Muslims March through Nazareth 'meant to intimidate Christians'

Muslims shout at Jesus' home:
'Islam will dominate the world'
March through town of Nazareth 'meant to intimidate Christians'
Posted: January 1, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern

By Aaron Klein
© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53574

Muslims march through Nazareth, Israel, Sunday, Dec. 31, 2006

NAZARETH – Islamic groups held a large militant march down the main streets of Nazareth this weekend, highlighting for some here the plight of Christians in this ancient city where Muslims have become a majority and members of the dwindling Christian population say they suffer regular intimidation.

Nazareth, considered one of the holiest cities for Christians, is described in the New Testament as the childhood home of Jesus. It contains multiple important shrines and churches, including the famous Church of the Basilica of the Annunciation, the site at which many Christians believe the Virgin Mary was visited by the Archangel Gabriel and told that she had been selected as the mother of Jesus.

The Islamic Movement, the main Muslim political party in Nazareth, said it organized yesterday's march to celebrate Eid ul-Adha, or the Feast of the Sacrifice, which commemorates the Muslim belief Abraham was willing to sacrifice his son Ishmael for Allah.

Christian and Jewish faith dictates it was Isaac, not Ishmael, whom Abraham almost sacrificed.

Islamic Movement leaders paraded down Nazareth's main thoroughfare brandishing their party's green flag. Young Muslim men in battle gear marched and beat drums as a man on loudspeaker repeatedly exclaimed in Arabic, "Allah is great."

Hundreds of activists strutted screaming Islamist epithets, including "Islam is the only truth" and "Islam shall rule all."

Tens of thousands of Nazareth residents, seemingly mostly Muslim, congregated on the streets as the march passed by. Muslim children launched firecrackers into the sky, occasionally misfiring, with the small explosives landing dangerously close to the crowds.

Many of the town's Christian residents stayed away from the event, with the exception of Christian shopkeepers who worked in the area. WND observed as several Muslim youth marching in the parade started to charge at three local Christian shopkeepers but the youth stopped short.


Christian shopkeepers, right, confronted by several Muslim youth, during Muslim march through Nazareth, Israel, Dec. 31, 2006

While the march was billed as a celebration, it's militant virtues were clearly visible. The event seemed more a show of force than a street party.

"The march is meant to intimidate Christians," said Saleem, a Nazareth Christian resident who asked that his last name be withheld for fear of what he said was "Muslim retaliation" for speaking out.

"It's part of the methods used by the Muslims in very obvious ways to create an atmosphere where the Christians should know the Muslims are the main power and we are not welcome anymore," Saleem said.

Ahmed Zohbi, a member of Nazareth's municipal council and the leader of an umbrella group consisting of the city's Islamic parties, denied Saleem's accusations, claiming there is "no problem" between Christians and Muslims in Nazareth.

"We just want to celebrate. The Muslims have nothing against our Christian brothers. Our communities may have differences but we live a peaceful coexistence," Zohbi told WND.

But Christians interviewed here said otherwise. Like Bethlehem's Christians, those in Nazareth spoke of attacks against Christian-owned shops and told stories of Christian women being raped by Muslim men. They noted several instances of interreligious violence and Muslim riots they said began when Muslims attacked Christian worshippers. The Muslims claimed Christians started the violence.

Israeli security officials say the majority of anti-Christian violence in Nazareth goes unreported because local Christians are too afraid to report crimes.

One Christian resident said violence and intimidation tend to increase around the time of local elections. The Islamic parties, once in the minority, are now one seat away from dominating Nazareth's city council.

"During the last elections, Muslims on the streets were openly threatening the Christians. They tried to stop some of the Christian cars from voting," said Saleem.

In October 2000, the Arab Christian mayor of Nazareth, Ramiz Jaraisy, was reportedly beaten by members of the opposing Islamist party.

Nazareth's Christian population, at times the majority during the city's long history, is now at about 37 percent, according to the Israeli Bureau of Statistics, which notes a regular downward trend.

The situation mirrors similar trends in West Bank and Gaza cities controlled or dominated by Muslim Arabs.

