When Ancient War Texts Become a Project of Exclusion

Introduction: Between Sacred Text and Political Reality

When one reads certain war texts in the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh), particularly in books such as Deuteronomy, Joshua, and 1 Samuel, one encounters explicit language of exclusion, siege, seizure, and sometimes extermination, in formulations such as “leave alive nothing that breathes” and “destroy them utterly.”

In their structure, these texts link land, divine promise, and the removal of the other, making them open to controversy when read outside their historical context or invoked in modern political contexts.

With the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948 and the subsequent widespread displacement of Palestinians, land confiscation, settlement, and recurrent wars, a critical question emerged: can these texts, when read within an extremist religious nationalism, become a justificatory structure for exclusion and uprooting?

First: Texts of the Tanakh in Their Direct Textual Sense

Deuteronomy 20: 10–18. When a city is besieged, it is first offered surrender; if it refuses, war is waged against it, the men are killed, and the women, children, and spoils are taken. For certain cities, the concept of “total extermination” is mentioned. The central idea: comprehensive warfare following refusal, with the extensive exclusion of the population.

Deuteronomy 7: 1–2. A command to drive seven nations out of the land, to “destroy them completely,” and to prohibit covenants with them or compassion toward them within the context of the war text. The central idea: the complete removal of the adversary within a religious-territorial context.

Joshua 6: 21. An account of the fall of Jericho, the complete destruction of the city, the killing of men, women, and children, and the burning of the city. The central idea: the comprehensive destruction of the city and its inhabitants in the context of war.

1 Samuel 15: 3. A command to attack the Amalekites and kill men, women, and children—even animals in some textual accounts. The central idea: a war of extermination against a specified group according to the text.

Second: The Qur’anic Counterpart in Terms of General Principle

The Qur’an does not present “wars of total extermination,” but instead sets strict constraints on warfare.

﴿وَقَاتِلُوا فِي سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ الَّذِينَ يُقَاتِلُونَكُمْ وَلَا تَعْتَدُوا إِنَّ اللَّهَ لَا يُحِبُّ الْمُعْتَدِينَ﴾ (Fight in the way of God those who fight you, but do not transgress; indeed, God does not love transgressors.) [البقرة: ١٩٠]

The principle, then: fighting is defensive, with transgression prohibited.

﴿وَلَا تَقْتُلُوا النَّفْسَ الَّتِي حَرَّمَ اللَّهُ إِلَّا بِالْحَقِّ﴾ (Do not kill the soul that God has made inviolable, except by right.) [الأنعام: ١٥١]

The principle, then: killing a person is prohibited except on clear judicial grounds.

﴿وَإِن جَنَحُوا لِلسَّلْمِ فَاجْنَحْ لَهَا﴾ (If they incline toward peace, then incline toward it.) [الأنفال: ٦١]

The principle, then: peace takes priority when it is available.

﴿لَا إِكْرَاهَ فِي الدِّينِ﴾ (There is no compulsion in religion.) [البقرة: ٢٥٦]

The principle, then: the rejection of coercion in matters of belief.

The comparative conclusion: in the biblical texts—within their historical contexts—a discourse of comprehensive warfare appears in certain passages, involving the extensive exclusion of the enemy within contexts of “land/promise/people.” In the Qur’an, by contrast, warfare is constrained by defense, the prohibition of aggression, the protection of noncombatants, openness to peace, and the rejection of religious coercion.

Third: From Text to Reality—Palestine Since 1948

Since the Nakba, Palestinian reality has witnessed widespread displacement, the destruction of villages, settlement, siege, and recurrent conflicts.

Critical discourse does not posit a literal correspondence, but instead raises another question: how can concepts such as the “Promised Land,” the “chosen people,” or the “removal of obstacles” be invoked within a religious-nationalist discourse to become part of a political interpretation of reality?

Fourth: The Mechanism of Transformation from Text into Ideology

The danger lies not in the texts alone, but in three operations: turning the historical text into a state program; stripping it of its historical and ethical context and making it a set of permanent commands unrelated to any time or circumstance; and redefining the other, reducing the other from a human being to an “obstacle within a grand narrative.”

Fifth: The Danger of a Closed, Unitary Interpretation

The most dangerous aspect of this pattern is the transformation of the world into a single, closed narrative that explains everything. This results in the dissolution of distinctions between religion, politics, and history and their transformation into a single system; the reduction of history to a single line in which all events become part of a trajectory whose interpretation is predetermined; and the loss of the capacity to understand the world’s actual complexity, grounded in a multiplicity of actors, interests, and circumstances.

