Access Under Crescent And Cross: The Jews In The Middle Ages Designed By Mark R. Cohen Hardcover

يتحدث عن اليهود تحت الحكم الإسلامي والحكم المسيحي
وسواء أقيس اضطهادهم بمقياس الإجلاء أو القتل أو التعدي على الممتلكات أو الإكراه على تغيير الديانة فإن يهود العالم الإسلامي لم يتعرضوا للعنف المادي بدرجة تقارب ما تعرض له اليهود في الغرب المسيحي. حتى عندما تعرض الذميون كمجموعة للاضطهاد والقمع في الفترة ما بعد الكلاسيكية فإن أوضاعهم الصعبة لم تماثل ما حصل في أوروبا. .

الكتاب جميل لولا الحشو والتكرار الممل. In this mediumlength but magisterial treatment, Cohen seeks the causes of convivencia and the relatively happier lot of Jews under the domination of Islam contrasted with under Christianity during the Middle Ages.
His findings are nuanced, equivocal and satisfyingly multifactored, What he does is to look into causes, What he does not do is try to measure the relative tolerance of the two religious hegemons or ask whether one was more tolerant he takes this almost as given and seeks to explain it.
I regard this as a perfectly legitimate exercise and a perfectly sound starting point, but some reviewers have made it a criticism.
If one were trying to rank the two hegemons this criticism would, of course, be perfectly fair, but Gay is not seeking to do this.
He is starting from the observation of greater tolerance and looking for reasons,

Of course, "tolerance" is an equivocal term, and the difference is not as clearcut as some would have one believe.
The traditional "lachrymose" tearful model of Jewish life under Christianity is not the whole story, nor is that of the Golden Age of Samuel ibn Nagrela in Ha Sefarad.
Jews living under Christianity in Southern Europe suffered far less persecution than those in the North Jews living under the Almohads in North Africa were forced to convert to Islam.
And then there is Granada and the fate of the Bani Quryaza, Tellingly, though, these last two are generally the only major pogroms that critics of Islam can name, whereas in Europe they were at times systematic and at others an endemic and recurring hazard.
The Jews of North Africa, interestingly, appear to have remained cryptoJews and to have returned to their religion when Almohad fanaticism subsided, whereas ChristianMuslim converts remained Muslim.
Quite why this was the case is not explained to my satisfaction,

So how does Cohen explain tolerance Well, as I stated his conclusions are satisfyingly multidimensional.
There are circumstantial factors. For instance, Jews were only one of

many groups of Dhimmi under Islam, but were the only divergent religious group permitted to survive at all under Christianity with the Augustinian doctrine of "witness" and immiseration, thus receiving the full attention of its spasms of intolerance.
There are cultural and economic factors predating the respective religious hegemonies for instance, that the Arabs were already a mercantile culture prior to Islam and had no strong prejudice against the foreign merchant.
There were similar factors postdating the hegemonies, such as that Jews were restricted by a variety of ordnances and commands to roles like that of moneylender under Christianity, whereas under Islam they were fully integrated into the trades at all levels and in all spheres.
Also, Muslim and Dhimmi could intermarry and the spouse legally retain her religion at least at most times.
While a Dhimmi could not be the equal of a Muslim as a consequence of Islam's Establishment, much as a minority can never be truly equal today in a state with an Established church and I speak as a humanist from a country with a Church of England and seats in government for bishops he could be the business partner or customer, friend or spouse, and often was.
Making money together is a strong antidote to bigotry,

Then, there are religious and foundational factors, and here Cohen offers an interesting interpretation of the butchery of Bani Qurayza.
Yes, Islam began with confrontations with Jews at its inception, Yes, they are identified as an enemy, However, they are a defeated enemy, The Prophet of Islam killed the Jews the Jews killed the Prophet of Christianity, Sorry to put this as if the old libel were legitimate, but this is the differing thinking of the hegemons in a nutshell.
Christians have tended to go through phases of wanting revenge, Muslims have never felt the need,

Cohen's work is serious in its intent and wide in its scope, It does, however, by its very nature in studying the Middle Ages leave some important questions open.
Some of them are urgent, Why have Jews largely been integrated since the Englightenment Why was that integration suddenly shattered in the Shoah by a political movement that did not make an especially religious issue of murdering Jews In fact, a purely racial one.
Why has antiSemitism started to burgeon in the Muslim world since theth Century Cohen hints at some resolutions such as the changing nationalist model of the Muslim world.
PanArabism and straightforward nationalism are alien to Islam, with its model of the global Ummah and its exemptions and protections for Dhimmi.
Now that Westernstyle, secular nation nation states have arisen, starting in theth Century, it is possible to see Dhimmi as a fifth column.


