Maimon Herawati menerbitkan sebuah catatan.
Ini salah satu essay saya Unlike Jews, Muslims did not attempt to exclude others from Jerusalem’s holiness…. From the first, Muslims showed that veneration of sacred space did not have to mean conflict… and exclusion of others.” (Karen Amstrong)
Vision of Jerusalem; an Open City
No city can compete the rich history and universality values of Jerusalem. The city’s distinctive ancestry lifted up its status further than the restrictions of economic and strategic considerations. Indeed, one cannot judge Jerusalem’s future without dwelling on its uniquely monotheistic legacy. For, while other centres of habitation claimed a divine bond, none can rival the complex and overlapping rights of as many religious communities as Jerusalem. Destined to experience the vulnerability of political security and power, Jerusalem has never succeeded in excluding varied religious community from its space. The stamp of religious universalism in permanently marked on its history1.
For The Jews, Jerusalem is the place where Prophet Moses directed Israel from Egypt2. As for Christian, Jerusalem and its surrounding area are the place where Jesus was born, the place where Jesus carried his cross and died3. Early Muslims directed their prayer to Jerusalem4. Jerusalem is the land of Prophet Muhammad nocturnal journey5and the land of second holy mosque6.
Jewish Experience of Sacred Space
The vision of sacred place comes from Old Testament. The divine exhortation “And you shall be unto me a kingdom of priest and a holy nation” (Exodus 19:6) thus made clear the national selection of Israel to perform a universal service for God. As a ‘kingdom of priest’ Israel was to render a universal service. As a ‘holy nation’ Israelites were to follow a particular way of life, a life of holiness, which would set them off as a distinct and a different people among the nation of the world7.
Hebrew word for holy is kaddosh. Kaddosh means ‘separate’. Jews respect the sacredness of things by separating it from others. This concept is the foundation on how the holiness of Jerusalem is expressed. Jews will only be able to enter the Temple after have finished doing the number of ritual purification. This purification will detach him from the mortality and contamination of daily existence. The Temple itself was created as a series of interlocking courts, each more holy than the last, and each, consequently, barred to an increasing number of people. Non-Jews are banned from entering further than an outermost temple. Its name is the court of Gentiles8.
The vision of Israel as a nation also shaped by Exodus 4: 22, “Thus speaketh the Lord: my firstborn son is Israel.” Jewish fundamentalists interpret it as: “The inhabitants of the world can be disseminated between Israel and the other nations taken as a whole. Israel is the chosen people: chief dogma”9. We can see how many mass executions had happened in Palestine, which were done by Israel to local population. On April 9th 1948, Menahem Begin and his ‘Irgun’ troops killed the 254 residents of the village of Deir Yassin; men, women and children. The latest carnage happened in Jenin though persistent actions are taken by Israel army to destroy the evident including by flattening down the houses with dead bodies laying under it10.
Further, if we look closely to Old Testament, we shall find many bloodshed events, which could create Jewish manners in sacred space.
“And from Lachish Joshua passed unto Eglon, and all Israel with him…And they took it on that day, and smote it with the edge of the sword, and all the souls that were therein he utterly destroyed that day…And Joshua went up from Eglon, and all Israel with him, unto Hebron.” (Joshua 10: 34) In the Book of Numbers (XXXI, 7-18) we are told of the exploits of the “sons of Israel” who, when they vanquished the Madianites, “killed all the men as the Lord had ordered Moses to do”, “took all the women into bondage”, “burned all the cities.” When they returned to Moses, “Moses was wrathful. What! He told them, you have suffered all the women to live…! Now, go forth and slay all youths, and slay all the women who have known a man in wedlock… But all the virgins…keep them for yourselves.” (14-18)11.
“On that day, Joshua seized Maqqeda and slew them all, including the king with the edge of his sword, and all the souls that were therein; he let none remain in it; but did unto the king thereof as he did unto the king of Jericho And Joshua passed from the Libnah and all Israel with him, onto Lachish into the hand of Israel which took it on the second day and smote it with the edge of the sword, and all the souls that were therein, according to all that he had done to Libnah.” (Joshua 10: 36).
It would be hard to believe that a prophet such Moses did those terrible massacres and without basis whatsoever. However, historian seek archaeological prove to these events and find them impossible12.
