Chapters 16-18

The last three chapters of this book were the most useful and interesting in my opinion. I mentioned earlier this semester that my family has a personal connection to the Arab-Israeli conflict; my grandfather is Palestinian and was forced into exile, which is how he ended up in Egypt. My father was born in Cairo just in time for the Six Day war and the rest of the drama that is described in these last chapters.

I have never fully understood the conflicts surrounding Jerusalem and all of Israel because it is such an extensive conflict whose timeline lasts for centuries. I am so happy that I read Armstrong's book because it described the basics of the history of this city in 400 pages. I have learned the history of the Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, which is beyond important for understanding anything to do with this region. I also have a strong grasp on the events leading up to the Balfour Declaration, as well as its immediate consequences. And now I understand the policies of the modern state of Israel, and its relations with its Arab neighbors.

The last three chapters benefited me the most because now I truly understand my father's perspective of this conflict. Before I thought he was extremely biased and his opinion lacked fact. But now that I have read the history for myself, I understand why he feels the way he does. Before I was so confused about people, dates, wars, religions, etc, but this book has really cleared up many of my questions. It was interesting for me to read the history of Jerusalem from the 60s to the present day because that is also part of my dad's life; this makes it more personal for me. I really enjoyed this book and I think it was a great way to start off this class because now we are all on the same page on the history of this region.

Chapters 14-15

I enjoyed in Chapter 14 how Armstrong introduces the Islamic concept of jihad, and that she explains it broader meaning through historical examples in Jerusalem. Jihad may me the most controversial term of Islam in today's media; it is usually defined as "holy war" or "killing in the name of Islam". Armstrong offers a explanation that clarifies what jihad truly is:

"The word jihad does not mean merely "holy war." Its primary meaning is "struggle," and it is in this sense that it is chiefly used in the Qur'an. Muslims are urged to "struggle in the way of God," to make their lives a purposeful striving to implement God's will in a flawed, tragic world." (295)

 I find that Saladin is a great character in the history of Islam in Jerusalem. "Saladin had conducted his jihad in accordance with the Qur'anic ideal: he had always granted a truce when the Crusaders had asked for one; he had, for the most part, treated his prisoners fairly and kindly." From Armstrong's definition and Saladin's actions, I learn the real meaning of jihad, and not its misinterpretations that are now so common.

Another concept discussed was Zionism. After Saladin welcomed the Jews to return to Jerusalem, Zionism arose as a popular belief and sentiment. The idea that Jews must return and reconquer their homeland, which is Jerusalem. I liked reading about when and how Zionism became a popular belief because it is still a controversial topic in politics today. Armstrong justifies the feelings behind Zionism: "When people become alienated from their surroundings and feel that, physically and spiritually, they have no home in the world, they feel drawn to return to their roots to find healing" (299).

I was very struck and disturbed by this passage in Chapter 14: "Some pilgrims wandered around like zombies, beating their breasts in an uncoordinated manner, as though possessed. Women shrieked as though in labor; some pilgrims simply collapsed and lay on the ground like corpses. Pilgrims were regularly so overcome that they had to be hospitalized. Western devotion to Jerusalem had taken on a hysterical cast." When I read this, I just wondered to myself "Why?" These feelings of passion are so over my head, I don't understand how someone could be so distraught and act this way. I am assuming these are extreme cases, but they still happened. Incidents like these blow my mind, because in general religion is not viewed this way anymore so it is a hard concept for me to grasp.

Chapters 11-13

Chapter 11, "Bayt Al-Maqdis," was the first chapter in this book where I felt completely engaged when reading. This was the first chapter when I did not lose focus and had to spend 10 extra minutes rereading whatever I spaced out on. The content of this chapter is my favorite, I am fascinated with Islam and its history. I really enjoyed this reading, and I feel like this book is really starting to become interesting to me now that all three religions are present in Jerusalem.

I realize more and more everyday that I love Islam. I think that Islam is a fascinating religion and way of life. The impact that it has on people is overwhelming to me, which is why I am so attracted to it. I felt that Armstrong did a great job in explaining the religion in Chapter 11. She gave accurate and understandable definitions of the faith and gave a great summary of its establishment. In my opinion, Islam is a very misunderstood religion that receives a lot of criticism and overall bad reviews. Many claims that Islam is a hostile religion that encourages violence. Others claim that it is meant for isolation and it is unable to mix with the Western world. Chapter 11 helps clarify the misinterpretations of Islam by learning the history of the faith from the very beginning.

