائدة: ٢٧]

﴿فَطَوَّعَتْ لَهُ نَفْسُهُ قَتْلَ أَخِيهِ فَقَتَلَهُ﴾ (Then his soul induced him to kill his brother, and he killed him.) [المائدة: ٣٠]

The Qur'an does not mention the killer's name, nor does it tell us, “This is so-and-so.” Rather, it says: a son of Adam. Here the inquiry may seem to have ended, but the Qur'an does not end here. Almost immediately after the verse comes the transition to legislation addressed to the Children of Israel, with the phrase ﴿مِنْ أَجْلِ ذَٰلِكَ﴾ (For that reason).

What happened before it? The first human killing in the account. And what came after it? Legislation addressed to the Children of Israel. Here the first major crux of the inquiry emerges: Why did the Qur'an move from the account of Adam's son who killed to the Children of Israel specifically?

Is “For That Reason” Merely a Thematic Transition?

We can read the two verses separately, and we can also reflect on the connection: killing the brother → ﴿مِنْ أَجْلِ ذَٰلِكَ﴾ (For that reason) → the Children of Israel → the prohibition of killing a soul. This connection exists in the text itself, and we do not need an external narration (riwāya) to establish its existence.

From here a larger question emerges: If the killer in the account of Adam's two sons is unnamed in the text, and legislation concerning the Children of Israel comes immediately after the account, could the Qur'an have left the key to that person's identity in other passages? Here we should not leap to a conclusion, but continue the inquiry.

From Killing the Brother to Killing the Prophets

Thereafter, killing among the Children of Israel does not remain an isolated individual incident in the Qur'an:

﴿وَيَقْتُلُونَ الْأَنْبِيَاءَ بِغَيْرِ حَقٍّ﴾ (And they kill the prophets without right.) [البقرة: ٦١]

﴿فَرِيقًا كَذَّبُوا وَفَرِيقًا يَقْتُلُونَ﴾ (Some they denied, and some they kill.) [المائدة: ٧٠]

Then another description of their trajectory appears in the Qur'an:

﴿لَتُفْسِدُنَّ فِي الْأَرْضِ مَرَّتَيْنِ وَلَتَعْلُنَّ عُلُوًّا كَبِيرًا﴾ (You will surely cause corruption in the land twice, and you will surely rise to great heights of arrogance.) [الإسراء: ٤]

Here we are no longer confronting a single incident of killing, but a recurring trajectory in the Qur'an that brings together killing, corruption, and arrogance. This does not mean that every individual among the Children of Israel possesses these attributes; the Qur'an itself distinguishes among them: ﴿لَيْسُوا سَوَاءً﴾ (They are not all alike). At the same time, however, it traces the history of a group that claims descent from Israel, revealing through it a pattern of actions.

If there is misguidance by jinn, is there also misguidance by humans?

﴿رَبَّنَا أَرِنَا الَّذَيْنِ أَضَلَّانَا مِنَ الْجِنِّ وَالْإِنسِ نَجْعَلْهُمَا تَحْتَ أَقْدَامِنَا لِيَكُونَا مِنَ الْأَسْفَلِينَ﴾ (Our Lord, show us the two who led us astray, from among jinn and humans, that we may place them beneath our feet so that they may be among the lowest.) [فصلت: ٢٩]

The verse speaks of two: one from among the jinn, and another from among humans. The Qur'an clearly presents us with a model of misguidance on the side of the jinn: Iblis.

﴿إِلَّا إِبْلِيسَ أَبَىٰ وَاسْتَكْبَرَ﴾ (Except Iblis; he refused and was arrogant.) [البقرة: ٣٤]

﴿فَوَسْوَسَ لَهُمَا الشَّيْطَانُ﴾ (Then Satan whispered to them both.) [الأعراف: ٢٠]

﴿يَا بَنِي آدَمَ لَا يَفْتِنَنَّكُمُ الشَّيْطَانُ كَمَا أَخْرَجَ أَبَوَيْكُم مِّنَ الْجَنَّةِ﴾ (O Children of Adam, do not let Satan tempt you as he drove your parents out of the Garden.) [الأعراف: ٢٧]

The Qur'an thus clearly reveals a trajectory: Iblis → Satan → leading astray → driving Adam out of the Garden → enduring enmity toward the Children of Adam. But what of the other party? Who is the one who leads astray from among humans? Here the picture begins to take shape.