Nevertheless, a devout Jewish who read Bible could imitate the greatly important figure such as Moses and Joshua. Yoram Ben Porath bluntly said, “There is no such thing as Zionism, as colonization by the Jewish State, without the eviction of the Arabs and the expropriation of their lands.” Menahem Begin called upon the Jews, “not only to push back the Arabs but to lay hold of all Palestine.”11
Christian Experience of Sacred Space
Christian, of course were not the first to situate Jerusalem at the centre of the earth. The centrality of Israel, Jerusalem and its temple, was affirmed in at least some strands of Hebrew thought. The Land of Israel was the centre of the earth (Ezek 38.12), Jerusalem was at the centre of the nations (Ezek 5.5), Mount Zion, ‘the centre of the navel (omphalos) of the earth’ (Jub 8.19)13
In a profound sense, the Holy Land is especially holy for Christians because the fact that Jesus traversed it. The terrain itself has, in words of Gregory of Nyssa, ‘signs of the Lord’s sojourn in the flesh’. According to Bishop Paulinus of Nola, ‘No other sentiment draws people to Jerusalem than the desire to see and touch the places where Christ was present, and to be able to say from their own experience, “We have gone into his tabernacle, and have worshipped in the place where his feet stood”’14
Christian pilgrimage in Jerusalem began as early as the second century Common Era. The places the Christians consider holy places are all written in Bible. They are Siloam Pool, the place where Jesus sent the man born blind after his sight had been restored; Bethesda Pool, the place where he cured the paralysed man, the Gethsemane Garden; Golgotha, the place where he was crucified; and the Holy Sepulchre, where he was buried15.
Alike Jews, Christians also embrace an exclusive vision of Jerusalem’s holiness. The Christian Byzantines who ruled Jerusalem from early four century Common Era did not permit Jews to live permanently in Aelia Capitolina16. The Jews were only allowed to come to the city once a year on ‘The Ninth of ‘Ab’ to visit the Temple in lamenting its destruction 17. The site of the old Temple was left in wreckage as a mark of Judaism defeat. In the last year of Byzantine control, the Christian used the Temple as the city’s refuse deposit18.
At the time of Crusaders captured Jerusalem from Muslim on 15 July 1099 AD, they killed 30.000 Muslims and Jews in two days19. The West Christians dishonoured their promise to the residents that they would be left alive. Muslims sources gave numbers of peoples slaughtered as many as 70.000. The Arab Christians were ordered to clean the city20. Some respected and educated men were sparred in the hope of selling them for large payment. One of the few, Shaikh Abd al_Salam as-Ansari, was brought to other part of Palestine to be ransomed for a thousand dinars. When nobody paid for the money, he was killed21.
Muslim Experience of Sacred Space
From the beginning of their history, Muslims showed different manner towards sacred space than Christians and Jews. This manner is created by Quran 2: 191, ‘And fight not with them at Al Masjid Al Haram unless they (first) fight you there. But if they attack you, then kill them22. Haram means ‘forbidden’. It is forbidden to shed blood in the holy city.
On the second day of the conquest of Makkah, the Prophet addressed the people in matters relating to the holy status of Makkah. Narrated by Ibn ‘Abbas,‘The Prophet said, “Allah has made Makkah, a sanctuary, so it was a sanctuary before me and will continue to be a sanctuary after me. It was made legal for me (i.e. I was allowed to fight in it) for few hours of a day. It is not allowed to uproot its shrubs or to cut its trees, or to chase (or disturb) its game, or to pick its fallen thing except by a person who would announce that (what has found) publicly.” Al-‘Abbas said,”O Allah’s Messenger! Except the lemon grass (for it is used) by our goldsmiths and our homes.” The Prophet then said, “Except the lemon grass.”’23
When Muslims conquered Makkah on Tuesday, 17 Ramadan, 8 H, with 10.000 armies, Muslims entered the city from all over directions. The Prophet gave full and decisive orders not to kill unless in self-defence and in that case they would exterminate any aggressive elements and quell any opposition24. In the context of general amnesty to people of Makkah, the Prophet proclaimed, anyone who took refugee in Abu Sufyan’s house was safe, whosoever confined himself to his house was safe, and whoever entered the Sacred Mosque was safe25.
There was one bloody incident, actually, happened in the south of Makkah. The most hostile and antagonistic members of Quraysh populated that particular part of area. As Khalid ibn al Walid and his armies entered their quarter, the Quraysh showered them with arrows. Khalid fought back and killed some of them. The Prophet saw it and became angry. He repeated his command that there should be no fighting. He was soon be told how the fight begun26. Apart from the fight mentioned above and the killing of four unrepentant criminals, there was no bloodshed occurred in Makkah throughout the conquest.
