Jump to content

Talk:Islam in Israel

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 3 September 2019 and 12 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jimmytric, Ejcohenemory.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:51, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled

[edit]

Hi,

Shouldn't this article be called something like "Islam in Israel and Palestine". Islam in West Bank and gaza leads back here. But the West Bank and Gaza are not parts of Israel.Vice regent 21:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With reference to current voting membership of the United Nations, there is no country of 'Palestine' nor has there been since its inception. Neither was there ever such a country recognised with membership of the League of Nations predating WW2. It is a redundant term referring to a region of that name under British administration in 1948. It is therefore, firstly, inappropriate to include Islam in Palestine as an article on the 'Islam by Country' template. If you wanted to create 'Islam in Palestine', that would be a historical article dealing with one particular religion in a region of the British Mandate that arose from the dissolution of the Ottoman empire in 1918.
We'll keep Islam-by-country articles as only for presently-existing-and-internationally-recognised countries. That rationale explains why Islam in Russia, Islam in Iraq and Islam in Germany are on the template to the exclusion of 'Islam in the USSR', 'Islam in the German Democratic Republic', or 'Islam in Kurdistan'. Former countries and region descriptors superseded by existing countries fall outside the scope of the template. Hence Islam in Palestine redirects here.
NonlisteningFriend 01:51, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The West Bank is technically part of Israel but is just considered "disputed" until a peace plan is agreed upon by both sides. Also, I agree, the title is misleading as it is saying Israel is 'Palestine'. --DandanxD 02:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Palestine' does not have existence, currently, independent of the existence of the state of Israel. There is merely a Palestinian National Authority exercising governing authority in two regions of Israel that are densely populated with ethnic Arab Palestinians: the West Bank & the Gaza Strip.
Israel = State of Israel, inclusive of the West Bank and Gaza strip pending international recognition of the full political independence of the Palestinian National Authority
Palestine = Regional and political descriptor becoming redundant since the complete succession of the Kingdom of Jordan and State of Israel to the entire territory of the former British Mandate of Palestine, effective at least since July 20, 1949, and continuing to the present day.
Further information: 1949 Armistice Agreements
NonlisteningFriend 01:00, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I felt that this article had a lot of great information in the religious area, but needed significant additions discrimination tab. The Muslim's in Israel face much more discrimination than what was lead on this article. Ejcohenemory1 (talk) 23:50, 10 November 2019 (UTC)Ejcohenemory[reply]

"much before the beginning of the Zioinist movement"

[edit]

"The small Circassian community is composed of Sunni Muslims uprooted from the Caucasus in the late 19th Century, much before the beginning of the Zioinist movement, and settled in the Galilee by Ottoman authorities."

That is simply incorrect. The first Aliya occurred in 1880, only a few years after the arrival of the Circassians. I'm deleting this part. TFighterPilot (talk) 14:29, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Split