Siham el-Fahum, a Muslim Nazareth municipality member and a local historian, admits Christians are fleeing her city because of Christian-Muslim tension.

"There is no doubt the situation for Christians in Nazareth is bad," el-Fahum told WND.

"Christians like to live where life can be good for them, whereas Muslims are more attached to the community and will stay through tough times. Muslims in the city want more dominance and the only way to achieve that, logically, is at the expense of Christians. It's a delicate balancing act that is having negative consequences for Christians."

Like many Muslims here, el-Fahum claimed Christians several times "instigated" Muslim riots. But she said in the struggle for power, "the Muslims are definitely on the rise."

She said the core of the conflict began in 1998, when Israel approved a local Muslim request to build a mosque in front of the Church of the Annunciation.

Muslims wanted to build the mosque at an adjacent, 6,500-square-foot site, which they say is the burial place of a nephew of Saladin, the Muslim commander who led the army that defeated the Crusaders in 1187. The site previously housed a public school.

Christians charge the site was not previously considered holy by Muslims and that the planned mosque is meant to overwhelm the church.

Dave Parsons, a spokesman for the International Christian Embassy, said the proposed mosque might contain multiple spires that would tower over the Annunciation Church's large, black-coned dome.

In 2002, Israel rescinded permission to construct the mosque following worldwide outcry and protests from the Vatican and White House.

Nazareth Muslims temporarily occupied the site and erected a tent mosque. Islamic Movement leaders demanded Nazareth officials deed the property over to local Muslim authorities.

Muslims hold regular prayer services at the site neighboring the Annunciation church throughout the week, usually drawing large numbers of worshippers on Fridays.

Yesterday's afternoon service, attended by WND, was preceded by a sermon delivered by a prominent local sheik, who shouted into a loudspeaker, "Islam will dominate the world."


Muslim prayer service outside the Church of the Annunciation in Nazareth, Israel, Dec. 31, 2006

The sermon could be heard by clergy inside the Annunciation church.

The Islamic Movement's Zohbi told WND he is "optimistic" the mosque will eventually be built.

"It's just a matter of time before we (the Islamic parties) dominate the city council and then the situation will be different," he said.

Zohbi claimed the Muslim stake to the Nazareth site predates Christianity's. He said the Church of the Annunciation "was built in the 1950s."

While the church structure was indeed completely rebuilt in 1955, several previous churches there date back to the 5th century, about the same time the original Church of the Nativity was constructed in Bethlehem.

The original Annunciation church was destroyed during Muslim conquests. Reconstructed versions were burned during Crusader losses in the region. The church was rebuilt again in 1730, then later enlarged in 1877.

Archeologists say the first shrine at the church site was constructed in the middle of the 4th century, comprising an altar in the cave in which Mary is said to had lived.

Zohbi said he would only lead "peaceful" protests to built the mosque. Muslims in Nazareth have "no interest" in tensions or further violence with local Christians, he claimed.

But El-Fahum said it was only a matter of time before another round of anti-Christian riots were sparked.

"The tension is very palatable. The Christians know it. The situation is a powderkeg that can explode again at any time."

 

The way I see it is that it's just one group of superstitous fanatics harassing another group of superstitious fanatics. When you see all relgions as just variations of the same theme it isn't surprising to see them attacking each others beliefs. None of them ever live up to the values put forth in their own "holy" books much less come together for anything but violence and hatred towards other religions. The larger the numbers, the more the hatred is spilled unto Christians, Jews, Muslims, gays, atheists, intellectuals, and any group that lives outside of what they see as their moral value system-As if they actually had one.

So if Muslims want to harass Christians, or Jews want to harass Mulsims, or Muslims want to harass everyone, so be it. When I actually see a branch of one of these oranizations actually live the message they preach, I'll start cheering for their side. Until that happens, have at each other boys! God is on your side. encil:

 

Agnostics and Atheists both profess to know there is nothing of value in the word "God." You've already convinced yourselves for now, rest and be happy knowing that. For the time will come when you'll hit your knees and second guess your loudly proclamed denial of the father, if it already hasn't happened once or twice...

