Review: Comparing Crescent and Cross Author(s): Joel L.

Kraemer Reviewed work(s): Under Crescent and Cross: The Jews in the Middle Ages by Mark R. Cohen Source: The Journal of Religion, Vol. 77, No. 3 (Jul., 1997), pp. 449-454 Published by: The University of Chicago Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1206999 Accessed: 29/12/2009 13:07
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpress. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

The University of Chicago Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Journal of Religion.

http://www.jstor.org

ComparingCrescentand Cross*
Joel L. Kraemer /
TheUniversityof Chicago

The starting point of Mark Cohen's Under Crescent and Crossis the status of Jews under Islam and the conflicting perspectives on this issue: "the myth of the Islamic-Jewish interfaith utopia" and "the countermyth of Islamic persecution of Jews." The utopian myth of tolerance helped Jewish Orientalists and historians (like Heinrich Graetz) criticize the medieval Christian treatment of Jews and chide liberal Christian Europe; the same myth helped Arabs argue that Zionism shattered a utopia of ArabJewish harmony under Islamic rule. The countermyth of Islamic persecution is sometimes cited by Jews from Arab lands, like Bat Ye'or, who in The Dhimmi lamented "thirteen centuries of suffering and humiliation that Islam heaped on the Jews and Christians."' Mark Cohen argues plausibly (and not unexpectedly) that both myth and countermyth are distortions. He suggests a comparative approach: contrasting Jewish experience under "Islamdom" (to use Marshall Hodgson's term) with Jewish life under Christendom. He concludes that Islam was more humane and tolerant than Christianity, and the book is an attempt to explain why. The upshot is that Jewish life was harsh under the Crescent but even more cruel under the Cross, and so the first was relativelybenign, the lesser of two evils. Comparing the Jews under Islamdom and Christendom is a tall order. Cohen invested enormous energies in this undertaking and read widely in medieval European history, thus supplementing his fine knowledge of Middle Eastern history. UnderCrescent Crossis a valuable resource for and the study of Jewish history in both civilizations, appealing to both the general reader and the specialist. Cohen restricts his scope to the Latin West, mainly northern Europe, for the sake of sharper contrast: "The contrasts in the North are simply more vivid and less encumbered than in the South, hence the reciprocal light cast on Jewish-gentile relations in Islam shines more brightly" (p. xx). Consequently, Cohen omits Italy and Spain as cases too special for useful comparison and visits Mediterranean France (the Midi) sporadically. In effect, Cohen omits from consideration the northern littoral of the Mediterranean, from Spain through Italy (and Sicily) to Greece and the Balkans (and thus Eastern Christianity).
* Mark R. Cohen, Under Crescent and Cross:TheJews in the Middle Ages (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1994), xxi+280 pp., $29.95 (cloth). 'Bat Ye'or (pseudonym), The Dhimmi: Jews and Christiansunder Islam (Rutherford, N.J., 1995), p. 28 (cited by Cohen, p. 11). ? 1997 by The University of Chicago. All rights reserved. 0022-4189/97/7703-0005$02.00

449

The Journal of Religion When selection of evidence is made to sharpen contrasts and to avoid what "spoils the clarity and hence the heuristic value of the comparison" (p. xx), the reader may wish to have other evidence that does spoil the clarity. Is not this precisely what a scientific analysis of the evidence requires? Otherwise, there is too much clarity, too much light shining brightly. The preselection creates a comparison of a modal (if not model) Islamic society with a sample Christian society, a faulty symmetry and false illusion of balance and proportion. Cohen's hypothesis of relative prosperity of Jews under Islam and their exclusion from Christian culture and society is challenged by examples from Spain and Italy. Consider the experience of Sicilian Jews under the thriving culture of Frederick II's rule, which brought together Jews and Arabs, and where Jewish scholars worked with Christians (e.g., Jacob Anatoli with Michael Scot). And consider the cultural life under Alfonso X the Wise, who assembled Jewish scholars in Toledo, presided over a cultural synthesis that was Arabic, Hebrew, and Latin (or Castilian), and had cordial relations with Jews and engaged them in the diplomatic and fiscal services (until the end of his reign). Now, it is perhaps unfair to expect too much, but a question of method is at stake. The courts of Frederick II and Alfonso X resembled other Mediterranean (mainly Islamic) courts. May we not often be dealing with a phenomenon of Mediterranean culture vs. northern European culture, not of Islamic vs. Christian culture? Cohen's omission of intellectual life from his purview leads to some distortion. Thus the cooperation ofJewish and Christian scientists, translators, and philosophers and contacts of Jewish biblical exegetes with their Christian counterparts (in northern France!) drop from view, and Jewish life under Christendom appears bleaker than it was. The book covers much ground, from theology and religious polemics to legal, economic, and social issues. In keeping with the interests of this journal, it is best to focus on religious questions, which the author considers formative and pivotal. Cohen cites the statement of Moses Maimonides in his Letterto Yemen, regarding "the nation of Ishmael" (Islam) that "no nation has ever done more harm to Israel. None has matched it in debasing and humiliating us" (pp. xvi, 198-99). How might we understand this harsh judgment on Islam by so great a Jewish authority, one who lived at the peak of the Golden Age, a man immersed and well versed in Arab-Islamic culture and society? Cohen (and others) note correctly Maimonides' personal experience of persecution in Spain and North Africa under Almohad rule. Maimonides' statement is grave because he was well aware of adversities in Jewish history: Nebuchadnezzar, Antiochus Epiphanes, the destruction of the Second Temple, the Hadrianic persecutions, and so forth. By stressing the debasement and humiliation Jews suffered under Islam, 450

