Mark Cohen p. 168's claim that Islam discouraged "nationalism" is arguable. But as I think on't, I suspect it's an argument Cohen will win. On points, as it were.
Patricia Crone's Nativist Prophets is a fair compendium of how "nationalism" - nativism, then - expressed itself under Arab Islamic dominion. Cohen might even be nuanced in light of Cohen's earlier chapters, which wax nostalgic on the convivencía practiced between Jew, Arab, and Berber across North Africa.
As long as each subgroup wore their ethnic markers in the souk, all lived in harmony. Separate but equal! So, yes, I judge Cohen correct; insofar as all would accept their lot in life under Islamic fatalism.
On occasion one group or the other rejected their lot. At that point the Nativist Prophet would appear: Barghawatas among the Imazighen, the Khorram Dên in Iran. Among the Jews: Abu 'Isa, or those guys in Yemen in Cohen's penultimate chapter. Maybe Shabtai Zvi.
I find that people on the outs under apartheid do not tend to accept their lot. Islam is apartheid: it takes what it has learnt in its dhimmi law, and applies it to Berbers, Iranians, and Indians. Those who argue for that - like Cohen - are arguing that case against the European alternative. But the actual primates, under this second-class state, don't compare their lot to the lot of their fellow citizens in some foreign land. They compare their lot to the lot of their alpha chimps. And they rise up.
As non Arabs, they abandon the Arab gospel.
No comments:
Post a Comment