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested split. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the split proposal was: split made per consensus.GreyShark (dibra) 18:02, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While I realize the article is fairly short at this point, I'd like to see it split as soon as is practical. This doesn't seem like a good case for WP:AND, and I should think the state of Islam in Israel and Islam in the Palestinian territories are very different indeed. Compare to, say, Islam in Canada and Islam in the United States, where bordering countries with very similar treatment of Muslims nevertheless have separate articles. --BDD (talk) 23:09, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agree - split is a must, though i think it should be resulted in three articles "Islam in Israel", "Islam in the State of Palestine" and "Islam in the Gaza Strip".Greyshark09 (talk) 17:53, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree - Not really much to split, the article is terribly small and not too informative. Same should probably go for List of mosques in Israel and Palestine. I think I had a role in the latter merger. The point of contention was East Jerusalem and which article it would belong in. Disagree that there should be a separate article for the Gaza Strip. Why? It's a part of the state of Palestine, it has not seceded and it is not recognized by anyone including Hamas, as having any sovereignty outside the state of Palestine. --Al Ameer son (talk) 20:33, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't say that there is an official secession by Hamas, but de-facto the Strip is not a continuous territory and government with the state of Palestine in the West Bank and practically lost most political and economic ties with it. Technically Hamas revolted and took over the territory in 2007.Greyshark09 (talk) 21:04, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - me and Al-Ameer agree, i would only ask whether BDD agrees for the target articles to be "Islam in Israel" and "Islam in the State of Palestine". If he agrees, let's split.Greyshark09 (talk) 19:18, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would still prefer Islam in Israel and Islam in the Palestinian territories. This is in line with the parent article Palestinian territories. --BDD (talk) 19:01, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@BDD: - considering community consensus at template talk:Palestine topics, can we compromise as well for splitting into Islam in Israel and Islam in Palestine?GreyShark (dibra) 15:49, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I didn't respond to this. Go ahead—the important thing is to address these separate topics in separate articles. --BDD (talk) 21:20, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Great, i'm glad we can finally finish this.GreyShark (dibra) 16:04, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested split. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Move discussion in progress

[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Marriage in the Palestinian territories which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 04:30, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress 2

[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 20:14, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Islam in 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:55, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some Changes

[edit]

I removed a large chunk of text (“History”) that I found was irrelevant to the topic, large unsourced and sometimes plainly wrong. If You find anything useful and relevant in the removed text please feel free to re-introduse it.

I replaced that with a proper background to the topic, namely the position of Islam in Palestine under the Ottoman and British Empire. Then I wrote a text on what should be the topic of the article, the position of Islam in Israel, which was largely ignored by the article until now.Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 01:05, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Most of your text, unlike the long-standing version you removed, is original research and POV. I suggest you stop. It's not the first article you have tried to mess up.--Watchlonly (talk) 14:11, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My changes:

• The lede: Mainly irrelevant background info on the Haram al-Sharif. The Haram is not part of Israel and is well covered in other pages such as Islam in Palestine and Temple Mount. I therefore removed it.

• History section: Nothing about Israel or Islam in Israel. Largely irrelevant history of Palestine (Muslim conquest, Crusades, British conquest etc.). Well covered in other pages such as History of Palestine, Islam in Palestine or Muslim history in Palestine. I removed it and replaced it with a background section on the position of Islam under the Ottoman period (ruling majority community) and British period (autonomous majority community). If you explain why these removed sections are relevant in the page on Islam in Israel, I am prepared to discuss it.

• I added a section on the position of Islam in Israel, which was not previously included. Islam is the largest minority religion in Israel, but it lacks the autonomy other religions (Christians and Druze) enjoy in Israel. I also discussed the widespread destruction of Moslem mosques and cemeteries, which was not previously covered.

There was no original research or POV. If you want me to add further sources, please indicate where and I will be happy to oblige.

This is not the first time you reverse whole-sale additions without any reason. Please stop your disruptive behaviour. Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 11:50, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your changes introduced a substantial point of view push, without prior discussion or agreement, As a small example, your replaced "Christians, Jews, and Samaritans were mostly tolerated as dhimmi." with an unsourced claim that says almost the opposite (" Christian and Jewish minorities were granted substantian internal autonomy." )- and put that, without any source , into the lede- spelling mistakes included. You complain about the history section containing pre-Israel stuff, and yet put in the Ottoman empire situation into the lede. These are just two Please discuss every change you want to make here first and get agreement for it beforehand.