 

Well, I don't want to steal your thread with my opinion, but if your prognostication be the case, I will have to live with the knowledge that neither Agnostics nor Atheists have ever killed anyone in the name of God. They have never attempted to converted or kill anyone in the name of God. They have never gone on a crusade in the name of God. They have never called for holy war or jihad in the name of God. They have never had inqusitions in the name of God. They have never stifled truth and accused others of blasphamy or heresy and put them to death in the name of God. If we tallied the victims throughout history of God-fearing righteous people and then tallied those killed in the name of Atheism or Agnoticism even you would have to agree that it would be like comparing Mount Everest to an anthill. If more dead bodies bring us closer to God, them folks have a front row seat for sure.

They don't profess to know that there in nothing of value in the word "God", they just know what people throught recorded history have done to each other using the word "God". If I do end up hitting my knees for any reason in the future, it'll probably be the result of the earth's gravity not because I will have some need to join in on the madness and superstition.

Just a final point, Atheist and Agnostics don't convince themselves that there isn't a God, it's he rest of you that convince yourselves that there is. It's not like they sit around in churches or mosques praying continually to someone they never get an answer from. It's not like they have to erect monuments and staues to their beliefs. It's not like they have to go out and testify to others about what they believe. So I ask you, who is it that is really trying to convince themselves of something?

 

I'm happy that you THINKyour on the right path here All is well, all is well...

 

That's the real beauty of my position...I actually do THINK for myself. No divine intervention required. :secret:

 

In the end its subjective, nobody knows the truth for sure...thats why its called belief. If a person tells you he or she knows for sure, they just believe enough to have convinced themselves they know...thats all Thats why there is no need for debate...nobody knows for a fact or can prove anything...

 

And yet, is there anything more debated than the existence of God? Nobody does really know and yet people are willing to believe in the existence of something they can never touch, see, or prove. Why isn't it just as likely that people can believe the opposite?

 

Because mankind in general must believe there is a hereafter. Without that, life is a deadend where all you've done is all there is to hope for. A oneway trip back to the stoneage where even burial will be forgotten...

 

Or maybe we'd all live for today and not the possible next life. Everyone who has died is pretty much forgotten anyway. I hope that I live a decent life here and now and not so that I can get into some imaged paradise after I'm gone. The world as a whole would definitely be better off if we thought that this was all we had and then *puff!* Believing in the hereafter is a choice. That's all it is.

 

I was given the ability to do more than one thing at a time and always have looked forward to tomorrow (no matter what context that be) while living today to the fullest.

Your speaking for yourself here.

I simply choose to...

 

Atheists may not kill in the name of God, that's true, but let's not deny that there have been plenty of atrocities committed without... Stalin surely was an atheist. Saddam Hussein it is well known was a secularist and only spouted religious comments when it might help him get a reaction.

Many wars, conquests and killings had nothing at all to do with a Holy purpose. Vietnam, Korea, government sanctioned executions in communist China among other countries, the Revolutionary War, WWI, even our own Civil War... millions of lives destroyed in all of these events, but not in the name of God.

 

People kill...They don't kill for the cause of Atheism. People do kill in the name of God. That is the point. Whether Stalin or Hussain were actually Atheists is irrelevant becaue they didn't kill people in the name of Atheism. Wars happen for many reasons, religion is just the most frequent reason.

 

I think there is purpose without god...I dont see why there isnt. And certainly I dont see why we cant remember those who have passed on without god...If one needs a god, that is fine, but please dont say life has no purpose without ons...that is simply not true at all...The purpose remains the same...live a good life, maybe help people along the way and have a good life...Some just dont need threats and promises to do so.

 

Were these the only two things you could come up with? With all the possibilities out there you came up with living life to the fullest and worshipping a supreme being. Isn't that special?

Well 99.9999999999999% of them anyway.

Choosing not to believe is equally valid...Don't judge those that make a different choice than you do.

 

Exactly!

 

thats the main point, dont judge lest ye be judged...What someone believes concerning god is none of my affair, and in turn what I believe is none of their concern...

