中世紀(jì)世界生活手冊(cè)（二十三）
上一章
猶太社會(huì)
? ? ? ? ? 這一章節(jié)，我們將詳細(xì)探討?yīng)q太社區(qū)在中世紀(jì)基督教與穆斯林世界中艱難而微妙的地位。他們的社會(huì)地位時(shí)而被視為君主和哈里發(fā)不可或缺的“宮廷農(nóng)奴”，時(shí)而被視為經(jīng)濟(jì)不可或缺的商人和放債人，時(shí)而又被蔑視為基督的“敵人”。在這些極端之間，猶太社區(qū)得以繁榮發(fā)展，保留了主要的社會(huì)機(jī)構(gòu)與傳統(tǒng)，很大程度上保障其自主性與身份認(rèn)同。
The following section explores in detail the difficult and delicate position of Jewish communities in the Christian and Muslim medieval world. Their social status fluctuated between being considered indispensable to the monarchy and caliphate as “royal serfs” and to the economy as merchants and moneylenders to being despised as the “enemies” of Christ. In between the two extremes Jewish communities managed to thrive, maintaining key social institutions and traditions that largely safeguarded their autonomy and identity.
樂(lè)觀現(xiàn)實(shí)主義的概念
? ? ? ? ? 在基督教徒和穆斯林的統(tǒng)治下，猶太人的生存險(xiǎn)象環(huán)生。然而，盡管有威脅、大屠殺、驅(qū)逐、強(qiáng)迫皈依、十字軍東征的恐怖以及眾多對(duì)猶太人聚居區(qū)的限制，許多中世紀(jì)猶太人似乎仍堅(jiān)定地拒絕悲觀主義，提倡樂(lè)觀主義，選擇在世界上追求卓越。樂(lè)觀的現(xiàn)實(shí)主義是整個(gè)中世紀(jì)猶太哲學(xué)中的一個(gè)普遍主題，或多或少地體現(xiàn)在 10 世紀(jì)的薩阿迪亞·果昂（Saadya Gaon，阿拔斯王朝時(shí)期猶太教的一位重要的拉比、哲學(xué)家、解經(jīng)學(xué)家，猶太-阿拉伯語(yǔ)文學(xué)奠基人）、11 世紀(jì)的拉什（Rashi，全名：拉比 所羅門·本·依撒克·哈泰扎法提，中世紀(jì)的法國(guó)拉比，其撰寫了對(duì)《塔木德》與《塔納赫》的全面評(píng)述）和巴亞·伊本·帕庫(kù)達(dá)（Bahya ibn Pakuda，猶太哲學(xué)家和拉比，住在安達(dá)盧斯（現(xiàn)西班牙）的薩拉戈薩）、12 世紀(jì)的邁蒙尼德（Maimonides，塞法迪猶太哲學(xué)家、法學(xué)家、醫(yī)生）、亞伯拉罕·伊本·達(dá)烏德（Abraham ibn Daud，西班牙裔猶太天文學(xué)家、歷史學(xué)家和哲學(xué)家）、猶大·哈列維（Judah Halevi，11世紀(jì)西班牙猶太人醫(yī)生、詩(shī)人、哲學(xué)家，作品內(nèi)容涉及宗教和世俗方面。以《可薩人之書(shū)》聞名）和納賀蒙尼德（Nachmanides，中世紀(jì)猶太學(xué)者、西班牙塞法迪猶太拉比及圣經(jīng)注解家，對(duì)1099年十字軍東征之后的猶太人社區(qū)重建起著重要作用）以及 14 世紀(jì)的哈斯代·本·亞伯拉罕·克雷斯卡斯（Hasdai Crescas，猶太教哲學(xué)理性主義方法的主要實(shí)踐者之一）的學(xué)說(shuō)中。它還使猶太男女老幼的日常生活充滿活力，猶太商人在開(kāi)羅geniza（Genizah，猶太手稿片段和法蒂瑪行政文件的集合，這些文件保存在埃及福斯塔特或老開(kāi)羅本·埃茲拉猶太教堂的儲(chǔ)藏室中）書(shū)信中對(duì)困難和勝利的目擊描述就是例證。從 10 世紀(jì)到 13 世紀(jì)，猶太人周游世界，在海上與海難作斗爭(zhēng)，在貿(mào)易航線上與海盜作斗爭(zhēng)，在國(guó)際市場(chǎng)上與政治騷擾和商業(yè)危機(jī)作斗爭(zhēng)。商人們沒(méi)有耐心地接受現(xiàn)實(shí)，然后等待：他們承認(rèn)現(xiàn)實(shí)，然后開(kāi)始改善局面。
Jewish life was perilous under cross and crescent. Yet despite threats, pogroms, expulsions, forced conversions, the horrors of the Crusades, and restrictions to Jewish ghettos, many medieval Jews seemed steadfastly to refuse pessimism and to promote optimism, electing to presume excellence in the world. Optimistic realism was a pervasive theme throughout medieval Jewish philosophy, evidenced in greater or lesser degree in the teachings of the 10th-century Saadya Gaon; 11th-century Rashi and Bahya ibn Pakuda; 12th-century Maimonides, Abraham ibn Daud, Judah Halevi, and Nachmanides; and 14th-century Hasdai Crescas. It also animated daily life among Jewish men, women, and children, as exemplified in the eyewitness accounts of troubles and triumphs of Jewish traders in their Cairo geniza letters. Jews who traveled the world from the 10th through 13th centuries, battling on the sea against shipwreck, on the trade routes against piracy and thievery, and on the international markets against political molestation and mercantile disaster, did not simply wait for God’s help or for heavenly rewards for earthly suffering. Traders did not patiently accept what was and then wait: They acknowledged reality and then started bettering it.
