Jerusalem One City, Three Faiths; a brief review
بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم
I admitted. This is one of the dificult book to read. It took many months, then I stopped reading for a few months, and then I continued reading, faster as I reached the more relatable and understandable chapters until the end.
This book is written by Karen Armstrong, a famous commentator on religious affairs and had published some widely known books such as Muhammad: The Biography of the Prophet (1992) and A History of God (1993).
This piece will be focusing on what did I get from the book. Bismillah...
1. Jerusalem is not only important for the Muslims. Historically, Christians and Jews (particularly) in fact had a very long painful and bloody history regarding Jerusalem.
2. In majority of times, when Jerusalem were ruled by Muslims, peace prevailed and the fate of the people in Jerusalem fared better relatively compared when it was ruled by Christians, Pagans or Jews. Thus, truthfulness does not only lay upon what the scripture said, but also on the people who acted upon it. And these can be seen on the social justice which repeatedly materialized under the Muslims.
The liberation of Bayt al-Maqdis from Crusades under Umar (February 638):
"Umar also expressed the monotheistic ideal of compassion more than any other previous conquerer of Jerusalem, with the possible exception of King David. He presided over the most peaceful and bloodless conquest that the city had yet seen in its long and often tragic history. Once the Christians had surrendered, there was no killing, no destruction of property, no burning of rival religious symbols, no expulsions or expropriations, and no attempt to force the inhabitants to embrace Islam. If a respect for the previous occupants of the city is a sign integrity of a montheistic power, Islam began its long tenure in Jerusalem very well indeed."
3. Viewing something, or a place as sacred, holy will bring the supporters of that ideology feeling the depth of closeness and belonging. However, in many instances, it also aroused the sense of defensiveness and threatened when that particular sacred place, particularly, is also sacred for other people and they also claim it for themselves.
This is, I feel, should be understood by Muslims and non-muslims alike. The centre of holiness is not only on the physical reality, but more importantly is on how do we show our compassion, love and tolerance towards those with different beliefs. Aren't those acts decreed by Abrahamic faiths? What's the point of owning the holy place without at least close-to-holy behaviour?
The state of Israel, for instance, was build on the killing of thousands and expulsions of more than 700,000 people from their home. This is surely not a good start to build a modern nation on the 21st century. However holy is their claim does not justify their actions.
4. The future of Jerusalem. The writer mentions that, "at this writing, the prospect of peace looks bleak. But the history of Jerusalem reminds us that astonishing reversals are always possible and that nothing-not even mortal hatred- is permanent. There are still many Israelis and Palestinians-many Arabs and Jews, who long for peace and are prepared to make sacrifices that peace requires. It still remains true, when we look back on the long history of Jerusalem, that the society that have lasted the longest there, have, generally, been the ones that were prepared for some kind of tolerance and coexistance in the holy city. That, rather than a sterile and deadly struggle for sovereignity and total victory, must be the way to celebrate Jerusalem's sanctity today".
Wallahua'lam.
I admitted. This is one of the dificult book to read. It took many months, then I stopped reading for a few months, and then I continued reading, faster as I reached the more relatable and understandable chapters until the end.
This book is written by Karen Armstrong, a famous commentator on religious affairs and had published some widely known books such as Muhammad: The Biography of the Prophet (1992) and A History of God (1993).
This piece will be focusing on what did I get from the book. Bismillah...
1. Jerusalem is not only important for the Muslims. Historically, Christians and Jews (particularly) in fact had a very long painful and bloody history regarding Jerusalem.
2. In majority of times, when Jerusalem were ruled by Muslims, peace prevailed and the fate of the people in Jerusalem fared better relatively compared when it was ruled by Christians, Pagans or Jews. Thus, truthfulness does not only lay upon what the scripture said, but also on the people who acted upon it. And these can be seen on the social justice which repeatedly materialized under the Muslims.
The liberation of Bayt al-Maqdis from Crusades under Umar (February 638):
"Umar also expressed the monotheistic ideal of compassion more than any other previous conquerer of Jerusalem, with the possible exception of King David. He presided over the most peaceful and bloodless conquest that the city had yet seen in its long and often tragic history. Once the Christians had surrendered, there was no killing, no destruction of property, no burning of rival religious symbols, no expulsions or expropriations, and no attempt to force the inhabitants to embrace Islam. If a respect for the previous occupants of the city is a sign integrity of a montheistic power, Islam began its long tenure in Jerusalem very well indeed."
3. Viewing something, or a place as sacred, holy will bring the supporters of that ideology feeling the depth of closeness and belonging. However, in many instances, it also aroused the sense of defensiveness and threatened when that particular sacred place, particularly, is also sacred for other people and they also claim it for themselves.
This is, I feel, should be understood by Muslims and non-muslims alike. The centre of holiness is not only on the physical reality, but more importantly is on how do we show our compassion, love and tolerance towards those with different beliefs. Aren't those acts decreed by Abrahamic faiths? What's the point of owning the holy place without at least close-to-holy behaviour?
The state of Israel, for instance, was build on the killing of thousands and expulsions of more than 700,000 people from their home. This is surely not a good start to build a modern nation on the 21st century. However holy is their claim does not justify their actions.
4. The future of Jerusalem. The writer mentions that, "at this writing, the prospect of peace looks bleak. But the history of Jerusalem reminds us that astonishing reversals are always possible and that nothing-not even mortal hatred- is permanent. There are still many Israelis and Palestinians-many Arabs and Jews, who long for peace and are prepared to make sacrifices that peace requires. It still remains true, when we look back on the long history of Jerusalem, that the society that have lasted the longest there, have, generally, been the ones that were prepared for some kind of tolerance and coexistance in the holy city. That, rather than a sterile and deadly struggle for sovereignity and total victory, must be the way to celebrate Jerusalem's sanctity today".
Wallahua'lam.
Ulasan
Catat Ulasan