Crescent and Cross Maimonides alludes to a verse in the Qur'an (2:61) that humiliation and wretchedness are stamped upon the Jews and that they were visited with wrath from Allah because they disbelieved in Allah's revelations and killed the prophets wrongfully (and see 3:112). To be sure, Maimonides did not live under Christendom. In this regard, the testimony of Abraham Ibn Ezra is more telling because he traveled from Muslim Spain and North Africa to Christian Italy and France, and even got to London; he could compare the two civilizations. Significantly, for Abraham Ibn Ezra, the terror of the Muslim Almohads and the havoc they created surpassed anything he knew in Christian Europe. While living in northern France (Rouen), he made apocalyptic astrological predictions (ca. 1152) about the end of the Kingdom of Ishmael and predicted the victory of their Christian enemies. Now we may ascribe this to feelings of revenge, but his anguish merits our careful attention. The Almohad persecutions in North Africa and Spain receive mild treatment by Cohen. However, the Almohad empire was not a passing phase in Islamic history; it lasted from 1130 to 1269 in North Africa and Spain and intermittently caused massive destruction of Jewish communities. Massacres and forced conversion drove Jews to take refuge mainly in ChristianSpain, Italy, and Sicily. Almohad rule came as no relief following the oppressive dynasty of the Almoravids (1056-1147). Cohen indeed notes Abraham Ibn Ezra's mordant elegy for the Spanish and North African Jewish communities annihilated by the Almohads (p. 183). Spain is the best testing ground for comparing Crescent and Cross. Here, we may observe Jews in similar conditions under the two orders, yet during hard times on both sides. Moreover, we have copious testimony of witnesses. Besides Abraham Ibn Ezra, there was, for instance, Moses Ibn Ezra, who fled Granada and Andalusia and wandered in the Christian (northern) Spain from 1095 until (he died in) 1135. There was Judah Halevi who described vividly being caught between Seir (Christianity) and Kedar (Islam). And there was Al-Harizi who lived under both systems and expressed his sentiments eloquently in his poetry. Two powerful movements-the Muslim-Berber (Almoravid and Almohad) invasions of Spain and the Reconquista-marked a fateful turning point for Jewish history: the devastation and decline of Islamic Spain and the ascent of Christian Spain. This is a story worth telling. The flight of Jews to Christian Spain created thriving Jewish communities of artisans, merchants, scholars, and so on. Jews fled from Muslim persecution, taking refuge mainly in Castile, principally in Toledo. There, they fought in 1196 alongside Christians against Muslim forces; Arab historians accused the Jews of fighting for the Reconquista. Jews participated in the Reconquista by apportioning lands and developing territories and were active in the administration and diplomatic service of Christian rulers. Jews welcomed 451

The Journal of Religion the Muslim defeat-"better under Edom (Christianity) than Ishmael (Islam)." The archbishop of Toledo made the city a great center for translating scientific and philosophical books from Arabic into Latin. The famous Poema del Cid (ca. 1140) reflects reasonably tolerant Christian attitudes toward Jews during the Reconquista. To be sure, Jews suffered horrificly under the Reconquista; given the choice, however, they fled from Muslim to Christian territory and not the reverse; they voted with their feet. Cohen contends that Jewish-Christian theological tensions were more acrimonious than were Jewish-Muslim debates. He maintains that ChrisIsrael, suptianity is anti-Jewish by definition: it claimed to be the Verus planting the Jews, and the adversusjudaeos tradition became essential to Christian self-definition (pp. 20-21). Citing G. Stroumsa's theory of Christianity's ambivalence, its love-hate (irenic-eristic) attitude toward Judaism, Cohen asserts, "Unlike Christianity, with its love-hate ambivalence toward the enemy-Judaism-Islam evinces no ambiguity about the infidel-Jew and Christian" (p. 24). This lack of ambivalence, however, may have been of scant comfort for dysphoric Jews living under Islam. They may have preferred some ambivalence. Islam taught that the mission of the prophet Muhammad and the revelation of the Qur'an abrogated the Jewish (and Christian) revelation. Moreover, Islam taught that the Jews (and Christians) had distorted, falsified, and corrupted their Scriptures, so the very text of the Bible is garbled and unreliable. However, there is as wide a theological gap between Islam and Judaism as between Christianity and Judaism. Consider that Maimonides (in a legal responsum) permitted Jews to study the Law with Christians but not with Muslims because Christians accept the validity of the text while disputing its interpretation, whereas the Muslims reject the very words of the text. Christian acceptance of the Old Testament, though as a prefiguration of Christianity, provides common ground for Judaism and Christianity. Christian exegetes like Jerome and Origen studied Hebrew and consulted Jewish scholars. In the medieval period we find a similar effort and creative interchange between Christian and Jewish Biblical exegetes. The mutual influence of the Victorines (Hugh and Andrew of St. Victor) and the northern French school of exegetes (Rashi, Joseph Qara, Samuel ben Meir) is striking; Beryl Smalley, Sarah Kamin, and others have studied this. But Cohen mentions Rashi and his school onlyas polemicists against and sees their emphasis on the "simple, literal meaning of the Christianity biblical text" as an effort to counter Christian spiritual, prefigurative exegesis (pp. 141-42). Their rationalistic peshat (contextual) method, however, belonged to the wider intellectual matrix of the Renaissance of the twelfth century, and we see it in the Victorines and other Christian authors. Jews met with Christians in northern France to discuss the mean452

