I know we have a blog for tomorrow but I can't remember what it is and I don't think anyone else does either because insofar no one has blogged. I thought I would take this opportunity to complete my blog that I started but did not post on Turkey. I was interested in the Armenian genocide issue as Pamuk was highly criticized for his liberal views. As it turns out Pamuk was accused of insulting Turkey, but the charges were dropped. Incidentally the US and the EU called for the charges to be dropped and Pamuk won the Nobel Peace Prize shortly before his trial date. Seems a little to coincidental to me. Not that Pamuk was undeserving of the Nobel Peace Prize but it seems that politics may have been a stronger driving force than his writing.

This brings me to what our speaker said on Wednesday about Pamuk. I thought personally that he just did not like Pamuk or his writing and therefore thought he was undeserving of the award. Personally, I think that the addition of those pages from an ancient source added an artistic touch to the book the White Castle.

I also was interested that in the reasons that Turkey was not yet admitted into the EU. In addition to the reasons stated in class I think that the Armenian genocide as well as the death of 30,000 Kurds is another major block in Turkey's progress towards acceptance. Turkey denies that these incidents occurred and several countries in the EU want Turkey to admit to them before they accept Turkey into the EU. I also looked it up and saw that Turkey warned the US of the possible negative consequences for stationing our troops in Turkey if the US voted to consider the death of the Armenians a genocide.

I think accepting an Islamic country to the EU would be very beneficial. It could help strengthen ties between the "western culture" and the Islamic nations of the "middle east" It may have a negative effect and Turkey may be viewed as traitorous instead of as a role model but I think the effort toward unity between the differing countries and cultures should be commended.

Response to Presentations

The presentation by Dr. Ellin was very informative. I thought that attempted to limit outright opinionated comments but still there was definitely a pro-Israel message in there. I thought it very interesting how quickly he acquitted the Israeli government of fault for the settlements in the West Bank. He simply explained it away as a result of religious fanaticism and weak or strong political parties in the government. There was not mention of Sharon visiting the Islamic holy place or that the Israeli government's demand of peace were set at an unrealistic standard. In fact there was little criticism of Israel at all. I am not saying that I agree 100 percent with any side that has been presented thus far but I think it is important to recognize the faults of both parties. Dr. Ellin mentioned that at first the Palestinians did not accept the state of Israel and wanted all of the land for their own state and if they had just accepted Israel from the beginning that they would have had more land than before. I think that yes, perhaps that was a large missed opportunity but at the same time the Palestinians were angry at the forced creation of the state of Israel. It is not surprising that they did not accept it in the beginning and now its as though Dr. Ellin is asking us to continue to blame them for a mistake they made in 1948. Yes maybe they should have accepted Israel then but its a little too late now. Throwing that piece of information does nothing to solve the problem. I would like to know what he thinks should be done in the middle east to bring peace of if peace is even possible. He seemed very eager to place blame and show all the errors that the Palestinians made and basically say that their situation is the result of their actions and its their own fault. But I am left with the question now what?? How long can each side point fingers and lay blame, isn't it time to move past whose fault it is that we are in this situation and try to find a way to solve the problem.

I enjoyed listening to the soldiers from Iraq speak. I have a hard time criticizing what they say as they are over there risking their lives. I thought the difference felt toward Americans over the generations was interesting as was the teaching of cultural diversity to the army soldiers. I thought that they were entertaining speakers, and all had valid points and a little different take on what was going on over there. I was also interested to hear the one soldier's take on an exit strategy from Iraq as I have heard many people criticize handing power over to a foreign countries police or army force.

Hope everyone had a good weekend.

Relating the White Castle to something

I knew that this blog would be a problem because on Monday I could not find much to relate the book to. In fact, I could not even think of another book that this reminded me of or another character that I was reminded of, I have a big huge blank. Ian suggested reading the Hunger Artist, which i did and have added a link for anyone else who wants to read it. It does not help me understand the White Castle any better but it does give one an idea of the writing style in the book. I would like to think that the Sultans realization that all people are the same is one that Pamuk wanted to stress to the audience. That people no matter how different they appear from one another are really alike and I am hoping that was part of what he was driving at in the book. I think it is an important realization because where as people seem to come from so different of backgrounds, cultures and education levels, struggle with similar problems.