 

Darfur: the genocide is Islamic racism
For many months now, most of us have heard the name Darfur, a western region of Sudan in North Africa. On December 12 members of the United Nations Human Rights Council are to once again attempt to tackle the ongoing "genocide" problem in Darfur.

The previous conflict in Sudan (ending in 2005 with a peace treaty) was primarily between Christian and Animist forces in the south and the Muslim north. More than 2 million Christians and non-Muslims were enslaved, raped, tortured and murdered from 1983 to 2005.

Osama bin Laden and his followers had used Sudan as a base at one point also, beginning in 1991.

To this point today, more than 4 million southern Sudanese have been displaced, many to other nearby countries. They barely survive and those that do are in the worst of conditions.

Today, the death-dealing is primarily between the black Sudanese Muslims of Darfur and the Arab Muslims (Janjaweed militia) from the north. The typical Arab Muslim in Sudan considers himself superior to the black, and this is not an uncommon belief throughout the Arab Muslim world, and hardly a new one. It is an ancient racism going back to the first incarnations of Muslims in the Middle East and the Arab Animists predating those.

So what is this genocide really?

It is jihad inspired by racism, in-turn inspired by political ambition. The government of Sudan is supporting the genocide and slavery and arming the Janjaweed. It is the very same method used against the non-Muslims, and the world stood back and barely lifted a finger to aid Sudan then, and hasn't made a move yet on the current atrocities. But international pressure is mounting.

Why now? U.S. Democratic representatives are making more noise. Even President Bush has voiced more concern. But should we step in to the breach in a fight between Muslims again? Have we learned nothing from our stays in Iraq and Afghanistan?

It is my firm belief that the United States should stay out of North African affairs and put this into the hands of the United Nations member states to do something -- for once. This is not our responsibility.

And the UN remains impotent in rendering a solution to this conflict in Darfur because so many of the Muslim members of the UN simply do not care or are profiting from the carnage or believe firmly in the jihad. Again, the problems of the international community seem to lie more with the apathy and ambitions of the Muslim Middle Eastern states than with much else in the world. And once again, the UN is going to ask the United States to step in and spend blood and treasure to fix the problem?

The answer from Congress and President Bush should be clear enough: NO.

Blog This • Add to del.icio.us • Digg This! (3 Diggs) • Reddit It • Sphere: 3,794 related posts

 

Darfur diplomacy: sidelined by Somalia?
The defeat of Islamists in Somalia may lessen the pressure on the Sudanese president to accept a large UN peacekeeping force in Darfur.
By Howard LaFranchi | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
WASHINGTON – Just as a flurry of diplomatic activity raised hopes of imminent action on an expanded peacekeeping force for Darfur, a new crisis in the Horn of Africa threatens to divert international attention.

Ethiopia's recent incursion into Somalia may have returned a stable government to the conflict-torn country for the first time in more than 15 years. But by routing Islamist rebels, Ethiopia's action also holds geopolitical implications for the war on terror. And in the midst of these developments, the government of Sudanese President Omar Hassan al-Bashir could find the pressure off for accepting a robust United Nations-mandated security force for Darfur, experts say.
In the Monitor
Friday, 01/05/07

What's a pretty view worth? A tax hit.

If Iraq fragments, what's Plan B?
Four stars lead early GOP race
Oprah's academy: Why educating girls pays off more
Editorial: Laptops: easy fix for global education?
More stories...

Get all the Monitor's headlines by e-mail.
Subscribe for free.
E-mail this story
Write a letter to the Editor
Printer-friendly version
Permission to reprint/republish

After months of stalling, Mr. Bashir last week announced his readiness to accept an expanded international security presence in Darfur, the vast southern region where more than 200,000 people have died and millions more have been displaced. The fighting pits the region's black Christian population against forces aligned with the majority Arab and Muslim government.

Sudan says it will allow the first of more than 175 UN advisers and peacekeeping staff officers to deploy in Darfur within days. UN diplomats hoped this would be the foot in the door for a much larger peacekeeping force to fortify the 7,000 African Union security soldiers already there.

