Talk:Muslim supporters of Israel

unnamed thread
One thing that is wrong and clearly made me have doubts when i first read it was the mentioning that the children of Israel are Jews.Obviously historically and according to the holy Quran the Children of Israel were tribes that submitted to god's will and became Muslims. Id like to support my point by showing this verse from the holy Quran


 * Nay! were you witnesses when death visited Yaqoub(Jacob), when he said to his sons: What will you serve after me? They said: We will serve your god and the god of your fathers, Ibrahim (Abraham) and Ismail(Ishmael) and Is'haq(Isaac), one Allah only, and to Him do we Bow(In Islam). (2:133)

the word submitter means Muslims and in the original Arabic Quran the word Muslims appears besides the end of the verse Now when it comes to history we all know Israelites like Assryians and Babylonians are an ancient tribe and Muslim Tradition holds that they are a tribe that not longer have roots and have all departed than no one knows who are they anymore

Another thing is that clearly when Jesus Christ was born many Israelites believed in him and become Jewish Christians or in other word Christians

This is Muslim page and i think the Islamic View of Israelites and the Promised land SHOULD be kept as well as the meaning and interpretation of those verses mentioned so people can understand the Islamic views

Thank you

Source: The Holy Quran http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/quran/002.qmt.html

Chapter 002.Verse 132

And this was the legacy that Abraham left to his sons, and so did Jacob; "Oh my sons! Allah hath chosen the Faith for you; then die not except in the Faith of Islam

Chapter 002. Verse 133

Were ye witnesses when death appeared before Jacob? Behold, he said to his sons: "What will ye worship after me?" They said: "We shall worship Thy god and the god of thy fathers, of Abraham, Isma'il and Isaac,- the one (True) Allah: To Him do we Bow(in Islam)." –§–

This sounds like an original research, which is not allowed in Wikipedia. You should cite a verifiable and reliable secondary source. Marokwitz (talk) 14:01, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

not allowed why? now your not going to allow me put Quranic Verses in an ISLAMIC PAGE! we dont have no source we only have one source called the Quran and it speaks for yourself.. If you act STUPID ITS UP TO YOU SIR NOT ME .. AND IF YOU TRANSLATE VERSES IN THE WRONG WAY THATS ALSO UP TO YOU NOT ME! I have the most valuable source...

WHERE IS YOUR SOURCE THAT PROVES YOUR POINT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!?????? id like to see that please

82.194.62.20 (talk) 18:54, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

To those concerned with this article: This is not an Islamic page or article, but a Wikipedia page that concerns a topic about Islam. Ayahs from the Qur'an are certainly welcome as well as various and cited translations. What is not welcome is un-cited interpretations of these verses - which may be considered original research. If you are an Islamic jurist who has done scholarly work on these issues, please post your expert opinion with references to your work. If not, reference the scholarly works, tawfik, and erudite historical works of those who are experts.

Now, I am interested in learning more about this topic. Until today, I had no idea that Muslim support for Zionism existed - and I'd like to learn more. It's clearly a touchy subject, and contributions should, needless to say, be considered, thoughtful,and supported with academic citations.--Taajikhan (talk) 01:29, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you in advance not to quote any more Sir EL HATTAB, because of repeated threats, he does not intervene any more on the question israël / Palestine. Today he dedicates itself exclusively to the international finance. Thank you for respecting his choice.

Thank you in advance not to quote any more Sir EL HATTAB, because of repeated threats, he does not intervene any more on the question israël / Palestine. Today he dedicates itself exclusively to the international finance. Thank you for respecting his choice. 86.205.82.200 (talk) 22:03, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Sir El hattab asks you to remove the reference concerning him because no authorization was asked so that he appears on your page Muslim Zionism. Moreover, Mr El hattab is not Zionist but just a Muslim hoping that the peace can one day exist between Israelis and Palestinians. He does not intervene any more on this conflict for several years because he considers that the question is too much complicated. Today, he worries only questions having for subject the international finance. In advance, thank you for respecting his choice and erasing the link concerning him, before any pursuit or judicial approach. 81.249.62.125 (talk) 10:25, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Original research and laughably POV
This is a laughably POV article which gives extremely undue weight to fringe theories while entirely lacking in any reliable secondary or academic sources to justify it. In fact it is a synthesis of various Original research in order to advance a nakedly POV position by people who want to utilize Wikipedia as their own Soapbox. Quite funnily it includes Nonie Darwishs's site Arabs for Israel as a reference and a source for this supposed phenomena "Muslim Zionism" even though she is a self proclaimed Ex-Muslim and Evangelical Christian. Without any reliable secondary sources this whole article should be deleted. Tec15 (talk) 13:45, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


