'Muslim extremists' ignore Vatican, build mosque

JERUSALEM - Working under cover of darkness, Muslims in Jesus' boyhood town of Nazareth have begun constructing a mosque alongside the Basilica of the Annunciation, despite protests by the Vatican and Israeli authorities.

The Vatican, in a statement issued in Rome, called on the Israeli government to stop "Muslim extremists" from building the mosque next to the church marking the site where Christians believe the angel Gabriel told Mary she would give birth to Jesus.

"Building the mosque here will in effect put this holy place in a state of permanent siege and make its gate a gathering place for the most hostile elements," the statement said, according to the Vatican news service Fides.

Israeli authorities charged today that the work constituted a provocation and threatened to stop the construction by force, even as the Muslim holy month of Ramadan begins. Local Christians warned the work could re-ignite the interreligious violence that erupted at the site last year.

Construction on the mosque began Monday, without the necessary permits, but the Israeli Lands Authority ordered it halted. The Wakf, or Islamic Trust, stopped the work today but said it will start again if it does not get the necessary permits within a week.

Witnesses said crews were working at the site Monday and Tuesday nights in an apparent attempt to keep the construction secret.

A lawyer for the Muslims, Dan Shafrir, said the construction had been going on day and night. The Israeli Lands Authority promised to help the Islamic Trust obtain the permits for the Muslim-owned land if the construction was stopped, Shafrir said.

"We're not hiding anything from anyone," Shafrir said. "Whether or not we get the permits, we will continue construction in a week."

The construction was halted only temporarily, and steel beams arrived at the site today, said Ahmed Saleh Hamudeh, the head of the Islamic Trust in Nazareth.

Christians are a minority in Nazareth, and tensions over the mosque have been running high between the Christian community and the Muslim majority in the city of 70,000. Nazareth is the largest Arab city in Israel.

Under pressure from Christian leaders, including the Vatican, the previous Israeli government worked out a compromise in 1999 to defuse a tense situation in which Muslims were praying in a large tent a few meters from the church, as a planned millennium visit by Pope John Paul II neared. The Vatican had hinted the issue could force the cancellation of the pope's visit, which took place as scheduled in March 2000.

According to the agreement, the tent was removed, and a mosque would be built on one third of the 2,000-square-meter plot, but only after the millennium year.

Church leaders in the Holy Land complain that Israel made excessive concessions to the Muslims, while ignoring promises made to Christian leaders, including the pope.

Despite the pledges of the previous government, Israeli officials are indicating that Prime Minister Ariel Sharon will not allow construction of the mosque.

"A decision on the matter will be made by the government" due to the sensitivity of the issue, Foreign Ministry spokesman Emmanuel Nachshon said. "We are absolutely against the work going on at the moment."

Israel believes that starting construction days before the start of Ramadan is a cynical use of the holiday by the Muslims, with the hope authorities will not act to stop the work, a government official said on condition of anonymity.

Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat, himself a Muslim, sided with the Christians in the dispute, saying in December 1999 that the Muslims should not build the mosque so close to the church.

The Muslims say a Crusader-era sage is buried at the site, and they hoped to build a large mosque there. Church leaders wanted the plot for a plaza to accommodate millennium pilgrims.

Whatever the context, the fact that there are episodes in the history of Christianity which were shamefully un-Christ-like is not disputed by anyone who is both honest and informed.

If you want to debate me, please respond to the points I have made. I don't play games.

Pretty funny. There have been times in the history of the world that those calling themselves Christians have behaved in unchristianlike ways, but it is not the fault of the Church as such.

I think you should do more research on the Middle Ages before you, like Voltaire, decide to condemn it completely. As one of my history teachers mentioned, the epochs of history were not actually labeled until the 1700's, when (mosty Deist) historians saw fit to call the expansion of Christianity as "The Dark Ages" and their own time as "The Age of Enlightenment."

I would recommend to you the works of historians Edward Peters and Regine Pernoud.

Is that a bad thing for a half-Jew, half-WASP to show? Kidding. I am not scared of religion, just skeptical. I am scared of what some people DO or SAY in the name of religion. Falwell, bin Laden, Jackson, etc... But that is it.

Prove it. Please cite any contemporary Catholic sources that agree with this. (Non-Catholic sources can't be trusted on this subject).

Catholic and Protestant sources will tell two different accounts. Both sides wronged each other at various times in history. Historically there were a number of saintly Catholics who lived up to the Christian ideal (I have read and treasured their writings). The same goes for the Protestants.

I think the attrocities committed were motivated by chuch/state intermingling, greed, and lust for power; more likely a political agenda wrapped in a cloak of religion. There always have been, and always will be, wonderful examples of Christianity in both the Catholic and Protestant churches.

unfortunately the spanish church in the early days of spanish new mexico was complicit in unwarranted brutality, although in the centuries since their presence has been much more benevolent.

I agree that this applies to many of the Franciscan friars, who at that time were quite corrupt. However, the Jesuit missions in Paraguay were so successful and beneficient that many natives flocked to them to escape the slave traders. As no good deed goes unpunished, this success contributed to the Jesuits' suppression at the close of the 18th century. (Incidentally, the slave trade was also officially condemned by the papacy within the lifetime of Christopher Columbus).

Do you belive that the only reason they punished people for having a Bible was because it was expensive?

Who said anything about punishing people for having a Bible? Certain translations were no doubt suppressed, as counterfeit currency or fraudulent deeds would have been destroyed. This was a particular problem with the advent of the printing press, when any man with a bit of money and some Greek and Latin could crank out a version. But Sir Thomas More, in his Dialogue Concerning Heresies, notes that English law only forbade Luther and Tyndale-influenced versions, as those were of dubious accuracy and deviated from Christian orthodoxy. More, being a man of Law himself, should know more about then-contemporary English law than either of us. I will not speak about the rest of European law, since I am less familiar with its Reformation-era history.

I only said I don't like what some people do or say in the name of religion. That is a big range of possibilities. Of course I don't think Jerry and Osama are on the same level, but when Falwell opens his mouth he can do a lot of damage and makes it nearly impossible for certain groups to be united or at least be civil to eachother. This is not akin to killing 5000 people, but can be very counterproductive just the same. Yes I am biased. I respect peoples faith but just don't like it when it causes them to shun, or downright hate, other people.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.