Chapters 14 and 15

My reaction to chapter 14 echoed the class discussion about the horrors of the Crusades.  In this chapter we read of how Saladin was ready to draw truces with the Crusaders, treated prisoners fairly well, and some historians even said was 'clement to a fault'.  However, his good actions and treatment to others, even if the enemy, were not reciprocated by the Crusaders.  It is so sad that in his mercy, to allow Christians to congregate in a nearby city, the fighting would continue for more than a hundred years.

Personally I think it would have been interesting to meet Saladin.   I liked reading about how he worked along side his men as they restored the Dome of the Rock and would give charity to the poor.  He also did not punish the local Christians for the terrible actions of the Western ones.  This is something that I feel would be quite easy not to do as a ruler.  As it goes for people in authority, he seems like a generally nice ruler who wanter peace more than war.  He allowed the Christians who were not responsible for the Crusades to stay as well as inviting Jews back into Jerusalem.

The second person who stood out to me in this chapter was Frederick.  It is refreshing to read that while there were many atrocities from the Western side, at least we know of one who was willing to interact with the 'other'.  It is terrible that Christians thought it blasphemous for him to enter Muslim areas, or that the Islamic call to prayer would be a problem to their faith.  Maybe if more of the Crusaders had been willing to interact with the Muslims and Jews that they would have seen how similar they all are, and the ability to coexist.  The Crusaders were not saving anything, but rather leaving a path of destruction.

For as much fighting, violence, and stalemates that we have read about, it is important to remember the figures who did not follow the norm of continued struggles.  I feel that both of these men knew the importance of mutual respect and the power of peace.  However, sadly, the unity under Saladin did not last long after his death, and Frederick was killed for his actions.  Regardless, I feel that if there were people in the past who would cross over territory lines to work out problems, figurative or not,  that there are people in the present who can do the same.

القدس

These readings, chapters 11-13, caught my eye due to their relevance to what my major is, and personal historic interest in the 'Golden Ages' of the Islamic Empire.  Which is the time of the Umayyid and Abbasid Dynasties.  The two pictures above are from a mosque built in Islamic Cairo, by the Caliph Hakim.  I remember being struck by the simple beauty and peace within the mosque walls, and the surprise when I learned of the terribly harsh rule this Caliph had.  

Throughout this book we have read how the Jews and Christians, and now the Muslims, have gone through episodes of peace and violence with each other.  However, the inclusive nature of Islam I feel is forgotten by many today.  I remember people wondering how as a Christian, it was for me to live with a Muslim host family in Egypt, but it was amazing.   People back home were also amazed at how Muslims protested along side Christians, after a church in Alexandria prior to the Revolution, was bombed, and at how Christians would stand to protect praying Muslims during Revolution protests.  

As much as there is a history of violence and intense arguments, there is also a long history or cooperation and mutual respect.   While this happened in Egypt, I do not feel like it is impossible to have cooperation and mutual repect once again inside Jerusalem.  

I like how Armstrong writes about the concept of the 'People of the Book' and that there have been moments throughout history when these three religions have coexisted peacefully.  It seems like a lot of the antagonism throughout the Umayyid and Abbasid periods were political in nature and not necessarily religiously based.  Religion was rather a marker of a member's status within the Empire and determined the type of tax and actions one had to make.  

We are now at an important time in history for Palestine.  President Abbas has submitted the request to the Security Council for UN recognition of statehood.  There are two points of view, one being that this is the way to move forward, and the other point of view is that there has to be peace negations worked out before statehood is addressed.  

In the news recently

USA and the Palestinian bid for statehood

I was reading more about the current USA stance to reject/veto the Palestinian bid for statehood when I came across this article.  What I find interesting in the video part, is the use of words used to describe places.  We hear the reporter mentioning "occupied territories" and the "West Bank", while the Jewish protestor uses the terms "Judea" and "Sumeria".  We can see how deep this conflict goes just by how people chose to describe the land in question.

As this UN discussion carries on, I think we will be seeing more and more how people, both living and not living in the area, react to the unfolding events.  The United States has already decided to veto, and I wonder if this is indicative of its disapproval for a possible two state solution.

Web Journal Assignment 2

I realized that I switched the reading assignment and the web journal assignment.  The assignment is to pick out identity symbols, and mine are as follows.

 Coffee is the life blood of my family.  We love to drink strong black coffee.

 One thing that I feel is very characteristic of my family is the importance of home cooked food.  We love to cook new foods and we each have something that has become our specialty that we make when together again.