? ? ? ? ? 猶太哲學(xué)認(rèn)為，在條件困難、神秘或無(wú)法解釋的情況下，有必要假定卓越。有意選擇對(duì)事實(shí)的正面解釋而非負(fù)面解釋，是履行一種被稱為“limud lekaf zekus”的成人禮，一種受祝福的義務(wù)。這就禁止了錯(cuò)誤的判斷、錯(cuò)誤的結(jié)論，并必然要求猶太人對(duì)一個(gè)人或一件事給予好的假設(shè)。在男女老幼的日常行為中，都有“疑罪從無(wú)”的要求。人們被教導(dǎo)要清楚地識(shí)別逆境，并將其轉(zhuǎn)化為機(jī)遇?；婢碁闄C(jī)遇也意味著化逆境為利潤(rùn)。學(xué)者 Goitein 和 Stillman 翻譯的猶太商人的書(shū)信就是這一理念的具體體現(xiàn)。
Jewish philosophy counseled that it was necessary to presume excellence when conditions were difficult, mysterious, or inexplicable. An obligation intentionally to select a positive over a negative interpretation of facts was a fulfillment of a mitzvah, a blessed obligation, called limud lekaf zekus. That prohibited false judging, false concluding, and necessarily required the Jew to provide a person or an incident with benefit of the doubt. Limud lekaf zekus had daily application in commonplace acts of men, women, and children. Taught to identify an adversity clearly, people were expected to turn it into an opportunity. Rotating adversity into opportunity also could mean rotating adversity into profit. Jewish merchants’ letters translated by scholars Goitein and Stillman illustrate that philosophy in action.
? ? ? ? ? 例如，1130 年，的黎波里一位名叫薩丹的父親不情愿地讓他的兒子去做買賣、去體驗(yàn)世界。這位父親喝多了酒，貿(mào)然許下諾言。他承諾兒子可以搭乘下一班船離開(kāi)，卻以為不會(huì)有船了。他被自己的輕率承諾所迷惑，但榮譽(yù)要求他遵守承諾。父親讓孩子走了，但他還是采取了預(yù)防措施，他提醒一位在國(guó)外做生意的朋友，請(qǐng)他買來(lái)一種叫“紫膠”（Lac）的染料、丁香樹(shù)皮、肉豆蔻和香木，讓這個(gè)沒(méi)有經(jīng)驗(yàn)的年輕人去售賣。如果父親無(wú)法再在家里教兒子，那么他就花錢請(qǐng)國(guó)外的朋友來(lái)培訓(xùn)孩子的商人技能。
In 1130, for instance, a father named Sadan in Tripoli reluctantly let his son go off to trade and to see the world. The father had made a rash promise when drinking too much. He had pledged that his son could leave on the next boat, thinking that no boats were forthcoming. Caught by his own rash promise, he was required by honor to abide by it. He let the boy go. But the father took the precaution of alerting a business friend abroad please to buy the dyestuff called lac, clove bark, nutmeg, and fragrant wood for the inexperienced youngster to sell. If the father could no longer teach his son at home, then he paid for the friend overseas to train the youth in the merchant profession.
? ? ? ? ? 第二封信件的日期是 13 世紀(jì)，信中介紹了Ibrahim ben Abu l-Surer，他在信中向福斯塔特的阿布·納賽爾講述了他期待購(gòu)買的劣質(zhì)藥材以及在鄉(xiāng)村旅行過(guò)程中的不愉快。他留在那里只是為了討還欠他的債務(wù)。他說(shuō)，對(duì)于一個(gè)聰明人來(lái)說(shuō)，尋求溫飽和尋求榮耀一樣，都是強(qiáng)大的動(dòng)力。
A second letter dated in the 13th century introduced Ibrahim ben Abu l-Surer, who wrote to Abu Nasr of Fustat about the poor quality of medicinal goods he was expecting to buy and the unpleasantness of the countryside where he was traveling. Ibrahim remained there only for collecting the debts owed to him. Seeking sustenance, he said, was as powerful an impetus for an intelligent man as seeking glory.
? ? ? ? ? 1025 年，西西里島巴勒莫?jiǎng)偙话菡纪ト斯ハ?，約瑟夫·本·塞繆爾在危急中寫信請(qǐng)求一位可信賴的朋友幫忙。約瑟夫?qū)?ài)妻和幼子留在了埃及家中。和許多海外商人一樣，他在出發(fā)前給了妻子一份有條件的離婚協(xié)議書(shū)，這樣，如果他因自然或暴力原因死亡，而又沒(méi)有確鑿證據(jù)證明他的死亡，妻子就可以自由地再婚。有條件離婚的目的是為了讓這位婦女?dāng)[脫猶太法中既不是合法妻子也不是合法寡婦的地位（agunah）。
Writing in peril from Palermo, Sicily, in 1025, just sacked by the Byzantines, Joseph ben Samuel requested help from a trusted friend. Joseph had left at home in Egypt his beloved wife and young son. As did many an overseas trader, he had given his wife a conditional bill of divorce before departure so that if he died by natural or violent causes without confirmatory witness to his death, she would be free to remarry. The purpose of the conditional divorce was to enable the woman to escape agunah, the status in Jewish law of neither legal wife nor legal widow.