After searching some I also found a website that has an interview with Pamuk that I also linked to my blog. See ya in class

The White Castle

This was a not a difficult book to read but a difficult book to understand. I still am not sure of what happened nor am I completely sure that there were two main characters or one and I am still not sure what the White Castle Reference is all about. However, despite all of that I think I could safely say that I like the book. There seem to be several themes or issues the author is addressing throughout the text. One of which is can one really define themselves or what or who they are. There is the constant possibility that the two characters in the book could trade lives and also there is more than one scene where it is probable that they do trade roles and assume the other persons life. The first portion of the book characterizes the two men and there is a sense of learning who they are. Later in the book you wonder whether the people have traded places or if characteristics from one character have been adopted by the other character. There is also an important point where the Sultan in the story realizes or comments on how all people are alike no matter where they are from or who they are. Ian took a totally different interpretation of the book than I did and I wanted to write this part of my blog before I read his so that I could remember what I wanted to say without being completely influenced by another opinion but you could read his blog for another take on the book.

Under the Persimmon Tree Continues

This was a book written for a teen audience but what specific age and is the book able to be taught in school. I think the book could be compared to teaching Anne Frank but there comes several problems with this comparison. Anne Frank is taught sometimes in High school but most often in junior high, perhaps at 13, 14, 0r 15. This book could also appeal to that age group but in this book the Americans not a foreign country bombs Afghanistan and "accidentally" kills innocent people. I do not think the US malicioulsy intended to kill innocent civilians but they knew the cost of war and bombing a city. It take great care on the part of the teacher to teach a class of younger teenagers without insulting a student or having the student carry a message to their parents about the class. It is easier to teach about the Holocaust as it is now in the past and was a foreign country and ruler who was the enemy. In this situation one can see that the Taliban is the enemy but the US does not exactly look good in the book. I know that in Germany it is illegal to deny that the Holocaust happened. Perhaps following their example as to how they taught about he Holocaust could help teach about the "War on Terror." However, the Holocaust and all of Hitler's actions have been condemned and deemed wrong. Not everyone believes that the what the US is doing in the middle east is wrong. The subject is delicate and the book brings the most delicate subjects to the surface but does not explain them or really give an opinion about them. On the whole there is a sense of relief that the Taliban are gone but the cost of their removal and the ideas about women are not fully developed nor does the author really put forth her opinion. The book seems very americanized and a little to hollywoodish for me. The chance of the events in the book happening are slim to none. However the universal suffering that comes with war as well as realizing that their are innocent people on both sides of war help remind the reader that everyone is human no matter where they come from. It shows that the lines between good and evil right and wrong are not as cut and dry or black and white as the media tends to make them. The book introduces many ideas teachers could use in a classroom but they are delicate issues that may have limits to the extent they can be explained and discussed in a public school.

Under the Persimmon Tree

This is primarily about 2 characters, Nusrat and Nujmah . Najmah is a young Shepard girl in Afghanistan and Nusrat is an American woman who converted to Islam, married an Afghani doctor and moved with her husband to Pakistan. The story takes place just after 9/11. Najmah's father and oldest brother are taken by the Taliban and forced to fight. Her mother and newborn brother are killed shortly after her brother and father are taken by a bomb that hits their house. Najmah makes a long dangerous journey to a refugee camp in Pakistan and eventually meets Nusrat. Nurat's husband Faiz is at a clinic in the story but eventually is found out that he died when the clinic was accidentally bombed. Nusrat teaches a school in her back yard under a Persimmon Tree.
The two characters find each other in the story and help each other through the hardships of war. Eventually Najmah's older brother finds her at Nusrat's and they decide that despite the dangers they will return to their home. Najmah's father's last wish was that she and her brother stay at their farm. They decided to fulfill that wish. Nusrat learns of her husband's death and decides to return to New York to make peace with her family.
The story is not exactly up lifting but it is a story of hope. The people continue living with their lost loved one's in their minds and their actions are influenced by those that died.
The regiment of the Taliban in the story is described as oppressive and dangerous. The war caused more hurt death and hardships but in the end it seemed to give hope to the people. I think the overall feel of the story is one of hope despite the loss and pain that the people endure.