"By retuning to the original faith of Abraham, Muslims would make God, not a religious establishment, the goal of their lives" (221).

I think the biggest physical contribution to Jerusalem by the Muslims was the Dome of the Rock. This history behind this building is also fascinating, and it will play a huge role in Jerusalem from then on. "Islam had not great monuments and in Jerusalem, a city filled with magnificent churches, the Muslims felt at disadvantage" (327). Armstrong explains that the Dome of the Rock was actually built to challenge the Dome of the Anastasis on the Western Hill.  Armstrong then explains the rock that the Dome was built to honor. I had a negative reaction to Armstrong's explanation. I felt that she was fairly insensitive to Islam when she described the Rock. I probably have a personal bias because I am very interested in the religion, but I could not help but feel
 uncomfortable and defensive when I read this text.

"Why choose to honor this rock, which is not mentioned in either the Bible or the Qur'an? Later Mulsims would believe that Muhammad has ascended to heaven from the Rock after his Night Journey and that he had prayed tin the small cave beneath..." (237)

Another idea that I enjoyed reading was that the Dome of the Rock, which is initially a religious monument, was also used as a political threat. Armstrong explains, "the Dome of the Rock..was a dramatic assertion that Islam had arrived and was here to stay. It issued an imperious call the the Christians to revise their beliefs and return to the pure monotheism of Abraham" (239). It was not only a threat to the Christians, but also to the Jews:

"It occupied the site of their Temple, which had itself been uilt on the place where Abraham had sacrificed his son...The Jews were not the only children of Abraham and should remember that he had been neither a Jew nor a Christian but a muslim" (240).

This furthers my belief that religion has been taken advantage of as a political tool.

The last idea that really struck me was found in Chapter 12. Armstrong speak of Caliph al-Hakim, "a pious, austere man who was passionately committed to the Shii ideal of social justice. Yet he was of a troubled disposition, given to the outbursts of fanatical rage and cruelty. His mother had been a Christian, and it is likely that many of the caliph's problems sprang from a conflicted identity" (258). This I found very interesting because it reminds me of myself in many ways. Not that I had fanatical rage, but having parents of different religious beliefs and how this leads to identity crisis. My mom is Christian and my dad is Muslim, so I too have felt this "identity crisis" that Armstrong metions. But I did not turn out violent like the Caliph. I am just wondering if this assumption was more of a myth, or if there was evidence that he was crazy because of his family background. This is just an interesting thought I had.

Findings from Al Jazeera

I found this on Al Jazeera as I was reading about the Palestinian statehood UN bid. This is a cool video that  shows the life of two Palestinians under the occupation and how they choose to cope with difficulties. It is pretty cool how many ways there are to get your message out there. This must take extreme athleticism, which also amazes me because I could never do this. Also, this video has some cool Arabic hip-hop music, which I always find hilarious and entertaining. Enjoy!

http://english.aljazeera.net/programmes/artscape/2011/06/2011619123857973866.html

Chapters 8-10

After reading these three chapters, I had many conclusions and questions regarding religion. I have been familiar with religions, but I have never read in depth history on the foundations of Judaism and Christianity. Chapters 8-10 gave me a lot of insight on how religion developed throughout time to be as big of a phenomenon as it is today. I have decided that there is an obvious difference between religion and faith. In my opinion, religion is very political, and Jerusalem is the prime example to this argument. In Jerusalem's extensive history, the dominant religion of the city was decided by who the current ruler was. Chapter 9 discussed how emperor Constantine wanted to make Constantinople a new Christian city, and get rid of paganism. Because he had the money, power, and resources, he was able to destroy any other faiths and encourage the establishment of Christianity. It seems that religion is not what you necessarily believe in, but it is decided according to where you live and who is ruling you.