Could Israel be the human origin of the trajectory of misguidance?

If we bring together the preceding threads, a figure emerges whom the Qur'an does not name in the account of the killing, but around whom it leaves a network of indications: the son of Adam kills his brother, then ﴿مِنْ أَجْلِ ذَٰلِكَ﴾ (For that reason), then the Children of Israel, whose history subsequently appears in the Qur'an associated with killing, corruption, and arrogance.

﴿شَيَاطِينَ الْإِنسِ وَالْجِنِّ يُوحِي بَعْضُهُمْ إِلَىٰ بَعْضٍ زُخْرُفَ الْقَوْلِ غُرُورًا﴾ (Devils from among humans and jinn, inspiring one another with embellished speech as a deception.) [الأنعام: ١١٢]

Here the hypothesis can be formulated: if Iblis represents the origin of the trajectory of misguidance on the side of the jinn, does Israel represent the origin of the trajectory of misguidance on the side of humans? This is not a statement the Qur'an makes literally, but rather Tadbur arising from bringing together the Qur'anic network.

From Israel to the Children of Israel

If the group's name is “the Children of Israel,” the natural question becomes: what does the Qur'an reveal about the father from whom this group claims descent?

Here the method of inquiry changes: rather than taking Israel from outside the Qur'an and then placing him within it, we do the reverse; we investigate Israel → his action → the effect of his action → his descendants → the history of his descendants → the recurring pattern in that history. This is the essence of the Tadbur we are testing here.

Human misguidance appears in multiple forms

﴿وَأَضَلَّهُمُ السَّامِرِيُّ﴾ (And al-Samiri led them astray.) [طه: ٨٥]

Thus, the Qur'an explicitly uses the verb “led astray” in the context of a human man associated with leading the Children of Israel astray. It does not follow that al-Samiri is Israel himself, but within the framework of this hypothesis he can be viewed as a later manifestation of the pattern of human misguidance.

This opens up another question: does the Qur'an present us with multiple figures united by a single pattern of misguidance? If so, the search for Israel may not be a search for a person who appears each time under his own name, but rather for a human trajectory that recurs in different forms.

Israel and Satan: two parallel trajectories

Iblis: disobeyed → was arrogant → led astray → drove Adam out → became an enemy of the Children of Adam.

Israel—according to the hypothesis: killed → his action gave rise to a legislative consequence concerning the Children of Israel → killing, corruption, and arrogance appeared in their history → human forms of misguidance appeared later.

In both cases, we are not speaking merely of a name, but of an action → an effect → a trajectory. This may be the key that connects the dispersed verses.

What about “casting off the verses”?

﴿وَاتْلُ عَلَيْهِمْ نَبَأَ الَّذِي آتَيْنَاهُ آيَاتِنَا فَانسَلَخَ مِنْهَا فَأَتْبَعَهُ الشَّيْطَانُ فَكَانَ مِنَ الْغَاوِينَ﴾ (And recite to them the account of the one to whom We gave Our verses, but who cast them off; then Satan pursued him, and he became one of those who went astray.) [الأعراف: ١٧٥]

The Qur'an does not say that this person is Israel, but casting off the verses represents another model of the trajectory of a human being who moves from knowledge to error. An important distinction emerges here: Iblis whispers to the human being, but the human being can himself become part of the system of misguidance, and this accords with ﴿شَيَاطِينَ الْإِنسِ وَالْجِنِّ﴾ (Devils from among humans and jinn).

What, then, do we do with the traditional equation of Israel with Jacob?

We do not need to reject it in order to test the hypothesis, nor do we need to accept it before beginning the inquiry; we set it aside as a starting point and then ask: can the Qur'an itself establish it? If the Qur'an establishes it, the inquiry is over; if it does not establish it explicitly, we must investigate the rest of the network.