Iraq War Links

I took a little different approach in that I focused on the Kurds and Turkey as I knew less about them and their role in the conflict. My one link is to a news article and the other to an actual website. See ya in class.

Carter

I read the book, the whole long book and found that I actually enjoyed most of it. I had been somewhat ignorant to the role that countries such as Syria played in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the book was quite helpful in clarifying many things. There were a couple of parts that were a little fuzzy but I thought the overall point was clear and easy to see and understand. There is blame to lay on both sides of situation. It seems like humanity in general should be past the stage where we claim land with flags and walls and forget about the families that live in that land. I don't quite understand why, if Israel's actions are considered violations of international law, there is not a some sort of consequence or plan to stop them. Israel does not seem overly concerned about respecting the borders that were set in 1967, nor do they seem concerned that the wall is inflicting immense hardship on the Palestinians. There are some key issues that are preventing peace in and Israel or at least its leaders seem more content to suppress the enemy than to find a peaceful solution; as a result, the Palestinians are retaliating in violence, what a messy cycle. The whole situation makes me sad and slightly disgusted with people.

I was intrigued that Carter said history repeats itself. The last history prof that I had made a point of saying that History did not repeat itself and then gave a list of reasons as to why. Of course I can't remember why at the moment but that could be due to the fact that the class was at 8 in the morning.

See ya Monday.

Wild Thorns

I finished the book finally and I haven't fully decided what I think. I like the contrast between Adil and Usama. The difference in their opinions and ideals and how each thinks the other is going about fighting the occupation by the wrong means. Usama was a poet as a boy, he died a poet and inbetween he seems to have tried to convince himself he was another person, one without dreams and feelings. Adil was, I think, my favorite. He seemed at times to see past the propaganda of both the Jews and the Arabs. He was caught in the middle and trying to accomplish what he could and still maintain some understanding and dignity. And yet he drinks to forget his feelings of anger and injustice. I love the scene where he carries the Israeli child on his back with the weeping widow following him, all cultural taboos and barriers forgotten and broken. They are all just people grieving and struggling in a difficult time.
I wonder about some of the messages about the individual and the society and the negative implications of a capitalist society where everyone but those at the very top of the chain are being used and abused. Everyone out for their own interest and everyone being taken advantage of, not a very uplifting picture.
The idea of a picture of a rose, an ideal, perfection, being protected by thorns. I wonder this ideal of perfection, this freedom that they are all fighting or hoping for. Is it represented in some way by the character Adil, or is it an idea that is never fully disclosed, something that the reader must comprehend and understand from their own experience.

With that said, I hope everyone had a nice weekend. =)

Norma and the Snowman

I like this story in part because it has a happy ending but also because it shows the normalcy of the characters. I was very pleased to see that the bunny was not killed. I think it is significant that the rabbit is white and attains its freedom in the end. Perhaps it is an image of perfection. I also like Norma. She is not physically perfect but the idea of her and the idea of love gives off an idea of perfection and happiness. That even if something appears to be malformed it can still have the potential for perfection. Said who comes from the mountain, despite the sound of his military abilities seems to be more of a moral educator, a teacher or mentor of sorts and very mysterious.

I blogged on monday about some of the other stories form men in the sun. I was intrigued by the story about the horse as I have never heard a myth about a blood-stained horse before. In the defense of horses they do not attack people or behave aggressively without being provoked.

