What do you think?
Rate this book
Pod křížem a půlměsícem: Židé ve středověku
Kniha přehledně rozebírá postavení židů v křesťanském a islámském světě z hlediska právního (srovnává islámské, křesťanské a pohanské římské právo), hospodářského a sociologického, kdy Cohen mj. vyvrací zažité stereotypy a mýty o "zlém křesťanství a hodném islámu". Závěrečnou kapitolu pak tvoří pojednání o mezináboženské polemice mezi židy, křesťany.
400 pages, Hardcover
First published May 24, 1994
13 people are currently reading
314 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 16 of 16 reviews
November 1, 2014
I seem to have begun making notes at chapter 5. 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. Theologically-based 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 the 11th and 12th 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 well-being in Latin Christendom."
In Muslim-controlled 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 money-lending 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 self-definition.
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.
"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. Theologically-based 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 the 11th and 12th 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 well-being in Latin Christendom."
In Muslim-controlled 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 money-lending 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 self-definition.
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.
November 28, 2019
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.
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.
Read
November 24, 2023This book is a comparative history and investigation of the relations maintained by the Jews of Islam and the Jews of Christendom with their respective dominant societies. Cohen tries to answer questions regarding the means by which these different Jews lived, the respective periods of affluence and of poverty that they were subject to, and the Jewish response to those conditions. He contends that establishing the narratives of medieval Jews in Northern Europe and the Islamic Orient is imperative to understanding why conditions were more favorable for the Jews of Islam than their European counterparts, beyond simple acknowledgment of the fact–a style of argument that allows him to include lachrymose, neo-lachrymose, and anti-lachrymose evidence to illustrate his claims.*
The history Cohen presents formulates our understanding of the Jewish struggle from the 7th century CE into the modern day. It explains modern Sephardic support of neo-lachrymose ideas, and the tensions this has sown into the social structure of the Israeli state. It is also relevant to [Christendom’s] persisting perceptions of Judaism, such as ties to moneylending and the devil.
In seeking to clarify the reasons behind medieval Jews’ disenfranchisement, rather than challenge the existence or degree thereof, Cohen fashions an expansive history of the prejudices levied against them in parts of the world during the middle ages.
However, potential weaknesses arise when our attention shifts to the matter of scope. Though Cohens argument is very solid–antisemitism existed in medieval Christendom and not in medieval Islam–it becomes somewhat arbitrary when its boundaries are reassessed. In the introduction, Cohen explains that he has “found it fruitful to focus on the Latin West and mainly on the northern lands” in his study. This sets our two landscapes in inherently bold relief, as Jews were the only noteworthy minority of Northern Christendom and part of a diverse society under Islam. Exclusion of the more diverse areas under Christendom, in combination with all-too brief mention of the “exceptions” that occurred under Islam–namely the Almohad raids and the cruelty of the Fatimids of Egypt, parts of Islam where Jews were the only minority–limits the overlap of dependant variables in Cohen’s analysis.
Additionally, intermittent inclusion of information on the Jews of the Midi is not sufficiently justified. Cohen chooses to make comparisons involving them because the region, unlike others of Southern Europe, was never held by Islam or other medieval powers. The evidence included in the work seems to indicate that those Midi Jews did live under more congenial conditions than their Northern brethren–but it is not clear what Cohen intends to prove with this. Beyond the context they provide, these sections result in a distracting branch-point that ultimately points to complexities beyond the scope of Cohen’s study.
*negative perception of Jewish Christian relations, Jewish Muslim relations, and general evidence that disparages either/both views
The history Cohen presents formulates our understanding of the Jewish struggle from the 7th century CE into the modern day. It explains modern Sephardic support of neo-lachrymose ideas, and the tensions this has sown into the social structure of the Israeli state. It is also relevant to [Christendom’s] persisting perceptions of Judaism, such as ties to moneylending and the devil.
In seeking to clarify the reasons behind medieval Jews’ disenfranchisement, rather than challenge the existence or degree thereof, Cohen fashions an expansive history of the prejudices levied against them in parts of the world during the middle ages.