Here the distinction between Qur'anic information and an inference drawn through Tadbur becomes essential: the Qur'an says Israel, says Jacob, says the Children of Israel, recounts the son of Adam's killing of his brother, and says ﴿مِنْ أَجْلِ ذَٰلِكَ كَتَبْنَا عَلَىٰ بَنِي إِسْرَائِيلَ﴾ (For that reason, We prescribed for the Children of Israel). As for the claim that the one who killed his brother is Israel, that is the hypothesis we are testing through this network.

Here Tadbur becomes a test, not selective choosing

If the hypothesis is correct, it should be able to explain a larger number of verses with the fewest assumptions; if it is incorrect, we should find something within the Qur'an that breaks it. This is the real test: not how I can prove that Israel is the one who killed his brother, but whether reading Israel in this way makes the network of verses more coherent, or whether there are verses that refute it.

Hypothesis → Qur'anic evidence → connections → testing → attempted refutation.

What do we conclude at this stage?

Up to this point, I am not saying that the Qur'an explicitly declared, “Israel is the one who killed his brother.” Rather, I am saying that the Qur'an has left us a set of points: Israel is a person; he predates the revelation of the Torah; the Children of Israel claim descent from him; Jacob is mentioned by his own name without an explicit Qur'anic statement equating him with Israel; the account of the first human killing ends by turning to the Children of Israel with the phrase ﴿مِنْ أَجْلِ ذَٰلِكَ﴾ (For that reason); their history in the Qur'an includes killing, corruption, and arrogance; and the Qur'an speaks of those who lead astray from among jinn and humans.

From here Tadbur emerges: perhaps the Qur'an did not place Israel's identity in a direct definitional sentence, but distributed its keys within a network of verses, so that it becomes apparent only by connecting the name, the action, the effect, and the trajectory.

﴿أَفَلَا يَتَدَبَّرُونَ الْقُرْآنَ﴾ (Do they not reflect upon the Qur'an?) [النساء: ٨٢]

The answer disclosed by this reading is that Israel is the human being who committed the first murder in Qur'anic history, and with him begins the human trajectory of leading astray. In this reading of the network, he is one of the two to whom the inhabitants of the Fire refer when they say ﴿الَّذَيْنِ أَضَلَّانَا مِنَ الْجِنِّ وَالْإِنسِ﴾ (the two who led us astray, from among jinn and humans). Iblis represents the origin of leading astray among the jinn, and Israel represents the origin of leading astray among humans.

Name → act → effect → progeny → trajectory → leading astray

The Greatest Deception

If the reading we have reached is correct, the picture becomes more dangerous than the mere existence of two agents of misguidance: neither trajectory ends with the death of its originator. Iblis was granted respite until the day of the appointed time and remained active on earth. Israel, according to this reading, does not remain merely a person who committed a crime whose effects then ceased; rather, his name becomes an enduring human trajectory: Israel → the Children of Israel → killing, corruption, and haughty ascendancy → leading astray.

Here the more dangerous question arises: if there is an origin of leading astray among the jinn and an origin of leading astray among humans, do the two trajectories operate separately? Or does the Qur'an disclose to us the possibility of cooperation between the devils among the jinn and the devils among humans? The Qur'an does not merely mention the existence of the two parties; it describes a relationship between them: ﴿يُوحِي بَعْضُهُمْ إِلَىٰ بَعْضٍ﴾ (They inspire one another).

Here we can understand “complete deception” differently: Iblis does not need to rule human beings himself, and Israel does not need to act alone. It is enough for seduction by the jinn to be complemented by implementation and shaping by humans. The jinn whisper, and the human being turns the whispering into an idea; the idea becomes a doctrine, the doctrine becomes an identity, the identity becomes a conflict, and the conflict becomes a history inherited by successive generations. Thus, leading astray can continue even without the human being knowing its original source.

The Absence of Truth Is Part of the Deception

If Iblis and Israel represent two origins of the trajectories of leading astray, the most dangerous thing that can happen is for the relationship between them to remain concealed. A person may see religion here, politics there, war elsewhere, identity elsewhere, and fear and hatred elsewhere, without seeing the thread that connects them.