Fake information entered to this page

[edit]

I reverted this, as it added manifestly fake information to Wikipedia. The assertion that Islam is not a "recognized religion in Israel" is as fake as could be, considering that Islam appears on national ID cards as a religion and that an extensive Sharia court system is funded by the Israeli state and is overseen by qadis appointed by the Israeli state. 11Fox11 (talk) 19:46, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aharon Layish, The Heritage of Ottoman Rule in the Israeli Legal System: The Concept of Umma and Millet, in THE LAW APPLIED, Contextualizing the Islamic Shari‘a, Edited by Peri Bearman, Wolfhart Heinrichs and Bernard G. Weiss:
"Although Muslims in Israel have ceased to be an umma in the original sense of the term and for all practical purposes have actually become a religious community, no formal positive expression of their new status is to be found in Israeli law: they are not recognized as a religious community within the meaning of POC or any Israeli statute (although the Shari'a courts are recognized and integrated within the state legal system)."
p.144
POC is the "constitution" of Palestine during the Mandate, partially incorporated into Israeli law.
The muslim Qadis in Israel are appointed by Israel. Hence no autonomy.
Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 20:15, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that some Israeli laws are a carryover of murky Ottoman and British law is of little relevance. Islam is a recognized religion, conversions are recognized. Stating Islam is an unrecognized religion in Israel is pure fake, and entering this here is highly disruptive. 11Fox11 (talk) 20:24, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
US State Department report on religious freedom (2013):
The law recognizes the following religious communities: Eastern Orthodox, Latin (Roman Catholic), Gregorian-Armenian, Armenian-Catholic, Syrian Catholic, Chaldean (Chaldean Uniate Catholic), Greek Catholic Melkite, Maronite, Syrian Orthodox, Druze, Evangelical Episcopal, and Bahai. Other religious communities, including Muslims and major Protestant Christian denominations, have a presence in the country, but are not recognized by the government as “religious communities.” Five religious communities have applied for official recognition but their applications have been pending for years: Ethiopian Orthodox, Coptic Orthodox, Evangelical Lutheran Church, Evangelical Alliance of Israel, and Jehovah’s Witnesses. Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 20:31, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Islam was not a recognized religious community when the area was governed by the Ottomans. This was carried over into the British legal system when they occupied the territory and subsequently received a mandate to administer it, and after that, into the Israeli legal system which inherited the British system. In practical terms, there is no difference between the status of Islam in Israel and that of Judaism or various Christian sects - as your own source says, the Shari'a courts are recognized and integrated within the state legal system, to the same level as Rabbinical courts. The various Islamic sects can apply for formal recognition as a "religious community" but they have not done so, presumably because it is of no practical significance. If you want to describe this situation in detail per this paragraph in the article, that's fine. But to put a misleading statement like "Islam is not a recognized religion in Israel" into the lede as you have done is not allowed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenosha Forever (talk • contribs) 20:45, 13 February 2021 (UTC) [reply]

The difference between Islam and the "officially recognized religious communities" is in the autonomy. The Greek-Orthodox church appoints its own clergy. Jewish officials of the Israeli goverenment appoint Muslim clergy. All of this was explained in the text that you deleted.Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 02:34, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Bullshit. "The Qadis Appointment Committee is established under the Qadis Law, 5721-1961 (SEFER HAHUKIM [BOOK OF LAWS, the official gazette, SH] No. 339 p. 118, as amended). The Committee is composed of nine members, including the President of the Sharia Court of Appeals and an additional Qadi selected by the sitting Qadis; Israel’s Minister of Justice and a Muslim member or deputy member of government selected by the Minister of Justice; three Knesset (parliament) members, at least two of whom are Muslim; and two lawyers, at least one of whom is Muslim, selected by the Israeli Bar Association. The Minister of Justice serves as chairperson of the committee. (Id. § 4.)" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenosha Forever (talk • contribs) 22:09, 13 February 2021 (UTC) [reply]

A similar committee appoints Rabbinical court judges, and as written, it is not even guaranteed that that committee has a Jewish majority, unlike the Qadis' committee, which is guaranteed by law to have a Muslim majority. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenosha Forever (talk • contribs) 22:23, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately very few scholars agree with your discription. You're funny. Where do you think that quote I gave you comes from? It is from the US Library of Congress. But you can read the law for yourself: http://www.knesset.gov.il/review/data/eng/law/kns4_qadis_eng.pdf - see (4) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenosha Forever (talk • contribs) 22:47, 13 February 2021 (UTC) [reply]

Kenosha, why don't you show your true face?

Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 01:35, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Several editors have told you your editing is inappropriate. Start listening instead of these personal attacks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenosha Forever (talk • contribs) 02:12, 14 February 2021 (UTC) [reply]

Kenosha, why don't you show your true face?

Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 01:35, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Several editors have told you your editing is inappropriate. Start listening instead of these personal attacks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenosha Forever (talk • contribs) 02:12, 14 February 2021 (UTC) [reply]

It cannot be

[edit]

It cannot be that EVERYTHING I wrote was wrong. So why delete everything? Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 02:28, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Free advice for next time you try to mess up an article: try adding stuff instead of replacing an entire section with completely new content, specially when it's clearly designed to suit a POV agenda. Some people don't like that and it makes much harder to take your edits seriously.--Watchlonly (talk) 02:48, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It actually could be that everything you wrote is wrong or inappropriate. Why don't you explain the changes you want to make, one by one, and see if there is agreement for them. As a start. I've already explained why putting "Islam was not granted the status of a recognized religion in Israel, which meant that the Muslim community was denied the autonomy granted to all the other major religious communities in Israel." in the lede is not appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenosha Forever (talk • contribs) 02:51, 14 February 2021 (UTC) [reply]

A new attempt

[edit]

OK, I will not - for the time being - delete anything from the article, as has been suggested by some of my critics. I still think that irrelant material should be deleted. Bur I'm perfectly willing to debate what is irrelevant.

I will do everthing step by step, leaving ample time to discuss and suggest other formulations. I then beg my critics not to delete my every word but to suggest changes or supplying sources.

I start with the important question of the formal status of Islam in Israel.

Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 03:01, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

