In The Name of Allah, The Most Merciful, The Bestower of Mercy.

Allah [The Exalted] said:

وَإِذَا قُلۡتُمۡ فَٱعۡدِلُواْ وَلَوۡ ڪَانَ ذَا قُرۡبَىٰ‌ۖ

And when you testify, be just, even if (it concerns) a near relative.

When you testify by way of a statement to judge between people, differentiate between them in a discourse, and speak regarding matters and circumstances, be just in your speech, adhere to truthfulness regarding those you love and those you hate, be fair and do not conceal what needs to be made clear because it is forbidden and tantamount to injustice to divert (from justice and fairness) when speaking against the one you hate. [1]

It is important to recognise and clarify that not all individuals or groups that ascribe to Judaism support the notion of returning to Palestine as a land bestowed on the Jews specifically, nor do they endorse the oppression, killing of Palestinians, land appropriation, or acts of violence. Similarly, as Muslims, we reject the killing of unarmed civilians and non-combatants in all nations, regardless of whether such actions are perpetrated under the guise of Jihad. Furthermore, we do not support vigilante justice in the UK or any other nation, irrespective of the provocations posed by certain groups and parties across the globe, regardless of their religious or ideological affiliations. Read article by Shaikh Abu Iyaad titled: Just Rules of Fighting in the Sharīʿah of Islām Compared to Genocidal, Ethnic-Cleansing, Tribal-Vengeance Doctrines and Excesses of Trojan-Horse Muslim Extremists:

https://abuiyaad.com/a/amalekite-genocide-doctrine-gaza

This article serves only as an excerpt from the research by a Muslim researcher, delving into the early emergence of Christian Zionism and its gradual entrenchment within Western political spheres. This exploration is vital, particularly as some of us find ourselves perplexed by the apparent inaction of certain Western nations in the face of ongoing atrocities against Palestinians, a plight that has persisted for seventy years. By recognising that part of this inaction is rooted in the historical connections between Christian Zionism and political agendas, we gain a better understanding of this phenomenon. Furthermore, it is important to acknowledge that the challenges faced by the Ummah and its vulnerabilities have been astutely addressed by the contemporary Imams of the Sunnah, including Imam Abdul Aziz Bin Baz, Imam al-Albani, and Imam Muhammad Ibn Salih al-Uthaymin. Thus, it is not our place to propose solutions to these issues; rather, we should turn to the wisdom of the senior scholars of our time, such as Al-Allamah Salih Al-Fawzan, Al-Allamah Abdul Muhsin Al-Abbad, and Al-Allamah Salih Aala Ash-Shaikh.

A Brief Analysis by a Muslim Researcher on the Initial Rise and Impact of Christian Zionism On Some European Political Decision-makers

The Protocols of the Elder Figureheads of Zionism

The term “the Protocols of the Elder Figureheads of Zionism” refers to the content of a lecture given by a Zionist leader to an assembly of Zionists, intended for their guidance and implementation. It seems that these protocols were introduced to Zionist leaders during the conference convened in Basel, Switzerland, in 1897. This conference saw the participation of approximately three hundred dedicated Zionists, who represented fifty Jewish organisations; however, the identity of the individual who initiated these protocols remains unknown. The intent of these protocols was to provide guidance to the Zionists on how to exercise governance upon attaining power. They were uncovered in 1901 when a French woman encountered them during a meeting with a prominent leader of the Zionist movement at a Masonic lodge in Paris.

This woman successfully acquired several documents and managed to escape with them. These documents eventually came into the possession of Alex Nikolaevich, a prominent figure in Eastern Russia during the Tsarist period, known for his vehement campaign against the Jewish population (he perceived as adversaries). Upon reviewing the documents, he recognised their significance for his nation and the broader global context. Consequently, he entrusted them to a friend, a Russian author named Sergei Nilus. Nilus examined the contents and understood their implications, subsequently translating them into Russian and providing an introduction that forecasted the collapse of Tsarist Russia due to anarchist communism, the nature of its authoritarian governance, and its role as a base for inciting turmoil—aiming to dismantle the Islamic Caliphate, establish the State of Israel in Palestine, and bring down monarchies across Europe.