However, potential weaknesses arise when our attention shifts to the matter of scope. Though Cohens argument is very solid–antisemitism existed in medieval Christendom and not in medieval Islam–it becomes somewhat arbitrary when its boundaries are reassessed. In the introduction, Cohen explains that he has “found it fruitful to focus on the Latin West and mainly on the northern lands” in his study. This sets our two landscapes in inherently bold relief, as Jews were the only noteworthy minority of Northern Christendom and part of a diverse society under Islam. Exclusion of the more diverse areas under Christendom, in combination with all-too brief mention of the “exceptions” that occurred under Islam–namely the Almohad raids and the cruelty of the Fatimids of Egypt, parts of Islam where Jews were the only minority–limits the overlap of dependant variables in Cohen’s analysis.
Additionally, intermittent inclusion of information on the Jews of the Midi is not sufficiently justified. Cohen chooses to make comparisons involving them because the region, unlike others of Southern Europe, was never held by Islam or other medieval powers. The evidence included in the work seems to indicate that those Midi Jews did live under more congenial conditions than their Northern brethren–but it is not clear what Cohen intends to prove with this. Beyond the context they provide, these sections result in a distracting branch-point that ultimately points to complexities beyond the scope of Cohen’s study.
*negative perception of Jewish Christian relations, Jewish Muslim relations, and general evidence that disparages either/both views
December 16, 2016
الكتاب 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.
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.
August 25, 2021
I think this book was kinda racist but I can't find anything else that isn't $125 that covers how Jews were treated in Medieval Islam so it'll have to do for now.
August 6, 2018
Let Us Compare Mythologies
An interesting and scholarly read on the large scale socio-political relationship of Jews in the middle ages. Cohen holds that whereas animosity towards Jews in Christian countries was directed specifically and theologically towards Jews, in the case of the Muslim world Jews generally enjoyed (or suffered) similar treatment to other other dhimmi groups, usually Christians.
Chapter 1 compares modern mythologies. The first is that of the shiny happy dhimmi who was both protected and prospered under Islam. Cohen argues that this originated from 19th century Jews hoping to challenge Christian societies to support political emancipation. This gets picked up in 20th century polemics as a statement that Jews and Muslims co-existed as brothers until the advent of modern Zionism.
The contrasting myth is that Jews were always second class citizens, victims of a specific intolerance. This serves to give a deeper rational for 20th century Arab and Iranian antisemitism and (a conjecture which I found interesting, but arguable) is sometimes used to raise the status of (or level of empathy towards) Oriental Jews with respect to the narrative of Ashkenazic of pogroms and the Holocaust.
Chapter 2 looks at the theological bases for conflict. The Christian vision as the "New Israel" begged the Augustian question that if Christianity replaced Judaism, why were the Jews still around. Islam instead had the doctrine of tarif - that Jews had falsified parts of their Torah and were in error and might still come around. In Christians Muslims had a more numerous competition to deal with than Jews.
Chapters 3 and 4:. The Christian Theodosian (later Justinianic) Code barred Jews from obtaining political power over Christians; however Jewish serfs were better off than Christian serfs having many of the rights of freemen to move around where they chose. Jewish rights eroded from 11th and 14th century where Jews lost the right to bear arms and in France Jews became the property of barons of the territory they lived in. In Muslim jurisdictions, governed by the Pact of Umar (pp55), Jews were sometimes allowed to achieve political office - Muslims found more honor in fighting than in state service (pp67) They were not allowed to bear arms - which made them subject to the whims of Qadi's, Sultans, brigands and soldiers. The hated jizya poll tax was collected from every Jewish male of age and in a manner required to symbolically humiliate the payer. Dhimmi merchants paid twice the commercial taxes paid by Muslims. In certain periods the neck would be stamped as proof of payment; Yet Jews feared that non-payment would lead to canceling the Pact and non-protection.