 * This article is based on reliable secondary sources and represents a real phenomena . Arabs for Israel is not truly used as a reference, it's just an external link. There are Muslim Zionists and Jewish Anti-Zionists . Notable opinions should be mentioned even if they are fringe ones. Marokwitz (talk) 16:30, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Really ? Because there is in fact no article called Jewish Anti-Zionism and the entire topic is subsumed into the general Anti-Zionism article despite it being a vastly more documented phenomena than something as mythical as "Muslim Zionism". The existence of a handful of self proclaimed "Muslim Zionists" does not constitute a real political or religious movement, certainly not one equivalent to Christian Zionism. Further, this article inappropriately labels people like Faisal I of Iraq as "Muslim Zionists" when they have never gone on record as identifying as such. Even Irshad Manji may be inappropriately cited as a "Muslim Zionist". Finally the article is in no way based on reliable secondary sources. Most of the sources used are news articles (Many not even employing the term "Muslim Zionism") and extremely partisan websites such as Islam-Watch and the website of the Israeli Foreign Ministry (Note that even they don't label the supposedly "Pragmatic Arab views of Hamas" as an example of "Muslim Zionism", a clear case of synthesis and original research) with not a single credible academic source documenting the existence of this phenomenon. Contrast this with the numerous academic articles and papers documenting both Jewish Anti-Zionism and Christian Zionism including from sources attacking both the respective concepts and their adherents. In fact there are aren't even any Muslim sources attacking the concept of "Muslim Zionism" either, because it simply doesn't exist. This opinion does not qualify as a notable one enough to derive it's own article. Tec15 (talk) 17:17, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

tag cruft
there appears to be a bit of overeagerness with the tagging. some of the tags are redundant. for example, WP:SYNTH is a sub-policy of WP:OR. Thus, there is little benefit in having both an OR and a SYNTH tag on one article. It is due to situations like this that Wikipedia policy requires that those tagging articles explain clearly the basis for the tags on the talk page. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 12:40, 17 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreed. And this article doesn't seem to cite any primary sources so the primary sources tag is strange. Marokwitz (talk) 12:44, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The sources may talk about Muslims and their support for Israel or zionism, but do any of the sources actually discuss "Muslim Zionism"? And are any references to this to be found in reliable third party sources. Chesdovi (talk) 12:50, 17 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Sure they do, many of the sources cited in this article use this term explicitly. Marokwitz (talk) 12:52, 17 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Nope, there still isn't a reliable scholarly secondary source discussing the phenomenon of "Muslim Zionism". Most of the sources are newspaper articles which merely quote proponents of the term verbatim, thus failing by a long way in being reliable secondary sources.Secondly WP:SYNTH is necessary as some sections such as the Kuwait one imply that the subjects refer to themselves as Muslim Zionists when there is no such implication in the cited sources.(Even as problematic as those sources are in the first place.) Tec15 (talk) 13:10, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * There is scant mention given to MZ on GoggleBooks, (a few references are in regard to the demand of a separate homeland for Muslims in India.) Does MZ really qualify here? Is it notable? I can't find evidence that the confluence of Islam and its relation to support for  Zionsim is notable. Chesdovi (talk) 13:25, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Nothing in google scholar either. There is nothing to find because the entire article is based on original research to rather transparently advance and promote this notion through Wikipedia. Tec15 (talk) 13:35, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * there is a far greater confluence between Islam and Zionism then Judaism and bus stops, but I digress ;)-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 13:28, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * He he :) Marokwitz (talk) 13:29, 17 October 2010 (UTC)