? ? ? ? ? 約瑟夫·本·塞繆爾講述了他在Zahlaq遭遇海難，沒(méi)有錢也沒(méi)有衣服，赤身裸體來(lái)到的黎波里的經(jīng)歷。那里的一個(gè)猶太人欠他錢，這些錢能讓他夠買到衣服和食物。否則，他將不得不乞求施舍。一到巴勒莫，約瑟夫就發(fā)現(xiàn)一個(gè)來(lái)自Barqua的人拆掉了約瑟夫擁有的一座小房子，又建起了另一座。但約瑟夫現(xiàn)在太窮了，無(wú)法提起訴訟。他尋找欠他錢的弟弟，但弟弟不見(jiàn)了。因此，約瑟夫請(qǐng)求他的朋友幫助他，因?yàn)榭紤]到他岌岌可危的處境，他可能至少兩年都回不了家。要么與妻子離婚，要么說(shuō)服妻子前往戰(zhàn)區(qū)與他一起生活。
Joseph ben Samuel recounted his shipwreck in Zahlaq, surviving without coin or garment and arriving in Tripoli naked. A Jew there who owed him money enabled him to buy clothing and food. Otherwise, he would have had to beg for charity. Once in Palermo, Joseph discovered that a man from Barqua had pulled down a small house Joseph had owned and erected another. But Joseph now was too poor to file a lawsuit. He looked for his brother, who owed him money, but he had vanished. Therefore, Joseph asked his friend to help him either to divorce his wife, for he might not return home for at least two years given his precarious situation or to convince his wife to travel to the war zone to live there with him.
? ? ? ? ? 他的計(jì)劃理性而莊重，帶著家庭的激情，將最終決定權(quán)交給了妻子：如果她接受離婚，他將為孩子寄去贍養(yǎng)費(fèi)。如果她不接受，他就想知道她是否愿意與他一起去西西里定居。如果她愿意前往，她就會(huì)宣誓確認(rèn)自己的決定，而他就會(huì)安排她和孩子們與他一起住在那里。他請(qǐng)朋友為他的小兒子找個(gè)老師。
His rational, dignified plan, tinged with family passion, rested ultimate power of decision with his wife: If she accepted the divorce, then he would send alimony for the boy. But if not, then he wondered whether she would be prepared to settle with him in Sicily. If she were willing to travel, she would confirm her decision by oath, and he would make the arrangements for her and their son to live there with him. He asked his friend to find a teacher for his little son.
? ? ? ? ? 在 1149 年的第四封信中，西西里島的猶太東方香料出口商阿布·賽義德已經(jīng)離家三年。他寫信給在埃及的兄長(zhǎng)阿布·巴拉卡特（Abu l-Barakat），講述了他從突尼斯啟程后的奇遇。他的家人病了四個(gè)月，他的寶貝兒子死了，他的妻子和另一個(gè)兒子活了下來(lái)。離開(kāi)突尼斯后，他們?cè)诤Ｉ显庥隽艘粓?chǎng)災(zāi)難性的風(fēng)暴，被迫在一個(gè)叫Ghumur的小島上登陸，在那里停留了 20 天，只能靠吃蕁麻維持生命。這一次，他們?cè)诤Ｉ媳徽勰チ?/strong> 35 天，在海上迷失了方向。四艘海上駁船中，只有他們幸存下來(lái)。到達(dá)西西里島后，他們被折磨得筋疲力盡，整整一個(gè)月吃不下面包，也聽(tīng)不懂別人對(duì)他們說(shuō)的話。
In a fourth letter, dated 1149, Abu Said, a Jewish Oriental spice exporter in Sicily, had been away from home for three years. He wrote to his elder brother, Abu l-Barakat, in Egypt, relating his odyssey after embarking from Tunis. His family fell ill for four months. His baby son died. His wife and other son survived. Upon leaving Tunis they were seized by a disastrous storm at sea, forcing them to land on an island called Ghumur, where they remained for 20 days surviving by eating nothing other than nettles. This time they were tormented on the waters for 35 days and were thought lost at sea. Of four sea barges only theirs survived. After arrival in Sicily, they were so exhausted from their ordeal that they unable to eat bread or to understand a word of what was said to them for a full month.?
? ? ? ? ? 阿布·賽義德講述了這些不幸遭遇，以解釋他和家人為何不前往埃及，因?yàn)樗麄兊慕?jīng)歷讓他們不愿再次旅行。他沒(méi)有將自己的不幸歸咎于上帝、風(fēng)暴或命運(yùn)，也沒(méi)有聲稱自己遭受的苦難使他有權(quán)得到社會(huì)的關(guān)懷。他所講述的危險(xiǎn)只是他必須留在國(guó)外彌補(bǔ)經(jīng)濟(jì)損失、工作獲利、然后才能回國(guó)的前奏。他為工作和勝利而歡欣鼓舞，理性地計(jì)劃著下一步的行動(dòng)。他甚至邀請(qǐng)他的兄弟一起去西西里，因?yàn)槟抢锸卿N售東方香料的主要市場(chǎng)。為了享樂(lè)，也為了生意興隆，他建議他們一起工作，以提高家族聲望和榮譽(yù)，讓他們彼此“快樂(lè)”。
Abu Said recounted these misadventures to explain why he and his family did not travel to Egypt, as their experiences had made them reluctant to travel. He did not blame God, the storm, or fate for his misfortune. He did not claim suffering as entitling him to community care. His recounting of perils was preface to his necessity to remain abroad to make up financial losses, to work for profit, and only then to return home. Cheerful to work and to triumph, he rationally planned his next moves. He even invited his brother to join him in Sicily because it was a prime market for the sale of Oriental spices. For pleasure and for good business, he recommended their working together to increase family prestige and honor and to make them “happy” with one another.