Faith, on the other hand, is different. I believe that you are able to have a faith, but not necessarily follow an organized religion. In many ways, that is how I feel it should be. Faith is based on the idea of sacrality, which is supposed to be the main idea of religion also. Instead, I feel that organized religion has been a political tool since the beginning.

I have always had my doubts and uncertainties with religion. I think it is a beautiful thing that does wonders for people. But now that I am learning the history behind it from an academic perspective, I am realizing it flaws that should be recognized.

Weblog Journal Assignment

Identity Symbols 

My mom is Christian and my dad is Muslim. 

Your home is an illustration of your identity. It is filled with symbols that reflect who you are: beliefs, interests, hobbies, personality traits, etc. I mentioned before that I come from a multi-cultural family. My mom is a white southerner from Mobile, Alabama, and my dad is originally from Egypt before immigrating to the United States. My family currently lives in Mobile, Alabama, which I find hilarious because we are the total opposite of the typical 'Southern' family. I think that my home is a great expression of my identity. My house is in one of the many historical neighborhoods that were built when the French established my city. The outside looks like any other two story house with white columns and a small yard. The inside of my house is quite different because it is filled with Egyptian-inspired decor. The walls of our house are decorated with plates and paintings that we brought from Egypt. And our curtains, pillows and couches also reflect the Middle Eastern heritage.

This is a random storage trunk that I decorate with bumper stickers.
This trunk gives you a general understanding of my beliefs and interests

Exercise is a huge part of my life. I grew up playing
sports and now I work at the Rec Center, teaching exercise classes. 

If you enjoy smoking shisha and drinking tea, then you can
get along with about 95% of the Egyptian population.

One identity symbol that stands out to me is the shisha (hookah). My family owns many shishas of every size that we use for decoration and entertainment. They directly represent my Egyptian culture because you can't walk a block in Egypt without finding a cafe that serves hot tea and shisha.

If you opened our refrigerator you will find typical groceries found at any store, but you will also find random Middle Eastern foods like pita bread, feta cheese, dates, hummus, baba, etc. At least once a week my whole life, my mom would prepare an Egyptian meal. I agree that food is an important identity symbol because it describes your culture in discreet ways.

I love Lil Wayne, but my roommate loves Britney Spears. We
put the posters side by side to show how different we are.

Wherever I live in college, I try to incorporate my culture into my decoration as much as possible. I love ethnic patterns and textiles so I use them to decorate my bed, desk, etc. One identity symbol in my room at school is I have a huge poster of a world map by my desk. This makes sense because I am an international studies major and I enjoy traveling and studying different people and cultures. One extremely random identity symbol found in my room is a poster of Lil Wayne. This is also hilarious because I love rap music, although you wouldn't know after talking to me once.

Chapters 5-7

Chapter 5, "Exile and Return," is an important chapter in understanding Judaism as a faith. I am not very familiar with the details of Judaism, I only know the surface of the religion. But from this chapter I learned that the destruction of the First Temple in 586 is one of the most important events in Jewish history. The Temple was the center of the Jewish faith, and once it was gone and Jerusalem was sacked, the followers felt disillusioned and lost. Later the Second Temple was built to replace the first and to reestablish the faith. As a first reaction, many Jews continued to mourn the loss of the First Temple, and had to gradually accept the Second as its replacement.

Like I mentioned before, I am not extremely knowledgable of Judaism, so if someone could further explain it to me, please do. But from my understanding, Jews continue to worship the First Temple, even though it no longer exists. This is extremely interesting that a site that is no more is still considered a sacred place. It is as if the memory is what is worshipped, in my opinion of course. So in this place, something sacred does not even have to be tangible, a memory can also be worshipped. Details like this are what amazes me about religions. An event that happened so long ago is just as important in today's faiths as it was then.

Ch. 6 "Antioch in Judea" gave a lot of historical information, rather than religious. I thought it was a nice change of pace to learn about the Hellenistic era and its effects on Jerusalem and Judaism. At first, there was not reason for the Greeks to interfere with Jerusalem, because geographically it had nothing to offer, and it was not active in international politics at the time. But the gradual influence Hellenism had on Jerusalem is extremely important for the progression of the state and the religion. I enjoyed how Armstrong compared the two cultures: Jewish culture being quite conservative, while the Greek culture was very secular for the time period. The Greek culture had such an influence on society that it seemed to help Jerusalem progress and become an important state.