In 1902, a book was published for the first time in the Russian language, produced in limited quantities. The Zionists reacted vehemently upon its release, initiating intense campaigns to discredit the book. Despite their efforts, the claims linking the book to them were accurate. In response, Tsarist Russia undertook a severe campaign against the Zionists, resulting in the deaths of ten thousand individuals in a single massacre.

The book underwent a reprinting in 1905, which quickly sold out in an unusual and covert manner, as Zionist groups procured copies from the market and incinerated them. A subsequent edition was released in 1911, but, similar to the earlier instance, copies vanished. In 1917, another printing occurred, yet it was seized by the communists following their ascension to power in Russia and the overthrow of the tsarist regime. A copy of the 1905 Russian edition found its way to the British Museum in London, where it was stamped in 1906. This copy remained largely overlooked until the communist coup in Russia in 1916 prompted the “Morning Post” to request updates from its correspondent, Victor Madson, who then examined various Russian publications. He dedicated his efforts to translating the work into English, subsequently publishing it in that language. The book saw five printings, the most recent occurring in 1921, yet no publisher in either Britain or America was willing to take on the project. Despite the efforts of Zionists to suppress the book, it was published in various languages, such as German, French, Italian, and Polish. The English edition from 1921 served as the basis for its first translation into Arabic, which was released in 1951. [2]

The rise of Christian Zionism has been characterised by its ambition to infiltrate various decision-making institutions, first in Europe and subsequently in America. In Europe, since the sixteenth century CE, in the opinion of some writers, a peculiar alliance appeared between the policies of the English Empire and a form of Christian Zionism, which became increasingly evident in English policy in the subsequent generations.

In 1523 CE, Henry VIII, the King of England, authored a treatise against Martin Luther, the founder of Protestantism, which garnered admiration from the Pope, who subsequently referred to him as “The Protector of Religion.” A few years later, Protestant “Christian Zionists” endeavored to align King Henry VIII with their movement. However, in 1533 CE, the Pope of the Roman Catholic Church opposed King Henry VIII regarding certain personal matters related to his reign, resulting in the withdrawal of papal approval. This led Henry to declare his separation from the Pope’s religious authority, thereby transferring the Pope’s powers to himself and establishing his position as the supreme head of the Church of England. Consequently, the separation from Rome was finalised, and during his reign, England experienced a gradual shift towards Protestantism.

In the year 1537 CE, the King sanctioned the translation and publication of the Torah in the English language. Following this, in 1538 CE, he issued a royal edict to all churches in England, mandating the cessation of the priestly association with their Bible. This initiative fostered an environment conducive to the proliferation of Christian Zionism, Protestantism, and Jewish teachings, leading some historians to characterise this era as one marked by a Hebrew incursion and a significant alteration of the Old Testament’s role in England. Jewish historian Barbara Tuchman noted in her work ‘The Bible and the Sword’ that when the King of England decreed in 1538 that the Torah be translated into English and made accessible to the public, he was effectively integrating Jewish history, customs, and laws into English culture, thereby exerting a profound influence on this culture for the subsequent three centuries. The translated Torah came to be recognised as England’s National Torah, exerting a greater influence on the essence of English life than any other publication. The author contends that, in the absence of this Torah legacy, it is uncertain whether the Balfour Declaration would have been proclaimed by the English government in 1917, or whether its mandate over Palestine would have been established, notwithstanding the strategic factors that later came into play.

