User:Aminz/The neo-lachrymose conception of Jewish-Arab history

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The neo-lachrymose conception of Jewish-Arab history is a term dubbed by Mark Cohen to describe the new historiographical view of the Jewish-Arab history in which the life of the Jews under the Muslim rule was no better, if not worst, than that of the Jews in Christian rule. [1] It is "a gloomy representation of Jewish life in the lands of Islam that emphasizes the continuity of oppression and persecution from the time of Muhammad until the demise of most Arab Jewish communities in the aftermath of the 1948 Arab-Israeli war... this historical vision has won broad acceptance among both scholars and the general public in Israel and the West"[2]. Scholars like Bernard Lewis and Mark Cohen however reject this vision as a myth.[1][3] Cohen argues that "by any standard, Jewish life was better under Islam than under Christianity."[1] Prior to Cohen, Salo W. Baron had previously applied the term lachrymose conception of Jewish-Arab history more generally to the Jewish historical experience.[4]


Contents

[edit] Historical Background

During the nineteenth century, the Jewish historians were struggling in Europe for being treated as equals.[1] It seemed obvious to them that there were more comfort for Jews under Muslim rule than the Christian rule.[1] At this time, these historians were looking back with envy at the Jewish integration in Muslim society particularly during the Golden Age in Spain.[1] The little sympathy for Christianity as a religion together with modern persecutions made these historians to romantize the Jewish life under Islam.[1] One hundred years later, the Jewish dream of integration in the society was shattered by the Holocaust, reinforcing the belief that Christianity is basically intolerant of Judaism while Islam is more tolerant.[1] This view forming a basic tenet of Jewish histography remained unchallenged until recent years. The formation of the state of Israel in the lands previously ruled by Muslims changed the situation.[1] Muslims saw the state of Israel as a Western and Christian imposition on themselves arguing that the Christians are the ones who should compensate the Jews by for example giving them a land since Muslims have been historically more tolerant of Jews than Christians.[1] In response to this political challenge, the Jewish historians produced "The neo-lachrymose conception of Jewish-Arab history", presenting life under Islam as equally bad if not worst than that under the Christian rule. [1]

[edit] Cohen's Understanding of the term

Daniel J. Lasker explains the view of Mark Cohen on this new histriographical:

He [Mark Cohen] sees it as an attempt to respond to the Muslim appropriation of the original myth of interfaith utopia. The existence of Muslim antisemitism and persecution are cited as proof of Muslim intolerance. In the political sphere, Jewish immigrants to Israel from Arab countries are presented as refugees from persecution. This new historigraphical conception, according to Cohen, is only a countermyth to the original myth of Jewish-Muslim symbiosis and cannot be maintained in the light of historical reality...Cohen finds that the 19th-century conception of greater Jewish comfort under Islam was essentially correct. Though aware that the romanticizing view was misplaced, Cohen argues that by any standard, Jewish life was better under Islam than under Christianity.[1]

[edit] See also

[edit] Notes

  1. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l Daniel J. Lasker, Review of Under Crescent and Cross. The Jews in the Middle Ages by Mark R. Cohen, The Jewish Quarterly Review, New Ser., Vol. 88, No. 1/2 (Jul., 1997), pp. 76-78
  2. ^ Joel Beinin, The Dispersion of Egyptian Jewry: Culture, Politics, and the Formation of a Modern Diaspora, p.14, University of California Press
  3. ^ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Lewis
  4. ^ William M. Brinner's Review of "The Jews of Arab Lands in Modern Times" by Norman A. Stillman, AJS Review, Vol. 18, No. 1. (1993), pp. 132-134