Armstrong, Ch. 1-4

So far I think that this book is perfect reading material for this class. I love religious history, and the first few chapters have succeeded in explaining where monotheism all began. In chapter 1, Armstrong describes  the idea of the sacred, which I believe is important to define before one begins to study a religion. The idea of something sacred is the foundation for any religion. Armstrong explains why having something 'sacred' is the first priority in civilizations.  Armstrong quotes that, "We are meaning-seeking creatures," which I believe is the perfect way to describe mankind. This idea of the sacred has always fascinated me; I love learning about world religions and beliefs. I took a course called "Sacred Places" last year and it focused on the idea of the sacred and how it is interpreted among cultures. What I concluded from this class is that despite what religion you follow or in what part of the world you live, all people have followed this idea of the 'sacred.' Along with water and food, the divine is what the majority of mankind needs. This is obvious, but I still wonder why?

Armstrong explains that communities settle depending on sacredness. If something sacred was discovered or established, people would flock in its direction so that they can live in its presence. Whole communities were established around temples or sites where the divine was revealed. I agree with Armstrong in that people need a higher meaning in their life or something to look forward to. People find hope, security, meaning, and paradise in the divine.

Later in Chapter 3, the controversy of religion and politics was brought to my attention. Armstrong explains that David added a "strong political element" when he brought the Ark to his city. The Ark of the Covenant was the most sacred object at this time, so bringing it to his city helped build power and prestige. Simultaneously, David was firmly establishing the belief in Yahweh, and gradually building his own empire.

This is an issue that is seen throughout the world today: the mixture of religion and politics. Religion and politics are on two different sides of the spectrum, yet they still go hand in hand. When they are fused together, only problems can result. By bringing the most sacred object to a city, that city gains prestige because it is religiously affiliated. On the other hand by having the sacred established in a developing city, the religion will gain followers and become more established. It makes you wonder if the mixture of religion and politics is intentional or not, maybe it is just inevitable.

Week 2 Reading Response

Mick Dumper's "Jerusalem: Then and Now," brought many concepts to my attention. One idea that I found unique is that he opened the article by discussing Jerusalem's disadvantages. He explained that in the beginning, Jerusalem was in an unfavorable geographic location that had limited water supply and was isolated from other civilzations. Unfortunately, Jerusalem was far the popular trade routes, but it did not have any exportable resources to put forth anyways. And if nothing else, Jerusalem had an insignificant military, one that was not even considered by Napoleon as a possible annexation. As a new student to the study of Jerusalem, I do not know much about the history of this region in general, nor the history of Jerusalem specifically. I found this information regarding Jerusalem's past both interesting and relevant. I find it ironic that this city is the center of so much political and religious controversy, but from a third perspective, this area offers no significance. Its importance lie in its religious history and ties between Judaism, Islam and Christianity. I also found that this reading gave an excellent introductory summary to all the issues revolving Jerusalem that will be tackled in this class.
I also found "The History of Jersusalem: An Arab Perspective" to be an informative piece that gave a thorough summary of Jerusalem's religious history, specifically its significance to Muslims. I was impressed with the introduction of this article, because it brought previous biases about this subject to attention. It was also useful that it highlighted what specificallly about Jerusalem was significant to each faith. For example, Christians find the Passion and the Crucifixion of Jesus important, while Muslims refer to the Isra and Mi'raj of the Prophet, the journey to al-misjid al-aqsa, and the Dome of the Rock in their faith.
And lastly, I really enjoyed reading the "Arab-Isreali Conflict" by Jeremy Pressman. I thought it gave only relevant details of the conflict. This was good to read at the beginning of this class before we discuss the conflict in detail. Because this conflict has been going on for so long, it is easy to mix up all the dates, people, and events that are involved. I though this paper by Pressman laid out the basics of the conflict, so you get a general understanding. I also liked how it specifically explained the history of the names regarding this conflict. There are so many names given to that area, especially over the years when they change. I am glad that he distinguished between Palestine, Palestinian Arabs, Israel, West Bank, Old city, and the Gaza Strip for me so I wont get those confused anymore.