Similarly, during the conquest of Jerusalem, ‘Umar, the second Caliph, avoided any bloodshed as much as possible. Therefore, on July 637 Muslim army blockaded Jerusalem in order to force it to admit defeat27. After a long siege, four months according to Waqidi, and 2 years according to Theophanes28, citizens of Jerusalem declared defeat. Therefore, ‘Umar led over the most peaceful conquest that the city had yet seen in its long and often tragic history. Once the Christians had submitted, there was no slaughter, no demolition of property, no burning of opponent spiritual symbols, and no effort to compel the inhabitants to embrace Islam29.
When ‘Umar came, Jerusalem’s populations were majority Christians. For them, Jerusalem was holy. ‘Umar took several actions. Before he came, he gave people of Jerusalem assurance of safety30, which in Christian’s side, was also an act of changing loyalty as shall be discussed below. Next, he placed Muslim army in empty area so Muslims did not confiscate the land of the existing inhabitants31. He then restored the holy site of Aqsa Mosque or Mount Temple, which had been desecration by Christians32. Before he left, he chose ‘Ubadah ibn al-Samit as the judge for Jerusalem and Umaymir ibn Sa’d as the governor of Jund Filastin. Jerusalem was part of Jund Filastin33. They were both important early Muslims.
Umar’s Assurance of Safety: an Inclusive Vision of Jerusalem Holiness
The text of Umar’s Assurance of safety was varying according to its source. Among few historians who mentioned Umar’s Assurance of Safety are Muhammad Ibn Umar al Waqidi, al Baladhuri and al Yaqubi, the Patriarch of Alexanderia named Eutycius or Ibn al Batriq. The first two gave an account about Umar’s Assurance without text. The latter two gave abbreviated texts of Umar’s Assurance34. However, writer tends to discuss the text given by Tabari, although its contain was questioned by some researchers34. It is the longest and the most detail. It also gives the chain of narrator, even if a broken one. Writer believes that Tabari must have certain foundation to put this text complete with its narrator.
Umar’s Assurance of Safety to people of Aelia35
In the name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate. This is the assurance of safety Aman (aman) which the servant of God, ‘Umar, the Commander of the Faithful, has granted to the people of Jerusalem. He has given them an assurance of safety for themselves, for their property, their churches and crosses; the sick and the healthy of the city, and for all the rituals that belong to their religion. Their churches will not be inhabitant (by Muslims) and will not be destroyed. Neither they, nor the land on which they stand, nor their cross, nor their property will be damaged. The people will not be forcibly converted. No Jew will live with them in Jerusalem.
The people of Jerusalem must pay the poll tax like the people of the (other) cities, and they must expel the Byzantines and the robbers. As for those who will leave the city, their lives and property will be safe until they reach their place of safety; and as for those who remain, they will be safe. They will have to pay the poll tax like the people of Jerusalem. Those of people of Jerusalem who want to leave with the Byzantines, take their property, and abandon their churches and crosses will be safe until they reach their place of safety. Those villagers (ahl al-ard who were in Jerusalem before the murder of so-and-so may remain in the city if they wish, but they must pay the poll tax like the people of Jerusalem. Those who wish may go with the Byzantines, and those who wish may return to their families. Nothing will be taken from them until their harvest has been reaped. If they pay the poll tax according to their obligations, then the contents of this letter are under the covenant of God, are responsibility of His Prophet, of the caliphs, and of the faithful. The persons who attest to it are Khalid b. al-Walid, ‘Amr b. al-Asi, ‘Abd al-Rahman b.Awf, and Mu’awiyah b. Abi Sufyan. This letter was written and prepared in the year 15/636 –37.
From the text, there are some points we can extract. They are:
They must expel the Byzantines and the robbers. By this sentence, ‘Umar shows Muslim sovereignty is powerful and people of Jerusalem must obey it. ‘Umar is also saying, people of Jerusalem must disconnect all their relationship with Byzantines and there is only one loyalty exist: loyalty to Muslim sovereignty. Byzantines were Christians. They were expelled was not because of their religion but because they oppressed others.