this is better, but some problems remain, starting with this: In the 4th paragraph you added, you state "But it was now Jewish civil servants (from the Ministry of Religious Affairs or the Ministry of Interior) who were appointing the Muslim Qadis (judges) in Shari’a courts and the members of religious councils. " - this is unsourced, and false, as I have shown earlier- there is an Israeli government commision which by law has a Muslim majority which appoints Qadis. Kenosha Forever (talk) 04:23, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I look into it and correct the text.Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 11:18, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How about this? Can you live with it? Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 22:51, 15 February 2021 (UTC) Bye the way, you were right and I was wrong on this point, at least after 1961. Sorry about that. Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 00:26, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Riyan comment to Grossman , form a popular book, is undue weight, and should be removed. I would also take out the "finally" from the phrase "Finaly passed", so as to avoid the unsupported pOV that it was dragging its feet on this. Kenosha Forever (talk) 00:51, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The issue had been dragging on since 1948. For many years the Supreme Muslim Council remained the only legal body that could appoint Qadis in Israel, although the council no longer existed. The appointments made in the beginning had no legal basis. No procedure could be agreed upon for 13 years. "Finally" is appropriateJokkmokks-Goran (talk) 10:35, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another issue: In the History section, you added this abut the Supreme Muslim Council ". The council was abolished in 1948." - I beliv ethats; wrng. The council continued to function, under Jordanian rule, until 1951.Kenosha Forever (talk) 01:01, 16 February 2021 (UTC) user:Jokkmokks-Goran Please fix the references the PELED books is from 2001 not 2009 and it contains only 239 pages --Shrike (talk) 09:41, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did not introduce the praragraph on the SMC. On the contrary, I have been trying to delete the whole section as being irrelevant to the subject. This particular item is unsourced and wrong. The SMC survived a couple of years in East Jerusalem (not in Israel) but was abolished by Jordanian government in 1951 and replaced by Jordanian authority. I'm sorry but others insist that this paragraph remain as it is. Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 10:19, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Shrike: I believe the Peled references are correct. Two of them refer to her 2001 book and two to her 2009 article. The article is only 20 pages long but I use the Journal's page numbers, where the article starts on page 241.Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 10:19, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know who are the "others" that insist we keep the wrong SMC info, But no one has veto power over the contents. If we (in this discussion) all agree the paragraph is wrong and possibly irrelevant, we can remove it. What is the source for the claim that " The appointments made in the beginning had no legal basis."? Kenosha Forever (talk) 14:58, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think the whole History section should go. I guess its a leftover from the time before the page was divided into Islam in Israel and Islam in Palestine. It is all irrelevant to the subject, it is not sourced and often plain wrong.
Why do people reverse when I try to take it away? Why did you yourself do it? I don't know.
According to the law valid in Israel in 1948 (the POC)and some year into the 50s only the SMC could appoint Qadis. But the Minister of Religious Affairs appointed Qadis anyway, without any legal authority to do so. Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 21:10, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Who said that this was without legal authority? Kenosha Forever (talk) 00:54, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you really need to catch up on your reading.
"According to the Law and Administrative Ordinance of 1948, all Mandatory laws would remain in force in the State of Israel as long as they did not conflict with "the establishment of the State and its authorities"; however, all laws would be subject to Israeli modification at any time. In 1949, the Mandatory law granting the Supreme Muslim Council the sole authority to appoint qadis remained on the books. Since this institution had ceased to exist after May 1948, no specific body in Israel was legally authorized to appoint qadis, leaving a legal vacuum which became the next battleground for Hirshberg and Palmon."'
[That is the Jewish Minister of Religious Affairs vs. The Jewish Advisor of Arab Affairs to the Prime Minister]
Peled (2001) p.59
"The Knesset finally passed the Qadi Law on December 8, 1953. However, the law did not outline the exact procedure for making new appointments. Debate over the degree of Muslim representation on the Appointment Committee and the requirement for qadis to swear allegiance to the state delayed the Law's final affirmation until 1961.
Peled (2009) p.248
Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 02:00, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are reading far too much into this. According to the POC, the authority was given to the British High Commissioner. (see POC article 57: "the constitution and jurisdiction of Religious Courts established at the date of this Order may be varied by Ordinance or Order of the High Commissioner."). The POC was terminated by Britain in the Palestine Act, 1948. The Subsequent Israeli Knesset, as its first law (The Law and Administrative Ordinance - פקודת סדרי השלטון והמשפט), reinstated the POC as it was before termination, except for specific articles which were cancelled. Among those things canceled (by article 12(b) ) were any authorizations given to the Crown or any of its representatives (including, inter alia, the authority to determine the constitution of religious courts given by POC(57)), and any such authorities were transferred, according to article 14(a) , to the government of Israel. So, if the High Commissioner had the authority to change the constitution of the Religious Courts, this authority was now vested with an Israeli minister. And Hirshberg himself rejected any such claim that he lacked authority to make these appointments (your very same source, p. 59, last paragraph) and Palmon was involved in such appointments earlier, and did not dispute their legality at the time. The most you can say is that according to Peled, no specific body in Israel was legally authorized to appoint qadis. (i.e attribute this claim to Peled). Kenosha Forever (talk) 02:35, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not reading too much into anything. I’m only quoting the conclusions of what appears to me, to be a fairly ordinary middle-of-the-road Israeli academic (no right wing or left wing extremist). She may be wrong of course, but so far, I have seen no indication of that.
It is not unusual for politicians, who have overstepped their authority, to deny they have done so. In this case Hirschberg doesn’t seem to do that,– according to Peled at least - he merely claimed that Bechor-Shalom Sheetrit (the supposed champion of more autonomy for the Arabs of Israel) had already done the same thing before him. Which is true.
Your second point, that an Israeli minister somehow was not bound by Israeli laws, is even more strange (unless I misunderstand you). The POC was the quasi-constitution of Palestine, that remained (partially) valid in Israel after 1948. Israel had all the rights in the world to change its laws, including the POC. But Israel didn't do that until 1953 (or 1961). In the mean time, could a minister choose to ignore the law? In most countries I know, the answer in no.
Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 01:06, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Peled's explanatory comment ("In 1949, the Mandatory law granting the Supreme Muslim Council the sole authority to appoint qadis remained on the books. Since this institution had ceased to exist after May 1948, no specific body in Israel was legally authorized to appoint qadis,") is wrong, on two counts, and explained why: (1) The POC most certainly did not grant the SMC the sole authority to appoint qadis, in fact, is says almost the opposite - giving the High Commissioner the authority to modify the makeup of the qadi-appointing body as he pleases (article 57 of the POC) and (2) this authority given to the HC in the POC was explicitly transferred over to the government of Israel in the The Law and Administrative Ordinance. I don't think Peled is an activist, I just think she got this part wrong, or maybe just phrased it carelessly, because it is not central to her thesis, which is that the state of affairs in those early years was not the result of some mendacious plan to hurt Islam, but rather the outcome of mundane political power struggles (in this case between the Minister of Religious Affairs, and the Legal advisor to the Minister. And Hirshberg most certainly rejected the charges that he was acting without authority. Note that if you want to get pedantic about it, even Palmon doesn't say these were done without authority - he just casts doubt about the authority, according to Peled. Questioning the authority is not the same as saying it is w/o authority.