Men in the Sun

I am not sure if we are supposed to blog on this or not so what the hell. I read the book and was surprised to see how fast it went. The first story was the longest but I am not sure you could classify it as the most moving or depressing as the other stories in the book are no more cheerful. I was appalled at the thought of three men standing in a sweltering tank of some sort waiting and hoping for a chance, not even freedom, but a chance to work and help their families. Standing in this tank slowly dieing from heat stroke, suffocation, or whatever. Three men of different ages all hoping for the same thing and all pushed to the point of desperation that they silently die in a tank. The silence is striking also. As Abul Khaizuran remarks at the end "why didn't you knock on the sides of the tank? why?" The introduction to book actually comments on the silence but I still can't imagine standing in the sweltering heat and dieing without a hope of rescue. Had they knocked on the sides of the tank though, would there have been any other outcome than death. They would have been caught by the authorities so perhaps death in the tank was the better option. Perhaps there was more hope in the silence than in fighting for air. I don't know but the extreme risk that people are forced to take makes me slightly sickened by humanity in general.
The story about The Land of Sad Oranges leaves a strong impression also. The father of this family driven to such desperation that he contemplates suicide and leaves the gun that he will use to kill himself on his nightstand next to a shriveled orange which seems to be symbolic of his dead past life and all the death of all his hopes.
The final story the letter from Gaza reminded me a little of what we heard at the Mosque. The person in the letter, who moved to California is one who worried only about his day to day life and himself. The person who stays in Gaza realizes that he has a duty to his family and his people and stays despite it meaning giving up a more comfortable life. The poor little girl who sits in the hospital with an amputated leg is a reminder of the importance of self-sacrifice.
Overall the impression in all of the stories is one of desperation and grief. The pain inflicted upon these people does not seem to be justifiable. One would think there could have been a better solution to the problem.

Koran

I read the passages from the Koran and did not find anything too surprising. I like the story of Mary's birth under the palm tree. Something different with a similar, but not the same, idea behind it. Many of the characters in the Bible are also in the Koran. We say the idea reiterated that there is only one god and that people must worship only that god, and preferably in an Islamic not a Judaic or Christian. I always wonder what is it about western religions that makes people think they have found the one and only right answer to the questions of the universe. Given the billions of people on the earth, the mysterious surrounding how and why the world came to be and the amazing power that stands behind that creation, I find it arrogant of people to think that they have found the "right" and "only" way to explain that mystery. And furthermore you must believe in that way lest you suffer consequences. Humans are notorious for thinking that we are not perfect and often knowing that "we are only human" so why is it that some of us think that we have found any answer to the unexplainable and it is not an answer that is all that flexible.

Anyway I am excited to go to the mosque today. I think there are important questions that can be asked of the people there and I also believe that it is very important for people to explore the religions of other cultures if we are ever to understand and coexist with those people who are different from us.

Orientalism

So I read and viewed several of the websites from the syllabus. I like the idea that the term "east" becomes synonymous with idea of different or foreign. Yes the Europeans did base the term on location with the Europeans of course being the place to start from. However, even those "in a the east" could continue to look east and see the US or Europe and define them in the same way that he Europeans defined those in the east, they are different. With all of these ideas of the exotic, sensual, and violent culture of the east I cannot help but wonder where these ideas came from. Yes, the Europeans did tell themselves that they were behaving selflessly, but still the ideas of the unknown and the different being viewed as less accurate seem to be present in both cultures. It is often quoted that people fear that which they do not know. This most likely has something to do with the way foreign society was classified but perhaps not everything. I like Said's idea that instead of defining what the "west" actually was, they compared it to its opposite and defined what it wasn't. This makes me think that perhaps none or only very little of the stereotypes of Islamic people were accurate and the rest of those stereotypes were just things opposite to what the west wanted associated with them. It did not really matter what the east was but rather what the west wasn't. Of course since east and west are opposites the would naturally have opposite cultures and one would be right and superior and the other wrong and inferior (sarcasm). This dualistic notion of a or b is present in many aspects of the western or European life, Ex: black and white, day and night, hot and cold.