 * This article article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative Views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views. In the last week or so I added a wide variety of high quality citations that directly mention and discuss Muslim Zionism . I also removed virtually all the uses of primary sources and all unreliable sources which were cited. I hope this will answer all of the raised concerns . Please feel free to review my work. I think it is obvious that there is wide coverage of this topic and it is clearly notable. Marokwitz (talk) 15:48, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * There is still no improvement in the article. It still fails general notability guidelines SIGCOV with a total lack of reliable secondary sources that address the subject directly in detail. Since the article deals with an ideology and concept, reliable academic sources are necessary to establish notability. As it stands now, the article would not exist at all without the benefit of original research. Individuals like Nasser al-Din Shah Qajar and Faisal I of Iraq are grouped together to suggest a continuous, coherent vision of "Muslim Zionism" analogous to Christian Zionism when no external sources have done so. This is a clear case of WP:SYNTH, combining material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. That is hardly the only case of it throughout the article. In the section on Kuwait for example, a Kuwaiti writer who is cited by the Israeli Foreign Ministry as an example of "Pragmatic Arab views of Hamas" is suddenly turned by Wikipedia editors into a "Muslim Zionist". Then we come to some of the sources which cite a supposedly minority Quranic interpretation which says that God gave Israel to the Jews, and again not only is there no detailed discussion of "Muslim Zionism" among the sources, the subject is not even mentioned. Additionally, only WP:SYNTH by editors here imply a connection between these sources and the article subject.
 * The last point is important, because the entire article is built on a foundation of original research starting with the name. The term "Muslim Zionism" is itself a neologism of no notably and with little usage. This article also has other problems, but these ones by themselves mean that it should not exist. Padding the section on Druze Israelis does not alter the fundamental problems with the article, which far from being addressed have been continuously ignored as if they are no issue. Tec15 (talk) 12:47, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I added the verifiable and cited fact that a Druze Zionist Movement exists and as of 2005 there were 7,000 registered members in the Druze Zionist movement. Hardly "padding". This article is discussing a real and notable movement which represents an existing "alternative view" in the Muslim world, for which there are many examples and, since it is such an unusual and interesting view, is widely covered by reliable sources. Marokwitz (talk) 06:28, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Blithely repeating again and again that it is a real and notable movement does not make it so. The article title is a neologism which is not widely used at all and much of the rest of the article is filled with original research and again, no reliable academic secondary sources which discuss the ostensible subject matter. Tec15 (talk) 12:18, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I think the sources in this article talk for themselves. However in attempt to resolve your concerns, in addition to the major work I previously did on adding reliable material and citations and eliminating all primary sources, I now renamed the article to a name that is wider in scope and hopefully this will end the dispute. Marokwitz (talk) 13:53, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Haven't' been here in a while but I see that little has actually changed. Simply renaming the topic has not removed the previous concerns raised regarding original research, notability, sourcing and neutral point of view. I am putting the tags back up until and if they are ever resolved. Tec15 (talk) 10:29, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Supporters of a Jewish homeland as distinct from supporters of the policies of the modern Israeli state
This article does not distinguish between Muslims who believe Jews should be able to live peacefully in the land of their ancestors, and Muslims who support the actions of the modern Israeli state with regard to the non-Jewish populations of that area. In addition, many of the sources cited by the article are not of the quality necessary for use with a controversial topic such as this.

Rather than a thoughtful, encyclopedic treatment of the underlying premise, which bears consideration by all peoples of good will, the article becomes instead a political spin-piece unable to withstand scrutiny.