2. Those of people of Jerusalem who want to leave with the Byzantines, take their property, and abandon their churches and crosses will be safe until they reach their place of safety. Further more, ‘Umar gives people of Jerusalem the right to choose whether to stay under Muslim ruling with some obligations or to leave with the ex ruler or Byzantines. Both choices are safe. No harms will be done to anybody who chose to go with the ex ruler though it shows that their loyalty are with the ex ruler.
The people of Jerusalem must pay the poll tax like the people of the (other) cities. He has given them an assurance of safety for themselves, for their property, their churches and crosses; the sick and the healthy of the city, and for all the rituals that belong to their religion. Their churches will not be inhabitant (by Muslims) and will not be destroyed. Neither they, nor the land, on which they stand, nor their cross, nor their property will be damaged. This Jizia tax and the assurance of safety show there are governing system in Jerusalem. It shows there are obligation and rights. The people of Jerusalem have an obligation to pay jizia. The Sovereignty will protect them and their belongings including their church. Jizia and protection are connected to each other. To be able to maintain the protection, Muslim armies need money. It is very fair that population which is protected by them donate some amount of money.
The people will not be forcibly converted. ‘Umar’s Assurance gives strong evidence that religious right is preserved under Muslim’s rule. People of Jerusalem are free to hold their belief and perform their prayer.
Jews Reside Back in Jerusalem
There is indication that in his time as a second Caliph, ‘Umar permitted Jews to settle back in Jerusalem. A Jewish chronicle, a fragment which is preserved in Cairo Geniza pointed that ‘Umar gave permission to seventy Jewish families from Tiberias to settle in Jerusalem. Shimon Bar Yohai, a Jewish writer, confirmed the same thing. Karaite commentator gave an agreed fact36.
Under Muslim rule, then, at last, three monotheistic religions that have the same root live peacefully in their holy city, Jerusalem. Therefore, observing the current situation today in Jerusalem, it is very much needed for all party involved looking back at the history.
How to Adopt the Inclusive Vision in Present Jerusalem
Before going too far, it is necessary to examine the status of Israel State. Is the state of Israel legal or not?
On the Basis: Claim of Old Testament
The concept of Israel first appeared in God’s promise to Abram in the Old Testament of Genesis 15:7. God would give Abram certain land37. Abram or Abraham after his circumcised was Jewish Father. Further, this promise land, according to Old Testament was repeated to some later Prophet such as Moses.
The assumption -that all Jews, and Jews only, are descendants of Abraham- less humorously and more politically played upon by Zionist nationalist. The Biblical account, however, includes Abraham’s innumerable other descendants –“a multitude of nations (Genesis 17:4), uncountable “as the dust of the earth” and outnumbered states (13:16; 15:5). Trough his three wives –Sarah, Hagar and Keturah (16:1-3; 25:1) – and his concubines (25:6), Abraham sired a prolific progeny that spread and intermarried all over the Middle East.38
If the concepts of a ‘promise land’ really means that Israel will get the land whatever the condition is, whether the land has been inhabited or not, then, why Abraham, their father, the one who had been given promise by God himself, negotiate and pay for a piece of land in Palestine (23:7-16)?39
In Bible, one can find many verses that reject the eternal claim for Jerusalem by Jewish. The prophet Jeremiah (cf. 5 and 7: 17-20), seeing injustice, dishonesty, disobedience, idolatry and insensitivity to poverty flourishing on every level of Jerusalem’s life, threatened divine punishment, even obliteration, unless its people –young and old, female and male, changed their ways. Another prophet, Micah (cf. 1:5 and 3:9, 12), deploring private immorality and public corruption, declared: “Because of you, Zion shall be plowed as a field: Jerusalem shall become a heap of ruins”40.
On the Basis: International Law
Zionist movement got their best support from British government. It was British that promised Zionists to help them secured Palestine as Jewish national home. It was stated in Balfour declaration in November 2nd 191741. But, the Balfour Declaration, by which ‘one nation promised to a second nation the country of a third’, has no validity in international law42. At that time, Palestine was still part of Turkish Empire.
During the First World War, Palestine was detached from Turkey by the British Military occupation. Such occupation did not have as objective the acquisition of territory and this explain why Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations (1919) recognised the existence of Palestinians, like other people detached from the Turkish Empire, as ‘an independent nation’43.
The United Nation Security Council 242, citing the prohibition on acquisition of territory by military force, called on Israel to withdraw. The United Nations considers the West Bank, including east Jerusalem, to be territory under Israel’s belligerent occupation.