法律地位
? ? ? ? ? 在猶太人所居住的基督教或穆斯林社會(huì)中，日常生活的現(xiàn)實(shí)對(duì)猶太人的自身利益和在這個(gè)世界上繁衍生息的合理愿望提出了挑戰(zhàn)。禁食法、歧視性的財(cái)政待遇以及偶爾的貧民窟化是基督教和穆斯林政府強(qiáng)加給猶太人的一些區(qū)別對(duì)待的法律策略。不過(guò)，在大多數(shù)情況下，猶太人被允許信奉自己的宗教，享有自治權(quán)，不受非猶太人對(duì)其內(nèi)部事務(wù)的干涉，主權(quán)當(dāng)局還鼓勵(lì)猶太人保持這些宗教和法律制度的完整性，以確保社會(huì)和平和經(jīng)濟(jì)穩(wěn)定，使猶太人上交的稅收源源不斷地流入基督教或穆斯林國(guó)庫(kù)。正如雅科夫·古根海姆 (Yacov Guggenheim)、馬克·科恩 (Mark Cohen)和其他學(xué)者所指出的，對(duì)猶太人的法律限制經(jīng)常被違反，猶太人獲得的特權(quán)“通常是經(jīng)過(guò)細(xì)致談判并考慮到雙方利益的妥協(xié)結(jié)果”（古根海姆，75 頁(yè)）。在基督教和伊斯蘭教統(tǒng)治下，猶太人的法律地位在某些方面有所不同。??
Self-interest and the logical desire to flourish in this world were challenged by the realities of daily life in the wider Christian or Muslim society in which Jews resided. Sumptuary laws, discriminatory fiscal treatment, and occasionally ghettoization were some of the legal strategies of differentiation that Christian and Muslim governments imposed upon the Jews. For the most part, however, Jews were allowed to practice their religion, enjoyed autonomy from non-Jewish interference in their internal affairs, and were encouraged by the sovereign authorities to maintain these religious and legal institutions intact in order to ensure the social peace and economic stability required to maintain the steady flow of Jewish taxes into Christian or Muslim coffers. As Yacov Guggenheim, Mark Cohen, and other scholars have shown, legal restrictions placed upon Jews were often breached, and the privileges that Jews received “were normally compromises minutely negotiated and taking account of both parties’ interests” (Guggenheim 75). The legal status of Jews differed in certain ways under Christian and Islamic rule.
皇家金庫(kù)忠仆
? ? ? ? ? 在基督教歐洲，猶太人被視為其居住地的君主、貴族、城鎮(zhèn)或教會(huì)的“財(cái)產(chǎn)”。從 12 世紀(jì)中葉開(kāi)始，歐洲各地的猶太社區(qū)作為“皇家金庫(kù)忠仆”（servus camere regie）與君主建立了特殊的關(guān)系。12 世紀(jì)阿拉貢和卡斯蒂利亞王國(guó)的《法律》（fueros）顯然首次提出了猶太人為君主服務(wù)的概念，盡管其起源更為久遠(yuǎn)。以神學(xué)家圣奧古斯?。ㄗ溆?/strong> 430 年）命名的“奧古斯丁平衡”主張，盡管猶太人因拒絕基督而被判處永久奴役，但作為基督教勝利的“見(jiàn)證人”，基督教社會(huì)必須容忍猶太人。13 世紀(jì)，德意志和西西里的皇帝腓特烈二世在談到為他服務(wù)的猶太人時(shí)使用了“王室仆人”（serfs of the royal chamber）一詞。英國(guó)和法國(guó)也采用了類似的法律表述。 ?
In Christian Europe Jews were considered the “property” of monarchs, nobles, towns, or the church in the territory in which they resided. From the mid-12th century onward, Jewish communities throughout Europe were bound in a special relationship to the monarchy as servus camere regie, “serfs of the royal chamber.” The concept of Jewish servitude to the monarch was apparently first formulated in the 12th-century fueros (laws) of the Kingdoms of Aragon and Castile, although its origins are more remote. The “Augustinian equilibrium,” so named after the theologian Saint Augustine (d. 430), maintained that Jews must be tolerated within Christian society as a “witness” to the triumph of Christianity, albeit condemned to perpetual servitude due to their rejection of Christ. In the 13th century Emperor Frederick II of Germany and Sicily employed the phrase “serfs of the royal chamber” in speaking of the Jews in his service. Similar legal formulations were adopted in England and France.
? ? ? ? ? 在所有情況下，宮廷奴役都意味著猶太社區(qū)直接服從君主的政治和財(cái)政權(quán)威，而不是服從于當(dāng)?shù)胤饨ㄙF族或教會(huì)的權(quán)威。猶太廷臣、財(cái)務(wù)管理人員和收稅員尤其受益于國(guó)王的私人服務(wù)：授予土地、免于穿戴表明其猶太人身份的獨(dú)特服裝或標(biāo)志，以及允許建造猶太教堂，這些都是他們?yōu)檎嬲\(chéng)感謝所提供的服務(wù)而可能獲得的特權(quán)。這種特殊地位為猶太人提供了保護(hù)，使他們免受社會(huì)其他成員的侵害。那些膽敢傷害“國(guó)王的猶太人”的人直接挑戰(zhàn)了王權(quán)，因此受到了嚴(yán)厲的懲罰。但與此同時(shí)，專有關(guān)系也使猶太人容易受到君主的隨意擺布。
In all cases cameral servitude meant the Jewish community was subject directly to the political and fiscal authority of the monarch, as opposed to that of the local feudal nobility or the church. Jewish courtiers, financial administrators, and tax collectors especially benefited from being in the king’s personal service: Land grants, exemption from wearing distinctive clothing or signs identifying their Jewish identity, and permission to build a synagogue were just some of the privileges that they might receive in sincere gratitude for services rendered. This special status provided Jews with protection from other elements of society. Those who dared to harm the “king’s Jews” directly challenged royal authority and therefore were severely punished. At the same time, however, the proprietary relationship left Jews vulnerable to the whims of the monarch’s discretion.
