The belief in the Promised Land is a belief that is mostly known in our geography in connection with Judaism. However, this belief exists not only in Judaism, but also in Christianity, Hinduism and Buddhist faiths, albeit in different forms. In addition, although this belief has a religious nature, its political and cultural effects are much greater.

In Hinduism, there is a belief in the holy land similar to the Jewish faith. In Hinduism, belief in the holy land is often associated with Hindu nationalism. According to this belief, the historical and cultural boundaries of India encompass the region where Hinduism was born and spread. This region is sometimes referred to as Akhand Bharat (Undivided India) or Bharatvarsha. The boundaries of this region are not precisely defined, but it is generally accepted that it stretches from the east of Afghanistan to the west of Myanmar, from the south of Tibet to the north of Sri Lanka. The origin of this belief is based on legends in Hindu mythology and sacred texts. In Hinduism, as in Judaism, Ram Rajya (Rama’s Kingdom), where Rama, one of the nine avatars of the god Vishnu, reigns, describes the ideal state. The borders of this state are the same as the Kingdom of Kosala, which was ruled by Rama’s father, King Dasharatha. The Kingdom of Kosala forms part of the Indian state of Uttar Pradesh today.

In Hinduism, there is also a reference to Mount Kailash, a sacred mountain guarded by the Goddess Bharati (the national personification of India) and inhabited by the God Shiva. Mount Kailash is located in the present-day Tibet Autonomous Region of China. Hindu nationalists claim that Mount Kailash is also part of India. These beliefs have had and are making significant impacts on the formation of India’s political identity and paradigm. When we consider that Zionism, which developed within the Judaic faith, is also associated with the name of a mountain, it becomes possible to talk about a religious and political symbolism.

Some Buddhist schools, on the other hand, believe in the Pure Land, a spiritual realm where it is very easy to become enlightened. The most famous of these sites was created by a buddha named Amitabha. This belief is partly similar to our belief in the Kaaba and Mecca. Amitabha lived in ancient times as a bodhisattva named Dharmakara. In Buddhist thought, a bodhisattva is a person who is dedicated to helping all sentient beings achieve Buddhahood. The Sanskrit word Bodhisattva is made up of the words “enlightenment (‘bodhi’) and truth (‘sattva’)”. It is believed that those who are reborn in this area will be freed from suffering. However, this area is considered open to anyone who wants to be enlightened, and no ethnic conditions are put forward. Although there are many different branches of Buddhism, we have not found any information about a promised land belief on an ethnic basis.

The belief in the promised land is based on Abram (Prophet Abraham) in the Torah. Although it is not clear exactly when Prophet Abraham lived, it is estimated that he lived around 2000 BC. In the Torah, it is stated that the promised land was given to the descendants of Prophet Abraham. Although there is no clear date for the transformation of the Torah into a written text, when we consider that it was written between 1500-400 BC, it is understood that it was written about five hundred years after the death of Prophet Abraham. Considering the change in the alphabet and writing styles, it is exceedingly difficult to talk about the originality of these texts. When we look at the writing process and linguistic characteristics of the Torah, it is possible to see the traces of periodical political and cultural factors. At the time when the Torah was written, the concept of god was used in two different senses. One of them is the creator, and the other is the one who holds power and authority. Those who hold power and authority are the kings who have power in general, and in the process of writing the Torah, the concept of god was mostly used for god kings. In this respect, the belief in the promised land must have been formed as a result of the writers of the Torah rewriting the historical events with a religious fiction while writing down the events of that period. In fact, this situation can be considered as a deviation from the belief in the abstract creator, which was the belief of Prophet Abraham. Looking at the events from a religious point of view, it should not have been difficult to make such a formulation, since it is thought that all events are somehow connected with the divine will. However, while writing down these events, the distinction between divine will and divine consent was not taken into account. As a result of this, there was a problem of relativity to God regardless of the rightness or injustice of events. The Promised Land and all similar beliefs are the result of such misperceptions, apart from political abuse. In fact, as pointed out in the Qur’an, Prophet Abraham is the symbolic figure of reaching the abstract belief in God from the concrete belief in God by thinking about the universe. However, the abstract belief in God is an inherent perception in Islamic thought. Therefore, it is incompatible with the general teaching of Islam to claim that the abstract belief in God began with the Prophet Abraham.

The belief in the Promised Land is also an important subject of Christian theology. Although the subject of the Promised Land is found in the Bible, a very different approach has been put forward regarding the descendants and heirs of the Prophet Abraham. According to this approach, the heirs of Abraham are those who are subject to Jesus, as stated in Galatians 3:29. The relevant part reads: “If you belong to Christ, you are a descendant of Abraham, and according to the promise you are an heir.”

According to the majority of Muslim thinkers, the heirs of Prophet Abraham are Ismail, the son of Prophet Abraham, who is believed to be the descendant of the Arabs. With this connection, they consider themselves the heirs of Prophet Abraham. Considering the belief that Hagar, the wife of Prophet Abraham, was a Turk, it can be said that Turks are also the heirs of Prophet Abraham.

There is also no consensus on the boundaries of Prophet Abraham’s inheritance as a land. Because, according to the Torah, God made different covenants with the descendants of Abraham at different times. According to one view, there is also India in these lands. The Torah-promised land we have includes an area stretching from the Nile River in Egypt to the Euphrates River in Turkie (Genesis 15:18). It seems that the belief in the promised land has changed according to historical and political conditions.

As a matter of fact, Mormons, one of the Christian religious groups, tried to show the American lands as the promised land in order to legitimize the occupation of America. According to the Mormons, the promised land is the American continent. Mormons believe that the second coming of Jesus will take place in America and that it is a holy place chosen by God. According to Mormon belief, a man named Lehi, a descendant of Abraham, left Jerusalem in 600 BC and immigrated to America. Although the Qur’an emphasizes the promised land, no information is given about its borders, and it is stated that this promise is not based on an ethnic justification, but on a state of faith, and therefore the heirs of the earth are righteous people (Anbiya 105). In addition, it is not possible to assert an ethnic superiority in the Islamic faith. When we consider that the essence of all these beliefs is Islam, and that the essence of Islam is the guiding laws that Allah has placed on the nature of man and the universe with His creation, it is clear that such a belief or interpretation cannot be defended within Islamic thought. In the light of all these explanations, when we look at the general principles of justice and morality in the Torah, the Bible or the Qur’an, it is not possible to interpret the belief in the promised land in a way that legitimizes policies that legitimize unjust occupations. When such a claim is evaluated in the light of today’s principles of international law, it is clear that it contradicts the rules of international law. In addition, such beliefs and policies related to these beliefs have made humanity pay a very heavy price, as seen in the past and today, and have led to the destruction of the general moral principles of religion. As a result, it is not possible to resolve the Palestinian-Israeli conflict based on interpretations contrary to the general nature of all religions and humanity. This problem needs to be solved in the light of the general moral rules of religions and the generally accepted jus cogens rules of international law.