But Sudanese officials continue to offer conflicting statements on the size and makeup of any force, although some say it is no longer a question of the 20,000-strong force of blue helmets the Security Council approved for Darfur in August. The ambiguity and backtracking by the Sudanese government is leading some observers to speculate that Bashir may be finding Somalia's crisis a convenient cover for further procrastination.

"The international interest in Darfur is not going away. But at a broader level, Bashir must realize that there's only so much time in a day and so much energy that diplomats can put into one region," says Stephen Morrison, director of the Africa program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in Washington. "If a roiling crisis in the Horn of Africa puts Darfur and Sudan into the back pages and becomes a major preoccupation in the Security Council for a couple of months, it may be just what Bashir needs to drag things out."

Developments in Somalia

After Somalia's provisional government retook the capital of Mogadishu from the rebels of the Islamic Courts Union (ICU) last week, diplomats have been trying to arrange an African peacekeeping force for the country. The diplomats want peacekeepers to replace forces from Ethiopia, a majority Christian country held in disregard by Muslim Somalians. So far, a few African countries appear to have offered forces.

Still, with overtones of the US war on terror in both Somalia and Sudan, some observers worry that US action in the globally strategic region will be driven even more by security interests than by humanitarian concerns.

"All along with Sudan, the US has put other interests above the humanitarian crisis. And we can expect to see more of that with the support for Ethiopia's invasion of Somalia," says Nii Akuetteh, executive director of Africa Action, a Washington advocacy group supporting international intervention in Darfur. "What else explains the gulf between the American leadership - including President Bush - describing what is happening in Darfur as genocide, and the steps to do something about it?"

Mr. Akuetteh says the United States has welcomed Sudanese intelligence officials for briefings with the CIA - despite some of those same officials' association with the Janjaweed, the notorious pro-government militia responsible for many of the deaths in Darfur.

"The explanation seems to be that the US values terrorism intelligence over the genocide issue," he says.

Some experts say Sudan's ability to resist a robust UN force in Darfur is another example among many of waning American influence in Africa. But others, like Akuetteh, say the US continues to have leverage with Khartoum.

Andrew Natsios, White House special envoy on Darfur, has warned Sudanese officials that the US would consider a "Plan B" for getting action on Darfur if Sudan did not approve a peacekeeping force by Jan. 1.

But Mr. Morrison of CSIS qualifies much of the current threatening by the US as "smoke" to cover for a lack of options in an environment of weakened influence. Three options the US is considering - imposing a no-fly zone over Darfur, blocking the financial transactions of individuals targeted for abuses in Darfur, or seeking action by the International Criminal Court - have drawbacks and would be of limited impact, he says.

"We tend to forget that the US had a lot of leverage in Sudan after 9/11 and was able to use that to make important headway," says Morrison. "But then came the blowback from the invasion of Iraq, and Bashir was able to play off the animosity in the Arab community."

Muslim perceptions

Others say the loss of leverage the US has suffered in Sudan could be joined by heightened disregard for the US among the world's Muslims, given tacit American support for Ethiopia's entry into Somalia against the Islamists of the ICU.

"For many Muslims this will be seen as, 'Once again, the US supports attacks on a Muslim government and state," says David Smock, an expert at the US Institute of Peace who specializes in Africa and the interplay of politics and religion.

Mr. Smock sees little evidence to support State Department claims that the ICU controls an Al Qaeda cell in Somalia. But what does worry him, he says, is a Somalia that remains unstable because of fighting among warlords - which leads to the prospect of it becoming a major terrorist haven.

"We've seen this happen in Iraq," he says, "and I fear the same could happen here: A Muslim country that is exaggerated as a terrorist base is invaded by a non-Muslim power, and in the ensuing chaos it becomes one."

• Material from wire services was used in this report.

 

Atheists are judged in this country and around the world I suppose for their lack of beliefs. Try running for public office in the country as an acknowledged Atheist. You stand a far better chance of getting elected as a homosexual. You don't really have to believe in God to win a public office but you do have to say that you believe in God. Atheists are a huge voting bloc that has never been brought bare in the political arena effectively to this point. Maybe it's time they organized and started fighting for their rights and assert themselves into politics as the Religious Right has already done.