At the onset of the seventeenth century CE, England experienced the Puritan Revolution, during which the Puritans and Christian Zionists urged the government to recognise the Torah as the foundational constitution of English law. They asserted that the Old Testament, in accordance with its stipulations, represented the divine guidance for national governance and provided a clear framework of laws that humanity must adhere to; failure to comply would result in evident and unavoidable consequences. By the mid-seventeenth century, Christian Zionists began drafting documents asserting that all Jews should migrate from Europe to Palestine. Oliver Cromwell, a staunch supporter of the Puritans and their advocate in Parliament, proclaimed, in his role as the patron of the British Commonwealth, that the presence of Jews in Palestine was essential for facilitating the second coming of the Messiah.

In 1649 CE, two Christian Zionists based in Amsterdam submitted a petition to the English government, which expressed the desire for “the people of England and the inhabitants of the Netherlands to be the first to transport the sons and daughters of Israel on their vessels to the land promised to their forefathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as their rightful inheritance.” In 1654 CE, Oliver Cromwell assumed the role of President of the Republic in England and demonstrated clear support for the Christian Zionist movement. Prior to this, in 1621, Henry Finch, who served as the legal advisor to the King of England, authored a work titled “The Great Universal Restoration,” in which he urged Christian rulers to unite their efforts to restore “the empire of the Jewish nation.” Some writers regard this as the initial English initiative aimed at reclaiming Palestine for the Jewish people.

France proposed, for the first time, a plan to establish a Jewish “commonwealth” in Palestine, in exchange for Jewish loans to the French government, and the Jews’ contribution to financing Napoleon Bonaparte’s campaign to occupy the Arab Levant, especially Palestine. Perhaps Napoleon Bonaparte (1769-1821), the French Emperor, was the first European statesman to officially propose the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine, in the year 1799, that is, about 118 years before the Balfour Declaration. During his presence in Syria, as part of his major campaign against the East, he issued a statement In which he called on the Jews to fight under his banner, to restore the “ancient Jewish” Kingdom of Jerusalem, and his speech regarding this is as follows:

“From Napoleon, Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces of the French Republic, in Africa and Asia, to the legitimate heirs of Palestine. O Israelis, O unique people, whom the forces of conquest and tyranny could not rob them of their name and national existence, even if they only robbed them of the land of their ancestors. Those who are conscious and impartial observers of the destinies of peoples, even if they do not have the gifts of Prophets, such as Isaiah and Joel, have realized what these people prophesied with lofty faith. They realized that God’s freedmen would return to Zion singing, and joy would be born in their possession of their inheritance, without annoyance, always joy in their souls. O deportees! Arise with joy. A nation is waging a war the likes of which history has never witnessed, in defence of itself, after its enemies took its land, which they inherited from their ancestors, as spoils that should be divided among them, according to how they desire. France presents to you the legacy of Israel, at this particular time. My army, which is sent with Divine Providence, led by justice and accompanied by victory, has made Jerusalem my headquarters. O legitimate heirs of Palestine! The nation that does not trade in men and nations, as those who sold their ancestors to all peoples did, invites you not to seize your heritage, but to take what has been annexed and keep it, guaranteeing it and supporting it against all intruders. Hurry, this is the appropriate moment, which may not be repeated for thousands of years, to demand the restoration of your rights that were stolen from you for thousands of years, which is your political existence, as a nation among nations, and your absolute natural right to worship (Yahweh) according to your faith, publicly, and forever”.

Napoleon’s statement was considered a recognition of the right to the national presence of the Jews in Palestine, and granted it to them, to establish a state for them there. This “Napoleon” is a Christian Zionist. He supports his statements with passages from the texts of the Old Testament, the Bible, according to the Christian Zionist Jews. Perhaps he was aiming, in his speech, to include the Jews in his army during his campaign against the Levant, in order to exploit them in his colonial plans, but Allah praise be to Allah, he was defeated at Acre in May 1799 and retreated from Palestine to Egypt. There is no doubt that Napoleon Bonaparte’s call, and others similar to it later, took the idea of ​​settling Jews in Palestine as a means of intervention in this region, and worked to harness this idea to serve their political goals, colonial interests, and to attract Jewish groups in European countries through attempts at colonial expansion in the Arab homeland, and control its wealth and resources.