Aquib (talk) 15:17, 30 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The scope of this article is about a minority viewpoint, as you phrased it, "Muslims who believe Jews should be able to live peacefully in the land of their ancestors". This is the criteria for inclusion. I agree fully that these people may or may not approve the Policies and actions of the modern Israeli state. Having said that, this article should not be required to categorically refrain from discussing the topic of whether these people approve or criticize Israel's current policies, whenever this is relevant for understanding their viewpoint. Marokwitz (talk) 15:18, 13 February 2011 (UTC)


 * If the article covers any Muslim who supports the concept of Israel in any form, then great care must be taken to elucidate the viewpoints of these Muslims in order to avoid confusion on the part of the reader. -Aquib (talk) 15:32, 13 February 2011 (UTC)


 * A case in point here is the use of Quranic verses, Islamic Traditions and Sharia to justify the existence of a sovereign Israeli state. One would expect the concept of dhimma to have applied implicitly in many of these instances; producing a similar practical result, but perhaps not the result expected by the authors of this article. -Aquib (talk) 15:44, 13 February 2011 (UTC)


 * If you think that any of the provided viewpoints is portrayed in a distorted or inaccurate way, then by all means, feel free to repair it or post the specifics here. Marokwitz (talk) 05:25, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks -Aquib (talk) 17:46, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

The Druze do not generally consider themselves Muslims, nor do Muslims generally consider the Druze to be Muslims
See The Druze in the Middle East: Their Faith, Leadership, Identity and Status, By Dana, Nissim. For instance, p 126. 


 * Naturally there is some dispute on this matter among Muslim scholars, however according to most sources, the Druze generally consider themselves an Islamic Unist, reformatory sect. On the question of self identification see for example The Druzes in the Jewish state: a brief history, By Kais Firro. p. 208. Also see the Druzes: an annotated bibliography, p. 33. Marokwitz (talk) 17:00, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


