To begin with, of the all the sections of the book that we have read, I found this section to be the most appealing. I think it may be a biased view due the nature of my recent travels to Turkey and learning of Islamic culture. I was intrigued by the continual mention of Sufism and the Ottomans.
With that said, I would like to address Armstrong's statement made on page 298. Armstrong states, "The Holy Land did not belong to either the Christians or the Muslims, Who were fighting over it at the present time." This passage struck me because I feel that the land actually belongs to nobody and everyone at the same time. As previously stated in class, the only reason why people lay claim to the land today is due to emotional attachment and not actual ownership in most cases. I feel that with all of the changing of power that has taken place in Jerusalem throughout history, even leading to the 1100's, it is total ludicrous to claim that the land belongs to one set of individuals. 
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Jerusalem: One City, Three Faiths- Chapters 14-15
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Armstrong's statement on p. 298 is not a reflection of her own opinion; she is presenting the opinion of Judah Halevi, the Jewish physician who promoted a Jewish return to the Holy Land. According to HIM, that land did not belong to Christians or Muslims, but to the Jews.
ReplyDeleteRegarding your distinction between emotional attachment to, and ownership of, Jerusalem: the emotional attachment of all these groups stems from a PERCEPTION of ownership. People lay claim to the land because they believe it is rightfully theirs. It's not just about feeling sentimental about the place. Emotions are inherently political, and politics are inherently emotional. You can't separate them.