If a group believes that the entire world can be explained by one absolute narrative, the consequences may include dehumanizing the other, justifying violence as a “historical necessity,” and foreclosing criticism and internal reassessment. In this case, the danger lies not merely in the idea, but in its transformation into a closed certainty that effaces human complexity.

Sixth: The Qur’anic Dimension of the Warning Against Closed Certainty

﴿قُلْ هَلْ نُنَبِّئُكُم بِالْأَخْسَرِينَ أَعْمَالًا ۝ الَّذِينَ ضَلَّ سَعْيُهُمْ فِي الْحَيَاةِ الدُّنْيَا وَهُمْ يَحْسَبُونَ أَنَّهُمْ يُحْسِنُونَ صُنْعًا﴾ (Say: Shall we inform you of those who are the greatest losers in their deeds? Those whose efforts have gone astray in the life of this world, while they think they are doing good.) [الكهف: ١٠٣-١٠٤]

The Qur’an also establishes the principle of the multiplicity of causes and regularities, and of not reducing reality to a single explanation:

﴿وَلَوْ شَاءَ رَبُّكَ لَجَعَلَ النَّاسَ أُمَّةً وَاحِدَةً وَلَا يَزَالُونَ مُخْتَلِفِينَ﴾ (Had your Lord willed, He would have made humankind one community, but they continue to differ.) [هود: ١١٨]

Seventh: Similarity of Structure, Not Unity of Source

In early Christianity, the epistles attributed to Paul of Tarsus display a pivotal role in shaping Christianity’s theological framework beyond its initial Jewish context. They emphasized concepts such as salvation through faith, the universal orientation of the mission, and the separation of religious commitment from Jewish law in numerous respects. As Christianity subsequently expanded, his writings became a fundamental part of official theological doctrine in most Christian traditions.

In the Islamic exegetical tradition, meanwhile, reports known as Isrāʾīliyyāt—accounts attributed to ancient Jewish and Christian sources—entered certain early works of exegesis and historical narrative. They appeared in the context of interpreting accounts of the prophets and earlier peoples, particularly when elaborating details not directly mentioned in the Qur’an. They were transmitted through narrators from the People of the Book or through early oral and written sources, and were incorporated to varying degrees into works of exegesis and biographical narrative.

Comparative analysis of hardline religious currents in the three religions shows that the similarity lies not in the texts or doctrines themselves, but in the mental structure that emerges when texts become a closed political ideology. The text no longer serves as a framework of multiple meanings for reflection and interpretation; instead, it is recast within a “single system of interpretation” that reduces all reality to one grand narrative.

Thus, within certain hardline religious-nationalist readings: the exclusive linkage of the “divine promise” to land; the reading of ancient war texts as a justificatory framework for modern political conflict; and the transformation of religious identity into a political project tied to land and power.

Within certain takfīrī groups: the transformation of concepts of fighting into a permanent rather than circumstantial condition; the reduction of the world to an “abode of faith and an abode of unbelief”; and the transformation of texts into a system that explains all contemporary political reality.

Within certain political currents associated with salvific interpretations of the New Testament: the interpretation of political events within an ultimate scheme; the reading of international conflict as part of a predetermined divine plan; and the integration of politics with ultimate narratives of salvation.

Despite differences among texts and traditions, a single recurring structure emerges: the transformation of religious text into a comprehensive political interpretation; the elimination of plurality in understanding reality; the division of the world into stark binaries; the dehumanization of the other; and the foreclosure of internal criticism and interpretation.

The world must awaken to the danger of turning any idea into a single, absolute interpretation that dominates everything. If this pattern of thought spreads and becomes an all-encompassing collective conviction, it threatens not only intellectual diversity but also opens the way to forcibly reshaping reality according to “one truth” imposed upon everyone. Difference then becomes a crime, plurality a threat, and the human being is reduced to a part within a closed narrative.

Conclusion

The issue is not that religious texts alone produce violence, but rather the moment when any texts or ideas become a single, comprehensive interpretive framework that reduces the entire world to one perspective. At that point, human beings lose their capacity to apprehend reality in its plurality and complexity, and everything is recast within “one grand narrative” that explains all events.

When religion or thought becomes this kind of closed interpretation, a realistic understanding of the world recedes, and it becomes easy to justify exclusion or violence in the name of absolute truth.

This development can be summarized as follows: in ancient Hebrew texts, there is a discourse of war tied to a nation, a land, and a historical context; in Christianity, it was transformed into symbolism and love; and in Islam, warfare was reformulated within a framework of rigorous ethics and universal humanity.