 * That is going a bit far afield, unless you are willing to take on the required explanations. It is also blurring the topic of the article. Muslim, and other sects which some consider to be Muslim and some do not (for various reasons), supporters of Israel. One would expect to see this distinction made in the article, along with some background on the applicable political and historic context. Unless you are short on material, I would suggest you narrow your focus. -Aquib (talk) 20:22, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The article Islamic schools and branches mentions the Druze, so I don't see why we need to be less inclusive here. The Druze faith is based on an allegorical interpretation of the Qur'an. The Druze faith integrated elements of Ismaili Islam with Gnosticism and Platonism, and based on my survey of sources on the topic, most academics consider them an Islamic Unist, reformatory sect which was historically persecuted by mainstream Islam. In addition to the sources I mentioned above you may refer also to "The Muwahhidoon Druze—Synopsis of An Islamic Sect", By Dr. Abdallah Najjar, and "Reincarnation for the Druze", by Anne Bennet, Ethnology, 2006, vol. 45, no2, pp. 87-104. See also the ALFRED database of ethnicity, . I have great respect for your attempts to review and improve this article, but in this case I think you are going too far. Marokwitz (talk) 06:11, 13 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I'll take ca closer look. -Aquib (talk) 13:44, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Reliable sources: "A Muslim Zionist". IsraPundit.com.
This article needs to use neutral, verifiable sources. Sources such as Israpundit.com will not stand up. Aquib (talk) 14:28, 12 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Reliability should be judged on a case by case basis. Obviously, this site is generally a non-reliable source for unattributed facts. No question about this, and if it is cited for such facts, they should be removed. However when used for describing the attributed opinions of Palazzi, there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity. Marokwitz (talk) 05:44, 13 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I have posted this issue to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard for feedback. -Aquib (talk) 06:20, 13 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Great. Thank you for accurately describing the dilemma. I will of course accept any consensus if one is achieved. Marokwitz (talk) 06:50, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Katz as a source
The reliability of Shmuel Katz as a source is discussed in detail at Talk:Shmuel Katz (politician) and need not be repeated here. Suffice it to say: no relevant qualifications, spent most of his life as a professional propagandist, first for the Irgun, later for Likud. His book Battleground is replete with nonsense like a map with "Jewish National Home" splashed across Jordan, and anyone who picks it up will see it is a just a cheap polemic with massive distortions. Besides that, he doesn't even say that Hussein wrote the words quoted here. He says there was a newspaper article "written or inspired" by Hussein. What does that mean? The article doesn't say who wrote it? So how do we know? Zerotalk 12:20, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Your opinions on his scholarship don't disqualify his book. Each time a source is used, it should be judged individually for what it is quoting.
 * That may be true, but what reason can you give for treating this claim as more reliable than the book overall? Zerotalk 03:36, 9 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The newspaper article was "written or inspired" by Hussein because it is unknown if he actually wrote it, or had a ghostwriter or trusted editor deliver the message for him. It is a polemic book, but that doesn't disqualify it outright. Luke 19 Verse 27 (talk) 21:29, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The quality of the book is such that the existence and content of the alleged newspaper article is uncertain. And how do you know "because it is unknown..."?  Have you seen the newspaper article?  Zerotalk 03:09, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I notice that even the inside cover blurb of the book starts "Samuel Katz has been a lifelong activist in the cause of Jewish national rebirth" and then notes he was "one of the leaders of the Land of Israel movement" when the first edition of the book came out, and on Menachem Begin's staff at the time the "revised and expanded" edition I have was published (complete with a Forward by Begin). So in addition to his dubious reliability, he is definitely not a third-party source. He can't be used except in the form of an opinion by a named source.  But why is his opinion notable?  Zerotalk 03:36, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * So I guess Edward Said can't be extensively used as a source on WP anymore? Or do you only think sources are unreliable if you don't agree with them? Luke 19 Verse 27 (talk) 15:34, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:NPA before your next reply, it would be a pity if I had to report you. The idea of comparing a professor at one of the world's leading universities to someone without a relevant degree is a bit hard to digest. Are you kidding? If you wanted to compare Shmuel Katz to, say (casting around for a random Palestinian activist), Raed Salah I would agree.  We can only use people like that in the form "According to (insert role) (insert name), something happened".  This is not just my idea, read the rules about third-party sources. Zerotalk 16:14, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Katz was a journalist, so he was qualified to write books about recent history. I haven't seen any of his books made disreputable, except by saying "he's not a historian." Do you know that Edward Said is not a historian? He is a professor of English Lit. But his books are used (when appropriate) as RS.
 * Finally, what is it you thought was a personal attack? Luke 19 Verse 27 (talk) 21:38, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Edward Said is none of those things; he is dead. But even for him I would write "According to Edward Said" if the subject matter was politically contentious and probably you will find that most citations of him are like that. Katz was a historian only in the sense that he wrote books with the outward form of history books. There are "mathematicians" and "physicists" like that too, but you won't find them cited in science articles. The rules about sourcing are too weak in my opinion. And "do you only think sources are unreliable if you don't agree with them?" is a personal attack that I trust you won't repeat. Zerotalk 01:54, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Its not a personal attack, its a question. I couldn't see any reason to discredit the source, other than maybe because you didn't like it. You haven't given me reason to believe otherwise. Katz was a journalist, and therefore qualified to reprint editorials from Mukkah. There is no reason to say, "according to Katz" because it isn't his opinion, it is a source found in his book. Luke 19 Verse 27 (talk) 15:42, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Katz was 4 years old when the alleged newspaper article appeared, so the journalist argument doesn't hold water. He has to be judged on his reputation as a historian, and he doesn't have one. Zerotalk 07:58, 2 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, having done a search for better sources, I now believe the al-Qibla article existed since it is mentioned by George Antonius in "Arab Awakening" (p269) where he says it reflected "the general Arab attitude towards Jewry prior to the appearance of political Zionism on the scene" (a judgement a bit hard to reconcile with "support of Israel"). The actual text given by Katz was taken from a Jewish Agency publication "Documents relating to the McMahon letters" (1939) and repeated in "Documents relating to the Palestine problem" (1945). Of course the Jewish Agency is not a third-party source. You can see snippets here that show without doubt that it was Katz' actual source. Katz has taken it verbatim except to remove the ellipses (another proof that he wasn't really a historian). Zerotalk 08:27, 2 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The Jewish Agency is indeed not a third-party source, but for the purpose of providing a mere translation of an Arabic source "Documents relating to the McMahon letters" should be considered reliable, IMHO. Katz could be considered a reliable secondary source which adds another level of fact-checking and credibility. Remember, every source has bias, which should be identified, but this does not mean that the source should be automatically discredited. In attempt to establish consensus, I would say that I do not strongly object to adding in-line attribution for the translation (although personally I don't think it is really necessary in this case). Marokwitz (talk) 08:42, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No, the Jewish Agency cannot be relied on for the translation of an Arabic source, any more than we would trust the Arab Higher Committee to translate Hebrew sources for us. These JA documents were produced for explicitly political purposes, exactly the sort of thing the third-party rule is intended to exclude. And Katz is unreliable period. We could add something on the basis of Antonius... Zerotalk 08:47, 2 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The exact same translation appears in "International Documents on Palestine", Institute for Palestine Studies, 1980. Marokwitz (talk) 08:54, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Imprisonment
As a suggestion to those who have the time to do further research, might be advisable to include a section concerning the legality of pro-Israel activism or lobbying in Muslim-majority countries, and also any imprisonment as a result of such views. Laval (talk) 16:52, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Saudi Arabia Example
It seems to me that Mohammed Bin Salman in this quote is not supporting israel but rather the two state solution. Maybe you can find a better quote or delete that. --FH24 (talk) 11:41, 13 January 2021 (UTC)FH