法? ? ?典
? ? ? ? ? 教會(huì)法對(duì)猶太人來(lái)說(shuō)是一把雙刃劍，一方面保護(hù)他們免受虐待和壓迫，另一方面又歧視他們。霍諾里烏斯 (Honorius)的法律規(guī)定，基督徒不得打擾猶太人或他們的教堂，也不得妨礙他們遵守安息日和節(jié)日。拜占庭狄?jiàn)W多西二世（408-50年）的法典禁止基督徒攻擊和焚燒猶太教堂，但也禁止重建被毀的猶太教堂。1199 年，教皇英諾森三世頒布了“猶太人憲法”，規(guī)定任何基督徒都不得強(qiáng)迫猶太人接受洗禮、搶奪他們的財(cái)產(chǎn)、向他們勒索任何不正當(dāng)?shù)姆?wù)、在他們慶祝節(jié)日時(shí)用棍棒或石塊攻擊他們、肢解或毀壞猶太人的墓地、或在猶太人埋葬后將其尸體從墳?zāi)怪型诔觥?/strong>
Canon law was a double-edged sword for Jews, protecting them from ill treatment and oppression on the one hand while discriminating against them on the other. The laws of Pope Honorius (r. 395–423) stipulated that Christians were not to disturb the Jews or their synagogues or hinder them from observing their Sabbath and feast days. The Law Code of Theodosius II of Byzantium (r. 408–50) forbade Christians to attack and burn Jewish synagogues, although it also prohibited such destroyed synagogues from being rebuilt. In 1199 Pope Innocent III issued a “Constitution for the Jews,” which stipulated that no Christian should compel Jewish persons to be baptized, rob them of their property, extort any unwarranted service from them, attack them with clubs or stones as they celebrated their festivals, mutilate or destroy a Jewish cemetery, or exhume a Jewish body from its grave after burial.
? ? ? ? ? 猶太人的獨(dú)特地位及其社會(huì)隔離與歧視也同樣通過(guò)教規(guī)禁戒法得以實(shí)施。教會(huì)針對(duì)猶太人頒布限制他們參與主流社會(huì)的法律由來(lái)已久。比如狄?jiàn)W多西一世（Theodosius I the Great，378-95年）的“378-95 年詔書(shū)”。霍諾里烏斯 (Honorius)于 404 年頒布法律，禁止猶太人在軍隊(duì)和宮廷服役；《狄?jiàn)W多西法典》（408-50 年）禁止猶太人建造新的猶太會(huì)堂；第三次奧爾良大公會(huì)議（538 年）禁止猶太人在圣周四至復(fù)活節(jié)期間與基督徒交往；馬孔第四次法蘭克會(huì)議（581 年）重申了這些限制，并禁止基督徒參加猶太節(jié)日。然而，教皇英諾森三世在 1215 年第四次拉特朗公會(huì)議上頒布的教皇法令卻讓人記憶猶新，因?yàn)樵摲钜?guī)定猶太（和穆斯林）男子和女子必須在衣服上印上獨(dú)特的標(biāo)記以示區(qū)別，這就產(chǎn)生了猶太徽章和猶太帽（Judenhut）等物品。不過(guò)，需要注意的是，直到中世紀(jì)末期，教會(huì)都不得不多次重新頒布這一規(guī)定，這表明它主要是在違反規(guī)定的情況下得到遵守的。
The distinct status of the Jews and their social segregation and discrimination were likewise enforced through canon sumptuary laws. The church had a long history of issuing legislation against the Jews that restricted their participation in the dominant society. One could mention Theodosius I the Great’s (r. 378–95) edict of 388 forbidding intermarriage between Jews and Christians; Pope Honorius’s law of 404 excluding Jews from military and court service; the Theodosian Code (408–50), which forbade Jews to build new synagogues; the Third Frankish Council of Orleans (538), which prohibited Jews from interacting with Christians between Holy Thursday and Easter; or the Fourth Frankish Council in Macon (581), which reaffirmed these restrictions and forbade Christians to participate in Jewish festivals. Yet the papal decrees of Pope Innocent III promulgated at the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 are particularly remembered for obliging Jewish (and Muslim) men and women to distinguish themselves with a distinctive mark on their clothing, which would give rise to such items as the Jewish badge and the Jewish hat (Judenhut). It should be noted, however, that up until the end of the Middle Ages the church had to reissue this stipulation on numerous occasions, indicating that it was honored mainly in the breach.
? ? ? ? ? ?第四次拉特朗公會(huì)議努力實(shí)現(xiàn)基督徒與“異教徒”（包括猶太人和穆斯林）的完全社會(huì)隔離。此時(shí)，在整個(gè)基督教歐洲，猶太人必須居住在與基督徒實(shí)際隔離的封閉區(qū)域。第四次拉特朗公會(huì)議禁止猶太人在任何情況下離家，從圣周四到復(fù)活節(jié)周日。第四次拉特朗公會(huì)議還再次確認(rèn)禁止猶太人擔(dān)任公職，并嚴(yán)格限制基督徒與猶太人之間的商業(yè)往來(lái)和其他形式的社會(huì)交往。從第四次拉特朗公會(huì)議《教規(guī)》第 68 條的措辭中可以清楚地看出，衣著禁律是出于對(duì)猶太人和基督徒之間性關(guān)系的擔(dān)憂。它明確指出，規(guī)定特殊服裝是為了確?；酵讲粫?huì)“錯(cuò)誤地”與猶太人或薩拉森人發(fā)生性關(guān)系。 ??