I found the counter argument to Said's a little confusing, but I think I got the gist of it. Hope everyone had a good weekend.

The Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam

Based on the Wikipedia article I really like Rumi. It is hard for me not to like a person who, despite claiming to be of a specific religion, finds other religions to be powerful and compelling.

"He does not offend anyone, and he includes everyone. The world of Rumi is neither exclusively the world of a Sufi, nor the world of a Hindu, nor a Jew, nor a Christian; it is the highest state of a human being — a fully evolved human. A complete human is not bound by cultural limitations; he touches every one of us. Today Rumi's poems can be heard in churches, synagogues, Zen monasteries, as well as in the downtown New York art/performance/music scene." According to Professor Majid M. Naini [5], Rumi's life and transformation provide true testimony and proof that people of all religions and backgrounds can live together in peace and harmony. Rumi’s visions, words, and life teach us how to reach inner peace and happiness so we can finally stop the continual stream of hostility and hatred and achieve true global peace and harmony."

Love’s nationality is separate from all other religions,

The lover’s religion and nationality is the Beloved (God).

The lover’s cause is separate from all other causes

Love is the astrolabe of God’s mysteries.^[14

I am always impressed by people who not only preach something but also practice it. So many religions preach about love and yet so often it seems as though it is overlooked and instead people focus on right belief. Here Rumi seems more concerned with a persons actions than with what belief system they ascribe to.

The Rubaiyat poems were fascinating and I hate to think that I have to write some of my own, poetry is not my forte. But here are a few of the ones I liked. They have to do with existence and our actions while here on earth.

16 The Worldly Hope men set their Hearts upon
Turns Ashes--or it prospers; and anon
Like Snow upon the Desert's dusty Face,
Lighting a little hour or two--is gone.

29 Into this Universe, and Why not knowing
Nor Whence, like Water willy-nilly flowing;
And out of it, as Wind along the Waste,
I know not Wither, willy-nilly blowing.

44 Why, if the Soul can fling the Dust aside,
And naked on the Air of Heaven ride,
Were't not a Shame--were't not a Shame for him
In this clay carcass crippled to abide?


So we have the professional above and now below we will have the wannabe, in other words my attempt.

Take all that you cherish
Stand back and watch it perish
Do not shed a tear lest it show weakness
Instead define that which is lost as garish.

What is the point or our pride
Perhaps a way for us to hide
Fumbling behind our mask
Until with reality we collide

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder
Just as it is in the hands of the clay molder
But what of that which is false
Is beauty found in the purse of the card-holder

The paper

The paper I am attempting to write looks at the similarities between Othello and Muhammad. Both are great war leaders, both have epileptic experiences, and both are operating under a delusional state. Othello is operating under the idea that Desdemona is having an affair with Cassio. Muhammad is, according to some, operating under the delusion that God is speaking to him. It does not seem that it is coincidental that the main character in a play about converting is similar to the most important member in a religion that is pushing for conversion. Shakespeare's audience would have known little about Turks and Muslims. Othello's character would show the true nature of Moors: their predisposed tainted nature, causes them to only appear one way but actually be another. Othello appeared to be a noble Christian but his absolutes and uncompromising nature made him delusional and violent. Othello's likeness to Muhammad would indicate that while Muhammad may appear to be respectable due to his success in the battlefield, and creation of a new religion, in reality he is also violent and delusional and thus those who follow his religion are also violent and delusional. In the end both Othello and Muhammad as well as the all Muslims are sentenced to eternal damnation. Othello's characterization and comparison to Muhammad results in characterizing all Muslims in the same way as Othello.