Move or merge
This article really is a laughable (Tec). It takes POV to the next level for whole Israel-Arab-Muslim issue on Wikipedia. It is extremely biased and gives undue weight to fringe theories, mainly supposed "Muslim Zionism" phenomenon, referenced with extremely biased sources, whose sole purpose is to advance this fringe theory of Muslims support for Israel and/or Arab support for Israel, without reliable secondary, tertiary or academic sources. This article gives us insight to various lobbies and advocacy groups (original) researches, collected in one place, this "article", to advance a some (and always the same) editors POV.

As one of us already noticed how "there is no article called Jewish Anti-Zionism", that entire topic is "subsumed into the general Anti-Zionism article" despite the fact that is "vastly more documented phenomenon" than mythical "Muslim Zionism", that existence of a few self proclaimed "Muslim Zionists" "does not constitute a real political or religious movement" at least "not one equivalent to Christian Zionism", etc.

It would be comical if it wasn't so tragic, but we have article almost 10 screens long on this completely irrelevant phenomenon, a fringe theory, yet we don't have an article about Jewish Israeli and international anti-Zionism activism and opposition to Zionist ideology and daily politics in Israel !?

This whole article should be moved or merged with similar existing articles, under one new article dealing with alleged Muslim and Arab support for Israel. Let's make it right for once.--Santasa99 (talk) 17:57, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

More then simply laughable is section at the bottom under the title Opposition towards Muslim supporters of Israel - it contradict itself because all that you can read is not opposition but yet more support !?!?! Really, is some of you really believe that we are all fools !?

It impossible to write on "opposition" simply because there are NON, and there are NO opposition because there are no relevant nor valid support ! All you can find is mentioning of the contemporary so-called supporters on various American NGO's lists, like Southern Poverty Law Center, informing people on the issue of political and ideological manipulations and manipulators, hate speech and Islamophobia.--Santasa99 (talk) 18:35, 10 October 2013 (UTC)


 * This whole article is WP:OR, by which i mean it is a WP:SYNTH essay combining hundreds of articles about specific people and combining them into a new narrative. It should be greatly pruned and then merged into Zionism. Oncenawhile (talk) 10:16, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Articles cheats
This article has been deceiving the world, what is not, in the Qur'an (Surah Al-Isra) did not mention that the land of Palestine will be promised by God to the Jews. I do not like to lie this article! which makes this article a con! Irvanputrautama (talk) 15:12, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

There is no mention of Palestine in the Koran, only the Holy Land, which we know to be the land around Jerusalem from the river to the sea, Israel. Allah gave the Holy Land (Israel) to the Jews. This is in the Medina verses and so cannot be abrogated by earlier Meccah verses. Islamic scholars confirm this view. Those who deny this are as King Fiesel said in 1919, uneducated!