Christian Zionism was strengthened even more during the time of the French Emperor Napoleon III- Louis Napoleon Bonaparte, during the days of his French Empire 1852-1870, when its main representative, Napoleon’s private secretary, was a fanatical Christian Zionist called Arendt Laharan. That is why, in the year 1860, Laharan published a book entitled: “The Eastern Jewish Question: The Egyptian and Arab Empire and the Revival of Jewish Nationalism”, in which he spoke with great admiration about the Jewish people, saying about them, “The Jewish people have paved a main road and other new side roads to civilisation. Since it is not possible to save the crumbling civilisation of the Middle East with the introduction of European civilisation, all of Europe must help take Palestine from the Ottoman Empire and give it to the Jews”.

Actually, Christian Zionism, through its penetration into the French political decision-making, did not produce immediate results in its favour, but it did arouse the enthusiasm of the Christian Zionists in Britain, which had a greater share in embodying the Zionist claims in working to establish a Jewish state in Palestine. Christian Zionism in England was clearly revived politically and culturally at the hands of the advocates of the Puritan sect, especially during the reign of Queen Victoria 1819-1900. The most prominent Christian Zionist at that time of the Seventh Earl of Shaftesbury. Indeed, he was the chief Christian at that time, and in 1838 he wrote an article titled, “The State and Future Prospects for the Jews”, in which he urged all Jews to migrate to Palestine, and in which he expressed his interest in the Hebrew element, opposing the idea of ​​assimilating into other societies, on the basis that the Jews would remain strangers in all countries where others live. He stated in his book that the Jews had a major impact on the divine plan for the second coming of Christ, stressing that the texts of the Old Testament indicate in their literal form that the second coming of Christ will be achieved when the Jews return to live in Israel and that Christians and their governments in Europe must help the Lord to achieve the divine plan by transferring all Jews to Palestine. Therefore, he did his best to convince the English that the Jews were the cornerstone of the Christian hope of salvation.

The Earl of Shaftesbury said that the divine plan to end history and the world requires their return to Palestine, which they claim is a nation without a people for a people without a nation. It is a slogan that Jewish Zionism later transformed into “A land without a people for a people without a land”. Shaftesbury used to say that he placed great hopes on excavating the antiquities of Palestine to prove the truthfulness of the Bible and the authenticity of what was stated in it and that he prays every day for the surrender of Al-Quds, and always referred to the Jews as “the ancient people of God”, and therefore, he (Shaftesbury) occupied a prominent place in the history of Christian Zionism. He saw in the Jews a vital asset in strengthening the Christians’ hope for salvation, and thus the work for the migration of the Jews to Palestine and the establishment of a state for them over there became a European demand and an English political wish, for which active work must be done because of its religious and colonial political interests.

Lord Viscount Henry John Temple Palmerston (1784-1864) – England’s War Secretary and then Foreign Secretary 1830-1841 and then Prime Minister – was influenced by the claims advocated by the Earl of Shaftesbury, in particular the call to transfer the Jews to Palestine and help them establish a state for them there. He was influenced by that call, which agreed with his Protestant Zionist ideas. So, due to the encouragement of his nephew, the Earl of Shaftesbury, he approved the opening of a British consulate in Jerusalem in the year 1838. He used to say that the revival of the Jewish nation would give power to English politics. In August 1840, Palmerston sent a letter to the British ambassador in Istanbul urging him to urge the Sultan and the Ottoman government to help the Jews and encourage them to settle in Palestine. He said in his letter, “The revolutions that the Jews will bring with them will certainly increase the Sultan’s resources, as the return of the Jewish people, with the protection, encouragement, and invitation of the Sultan, will prevent the implementation of any future projects undertaken by Muhammad Ali or his successors, and I strongly ask you to persuade the Ottoman government to provide all the necessary encouragement for the Jews of Europe to return to Palestine”.