Here the phrase ﴿زُخْرُفَ الْقَوْلِ غُرُورًا﴾ (embellished speech, as deception) becomes an important key. Complete deception does not always rest on outright falsehood, but on concealing the relationship between the parts: a person sees each piece separately without seeing the whole picture.

Why Does Leading Astray Require the Human Being?

Because Iblis alone cannot compel the human being:

﴿وَمَا كَانَ لِيَ عَلَيْكُم مِّن سُلْطَانٍ إِلَّا أَن دَعَوْتُكُمْ فَاسْتَجَبْتُمْ لِي﴾ (I had no authority over you, except that I called you and you responded to me.) [إبراهيم: ٢٢]

The turning point, then, is the human being himself: seduction comes, the human being responds, and then becomes capable of seducing another human being. Here the individual turns into a system, and the human being himself becomes one of the instruments of leading astray that operate on earth.

Here the Danger of Israel in This Hypothesis Emerges

If Israel is the first origin of the human trajectory of leading astray, his significance lies not only in his person but in what happened after him: his name becomes a lineage, his lineage becomes a community, the community enters history, history enters religion, religion enters politics, and politics enters conflict; then conflict becomes a memory inherited by successive generations.

Here we may arrive at the most dangerous form of deception: human beings fighting one another without knowing where the conflict began in the first place.

Complete Deception

Complete deception does not mean that falsehood disappears, but that falsehood appears in the guise of truth: each party thinks it is defending God while defending a narration (riwāya) it has inherited; a person thinks he is fighting his enemy while in fact reproducing the trajectory into which he has been drawn; and conflict among human beings becomes the screen concealing the deeper conflict: truth confronting misguidance.

For this reason, the most dangerous potential alliance is not an alliance between two states or two communities, but the alliance of Iblis + the human agent of misguidance: Iblis whispers and the human being plans; Iblis seduces and the human being implements; Iblis conceals the truth and the human being constructs a narration (riwāya) around it. Human beings then inherit the narration (riwāya) and forget its origin.

If Iblis is the origin of leading astray among the jinn, and Israel is the origin of leading astray among humans according to this hypothesis, the question is no longer merely: who are they? Rather: what happens when the two trajectories meet? Is the result the greatest deception the human being has ever known? A deception that prevents a person from seeing the agent of misguidance, from seeing the deception, and from seeing that he has become part of it.

Here the real battle becomes not the search for a new enemy, but the exposure of deception itself. The Qur'an does not call upon us to inherit conflict, but to expose it: ﴿أَفَلَا تَعْقِلُونَ﴾ (Will you not reason?), ﴿أَفَلَا يَتَدَبَّرُونَ﴾ (Do they not reflect?), ﴿هَاتُوا بُرْهَانَكُمْ﴾ (Bring your proof).

The Doctrine That Carried the Trajectory

﴿إِنَّ الدِّينَ عِندَ اللَّهِ الْإِسْلَامُ﴾ (Indeed, the religion with God is Islam.) [آل عمران: ١٩]

If Israel represents, according to this reading, the origin of leading astray among humans, and Iblis its origin among the jinn, the question advances another step: is the Jewish doctrine that took shape in history the product of this pair's work? That is, it was not a religion sent down by God under this name, but rather a doctrinal and intellectual system fashioned by the trajectory of leading astray, to become a framework in which the human being believes and through which he reproduces that trajectory. Thus, the pair's aim would not be merely to lead the human being astray directly, but to manufacture a doctrine that carries misguidance across generations.

Here the Qur'an becomes a different event in the history of divine messages: God did not leave the final message to meet the same fate, but sent down a Book and pledged to preserve it:

﴿إِنَّا نَحْنُ نَزَّلْنَا الذِّكْرَ وَإِنَّا لَهُ لَحَافِظُونَ﴾ (Indeed, it is We who have sent down the Reminder, and indeed, We will preserve it.) [الحجر: ٩]

﴿لَا يَأْتِيهِ الْبَاطِلُ مِن بَيْنِ يَدَيْهِ وَلَا مِنْ خَلْفِهِ﴾ (Falsehood does not approach it from before it or from behind it.) [فصلت: ٤٢]

Thus, the Qur'an came to place before the human being a text that the trajectory of misguidance cannot reshape as it reshaped what preceded it. From here, we can understand the function of the Qur'an in this reading more broadly: the Qur'an did not come only to acquaint the human being with religion, but also to reveal what happened to religion when it entered history. It reveals the difference between what God sent down and what human beings constructed around what God sent down, and reveals the relationship between revelation and distortion, the message and what has been inherited, guidance and misguidance, and religion as it is with God and the systems that history has produced.