Belligerent occupation is a situation that does not yield any right of sovereignty over territory. Under international law, seizure of territory in the course of hostilities does not give title to that territory. This concept applies whether the military action leading to the seizure was aggressive or defensive, so that even Israel had acted in self-defence in taking territory from Jordan, it still would have no claim to sovereignty44.
On the Basis: How It was First Constructed
One should go back as early as 1896 to examine the beginning of Zionism. This year was distinguished because the more organized activity of Zionists began publicly. Zionist such as Theodore Herzl published his article A Solution of the Jewish Question’ in Jewish Chronicle45. He also published a pamphlet Der Judenstaat in which he advocated Jewish colonization in Argentina or Palestine with a view to the creation of a Jewish state46.
Herzl (1860-1904) was not the only one who voiced the idea of a nation for Jews, but he was the most systematically planned the elevation into practice of his vision. Nobody matches him in his attention to its practical implementation45. He arranged meeting with many prominent people. He came to King Victor Emanuel III of Italy and Pius X on 23 January 1904 at Rome. He requested the King for Tripoli as a land for Israel nation. The King refused because the land was already belonged to other people47.
Anti-Semitism, which grew stronger in Europe, was Herlz reason for set up Jewish state. Wherever Jews lived, they destined to be prosecuted. Therefore, only making it a political world-question could solve it48.
Interestingly, Herzl did not mean to set a religious state. He aimed a secular state. He declared it plainly in his diary, “We shall keep our priests within the confines of their temples49.
Most of the rabbis refused his idea. Chief Rabbi Moritz Gudemann of Vienna opposed his proposal by saying Jews were not a nation and that Zionism was incompatible with the teaching of Judaism (Prior, p 109). The Munich Jews rejected the Zionverein plan for a Zionist Congress in their town. The rabbis, representing all shade of opinion, denounced Zionism as a fanaticism, and contrary to the Jewish scriptures. Further, The German Rabbinical Council formally and publicly condemned the effort of the so-called Zionist to created a Jewish national state in Palestine as contrary to Holy Writ50.
To be clear, Herlz diary explained how he planned Israel state into existence. In diary entry dated 12 June 1895, he wrote; when occupy the land, we shall bring immediate benefits to the state that received us. We must expropriate gently the private property on the estates assigned to us. We shall try to spirit the penniless population across the border by procuring employment for it in the transit countries while denying it any employment in our country. The property owners will come to outside. Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discreetly and circumspectly.51
On the other hand, in support of discriminatory Aliens Bill, 1905, Prime Minister A.J. Balfour specifically referred to the immigration of Jews as “Not to the advantage…of the country” since those already in Britain, “by their own action, remained a people apart, and not merely held a religion differing from the vast majority of their fellow countrymen, but only intermarried among themselves. Later, June 24, 1919, he derogatorily observed, “Jews now are not only participating in revolutionary movement but are actually, to a large degree, leaders in such movements52.
In his memo to Lord Curzon 11 August 1919, clearly he wrote:
In Palestine, we do not propose even to go trough the form of consulting the wishes of the present inhabitants of the country….The Four Great Powers are committed to Zionism. And Zionism, be it right or wrong, good or bad, is rooted in age-long traditions, in present needs, in future hopes, of far profounder import than the desires and prejudices of the 700.000 Arabs who now inhabit that ancient land. In my opinion that is right….Whatever deference should be paid to the views of those living there, the Powers in their selection of a mandatory do not propose….to consult them. In short, so far as Palestine concerned, the Powers have made no statement of fact which is not admittedly wrong, and no declaration of policy which, at least in the letter, they have not always intended to violate53.
More than a century earlier, philosopher J.G. Fichte’s racist rationale for dealing with Jews by ghetoizing them into Palestine was even blunter, “For our self-protection, I see no other way than to conquer their destined land and to send them all to live there”54.
Hence, the Zionist movement at that time intrinsically constituted a deliberate, basic and massive violation of the rights of Arabs then in Palestine, especially their right of self-determination55.
If It is Illegal…
If Israel State is illegal, quotation from Norton Mevzinsky, a Jew is important to observe, ‘Yet peace must be based upon justice. This means primarily justice for the Palestinians. Make no mistake: justice for the Palestinians is impossible, solution of the Arab-Israel conflict will not be forthcoming, positive resolution of the fate of Jerusalem will not occur so long as Israel continues to be nominated by Zionist nationalism. The liberation of that state from its Zionist political philosophy in favour of non-discriminatory democracy is therefore a necessity.