In the year 1841, the British Zionist Charles Henry Churchill, the British staff officer in the Middle East, wrote a letter to the Jewish Zionist, Moses Montague, head of the Council of Jewish Representatives, in London, in which he said that he could not hide his fervent desire for the Jewish people to achieve their existence once again in a Jewish state with the help of European powers. In the year 1844, the Zionist priest Bradshaw issued an appeal in which he proposed to the English Parliament to grant four million pounds, in addition to another million pounds from the churches, to contribute to “returning the Jews to Palestine”. In the same year, a committee was formed in London with the goal of “returning the Jews to Palestine”. The Speaker of Parliament, Reverend Tully Krayback, said, “England must secure for the Jews all of Palestine from the Euphrates to the Nile, and from the Mediterranean to the desert”.

In the year 1845, Edward Muntiff Red, from the Colonial Office in London, presented a plan to follow British policy in the Middle East. This plan included working to create a Jewish nation in Palestine, to be a protected state, first under British guardianship, then settling them permanently to become an independent country. Also in 1845, John Goller, the first governor of the colony of South Australia, proposed establishing Jewish colonies in Palestine, gradually, under British protection, until the Jews were finally granted self-rule, under British protection. One of the political Christian Zionists in Britain, working on behalf of the Jews, was a member of Parliament and Minister of Foreign Affairs at his time, Lawrence Oliphant 1829-1888. He travelled several times to Istanbul and spoke to Jewish and non-Jewish businessmen and industrialists.

The Zionist Christian priest, William Hechler, 1845-1931, was sent by the British government in 1882 to Istanbul to meet the Ottoman Sultan Abdul Hamid and tried to convince him of the issue of settling the Jews in Palestine. He made great efforts in that, and so the Zionists described him as “the Christian lover of Zion” because he said that Israel existed in Jerusalem, and ruled from there, as king of kings, for a thousand years. When he was a chaplain at the British embassy in Austria, in early 1886, he got to know Herzl, and deep connections developed between them. Through this friendship, Herzl got to know many European leaders, especially Grand Duke of Baden, Frederick. The first is that Hechler was a private tutor for his son, and this helped to establish links between Herzl and the German Frederick Kaiser. Hechler was the first to present to Herzl a map of Palestine, with its borders – in the view of the Jews – from the Euphrates to the Nile. He also came to the Basle Conference in 1897, accompanied by Herzl, considering himself the secretary of the Messiah, and then he chanted loudly when they entered Herzl into the meeting hall, saying: “Long live the king, long live the king”, meaning “Herzl”. He spoke at the conference, asking the Jews to wake up because God – as they claimed – called them to return to their ancient homeland.

(Theodor) Herzl had several meetings with both the Christian Zionist Lawrence Oliphant and the Christian Zionist William Hechler in the long series of cooperation between Jewish and Christian Zionism, as Jewish Zionism emerged as an open organization, starting from its first conference in August 1897. Its conference approved the Zionist political program, which does not differ in some of its provisions from the calls of the Christian Zionists, especially regarding the settlement of the Jews in Palestine and the establishment of a state for them therein, recognized by the countries of the world. Thus, Jewish and Christian Zionism have agreed together, until today, to work to transform Muslim Arab Palestine into a Jewish state.

Furthermore, the colonial politician Joseph Chamberlain 1836-1914, who was a member of Gladstone’s government, then resigned from it and assumed the Colonial Ministry from 1895-1903, held a meeting with the founder of Jewish Zionism, Theodor Herzl, in London, and proposed to him the establishment of a Jewish state in Al-Arish or Uganda. One of the most enthusiastic Europeans in serving global Zionism, seeking after their interests and ambitions was Arthur James Balfour (1848-1930), who held several political positions in Britain. He was Minister of the Exchequer, then Prime Minister from 1902-1905, then Minister of War from 1915-1916, then Minister of Foreign Affairs from 1916-1922, where he issued in this capacity his famous declaration, and after the Balfour declaration on November 2, 1917, when it was stipulated that the British government pledges to establish a nation for the Jews in Palestine.