In contrast Christendom leaders were bribed to avoid violence against Jews. The uncertainly of this arrangement was less preferable and more onerous.
Chapter 5-8 examines money lending, mercantile rights, social relations and residency rights. Both societies got around the prohibition against usury by using lenders from other religious groups, though Jews were more vilified for this in Europe. Men could mix socially, but women were more sequestered in Islam than in Judaism and this was problematic - I would have liked to have had more material on women. Muslim men could marry Jewish women who could privately practice Judaism, but not attend synagogue or raise their children as Jews.
Chapter 9 on public religious debates, was more relevant to Christianity, where Jews were forced to engage in a trial by debate of their religious doctrines - a difficult position as even if they won they lost. Chapter 10 looks at then Jewish response to persecution - European Jews tending more to memorialize victimhood and to weave it into the Jewish national historic memory, whereas Sephardim did not. No satisfying explanation was offered. Perhaps the answer lies in the host society's notions of time and progress vs timelessness.
One concludes that in both worlds oppression took place, that tolerance co-existed with intolerance. Taking the long view, if either society were completely hostile the Jews would not have survived. It is also possible to drown in a river who's average depth is only 3 inches. How one views this depends which parts of the river you happen to be in at the moment.
An interesting and scholarly read on the large scale socio-political relationship of Jews in the middle ages. Cohen holds that whereas animosity towards Jews in Christian countries was directed specifically and theologically towards Jews, in the case of the Muslim world Jews generally enjoyed (or suffered) similar treatment to other other dhimmi groups, usually Christians.
Chapter 1 compares modern mythologies. The first is that of the shiny happy dhimmi who was both protected and prospered under Islam. Cohen argues that this originated from 19th century Jews hoping to challenge Christian societies to support political emancipation. This gets picked up in 20th century polemics as a statement that Jews and Muslims co-existed as brothers until the advent of modern Zionism.
The contrasting myth is that Jews were always second class citizens, victims of a specific intolerance. This serves to give a deeper rational for 20th century Arab and Iranian antisemitism and (a conjecture which I found interesting, but arguable) is sometimes used to raise the status of (or level of empathy towards) Oriental Jews with respect to the narrative of Ashkenazic of pogroms and the Holocaust.
Chapter 2 looks at the theological bases for conflict. The Christian vision as the "New Israel" begged the Augustian question that if Christianity replaced Judaism, why were the Jews still around. Islam instead had the doctrine of tarif - that Jews had falsified parts of their Torah and were in error and might still come around. In Christians Muslims had a more numerous competition to deal with than Jews.
Chapters 3 and 4:. The Christian Theodosian (later Justinianic) Code barred Jews from obtaining political power over Christians; however Jewish serfs were better off than Christian serfs having many of the rights of freemen to move around where they chose. Jewish rights eroded from 11th and 14th century where Jews lost the right to bear arms and in France Jews became the property of barons of the territory they lived in. In Muslim jurisdictions, governed by the Pact of Umar (pp55), Jews were sometimes allowed to achieve political office - Muslims found more honor in fighting than in state service (pp67) They were not allowed to bear arms - which made them subject to the whims of Qadi's, Sultans, brigands and soldiers. The hated jizya poll tax was collected from every Jewish male of age and in a manner required to symbolically humiliate the payer. Dhimmi merchants paid twice the commercial taxes paid by Muslims. In certain periods the neck would be stamped as proof of payment; Yet Jews feared that non-payment would lead to canceling the Pact and non-protection.
In contrast Christendom leaders were bribed to avoid violence against Jews. The uncertainly of this arrangement was less preferable and more onerous.
Chapter 5-8 examines money lending, mercantile rights, social relations and residency rights. Both societies got around the prohibition against usury by using lenders from other religious groups, though Jews were more vilified for this in Europe. Men could mix socially, but women were more sequestered in Islam than in Judaism and this was problematic - I would have liked to have had more material on women. Muslim men could marry Jewish women who could privately practice Judaism, but not attend synagogue or raise their children as Jews.