Lateran IV strove to attain the complete social segregation of Christians from “infidels,” both Jewish and Muslim. Throughout Christian Europe Jews by this time were obliged to reside in closed quarters physically separated from Christians. Lateran IV banned Jews from leaving their homes under any circumstances from Holy Thursday through Easter Sunday. Lateran IV also reconfirmed the prohibition against Jews’ holding public office and severely restricted commercial and other forms of social intercourse between Christians and Jews. It is clear from the wording of canon 68 of Lateran IV that the sumptuary clothing laws were motivated by concerns about sexual relations between Jews and Christians. It explicitly states that the imposition of distinctive clothing was meant to ensure that Christians would not have sexual relations “through error” with Jews or Saracens.
《歐麥爾條約》
? ? ? ? ? 猶太人、基督徒、瑣羅亞斯德教徒和印度教徒作為“迪米”（受保護(hù)的民族）生活在被并入伊斯蘭帝國(guó)的土地上?！暗厦住笔且环N法律地位，起源于《古蘭經(jīng)》和先知穆罕默德對(duì)待“圣書(shū)之民”（Ahl al-Kitab）的例子?！暗厦住备拍畋澈蟮纳駥W(xué)理念與基督教中猶太人“永久奴役”地位的理念大相徑庭。毫無(wú)疑問(wèn)，真主給穆罕默德的啟示被認(rèn)為是所有啟示中最終和最完美的啟示。但這并不意味著要廢除之前的啟示，也不意味著其他宗教的信徒會(huì)因?yàn)閷儆诓煌淖诮虃鹘y(tǒng)而受到傷害、殺害、流放或被迫皈依伊斯蘭教。穆罕默德開(kāi)創(chuàng)了與“經(jīng)書(shū)上的民族”商談條約的先例，為他們提供保護(hù)，以換取他們服從自己的政治統(tǒng)治、承諾效忠并繳納人頭稅（吉茲亞）。如果伊斯蘭教徒違背承諾，伊斯蘭教會(huì)保留懲罰、流放或?qū)⑺麄冏鳛榕淹交蚍磁颜咛幩赖臋?quán)利。627 年處決猶太巴努·古萊扎（Banu Qurayza）部落的男子就是這種情況。 ??
Jews, Christians, Zoroastrians, and Hindus lived as dhimmis (protected peoples) in the lands absorbed into the Islamic empire. Dhimmi was a legal status, the origins of which lie in the Quran and in the example of the prophet Muhammad’s dealing with the Peoples of the Book (Ahl al-Kitab), those to whom God had revealed a book before the beginning of Islam. The theological ideals behind the notion of dhimmi differ significantly from those that underlie the status of the Jews’ “perpetual servitude” in Christendom. Unequivocally, God’s revelation to Muhammad was considered the final and most perfect of all the revelations. This did not mean, however, that the previous revelations should be abrogated or that the followers of these other religions should be harmed, killed, exiled, or forcibly converted to Islam simply by virtue of their belonging to a different religious tradition. Muhammad established the precedent of negotiating treaties with the Peoples of the Book, which provided them with protection in exchange for their submission to his political rule, their promise of loyalty, and the payment of a poll tax (jizya). In the event that the dhimmi community reneged on its pledges, the Islamic community reserved the right to punish, exile, or execute them as traitors or rebels. Such was the case with the execution of the men of the Jewish Banu Qurayza tribe in 627.
? ? ? ? ? 關(guān)于伊斯蘭教徒法律地位的一般原則在被稱為《歐麥爾條約》（Pact of Umar）的文本中最終形成，該文本是第二任哈里發(fā)、敘利亞和巴勒斯坦的征服者歐麥爾·本·赫塔卜（Umar ibn al-Khattab）所作；不過(guò)，大多數(shù)學(xué)者都認(rèn)為該文本是 8 世紀(jì)至 11 世紀(jì)晚期的作品。文本的形式是“圣書(shū)之民”的代表向哈里發(fā)歐麥爾莊嚴(yán)宣誓，請(qǐng)求“保護(hù)我們自己、我們的子孫后代、我們的財(cái)產(chǎn)和我們的同教”（J. Marcus 13），以換取對(duì)一些條件的遵守。這些“同化者”保證不建造任何新的宗教建筑，也不修繕那些破敗的建筑。他們不會(huì)拒絕任何穆斯林進(jìn)入他們的教堂，也不會(huì)拒絕接待任何穆斯林旅行者。他們保證不窩藏任何間諜或穆斯林的敵人。他們承諾不公開(kāi)展示自己的宗教標(biāo)志，不敲鐘，不在教堂內(nèi)或宗教游行時(shí)在教堂外高聲誦經(jīng)，也不在穆斯林社區(qū)炫耀自己的宗教活動(dòng)。他們保證不在穆斯林中傳教，也不阻撓任何親屬自愿皈依伊斯蘭教。 ??
The general principles of the legal status of the dhimmi populations reached final form in the text known as the Pact of Umar, attributed to the second caliph, Umar ibn al-Khattab, the conqueror of Syria and Palestine; however, most scholars agree that the text dates from a later period between the eighth and 11th centuries. The text takes the form of a solemn pledge addressed by representatives of the People of the Book to Caliph Umar requesting “protection for ourselves, our posterity, our possessions, and our co-religionists” (J. Marcus 13) in exchange for the adherence to a number of conditions. The dhimmis pledged not to build any new religious building or repair those fallen into ruin. They would not refuse entry of any Muslim into their temples nor refuse hospitality to any Muslim traveler. They pledged not to harbor any spies or enemies of the Muslims. They pledged to abstain from displaying their religious symbols publicly, from ringing bells, from chanting loudly either inside their temples or outside during religious processions, and from any ostentatious practice of their religion in Muslim neighborhoods. They pledged not to proselytize among Muslims or to obstruct the voluntary conversion of any of their kinsfolk to Islam.