 One side of my family is still pretty recent in regards to how long they have been in the United States.  It was only four generations ago when they still lived in Finland.  I chose a map as a symbol because I still have family overseas and my family has  always been very open towards learning about the world.

 Everyone in my family plays a musical instrument, and music is something that is always present in the home as well as at larger family gatherings.  

Religion is important to my family.  We are Christian.  I decided to take a picture of this wall hanging because it used to be my grandma's and it is depicting Jerusalem and it fits this class topic.  

Christianity and Jerusalem

It is interesting to read about how the concept of Jerusalem played into the rise of early Christianity.  In the beginning, the city of Jerusalem was not important at all to the Christians.  Jerusalem was not longer what it once was and had been completely taken over by the Roman Empire.  The concept of 'Holy Jerusalem' became something that was not on this earth.  Physical sites were not of importance to the early Christians, and they even saw the destruction of Jerusalem as justification of their beliefs.  

However, with the intrest of Constantine in Christianity, changes began to happen.  Under his support, the Council of Nicene gathered to discuss the nature of Jesus Christ.  The council was made up of the prominent religous leaders and scholars at the time and they worked to unify how they perceive the holy nature of Christ.  While the book mentions that some members of the council, regardless of if they signed the creed or not, continued to preach their personal viewpoint.  I feel like this is still a monumental event in the history of Christian doctrine.  The statements made in this council did have an impact on Christian theology and on the process of bringing the Bible together.  

 It was under Constantine that there was a revival in remembering and visiting sacred landmarks.  He supported the project to unearth the tomb that Jesus was said to have resurrected from, as well as honoring sacred places like Bethlehem.   Honoring these sacred places and stressing the importance of the place along with the event that took place there was going against what Christians said they did not need.  They had been proud that they did not depend on shrines or holy places.  However, with the discovery of this tomb, the book marks a change in this point of view.  Suddenly, holy places were an important part of the religious experience.  I like the quote on page 183, that writes, 

'It is never safe to assume that we have outgrown these primal myths: even in the secular, scientific world of the 20th century, we are not immune to their appeal, as we can see in Jerusalem today'.  

Throughout this book we have read how now both Jews and Christians have balanced the importance of sacred geography with the idea of being able to create sacred space anywhere.  In the conflict over Jerusalem we see today, has a lot to do with how people view the relevance of physical locations to the ability to practice their religion   

I am not sure if this book will touch on the establishment of the Vatican City, but through reading about sacred geography, I think it would be interesting to see if the Vatican City can be compared to Jerusalem.  

Chapters 5-7

The description and sheer scale of the Temple of Herod is what stood out to me the most from the reading.  It was hard, even though she has the blueprints of the temple, to visualize what this place must have looked like when it was new.  Both this temple and the Temple Mount are two places that I have heard of before, but never really knew too much about.

http://www.google.com/imgres?q=temple+of+herod&hl=en&biw=1047&bih=713&gbv=2&tbm=isch&tbnid=Lm_eme8Wp5-5fM:&imgrefurl=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/picturegalleries/howaboutthat/4837528/A-model-of-biblical-proportions-man-spends-30-years-creating-a-model-of-Herods-Temple.html&docid=INsWTng3zd2CfM&w=620&h=400&ei=y-FvTqmPG4bpqgHa3JDuCw&zoom=1&iact=rc&dur=383&page=1&tbnh=130&tbnw=201&start=0&ndsp=12&ved=1t:429,r:0,s:0&tx=65&ty=95

The above link is to a drawing of the Temple of Herod, and the one below is of the Temple Mount,

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.sacred-destinations.com/israel/images/jerusalem/temple-mount/resized/Temple_mount-wp.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.sacred-destinations.com/israel/jerusalem-temple-mount&h=234&w=350&sz=113&tbnid=z_CcL9yjxSJLXM:&tbnh=90&tbnw=135&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dtemple%2Bmount%26tbm%3Disch%26tbo%3Du&zoom=1&q=temple+mount&docid=BEXVow_nXc6CzM&sa=X&ei=duJvToCbBcW6qAHx-8HeCw&ved=0CEsQ9QEwBQ&dur=343

 King Herod was a very aware king.  He knew what actions to take in order to please both those who had control over him and those he was in control over.  The book comments on how he had no issues with people practicing other religions, and would even build religious buildings for gentiles.  He also knew how to assert his authority, even under the guise of religious practice.  The garments that were worn by the high priests were kept under lock and key due in part of the incredible holiness surrounding the garments, but also because this way the King would be in control of who wore them.  I feel like King Herod can be attributed for really putting Jerusalem on the map as a destination. especially through the building projects he inverted in.  