1001 Nights

So I read the story of King Shahryar and His Brother and the Tale of the Bull and the Ass. I was indeed intrigued and found it an entertaining story. Being female obviously I had an issue with the abusive tendencies. I know that there is a cultural difference as well as a large generation gap, but perhaps someone should have clued King Shahryar into the fact that his wife, most likely any wife, would not be happily content and faithful if her husband had 10 concubines and lets not even start on the concubines. Yes, I know that Islam has a long standing reputation of suppressing women and their role is supposed to be one of submissiveness and obedience but honestly. Its ok for the king to sleep with all of his concubines and his wife, and thats considered faithful but if she sleeps with another man, she is instantly treacherous and the result is her death. King Shahryar not only kills his wife but proceeds to kill all women he marries. There is a strong theme of female evil and treachery in most of the stories. I randomly picked many of them to read but most of the women have a reputation of wickedness and disobedience. Again this falls back to the cultural expectation of women but it bugs me so sorry for the rant. In the end the King does pardon his wife and perhaps he learns that not all women are vile and unfaithful but the cost of that lesson is enormous.

For anyone curious about husband beating his wife in the Bull and the Ass, let me just make a point. There is a spot in the Koran, and possibly more than one spot, where the Koran specifically says that it is acceptable for men to beat their wives when they are disobedient and send them to their rooms. The Koran is taken literally, there is no room for interpretation or representation. If it says God has hands, then in some way God has hands. Anyway, there are many, many Muslim men who do not beat their wives and then claim it to be just as it is written in the Koran; however, there are some Muslims that use sections such as this in the Koran to justify suppressing and abusing women. It is a long standing problem: one that will most likely take years of Muslim women protesting to solve.

On another note, I did enjoy the story about The Simpleton and The Sharper. I love the end where the simpleton walks up to his donkey and talks to it, and moves on. This has got to make everyone smile at the gullibility of this man. :)

The Vitkus Article

I read the Vitkus article and found that I really enjoyed his interpretation of Othello and the ideas of "turning" and conversion seem to be well founded. Othello is full imagery about moving from pure or white to evil or black. Othello is set up to fail from the beginning of for no other reason than his skin. It seems that protestant Christians did not really believe in heartfelt conversions from Islam or at least doubted that the conversion changed the nature or the people. Othello retains his violent and inconsolable side despite his conversion and slips back into that nature. The parallel between the backward moving fleet of Turks and the backsliding of Othello is something I did not and would not have noticed without having it pointed out to me. I also like the part where Vitkus shows that once Othello's "heart is turned to stone" he no longer doubts his conclusions about Desdemona or Cassio, he is convinced of their treachery. His heart turning stone shows his heartfelt conversion to Islam and thus a conversion to delusion and violence. The comparisons of Othello to Muhammad do little to help the cause of religious tolerance. As Othello becomes more distraught and deranged in his thinking he starts to be compared to Muhammad. His epileptic fit is reminiscent of Muhammad's and Othello's behavior fits the stereotype of the Muslims or Turks at the time. Othello's suicided being the last step of the conversion to Islam or a Turk nature is very well thought out. I love that Vitkus points out the even Othello's desperation to the point where he kills himself is considered evil and a form of conversion as it symbolizes his circumcision. Othello's unwillingness to repent and ask for help from God shows his lack of Christian nature and his full evil and demonic Turkish tendencies.

There is a point that where Vitkus says that conversions to Islam from Christianity were beginning to happen frequently and at a high rate. In response to this, English authorities adopted strategies to prevent the conversions by using sermons that condemned all conversions to Islam. Here it appears that the conversions where more a political problem than a religious one and that those in power used religion to combat the problem. The English authorities seemed wary of losing their power to the Turks because so many people were converting and if the English authorities were tied to the Catholic church, then it may be that the pope and the church was also concerned with losing its power and authority. I will look the role of the church tonight.

Othello

I think this might be the first time I have read Shakespeare so I bought a book that helps me understand what the play is about. I looked him up on Wikipedia and I looked up Othello there also. I have seen the movie "O" so I had an idea about the premise of the play but I must say I am really enjoying the play. I really like how jealousy is portrayed as a monster or a poison that possesses or controls people and corrupts them. There is also a line in Act three that struck me as fascinating, about the idea of wisdom vs. honesty Iago says
"I should be wise, for honesty's a fool
And loses what it works for."