? ? ? ? ? 他們放棄了擁有或攜帶武器以及騎馬的權(quán)利，并保證不使用阿拉伯語(yǔ)尊稱。他們承諾不向穆斯林出售酒或其他伊斯蘭法律禁止的物品。他們還同意遵守一系列服飾法，以明顯區(qū)別于穆斯林居民。例如，他們保證“不模仿他們的著裝，無(wú)論是帽子、頭巾、涼鞋，還是頭發(fā)的分叉”，他們還將佩戴 zunnar（一種佩戴在腰間的皮革或繩索腰帶），保留穆斯林佩戴絲綢或布制腰帶的特權(quán)（《馬庫(kù)斯全集》第 13-15 卷）。禁止擁有“迪米”身份的人擔(dān)任公職，如前所述，他們同意繳納人頭稅。伊斯蘭法律在宗教間社會(huì)關(guān)系的某些方面存在歧視。穆斯林男性可以與“迪米”身份的女性結(jié)婚，但“迪米”身份的男性不能與穆斯林女性結(jié)婚。宗教間婚姻的子女必須作為穆斯林撫養(yǎng)。 ?
They renounced the right to own or bear arms and to ride on saddles and pledged not to assume Arabic honorific names. They promised not to sell wine or other items forbidden by Islamic law to Muslims. They also agreed to a number of sumptuary laws to distinguish themselves visibly from the Muslim population. For instance, they pledged that they would “not imitate them in [their] dress, either in the cap, turban, sandals, or parting of the hair,” and they would wear the zunnar, a leather or cord girdle worn around the waist, reserving to the Muslims the privilege of wearing silk or cloth girdles (J. Marcus 13–15). Dhimmis were forbidden to hold public office, and, as mentioned, they agreed to pay the poll tax. Islamic law discriminated in some areas of interfaith social relations. Muslim males were permitted to marry dhimmi women, but dhimmi males could not marry Muslim women. The children of interfaith marriages had to be reared as Muslims.
? ? ? ? ? 作為臣服承諾的交換條件，“同化者”得到的“保護(hù)”包括信奉宗教的自由（受上述限制）和內(nèi)部事務(wù)的自治。歷史記錄一再表明，繳納人頭稅幾乎是唯一一貫施加的限制。在中世紀(jì)，猶太人和其他“同化者”經(jīng)常要求并獲準(zhǔn)建造或修復(fù)他們的教堂?？茽柖嗤哔榴R亞王朝哈里發(fā)阿卜杜勒·拉赫曼三世（在位 912-61 年）的猶太宰相哈斯代·伊本·沙普魯特（Hasdai ibn Shaprut）并不是唯一在伊斯蘭政府中擔(dān)任要職的杰出例子。在埃及和伊拉克，景教基督徒和科普特人以及猶太人經(jīng)常擔(dān)任政府行政職務(wù)。著名的邁蒙尼德也不是唯一獲得阿拉伯語(yǔ)尊稱（阿布·伊姆蘭）的猶太人。至于服飾法，在某些時(shí)代和某些地方，它們被嚴(yán)格執(zhí)行，例如在埃及馬穆魯克王朝，猶太人必須在衣服上佩戴黃色徽章，而基督徒則佩戴藍(lán)色徽章，撒瑪利亞人則佩戴紅色徽章。不過(guò)，在大多數(shù)情況下，這些規(guī)定即使沒(méi)有被忽視，也似乎被放松了。除了猶太人運(yùn)用服飾法通過(guò)服裝和裝飾品將自己與非猶太人區(qū)分開(kāi)來(lái)這一事實(shí)外，開(kāi)羅族址的文件還表明，猶太人確實(shí)穿絲綢（理論上這是《歐麥爾條約》所禁止的），尤其是地中海地區(qū)猶太女性的服裝與穆斯林的服裝幾乎沒(méi)有區(qū)別。
The “protection” that the dhimmis received in exchange for the pledge of submission included the freedom to practice their religion (subject to the limitations mentioned) and autonomy in their internal affairs. Historical records have repeatedly shown that the payment of the poll tax was virtually the only restriction consistently imposed. In the Middle Ages Jews and other dhimmis frequently requested and received permission to build or repair one of their temples. Hasdai ibn Shaprut, Jewish vizier to the Umayyad caliph of Córdoba Abd al-Rahman III (r. 912–61), is not the only illustrious example of a dhimmi who occupied a high position of authority in an Islamic government. In Egypt and Iraq Nestorian Christians and Copts as well as Jews frequently held government administrative posts. Nor is the famous Maimonides the only Jewish person to have acquired an Arabic honorific name (Abu Imran). As for the sumptuary laws, in certain times and places they were applied rigorously, such as in Mamluk Egypt, where Jews had to wear a yellow badge on their clothing while Christians wore blue and the Samaritans wore red. For the most part, however, it appears that they were relaxed, if not ignored. In addition to the fact that Jews applied their own sumptuary laws to distinguish themselves from non-Jews through clothing and costume, the documents of the Cairo geniza illustrate that Jews did wear silk—theoretically forbidden under the Pact of Umar—and that the garments of Mediterranean Jewish women in particular were hardly distinguishable from those worn by Muslims.