The incredible size and amount of money that King Herod spent on the temple was astounding.  He went to great lengths to make sure that he did not cross over into any forbidden areas of the temple, as well as, training priests so that the temple would be constructed by holy people.  The materials used were expensive, including gold and marble stone.  In addition, the way that the whole building was laid out and positioned on the Temple Mount 'thus traced the path to God' p133.  The splendor of the building itself and the way it was made created a sacred space in Jerusalem unlike the ones previously mentioned in the book.  While there were important sacred spaces prior to the Temple of Herod, this space, drew pilgrimages from all over the area.  People would plan to attend major festivals and purify themselves before arriving in Jerusalem in order to visit the temple.  

The way in which the creation of this temple has political aspects is in what this temple did for the city of Jerusalem.  Pilgrims were required to bring with them a pilgrimage tithe, which means that all the pilgrims to Jerusalem were not only visiting the temple, but also participating in Jerusalem's economy.  There is a lot of money and opportunities for investment around pilgrimages.  The festivals, pilgrimage tithes, along with the fortifications and buildings he built I feel changed the nature of the city.  Before this time, the idea of pilgrimage did not seem very stressed.  There was/ is the notion of being in exile, or a people without a land.  However, before this portion of the book we have not read much about pilgrims.  The idea that one could make a journey to the holy place instead of living there per say.

On a final note, and somewhat different topic.  I am interested in learning more about the rituals and symbolism surrounding the decoration of the temple as well as the places certain people can or can not go.  I am familiar with the general aspects of Judaism, but I think it would be very worth while to look into the symbolism as well as important rituals that are critical to a temple's sanctity.  For example, there were incidences in which a temple can be made impure if an unclean person is in a pure space of the temple.  

Reading Response to ch 1-4

There is a lot of information given within these first few chapters of the book, Jerusalem: One City: Three Faiths, to take in all at once.  Within these four chapters and Introduction, Armstrong sorts out some of the early beliefs and history of the region.
One point is made in the introduction that I feel must be remembered when looking at the political and religious claims on the city.
Armstrong writes that mythology has never had the intention of describing historically verifiable events that occurred.  Rather, it serves as almost an ancient form of psychology.  The myths are intended to give meaning or attention to realities that are too elusive to be discussed in a logical and coherent way (Armstrong, xviii).
Myths create 'sacred geography'.  This means that regardless of whether or not a myth can be backed up by historical evidence, the believers in the story hold true to the tale.  So this means, in relation to the claims over Jerusalem, that historical evidence, no matter how in depth, could not actually close the topic on who was there 'first'.  The beliefs in the stories hold greater weight than historical events.
I do not believe that there is any solution that can be gained from determining who was there first.  Instead, I think it is importnat to understand what it is people believe about the city of Jerusalem.  Over time there has been so much political and religious doctrine influenced by this city, that it is important to mark how doctrines have changed.

Jerusalem History

Dumper, Mick. "Jerusalem: Then and Now"

Khaladi, Rashid. "The History of Jerusalem"

Rubin, Rehav "Jerusalem: The Holy Ciy through the Ages"

Pressman, Jeremy. "A Brief History of the Arab-Israeli Conflict"

History's Story

Each article strives to layout the sequence of events throughout history with the aim to layout some sort of timeline that shows the transfer of control and influence of the three monolithic faiths.  As someone who has never been to Jerusalem, I was surprised when I read how Jerusalem was never a city known for its agricultural riches.  Rather, this is a city that is almost out of the way.  It is the religious attachments to this city which make it such a special city, a holy city.    There are important sites for each religion throughout the city.  It is sad that there is such a divide.  


The part that stood out the most to me out of these articles, comes from "A Brief History of the Arab-Israeli Conflict".  Towards the end of the article, Pressman writes, "consider which side [Arab/Israeli] was content with the status quo and which side had revisionist aims (revising or overruling the status quo)".   This, in my opinion, illustrates how so many agreements and talks fail.  The side that is content does not want to bend, unless the talks are in support of their side.  


What will be interesting to look out for how the Arab Spring affects this conflict.  There are protests happening in Israel, but from last I heard, the conflict was not a part of the issues being brought to discussion.  As for the Arab side, I believe that Palestine is in the process of applying to statehood, or at least to some sort of state capacity within the UN.