I learned a lot from these chapters and I really enjoyed the description of how Islam came to be. I found it quite interesting that Muhammad really did not have much intention in creating a new religion. He was trying to perfect the old one, yet his works led to one of the most influential religions in the world today. I also did not know the split between Shiite and Sunni sects happened so early in the religion.
A common motif I am finding throughout the history of Jerusalem is that the majority of the citizens at any given time are able to coexist. Problems happen when a minority start voicing their strong opinions and taking action. This was clear in these chapters. In al-Quds, Armstrong mentions multiple times how the Islamic caliphs did not try and wipe out the Christian religion. Although there was some competition between the groups, they seemed to live together and respected the others’ faith. Then al-Hakim became the Fatimid caliph and he started attacking Christians and Jews, and then eventually Muslims. Also, the way in which Armstrong describes the Crusades paints the picture in my head that people of different faiths were coexisting until outsiders came in and decided to take control. After the first one, relationships improved and some Franks took up Islamic traditions, like the women wearing head scarves. Again, different faiths were able to coexist…until again, people from the west decided otherwise. It seems to me, the majority of people were able to live their lives without being surrounded by people of only their religion. The majority of people had some sense of tolerance and acceptance of their neighbors. Applying this idea to the situation today, I find it quite similar. There are so many people in Jerusalem, Palestine, and Israel, and European countries, Asian countries, and countries of the Americas all trying to have dialogue and find solutions to this conflict. It seems to me, the minority are the people standing in the way of tolerance. I do understand the problem is much more complicated than what I reference to in the previous sentence. However, it makes me question, with so many people, with the majority of the people, working through dialogue, why does the solution to this conflict seem so impossible?
Hello Britany,
ReplyDeleteI think that what you said about the interference of outsiders and how it affected the region is true. the conflict today, also started by outsiders to divide the country and the people. The Zionist movement was an outsider movement which had nothing to do with the Jewish religion but used it the same way Christianity was used during the Crusades. Muslims, Christians and Jews were living together peacefully until this movement decided to go to Palestine and control it and deny the rights of the majority of the people in the country to live there. Even then, the conflict would've been solved in a better way. The partition plan by the UN (outsiders again) decided to split this country and thus made the conflict even more complicated than ever before.
OK, you two, I'll play Devil's Advocate for a moment:
ReplyDeleteIf outsiders are the root of the problem, what happens when natives have disputes? In other words, one group will always call another group an outsider, because we get these "dueling histories" about who was where first, and who did what to whom. So, Israelis call Palestinians outsiders, because they argue the Palestinians migrated to the area after the Diaspora. Palestinians call Israelis outsiders because they immigrated to the area after Herzl.
I don't mean to harp on this--particularly as I agree that historically, it seems, external forces really destabilized the region. But isn't that the same with any part of the world?