Reading Response #6

Sorry, I've been on the road all day today. However, by far and away the most interesting part of the readings for me was Saladin's treatment of the Jews and the Arab Christians. After winning back Jerusalem from the European Crusaders, Saladin allows both the Jews and the Arab Christians to enter and live in the city. Armstrong says "The sultan brought had the Jews home to their Holy City and allowed them to live there in large numbers." In 1190, the Jews from Ascalon were even allowed to build a synagogue in Jerusalem. This gesture of good faith and peace surprised me because, like many, I didn't know that there had ever been peace between the Jews, Muslims, and Christians, especially in Jerusalem. Saladin appears to have been one of the most just and compassionate leaders involved in any conflict ever. He accepted truce from the Crusaders whenever they requested it, treated prisoners justly, and treated Jews and Arab Christians favorably, he even gave possession of the church of the Holy Sepulcher to the Greek Orthodox Christians, believing that the local Christians could not be blamed for the European Crusade. This wisdom and discerning in spite of all he had seen the Europeans do in the name of the same god shows a very level-headed and compassionate man, I am not sure that anyone of any religion would have been as open and understanding and welcoming to all people groups as Saladin appears to have been. This image gives me some hope that maybe someday there can be peace in Jerusalem.

Reading Response #5

I have not spent much time studying Islam. I knew that it was not the radical, violent religion that the western news makes it out to be, but in truth, I didn't know just how incredibly similar the original Muslim beliefs were to those of the Jews and Christians. I knew that all three religions essentially worship the same God, but I didn't realize how much the three religions were entwined. It was interesting for me to read that the original ideas of the Islamic faith were much more existential and moral than demanding adherence to a set of doctrines, which I had mistakenly assumed was the focus because of traditions such as praying to Mecca five times per day. Armstrong says "Like the Hebrew prophets, Muhammad stressed the prime duty of practical compassion: care for the poor, the orphan, the widow, and the oppressed was a Muslim's first responsibility". This is the shared ideal of all three major faiths at their core (obviously people from all faiths distort the original ideas to benefit themselves, but it their core, all three faiths stress this point). It was also interesting to learn that rather than Islam being a split from Judaism and Christianity, it was merely the first time that God had spoken to the Arab people in their own language, emphasizing the same moral obligation of compassion as Judaism and Christianity. In a world where Islam seems like a foreign and violent belief to most westerners, it was good to read something that explained the original ideals and intentions of the Muslim faith.

Reading Response #4

I think the most interesting thing about this reading is the explanation of the emergence of modern Judaism. I always knew that there was a dramatic shift from the "Judaism" in the Old Testament era, and the modern day practice of the Jewish faith. It is interesting to see the changes take place as the Tannaim begin to codify the law and change the understanding of the people's interaction with Yahweh. The emergence of the idea that wherever two or more Jews came together to study the Torah, Yahweh's presences (the Shekhina) would be there also, as opposed to the previous focus on Yahweh's presence solely residing in the Temple, shows an interesting transition for people of the Jewish faith, and provides the basis for the modern system of beliefs. At the time of this transition, the Temple was desecrated, and the Jewish people were essentially "cut off" from Yahweh, the emergence of this idea gave the Jewish people hope and security that they were not alone and separated from their god. This idea also largely gave birth to the modern concept of experiencing a god's presence in most of the modern-day religions.

Weblog Journal #2

Reading Response #4

I thought the discussion of the Israelite exile to Babylon formed a beautiful image of displaced peoples longing for their homeland, and also a powerful parallel to what the Jews felt before the creation of the Jewish state in 1948 as well as the feelings experienced by the Palestinians who have been forced to relocate under the Israeli occupation. This idea of longing for a homeland has been a sort of motif for Jerusalem over the past 70 or so years, and it was interesting to see Jerusalem viewed in the same light even hundreds of years ago: a homeland for those without one of their own. Caanan (except for Jerusalem) became the homeland of the Israelites after wandering for 40 years in the desert, it became the symbol of lost paradise for those exiled to Babylon, and is viewed as the lost homeland for the Palestinians as well. I also thought it was interesting that it seems that Jerusalem becomes a more significant symbol of homeland when the people are not actually living there. All of the peoples who call Jerusalem sacred, in fact, seem to idealize it when they cannot have it more than when they are actually living there. I suppose absence makes the heart grow fonder...or the grass is always greener.

Reading Response #3

As I was reading Armstrong, I was struck within the first chapter by the idea of "sacred" spaces and Armstrong's explanation of their significance to the ancients. Armstrong explains that men and women were "drawn irresistibly to some localities which they experienced as radically different from all others" and that this was not based on "intellectual investigation" but rather a "primordial religious conviction". She also explained that even today we have the similar tendency to place high value on ordinary objects or places related to the occurrence of some deeply personal event. And so I began to wonder if all three faiths hold Jerusalem as sacred in some way, is the violence and political tension that occurs there not degrading to the sacredness of the city? It would appear not. The Christians burned a scar of destruction through the Holy Land during the Crusades, and the war between the Israelis and Palestinians has had a similar effect. I suppose the idea of fighting for what is sacred is something that humans have always idealized, but it seems that there should be some realization that the conflicts that are and have occurred are destroying the very thing that they seek to protect. I know the situation is much more complex than I am making it sound, but to me, the idea of peacefully sharing a sacred place with others seems much better than tearing apart said sacred place with a war of intolerance and hate.

Reading Response #2

I suppose it's kind of cheating since I couldn't do this until after class today, but I found it very interesting to hear about the different backgrounds of the authors of the articles and then to read and try to see the subtle ways in which the authors inserted their own bias into their articles. I also was under the mistaken impression that the major conflict between Israel/Palestine began with the creation of the Israeli State, and that the idea of an Israeli state was a result of the horrors of the Holocaust, however apparently, this idea had been in the works for quite some time before that. I was also very surprised to learn that Palestine itself had never been a fully independent state, but had been the territory of several different empires over the years. On a separate note, while I will not claim one side of the argument or another, why do you think it is that America, specifically the government, has chosen to side with the Israeli's?