Moreover, there is an apparently intractable conflict in the Levant, Perhaps if we understand convivencia we can understand how the conflict can be resolved to the satisfaction of all parties Well, maybe.
Islam sees itself as the legitimate hegemon, It has lived in tolerance with other monotheisms, but on the understanding that they did not get above themselves.
Even in the secular West a subordinate status raises recurrent tensions among more radical Muslims, Persuading them to accept a monotheistic hegemony not of their making on the site of the Rock itself may be a long haul.
At any rate, Cohen's thorough and weighty contribution to understanding historic tolerance is an admirable contribution to the discussion.
Had to read parts of this for Wexner, Never quite bought his premise which he seemed to argue around over and over, contradicting himself at many places.
Read this book for two different graduate level history classes at two different schools, While I appreciate the author's breadth of knowledge, the book came across as somewhat biased, Going on the basic premise that Jews were persecuted less under medieval Muslim rule than under medieval Christian rule is a semisafe bet, but setting it up weakly by only giving sources that prove the point and none that might be questionable and then discussed isn't particularly good scholarship.
Good book if you agree with the premise and want a source for a paper, less good if you're looking for a deep discussion with primary source comparison.
Author is good at talking about the sources, but less good at providing them for the reader to draw their own conclusions.
Cohen presents an excellent comparative approach to answer the question of whether Jews under Islamic rule fared better in terms of persecution, expulsion, and downright nastiness than they did under Christian rule.

They did.
This is uncontroversial. What Cohen supplies is why that might be, There's a wealth of detail here, touching on religious and social factors that resulted in the expanding Islamic rule in southwest Asia being a nicer place to live for Jews than, say, most of Europe where they were periodically pogromed and almost universally reviled by institutional authorities.
Cohen looks at the place of Judaism in the other two Abrahamic faiths, Since Christianity made it a point of doctrine to show that Judaism was mere precursor to the Jesus they excoriated, it was quite natural for the intolerant Church to persecute.
Conversely, Islam sees the older Abrahamic traditions as corrupted and Islam as the corrective, so there was no need to jibe for theological space at the counter.
If Jews and Christians wanted to adhere to their faiths out of sheer confusion, so be it, Islam would be waiting over here when they were ready to come to their senses.

Politically and socially, too, it made little sense for Islamic rulers to persecute, since that would alienate and make less secure minorities that might be useful economically.
Cohen has some good bits on that, too, showing how Islamic societies thrived on social mobility and the role of prominent Jews in both economy and government.

I seem to have begun making notes at chapter, I can't remember now if I read the first half or not, But the author seemed to mix in different times, places, and types of evidence so I'm not sure how much difference it makes.
His overall conclusion seemed to be that under Muslim rule things sucked for the Jews, but not as much as they sucked under Christian rule.


"In accounting for the fate of the Jews, Jewish historiography has traditionally placed considerable emphasis on their economic role in society.
. . It was the locus of their most frequent interaction with Christians, " The early Christians disapproved of the accumulation of wealth, especially through commerce, Jewish merchants traveled from the Middle East to the west, most often taking luxury goods to sell and procuring slaves for sale in Muslim Spain.
Theologicallybased hostility to the Jews combined with disapproval of their mercantile activities and general distrust of foreigners to reinforce their marginal status.
During the urban revival of theth andth centuries a Christian commercial class emerged, Governmental support of Jewish moneylenders to increase tax intake created further hostility, Cohen describes an "Inverse relationship between Jewish security and general economic wellbeing in Latin Christendom, "

In Muslimcontrolled regions on the other hand, Jews were more integrated into general economic life.
A greater variety of occupations were open to them, including agriculture, Taxation was fairer and less exorbitant, Islam's attitude to trade and wealth was positive, and many Muslims participated in local and international trade.
The Arab world was more accustomed to foreigners and used contracts and letters of credit suftaja similar to those employed by the Jews.
Also, there Jewish moneylending occurred mainly within the Jewish community,

Cohen defines Hierarchy as the fundamental idea unifying societies composed of different groups.
He says that in most societies this religious in nature, It pertains to status, not class, Cohen is interested in Marginality Theory, a hierarchy where some members of the group do not qualify for admission into another group with which they are closely associated.
This occurs when these groups differ significantly in cultural or racial heritage or when there is limited cultural or social exchange.
In the more homogeneous Christian west, Jews were at a hierarchical low, marginalized and excluded, In Muslim areas, Jews were hierarchically distinct, and marginalized in certain ways, but not excluded,

The majority of Jews were urban, concentrated in trade centers, In Europe the generally lived in separate areas from Christians and were excluded from municipal activities, Jews in Muslim areas were more integrated into the social order, but they still usually lived in a separate street or quarter although this was rarely legislated.
Christians were opposed to social interaction with Jews, In Spain intermarriage and eating or bathing together were prohibited, Muslims and Jews socialized freely and could legally intermarry, but there were frequent expressions of disapproval or concern over such behavior.


Jews had more participation in Islamic intellectual life than in Christian, and a few Jewish holy men were revered by Muslims.
Christianity was combative toward Jews and if not for Augustine's doctrine of toleration the Jews might have been "totally extirpated.
" Jewish commentators responded with midrash and invective, Scripture was important in Jewish/Christian relations, but markedly less so in Islamic because the foretellings of Muhammad applied to Jews.
Islamic theologians were more concerned with arguing against Christianity, Judaism was hostile to Islam but did not speak of it with the same vitriol it directed towards Christians, and Islam was not important to Jewish selfdefinition.


Cohen argues that persecution and intolerance are innate in monotheistic religions with powerful churches, Christians persecuted Jews greatly. Muslims persecuted them not quite as much, and persecuted Christians more, Muslims and Christians had different attitudes towards "heresy, " Islam did not share Christianity's irrational fear of Jews, Jews in Christian lands have a collective memory of persecution that is not present in Islamic areas.



.