Afterwards, anybody who wished to live there, celebrate the holiness of Jerusalem, can come and enjoy the freedom of religion and the protection for his life, his religion and his property just like ‘Umar had once offered before.
Ghada Hashem Talhami, The Modern of Islamic Jerusalem: Academic Mtyhs and Propaganda, Journal Middle East Policy, Vol.VII, February 2000, No. 2Norton Mezvinsky, The Jewish Faith and the Problem of Israel and Jerusalem, in Jerusalem the Key to World Peace, (Islamic Council of Europe, London, 1980) p. 25Michael Prior, Pilgrimage to Holy Land, Yesterday and Today, in Christians in the Holy Land, ed. Michael Prior and William Taylor, (World of Islam Festival Trust, London, 1994) p. 175Ibn Kathir, Tafsir of Qur’an, Vol.2 p. 24Sahih Muslim Book 023, Number 4985Sahih Muslim Book 4, Number 1056 Norton Mezvinsky. p.25Karen Amstrong, Sacred Space: The Holiness of Islamic Jerusalem, Journal of Islamic Jerusalem Studies, Winter 1997, Vol I, No. 1 p. 8; also see Israel Shahak, Jerusalem and the Jews, in Jerusalem Today: What Future for the Peace Process, ed. Ghada Karmi (Ithaca Press, Reading 1997) p. 124Rabbin Cohen, The Talmud, ed. Payot (Paris 1986) p.104www.jerusalem.indymedia.org, www.guardian.co.uk,www.independent.co.uk on recent Israel army’s adventures in Jenin, Ramallah, Betlehem.Roger Garaudy, The Theological Myths, inwww.codoh.comHere, we come into conflict with archeology. Excavations have apparently revealed that the Israelites arriving at the end of the XIIIth century B.C. could not have taken Jericho because the city was already deserted. The mid-Bronze Age city was destroyed towards 1550 B.C. and subsequently abandoned. It was sparsely resettled in the XIVth century B.C.: pottery dating from this period has been found in Mid-Bronze Age tombs that were re-utilized, and a house containing a small pitcher dating from the mid-XIVth century B.C. Nothing can be attributed to the XIIIth century. There are no traces of New Bronze Age fortifications. The conclusion of K.M. Kenyon is that it is impossible to associate a destruction of Jericho with an entrance of the Israelites at the end of the XIIIth century B.C (K.M. Kenyon, Digging up Jericho, London 1957, pp. 256-265)
The same holds true of the “taking of Ay”. “Of all the tales of conquest, this one is the most detailed: it contains no miraculous element and appears to be the most likely. Unfortunately, archaeology gives it the lie.
“The site was searched by two different expeditions. The results tally: at the time of the Early Bronze Age, Et-Tell was a large city whose name is unknown to us, and which was destroyed during the Early Bronze Age, around 2,400 B.C. It remained deserted until after 1,200 B.C., when a poor, unfortified village grew up upon a portion of the ruins. This village subsisted only until the beginning of the Xth century B.C. at the latest; after which the site was definitively abandoned. At the time of the arrival of the Israelites, there was no city of Ay, there was no king of Ay, there was nothing but a 1,200 year-old ruin.” (Père de Vaux (O.P.), Histoire ancienne d’Israel ed. Lecoffre et Gabalda. Paris 1971 TI, p.565) As written on Roger Garaudy, The Theological Myths, in www.codoh.com.Michael Prior, Pilgrimage in the Holy land, p. 174Ibid. p. 175John Wilkinson, Jerusalem Under Rome and Byzantium, in Jerusalem in History, ed. K.J. Asali (Olive Branch Press, New York, 2000), p. 84-85Karen Amstrong, Sacred Space: The Holiness of Islamic Jerusalem, p. 9; see also Abdul Fattah El Awaisi, Umar’s Assurance of Safety to the People of Aelia, in Journal of Islamic Jerusalem Studies (Summer 2000) Vol 3, No. 2 p. 56-57John Wilkinson, Jerusalem Under Rome and Byzantium, p. 94-95Tabari, The History of al-Tabari,(trans. by Yohanan Friedmann, State