His niece, the biographer of his life, Blanche Dugadel, says, “(Arthur) Balfour was influenced from an early age by studying the Torah in the church, and the more he became accustomed to it, the more his admiration for Jewish philosophy increased, and he always spoke with interest about it, and I still remember that, in my childhood, I quoted from him the view that Christianity and its civilization owe a lot to Judaism, but they have befouled this religion in the ugliest image”. One of the Zionists spoke about the life of Balfour and described him as saying that his most prominent Biblical beliefs that he inherited in his childhood, and upon which he was raised in one of the Scottish Evangelical churches, are “God’s chosen people, their right to the Promised Land, and the fulfillment of prophecy, by gathering the Jews, in the State of Israel in Palestine”.

In the year 1906, he [Balfour – the Christian Zionist] met with the Jewish Zionist Chaim Weizmann in a Manchester Hotel and stressed to him the need for Christianity to provide all its capabilities to the Jews, in order to achieve the opportunity to return to their homeland. Peter Grosz -a Christian Zionist, one of the employees of the Planning Committee at the Ministry of State, during the era of US President Jimmy Carter, and Director of Middle East Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, in New York – said about him, “Balfour had a better understanding of Zionist ambitions than Herzl. It is reported that Balfour used to say, “If a homeland must be found for the Jewish people, it is futile to search for any place other than Palestine”. Balfour announced after his departure from Washington, in May 1917, saying, “I am a Zionist”. This was after he finalised the declaration named after him, following his meeting with American President Wilson and his meeting with the Jewish Zionist judge Louis Brandeis.

There was another Christian Zionist who aided Balfour and aided him in issuing his Zionist promise to the Jews [i.e. those Jews that ascribe to Zionism], and that was the Christian Zionist David Lloyd George, who became Prime Minister of England in 1916. Indeed, he clearly stated that his knowledge of the history of the Jews, and the names of Jewish places in Palestine, is more than his knowledge of the history of his country. His admiration for (Balfour) directed him towards Zionism.

Indeed, the importance of the Balfour Declaration from a Zionist political point of view sits tight on Britain’s official recognition of the existence of a nation for Jewish people. This was internationally recognised after the consolidation of the pledge through the process of the English Mandate over Palestine, after its approval at the San Remo Conference in 1920, and through the guarantee of the League of Nations in 1922. The Jewish Zionist Chaim Weizman said, “Do you think that Balfour was responding to us when he gave us the promise of establishing a national homeland in Palestine? No, the man was responding to religious belief by way of the teachings of the Old Testament”. The promise was a letter sent by Balfour to the Jew Rothschild. It was expressed on November 2, 1917, in the text as follows: “Dear Lord Rothschild, it pleases me a lot to finalise with you, on behalf of His Majesty’s Government, the following statement: “In our close affinity with the wish of the Jews and Zionism, which have been presented and approved by the Council of Ministers, His Majesty’s Government considers with special privilege the establishment of a national home for the Jewish people in Palestine, and will do everything possible within its power to facilitate the achievement of this goal, and it shall be clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may infringe on the civil rights of non-Jewish groups resident in Palestine, or the rights and legal status enjoyed by Jews in any European country. I owe you a debt of gratitude if you would communicate this statement to the Union. The loyal Zionist Arthur Balfour”.