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Muslim supporters of Israel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://amislam.com/feisal.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 12:26, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Muslim supporters of Israel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721135621/http://radiohaifa.mediacast.co.il/article.aspx?id=5252 to http://radiohaifa.mediacast.co.il/article.aspx?id=5252
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110617020703/http://www.kuwaittimes.net/read_news.php?newsid=Mjk4MjUyNDY4 to http://www.kuwaittimes.net/read_news.php?newsid=Mjk4MjUyNDY4
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120128152820/http://frontpagemag.com/2011/04/15/british-muslims-for-israel-2/ to http://frontpagemag.com/2011/04/15/british-muslims-for-israel-2/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140811203549/http://www.kmov.com/news/local/St-Louis-man-says-hes-the-victim-of-a-hate-crime-130680978.html to http://www.kmov.com/news/local/St-Louis-man-says-hes-the-victim-of-a-hate-crime-130680978.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:41, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Muslim supporters of Israel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160120055305/http://www.voiceofisrael.com/next-theodor-herzl-ex-muslim-gay-atheist-afghanistan/ to http://www.voiceofisrael.com/next-theodor-herzl-ex-muslim-gay-atheist-afghanistan/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101211111908/http://www.muslimworldtoday.com/land30.htm to http://www.muslimworldtoday.com/land30.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140726124211/http://www.christianpress.com/world/434-israel-arab-zionist-speaks-out.html to http://www.christianpress.com/world/434-israel-arab-zionist-speaks-out.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130928164239/http://standwithus.co.il/news.asp?id=135 to http://www.standwithus.co.il/news.asp?id=135
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071206070641/http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=604855a0-7b9c-4519-a841-f4736d59eaa1 to http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=604855a0-7b9c-4519-a841-f4736d59eaa1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:49, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Querendotraduzir a página para pt:Sionismo islâmico fique a vontade. att 2804:14C:5BB3:A319:4435:D3A4:8AA1:6E08 (talk) 13:56, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

The article seems to confuse Negev Bedouins and Galilee Bedouins ALOT
Negev bedouins (Bedouins of the south) and Galilee Bedouins (Of the north) are not the same. Galilee bedouins supported the establishment of israel, the negev bedouins did not play any significant role in that fight. Galilee bedouins tend to identify as israelis while negev bedouins identify more with palestine and arab identity. Someone needs to correct this blatantly misinformative article. 170.223.207.18 (talk) 14:53, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Saudi Crown Prince
Saudi Crown Prince Muhammad bin Salman should also be included in the lead, as he voiced his support for a Jewish homeland of Israel in 2018, the first time that a senior Saudi royal has expressed such sentiments publicly. These links can be added:

Hero7373 (talk) 15:58, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Sarah Idan campaign
The primary for California's 30th congressional district has not yet been held and is very much contested, so she is not the party's nominee for the district, but instead a candidate (also due to the jungle primary system, candidates never really become the nominee of any political party in California). Atriskofmistake (talk) 03:38, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Druze are not Muslim
The Druze do not follow the Five Pillars of Islam, they do not consider themselves to be Muslim, and they are often considered to be heretics by mainstream Muslim. They are not classified as Muslims in Israel. Why should we lump them in with Muslims? Mooonswimmer 14:16, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I've removed the Druze. Most RS agree Druze are not considered Muslim.VR talk 05:23, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Tanzania
Ahmed Sagaff is a Tanzanian Shia Muslim write. He has been supporting Israel in various social media.Ahmed Sagaff (2024) Supporter of Israel. AkhbariMuslims (talk) 18:40, 22 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Sagaff appears to be encyclopedically non-notable and there is no secondary coverage and analysis of his support for Israel. Mooonswimmer 18:59, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

False information referenced from the Quran
This article clearly referenced that the Quran mentioned the land was promised to the Jewish people however this is NOT true, the aya of surat alisra was talking about the children of Jacob AKA “Israel”, not the children of Jacob eventually left Palestine and migrated to Egypt because their brother Jacob became an advisor to the pharaoh and they only returned to Palestine about 500 later not to mention the Quran clearly says that god was extremely angry with them because they started to warships a bulls head when Moses left them with his brother for 40 days. This article is full of half true and fabricated true, it is not even worth finish reading and I hope Wikipedia bring it down because it’s misleading. Daferalmousawi (talk) 12:47, 29 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Can you point out the exact material in the article you claim to be false information? The sentences you take issue with. Mooonswimmer 15:14, 29 February 2024 (UTC)