University of New York Press) p. 195. Karen Amstrong, Sacred Space, p. 9. See also Moshe Gil, A History of Palestine, (Cambridge, 1997) p. 53. Karen Amstrong, Sacred Space, p. 9.Moshe Gil, A History of Palestine, (Cambridge, 1997) p. 828Mustafa A. Hiyari, Crusader Jerusalem, in Jerusalem in History, p. 139-140The Noble Qur’an, Trans by Muhammad Taqi-ud-Din al-Hilali (King Fahd Complex for Printing the Holy Qur’an)The number of hadith is not known. Writer tried hard to find it but failed. Writer believe this hadith is sahih. See also Sahih Bukhari, Vol. 2 no. 797: narrated by Abu Bakrah, The Prophet delivered to us a Khutbah (religious talk) on the day of Nahr (10th of Dhul Hijjah). He said, “Do you know what is the day today?” We said, “Allah and His Messenger know better.” He remained silent till we thought that he might give that day another name. He said, “Isn’t it the day of Nahr?” We said, “It is.” He further asked, “Which month is this?” We said, “Allah and His Messenger know better.” He remained silent till we thought that he might give it another name. He the said, “Isn’t it the month Dhul Hijjah?” We replied, “Yes it is.” He further asked, “What town is this?” We replied, ““Allah and His Messenger know it better.” He remained silent till we thought that he might give it another name. He then said, “Isn’t it the forbidden (haram) town (of Makkah)? We said, “Yes it is.” He said, “No doubt, your blood and your properties are ‘haram’ to one another like the sanctity of this day of yours, in this month of yours, in this town of yours, till the day you meet your Lord…Beware! Do not renegate (as) disbelievers after me by striking the necks (cutting the throats) of one another.” Safiurrahman Mubarakpuri, Sealed Nectar, (Darus Salam Pblication, Riyadh, 1996), p.393. See also, Muhammad Husein Haikal, The Life of Muhammad,(Shorouk International, 1983) p. 405 Safiurrahman Mubarakpuri, Sealed Nectar, p. 392. Muhammad Husein Haikal, p. 406 Karen Amstrong, A History of Jerusalem: One City, Tree Faith, (Harper Colin, London, 1997) p. 228. Moshe Gil, p. 52. Karen Amstrong, A History of Jerusalem, p. 228,Tabari p. 191-192, Karen Amstrong, A History of Jerusalem, p. 231, Moshe Gil, p. 54, Abdul Aziz Duri,Jerusalem in the Early Islamic Period, in Jerusalem in History, p. 107.Karen Amstrong, A History of Jerusalem, p. 232. p. 234Tabari, p. 195, Karen Amstrong, p. 230, Abdul Aziz Duri, p. 108, Moshe Gil, p. 66.Ibid. p 234, Abdul Aziz Duri p. 108.Abdul Fattah El Awaisi, p. 49. El Awaisi has done a thorough examination on Tabari’s text of Umar’s Assurance. He concluded that the text contained some doubtful information such as the date of the text, the arrangement to leave or stay in Jerusalem for Byzantines and etc. However, El Awaisi did not disregard Tabari’s text altogether. Tabari, p.191-192Moshe Gil, p. 69-70Norton Mezvinsky, p. 21-22Rev. Humphrey Walz, The protestant Faith, in Jerusalem the Key to World Peace, p.13.Ibid. p. 13.Ibid. p.8Michael Prior, Zionism and the State of Israel: A Moral Inquiry, (Routledge, London 1999), p. 14-15Ibid, p. 18.Henry Cattan, Jerusalem and Palestine in International Law, in Jerusalem the Key to World Peace, p. 233John Quiqley, Jerusalem in International Law, in Jerusalem Today, ed. Ghada Karmi (Ithaca Press, London, 1996) p. 31Michael Prior, p. 4Henry Cattan, Jerusalem, p.13Michael Prior, p.7Michael Prior, Bible and Colonization, p. 108Ibid. p. 146Ibid. p. 109Ibid. p.112Document on British Foreign Policy, 1919-1939, Series I, Vol. IV, London, Her Majesty Stationery Office, 1952Michael Prior, Zionism and the State of Israel, p. 16J.B. Agus, The Meaning of Jewish History, New York, Abelard-Schuman, 1963, p.334Rev Joseph L Ryan The Catholic Faith in Jerusalem the Key to World Peace p.71Norton Mevzinsky, The Jew