These chapters were really important, there were so many things to keep up with but in this blog I will just brush on some of the things that stood out to me...
I liked how in the book Armstrong pointed out all the good that came out from the Muslim leadership in the Holy Land. It was the first time that we see the people actually putting effort into the educational curriculum... In these chapters she also mentioned the word Jihad a lot and it was not till the 15th chapter until she actually gave the real definition of what Jihad actually meant, which of course that is something that made me "shrug my eyebrows" as I was reading because I feel like this word "jihad" is being misused in context. In the beginning chapters she uses that word to describe the killings in the name of religions to claim land. When reading this it reminded me of when Amer was talking about how the word "crusader" is misinterpreted-- I can understand where he was coming from.
In these chapters what really made me a proud Muslim was how Salahideen was presented and how he ruled when he conquered the holy land. He was the one of the few that ruled with the real meaning of Islam which meant equality, peace, and respect.
This class has taught me that people from both sides need to have compassion for each other and Salahideen truly portrayed that-- Pg. 293 "we shall deal with you just as you have dealt with the population when you took Jerusalem" but then consulted with his people and decided to take the city peacefully after Balian made a desperate plea instead making them prisoners and could only be released with money ... but then it says that the poor people could not ransom themselves and became prisoners of the war , "Large numbers were released, however, because Salahideen was moved to tears by the plight of the families who were being separated when they were taken into slavery." ---- more rulers need the compassion that Salahideen had.
Salahideen did many great things to the people living in jerusalem, one of them was that he invited the Jew's to come back to Jerusalem, from which they had been almost entirely excluded by the crusaders. He also, gave the Greek orthodox the custody of the Holy sepulcher church.
In many ways it seems that he was keen on maintaining the presence of coexistence which to me is the solution to a peaceful life.
I didn't comprehend when Armstrong said " The crusades had not only inspired the new Jihad in the Muslim world but also that they had given rise to a form of Zionism among the Jews of Europe and the Islamic empire."..... Interesting... but I don't know how I feel about this at the same time...
Just a thought that came to me as I was reading ... it seems to me even though during the time where the Jews were treated fairly and given the right to live in the land just as the Christians and the Muslims it was never enough for them .... No matter whatever good was thrown their way they took and ended up wanting more, keeping their focus on ownership. It's like the more fairness/welcoming they received the more they convinced themselves that it was their PROMISED land... Why, can't they be happy with the land being for everyone??
to add to this thought/confusion, I also don't really get the whole aliyah, maybe I over read that part but I don't get if it was something from their holy scripture of if it was an idea created by the people/ a person.
For example I think with the case of Nachmanides who was exiled from Spain, made the aliyah to Jerusalem.... So if he wasn't exiled would he have still made the aliyah..... I guess could be another example of how people use religion to their own benefit...
Later in the chapter I found it astonishing how many times the Christians kept attempting numerous crusades!!!! I think there were like seven crusades... WOW!
(Throughout the several chapters I enjoyed learning more about Palestine's economical state and how it was beginning to thrive.)
There was some lines that I read in the book that I had never heard said in Christianity before ; pg. 362 " the Bible went out of its way to show that the Israelites had taken both Palestine and Jerusalem from the indigenous population." I know that we are at a point where we have agreed that saying that it is not adequate or right of us to say that the land belonged to certain peoples first , but it is something that keeps popping up in the book and it obviously gets me thinking so I had to mention it...
To be honest I didn't get through the rest of the 2 chapters so "my bad" on my part....
No comments:
Post a Comment