At this point, the network of misguidance becomes discernible, because the Qur'an is preserved, and human beings can return to it to compare everything they have inherited against it. If Jewish doctrine—according to this hypothesis—is one of the most important results of the work of Iblis and Israel in history, then the Qur'an did not come to build a new doctrine upon it, but to reveal the origin of the relationship, dismantle the edifice, and return the human being to religion as it is with God: Islam.

Conclusion

We are not confronting the question, “Who said that Israel is Jacob?” Rather, we are confronting a deeper question: “What does the Qur'an say about Israel if we temporarily strip it of the inherited definition, then let its verses speak to one another?”

Israel → the Children of Israel → the killing of a soul → ﴿مِنْ أَجْلِ ذَٰلِكَ﴾ (For that reason) → killing → the killing of prophets → corruption → arrogance → human misguidance.

On the other side: Iblis → Satan → temptation → the expulsion of Adam → misguidance on the part of the jinn.

From here, the central hypothesis takes shape: in this reading, Iblis represents the first origin of the trajectory of misguidance on the part of the jinn, while Israel represents the first origin of the trajectory of misguidance on the part of humankind.

The most important conclusions, then, are these: Israel, in this reading, is a human figure and not merely a name for a group, and the starting point is ﴿مَا حَرَّمَ إِسْرَائِيلُ عَلَىٰ نَفْسِهِ﴾ (what Israel forbade himself). He is the perpetrator of the first human murder recounted by the Qur'an: the account of Adam's two sons ends in killing, immediately followed by ﴿مِنْ أَجْلِ ذَٰلِكَ كَتَبْنَا عَلَىٰ بَنِي إِسْرَائِيلَ﴾ (For that reason, We prescribed for the Children of Israel). This is the central link connecting the killer to Israel.

The first crime is not an isolated incident, but the beginning of a trajectory: killing → the Children of Israel → the killing of prophets → corruption → arrogance. The name Israel shifts from a person to a historical effect: the individual dies, but the trajectory he initiated can continue through the group, history, and conduct.

The Qur'an reveals the existence of two origins of misguidance: one among the jinn and one among humankind. Iblis represents the origin of misguidance on the part of the jinn: disobedience → haughtiness → whispering → the temptation of Adam → enmity toward the Children of Adam. Israel represents the origin of misguidance on the part of humankind: killing → the emergence of the human trajectory → corruption and arrogance → the continuation of misguidance.

Misguidance does not always operate in isolation. The verse ﴿شَيَاطِينَ الْإِنسِ وَالْجِنِّ يُوحِي بَعْضُهُمْ إِلَىٰ بَعْضٍ﴾ (Devils among humankind and jinn, inspiring one another) reveals the point at which the two trajectories converge. The greatest deception is the disappearance of the source of deception: whispering does not appear as whispering, but turns into an idea, then discourse, then belief, then identity, then conflict. The human being thus becomes part of a system of misguidance without seeing its origin. In the end, the inhabitants of the Fire reveal the existence of the two misleaders: ﴿رَبَّنَا أَرِنَا الَّذَيْنِ أَضَلَّانَا مِنَ الْجِنِّ وَالْإِنسِ﴾ (Our Lord, show us the two who led us astray, from among jinn and humans.).

A Map of Misguidance: From the Origin to the Greatest Deception

Iblis = the origin of misguidance among the jinn. Israel = the origin of misguidance among humankind. Killing = the starting point of the human trajectory. The Children of Israel = the extension of that trajectory. Devils among humankind and jinn = the mechanism through which the two trajectories converge. The greatest deception = the continuation of misguidance while its origin disappears from human awareness.