Part of what I like about this is that Othello, Desdemona, and Cassio are all honest but it appears they may not be wise or are at least easily manipulated. Iago has earned all their trust and is using it to benefit and advance himself. Thus these honest people look foolish and silly for trusting such as conniving individual. Perhaps if they were wise instead of honest they could have seen through the evil plans of Iago, but that would defeat the purpose of the story.

I looked up Moor and it seems as though there is some debate as to what the term actually means. According to Wikipedia it did necessarily specifically refer to race but could also have referred to the nationality and religion of the character (see the site for more details). However, I saw someone else found it could just simply mean race. Perhaps the ambiguity of the term reflects more on the idea of alienation than specifics such as the nationality, religion, or race.

Shakespeare is thought to be Catholic and I can't help but laugh and wonder if perhaps his Catholicism helped him write his tragedies. ;) Sorry to offend if anyone is Catholic I have met some very upbeat, happy, and spiritual Catholics that do not at all fit the stereotype of the religion; however, it does at first appear to be a depressing and guilt ridden religion.

The Decameron

I thought that the Decameron portrayed Arab civilization and Muslims in a surprisingly positive light. No where was there condemnation of their lifestyle nor the idea that they were poor uneducated camel riding nomads. I was also very surprised that the use of magic was considered acceptable. They used magic to transport a man into a church and this was considered not black magic or the work of the devil but a miracle and celebrated. I like it. I was also very impressed at the relationship development between Torello and Saladin. The men cried when they departed from each other, bestowed each other with gifts and even kissed and this too was an acceptable form of affection. There are no homosexual implications between the two men but still the sensitivity and compassion for each from the two men is refreshing and moving.

Just some information

I thought some information that I have learned so far that might help everyone understand and maybe clarify some ideas for myself about the tension in the middle east. It is a common misconception that Islam spread by "the tip of a sword" however that is not the case. Most people believe that when Islam began spreading Muslims killed or taxed into poverty those individuals who would not convert religions. In some cases, this may actually have happened but most people under Muslim rule experienced heart felt conversions. Once a person lives under a culture for a period of time, they begin to adopt and understand the ways of that culture. In America, for example, everyone, on some level or another, must confront Jesus, if on no other level than they have to deal with increased numbers shopping around Christmas. People adapt and often adopt certain practices simply out of the need for conformity or comfort. Islam spread more by this than by force.

Keep in mind when reading about the Crusades that the brutality that was exercised on both sides strays drastically from the foundations of both Christianity and Islam. Christians thought that by "freeing" Jerusalem, the "holy city" from the Muslims it would bring about the end of the world, the return of Jesus, and Utopia on earth. Operating under the delusion that is was God's will they waged war and invasions. I personally think that greed, power, and the need to prove one's religion was superior to the others were also motivational ideas, either way they used religion to justify their actions and that almost always spells disaster.

As to the conflict in the Middle East, I am more ignorant that I would like to be but I know enough to get myself in trouble. Jerusalem is considered a holy city by both the Jews and the Muslims and both have staked their claims. Jerusalem holds part of the wall of the Second Temple that was destroyed by the Romans. For Jews, the only place that official sacrifices can take place is in the Temple, in Jerusalem, as specified in their teachings given to them by God through Moses. On the other side of it, there is a Mosque in Jerusalem that is considered by the Muslims to be the third holiest place, as it holds a footprint left by Muhammad. Muhammad supposedly spoke not only to Moses, but was spoken to by God through the angel Gabrielle, and thus is the superior prophet. Each religion holds Jerusalem as its center holy city, each religion has holy sites in the city. Add the holocaust and the feeling by most Jews that "never again" will they be a weakened and vulnerable people and you have a new problem in the equation. Israel was created after the holocaust, in part so that the Jews had a place of their own that they could go and feel safe. Unfortunately, creating Israel uprooted and left many Palestinians/Muslims homeless and the country Israel and the actions by the UN were not recognized by many Islamic nations. All of this results in one big mess.

If there is something that I have missed or been misinformed on please correct me so that we can all better understand.