This is why Chaim Weizman said, “Britain embraced the Zionist movement and took it upon itself to fulfil its idea”. It is worth bearing in mind that this statement proclaimed by Britain was with the knowledge and approval of the Allies – officially approved by France in February 1918 and Italy in May, and preceded by negotiations in London between Jewish leaders, Britain, the French, and Italian governments. And regarding the promise to the Jews to establish a homeland in Palestine, it was officially approved in London, Paris, and Rome, and the publication of this approval was delayed until late October 1917. Also, the government of the United States of America hastened to honour this promise.

The Balfour Declaration

Historians of that period mention that it was the Jewish Zionist Chaim Weizman who drafted the wording of that pledge (i.e. the Balfour declaration) and presented it to British Foreign Secretary Arthur James Balfour, who in turn presented it to the British government, which ratified it, in exchange for international Zionism supporting the “Allied War Effort”, and involve America on the side of the allies, and for Balfour’s biblical doctrine and his government. The Balfour Declaration affirmed the British Mandate under the supervision of the League of Nations, which is the basis from which the United Nations developed and remains to this day. [Footnote a] The main body of this organisation was under the control of the Christian and Jewish Zionists, and the Supreme Council of Political Leaders held in San Remo in the year 1920 approved the draft Mandate.

The British agreement on Palestine, which was formulated by the Jewish Zionists in cooperation with the Christian Zionists, and the British Mandate included the following: “Palestine will be placed in administrative, political, and economic conditions that guarantee the establishment of the Jewish national homeland. The Mandate will encourage Jewish migration to Palestine and the settlement of Jews in the Palestinian territories. The government will pledge to form a Jewish organisation to look after the affairs of the Jews in Palestine and throughout the world, and monitor the formation of the national homeland provided that the Jewish organisation when granting project concessions gives precedence to investing the natural wealth in Palestine”, and the fanatical Zionist Herbert Samuel was made the High Commissioner for the Mandate in Palestine by the League of nations.

When Britain’s mission to strengthen the Jews in Palestine ended, it transferred the matter to the United Nations so that the Christian and Jewish Zionists could take over. It announced in a historical memorandum that it was abandoning the Mandate and was leaving Palestine on May 15, 1948. And (prior to that) when the matter was presented to the United Nations in 1947, they decided to divide Palestine between Arabs and Jews, and that the ​​Jerusalem and Bethlehem areas were to be regarded as international zones. The major Zionist countries (at the time), America, Britain, France, and Russia, agreed to this. This division gave the Jews the fertile lands and brought them to Umm al-Rashrash on the Gulf of Aqaba, in order to disconnect the Arab and Muslim lands in Asia and Africa from it. Certainly, the British Christian Zionists began the practical implementation with the support of the United Nations regarding that promise it made to the Zionists and then through the mandate for Palestine- facilitated the migration of the Jews to it and assisted them in controlling it. They seized and handed it over to them under the protectorship of the United Nations, and announced the establishment of a Jewish state on May 15, 1948, with the support of Europe and America. This is why the Zionist Chaim Weizman, who served as the first president of the State of Israel after its establishment in 1948 chose London as the Global Headquarters of Zionism with exhortation from all British political circles.

It is worth noting that Theodor Herzl stated before Weizmann, saying, “The first moment I joined the Zionist movement, my eyes turned to England because of the general circumstances I saw that England was the fulcrum that could move the crane” (i.e. the main country to promote the Zionist Movement). Nevertheless, the Christian and Jewish Zionists had a very strong influence in Britain, therefore, this political union (i.e. the UK) had a very great and major impact in establishing a state for the Jews in Palestine, protected and defended it – in the past – in many plans and events, and this is still present and its increase is clearly manifest in recent years. [3]

[1] An Excerpt from Tafseer as-Sadi

[2] An Excerpt from “Diraasaat Al-Adyaan Al-Yahudiyyah Wan-Nasraaniyyah. pages 127-130

[3] An Excerpt from “As-Sahyuniyyah An-Nasraaniyyah, Diraasah Fee Daw’i Al-Aqeedah Al-islaamiyyah. pages 279-297