Chapter 9 on public religious debates, was more relevant to Christianity, where Jews were forced to engage in a trial by debate of their religious doctrines - a difficult position as even if they won they lost. Chapter 10 looks at then Jewish response to persecution - European Jews tending more to memorialize victimhood and to weave it into the Jewish national historic memory, whereas Sephardim did not. No satisfying explanation was offered. Perhaps the answer lies in the host society's notions of time and progress vs timelessness.
One concludes that in both worlds oppression took place, that tolerance co-existed with intolerance. Taking the long view, if either society were completely hostile the Jews would not have survived. It is also possible to drown in a river who's average depth is only 3 inches. How one views this depends which parts of the river you happen to be in at the moment.
May 12, 2017
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 semi-safe 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.
April 11, 2015
In this medium-length 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 multi-factored. 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 clear-cut 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 crypto-Jews and to have returned to their religion when Almohad fanaticism subsided, whereas Christian-Muslim 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 post-dating 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 anti-Semitism started to burgeon in the Muslim world since the 19th Century? Cohen hints at some resolutions such as the changing nationalist model of the Muslim world. Pan-Arabism and straightforward nationalism are alien to Islam, with its model of the global Ummah and its exemptions and protections for Dhimmi. Now that Western-style, secular nation nation states have arisen, starting in the 19th 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.
Of course, "tolerance" is an equivocal term, and the difference is not as clear-cut 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 crypto-Jews and to have returned to their religion when Almohad fanaticism subsided, whereas Christian-Muslim 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 post-dating 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 anti-Semitism started to burgeon in the Muslim world since the 19th Century? Cohen hints at some resolutions such as the changing nationalist model of the Muslim world. Pan-Arabism and straightforward nationalism are alien to Islam, with its model of the global Ummah and its exemptions and protections for Dhimmi. Now that Western-style, secular nation nation states have arisen, starting in the 19th 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.
December 11, 2017
Argument was very heavy handily given early in the book and it felt like the evidence was hand picked. Still a very good overview of this time period and inter-religious interaction.
May 30, 2012
Cohen tries to rectify unrealistic claim in both extremes of Judeo-Muslim conflicts. Muslims claim that Jews live peacefully within benevolent Islam rule until the establishment of the state of Israel which shred everything into pieces and bits. Similarly, Jews voiced that their live under Islamic rule suffer more, or at least as much prosecution as their brethren in Christian land.
Going down the historical records, comparing the legal status, economic factor, social class and religiosity on both societies, the Jews indeed enjoy greater opportunity and much less prosecution in Muslim land during middle ages. The book focuses on seeking explanation on WHY is that so.
Going down the historical records, comparing the legal status, economic factor, social class and religiosity on both societies, the Jews indeed enjoy greater opportunity and much less prosecution in Muslim land during middle ages. The book focuses on seeking explanation on WHY is that so.
March 17, 2010
Really important book, especially for its introduction and opening chapter on the myth/counter-myth of Jewish-Christian-Muslim relations, and the modern political developments that have led to the propagation of lachrymose/neo-lachrymose history. Did not necessarily learn anything I didn't already know from the European perspective, but the Muslim perspective was fascinating.
May 2, 2015
An academic study of the differences in treatment of Jews under "Christianity" and Islam. The author is only covering the Middle Ages and shows Jews being treated, for the most part, much better through the time period in Islamic ruled territory than under "Christian" domination. It is also noted that Jews received harsher treatment in Northern Europe than in the Mediterranean region.
June 26, 2007
Cohen exposes the ahistoricism of the view that Arab Muslim culture and society is innately especially anti-Semitic. He carefully documents that during the Middle Ages, Jews fared far better within Arab Muslim societies in the Middle East than they did within Christian societies in Europe.
February 28, 2013
Bought for a class on Jewish history. My instructor thinks this is a great book, but I think the author is incredibly biased. I have a hard time taking his work seriously.
March 15, 2014
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.
Want to read
July 4, 2014بين الهلال والصليب
Displaying 1 - 16 of 16 reviews