Crescent and Cross ing of Scriptures. As for northern France, Cohen bypasses the social, economic, and cultural life of the Jews of Rouen, an important Jewish center in Normandy, illumined by Norman Golb in his Historyand Cultureof the Jews of Rouen in the MiddleAges (Tel Aviv, 1976), and only cites "the plight of the Jews of Rouen, France, in 1007" (p. 178). The Hebrew Bible may be a common text that separates Jew from Christian, but it is a common text.Jews and Muslims had no common text. Christianity, Cohen stresses, believed that it had superseded Judaism. In contrast, he sees Islam as coeval with Judaism since it traced itself back to Abraham (p. 25). He emphasizes the common genealogy of Arabs and Jews through a common ancestor and deduces that "Islam felt no need to establish its identity at the expense of the Jews" (p. 25). Islam, however, did establish its identity at the expense of the Jews (and Christians). Abraham may have been a common biological ancestor, but he was not a common spiritual ancestor (as Christianity holds). The Qur'an states: "No; Abraham in truth was not a Jew, neither a Christian; but he was a Muslim and one of pure faith."2Abraham was the first Muslim, the first believer, neither a Jew nor a Christian. Where does this leave the Jews (and Christians)-"the people of the book"? Theologically, they have no role; they are kdfirfn, infidels. Islam accepts Judaism and Christianity only by its definition of what they are. Islam supersedes Judaism (and Christianity) and replaces them forever. In the Christian view, there is a role for the Jews as witnesses to the faith taught by the prophets, as witnesses to divine justice, and as belonging to the economy of salvation. Christianity offers some theological rationale for Jewish survival. Thus, paradoxically, while Islam afforded Jews legal protection as Dhimmis, it provided no raison d'etre for their continued existence. What are the implications of Cohen's analysis for present-day dilemmas? Part of showing that Islam was better, more tolerant, and more humane is to presage something for the future, and this may be salutary. Matters between Muslims and Jews (and between Muslims and Christians) are not going so well, however, whereas Jews and Christians seem to have settled their differences. This is a question worth raising. The conflict between the church and the synagogue may be seen simpliciteras a parent-child struggle with the child's ambivalence toward the parent. The parent was retired to obsolescence, yet given a role. This struggle has subsided in the present age. The conflict of Judaism with Islam is a sibling rivalry between brothers; there is no ambivalence here; the

2 Qur'an, 3:67/60. This translation is from A. J. Arberry, The KoranInterpreted(Oxford, 1955), p. 55.

453

The Journal of Religion struggle has not subsided. Islam can accept only a converted Isaac as an equal. In the Christian West, Jews achieved equal status in the modern world, in an atmosphere of secularism and separation of Church and State. In the West, the separation of religious from civil law is ancient and venerable (see the Romanfas and lex), and separation of powers existed already in the medieval period. Such a separation of mosque and state is absurd in an Islamic polity, and all attempts at creating an Islamic polity, such as the one in Iran, relegate Jews to the traditional status of a protected people, a pariah class. Therefore, even if the experience of Jews under Christendom entailed exclusion, expulsion, and even extermination, there were seeds for commonalty and a basis for conceding equal civil status. Even if the experience of Jews under Islamdom was more traumafree, the model of an Islamic polity is one that does not admit equal status. In the present world, conflicts have become cultural and religiouscivilizational, as Samuel P. Huntington argued in "The Clash of Civilizations?"3 The conflicts are mainly between the West and non-Western civilizations (particularly Islam). In the present atmosphere of "unsecularization" and militant fundamentalism, the long conflict between Western and Islamic Civilization blazes ominously. This clash of civilizations is seen by the historian Bernard Lewis as "the perhaps irrational but surely historic reaction of an ancient rival against our Judeo-Christian heritage, our secular present, and the world-wide expansion of both."4
3 Samuel P. Huntington, "The Clash of Civilizations?" ForeignAffairs 72, no. 3 (Summer 1993): 22-49. 4Bernard Lewis, AtlanticMonthly266, no. 3 (September 1990): 47-60, esp. 60.

454