Back to the article - it currently says one thing that is clearly wrong or at least very misleading: The first Qadis Law was passed in 1953, not 1961. The word "finally" which I think should be removed, was in the source next to 1953, not 1961, further highlighting why I think this editorial comment does not belong. We should clarify that the a nine-member Appointment Committee set up by the 1961 law mandates "at least" 5 muslim members, not 5. There could be more. Finally, I'd like to see a the exact source used for "the affairs of the Muslim community were to a large extent controlled directly by the Israeli government". Kenosha Forever (talk) 15:23, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting all critisism of Israel

[edit]

Kenosha Forever (talk)

Shrike (talk)

Watchlonly (talk)

An article about Islam in Israel must be allowed to include expressions of the opinions of Muslims in Israel without being branded as [POV] and therefore deleted. As has happened in this article systematically. Even when these opinions were expressed by non-extremist Jewish/Israeli authors.

There are very clear legitimate grounds for Muslim grievances against the State of Israel. I therefore think that this article must address these points:

  • Loss of autonomy of Muslim religious community (being not recognized as a recognized religious community)
  • Loss of Muslim community property (Waqf)
  • Destruction or neglect of Muslim mosques, cemeteries and holy places or their transformation to Jewish holy places.

Without these points, the article becomes ridiculous.

That said, I think the article could also reflect some quite interesting and maybe positive (in the Western point of view) developments of Shari’a jurisprudence in Israel.

  • Israel does not compel Shari’a courts to disqualify under-age or second wife marriages but they must inform the potential husband that he risks several years in prison for violating Israeli civil law.
  • Israel appointed a female Qadi a few years ago (but still no female Jewish Dayyan.

Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 03:12, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, neutrally voiced criticisms form notable sources should be in this article. Kenosha Forever (talk) 03:26, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:53, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:54, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Outdated sources

[edit]

The source for statistics on Arabic populations in the country (16) is no longer accessible. I am not savvy enough with Hebrew to find where the document has been moved to on the Israeli government's website. 2605:A601:A82C:4C00:3887:3D97:2A92:FAE (talk) 22:20, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adding more detail in the discrimination section.

[edit]

"Most Israeli Jews (79%) say Jews deserve preferential treatment in Israel. But they do not see an inherent contradiction between a Jewish homeland and a functioning democracy."

I thought of adding this statement ad-verbatim from the cited PewResearch survey in the discrimination which is probably very relevant to how discrimination is viewed towards the Muslim minority in Israel. Omar Jabarin (talk) 15:41, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Islam_in_Israel&oldid=1225300034"