自主與自治
? ? ? ? ? 在中世紀(jì)的大部分時(shí)間里，生活在基督教和伊斯蘭教中的猶太人被允許保留對(duì)其內(nèi)部事務(wù)的自治權(quán)。但是，在屈從于基督教或伊斯蘭教統(tǒng)治的情況下，自治意味著什么？伊斯蘭教法，尤其是在被稱為《歐麥爾條約》的文本中，保證了猶太人信奉猶太教和在猶太社區(qū)內(nèi)部事務(wù)中適用猶太教法的權(quán)利?；浇探桃?guī)法和王室特權(quán)也賦予猶太人類似的權(quán)利。西班牙阿拉貢王國(guó)的一個(gè)例子是基督教承認(rèn)猶太人自治的典型。1229 年，國(guó)王詹姆士（海梅）一世允許“你們，我們卡拉塔尤德（阿拉貢自治區(qū)薩拉戈薩省的一個(gè)市鎮(zhèn)）所有忠誠(chéng)的猶太人（universis），從你們中間確定、選舉和任命四名正直的人 [probes homines] 作為你們的領(lǐng)袖 [adenantatos]；他們應(yīng)由整個(gè)社區(qū) [algema] 選舉產(chǎn)生”（古根海姆，78 頁(yè)）。實(shí)際上，自治是通過(guò)保留或調(diào)整一些傳統(tǒng)的猶太社會(huì)機(jī)構(gòu)來(lái)實(shí)現(xiàn)的，如猶太教堂、猶太學(xué)校（宗教學(xué)校）、宗教法庭、墓地和慈善組織。
For most of the Middle Ages Jews living in Christendom and Islam were allowed to retain autonomy over their internal affairs. But what did autonomy mean in a context of subjugation to Christian or Islamic rule, and how was it exercised and negotiated? Islamic law, and particularly in the text known as the Pact of Umar, guaranteed the right to practice the Jewish religion and to apply Jewish law in the internal affairs of the Jewish community. Christian canon law and royal privileges invested the Jews with similar rights. An example from the Kingdom of Aragon in Spain typifies Christian recognition of Jewish autonomy. In 1229 King James (Jaime) I permitted “you, all (universis) our loyal Jews of Calatayud, to determine, elect, and appoint four righteous men [probes homines] from your midst as your leaders [adenantatos]; they shall be elected by the entire community [algema]” (Guggenheim 78). In practice, autonomy was achieved by the survival or adaptation of a number of traditional Jewish social institutions, such as the synagogue, the yeshiva (religious school), the religious court, the cemetery, and charitable organizations.
猶太教堂
? ? ? ? ? 猶太教堂是宗教和社會(huì)生活的中心，與基督教和穆斯林的教區(qū)教堂和清真寺類似。教堂既是禮拜場(chǎng)所，也是公共集會(huì)場(chǎng)所，在這里可以宣布法律判決，決定影響整個(gè)社區(qū)的重大事項(xiàng)。鑒于猶太教堂、教區(qū)教堂（大教堂）和清真寺在社會(huì)功能上的相似性，猶太社區(qū)傾向于在大教堂和清真寺所在的城市地區(qū)定居也就不足為奇了。伊斯蘭世界和基督教世界的這些城市地區(qū)為猶太人提供了更多謀生的經(jīng)濟(jì)機(jī)會(huì)，也使他們更接近教會(huì)和市政當(dāng)局，從而保證了對(duì)他們的法律保護(hù)。
The synagogue as the center of religious and social life paralleled its Christian and Muslim counterparts of the parish church and the congregational mosque. The temple was a place of worship but also a site of public assembly where legal judgments were announced and important matters affecting the entire community were decided. Given the similarities in the social function of synagogue, parish church or cathedral, and mosque, it comes as no surprise that Jewish communities tended to settle in urban areas where cathedral churches and mosques were also located. These urban areas in the Islamic world and Christendom afforded the Jews greater economic opportunities to earn a living as well as greater proximity to the ecclesiastical and civic authorities that could guarantee their legal protection.
? ? ? ? ? 總的來(lái)說(shuō)，生活在基督教和穆斯林地區(qū)的猶太人傾向于選擇在猶太教堂附近共同生活。選擇在同一地區(qū)共同生活不僅是害怕非猶太侵略者的攻擊，甚至主要不是出于這種擔(dān)心。它滿足了人們對(duì)實(shí)用便利的渴望，使猶太人的生活方式得以延續(xù)。猶太人居住區(qū)通常包括一所宗教學(xué)校（猶太學(xué)校）、一個(gè)猶太法院（猶太法院）、一個(gè)社區(qū)教堂、一個(gè)臨終關(guān)懷醫(yī)院、一個(gè)用于儀式潔凈的澡堂（猶太澡堂）、一個(gè)屠宰場(chǎng)、一個(gè)烘焙屋，如果社區(qū)規(guī)模允許，還包括一個(gè)墓地。(出于經(jīng)濟(jì)需要或迫于非猶太人市政當(dāng)局的壓力，多個(gè)較小的猶太社區(qū)可能會(huì)共用一個(gè)墓地，以限制特定地區(qū)的墓地?cái)?shù)量）。此外，在某些情況下，具有上述特征的猶太人定居點(diǎn)實(shí)際上早于基督教（或穆斯林）城市中心的建立。
By and large, Jews living in Christian and Muslim lands tended by choice to live together in the vicinity of the synagogue. The preference for living together in the same region was not only or even primarily dictated by fear of attack from non-Jewish aggressors. It responded to the desire for pragmatic conveniences that perpetuated the preservation of the Jewish way of life. Jewish quarters typically included a religious school (yeshiva), a Jewish courthouse (beit din), a community hall, a hospice, a bathhouse for ritual cleansing (mikveh), a butcher, a baking house, and a cemetery if the size of the community allowed. (Multiple smaller Jewish communities might share a single cemetery out of economic necessity or out of pressure from the non-Jewish civic authorities seeking to limit the number of cemeteries in a given region.) In some cases, moreover, a Jewish settlement with the characteristics just described actually predated the establishment of a Christian (or Muslim) urban center.
猶太法
? ? ? ? ? Takkanot（社區(qū)法令）是確保猶太社區(qū)及其機(jī)構(gòu)完整性的重要手段。拉比發(fā)布的 takkanot（社區(qū)法令）決定了社區(qū)稅收的數(shù)額，以支付基本服務(wù)費(fèi)用，如領(lǐng)禱人的工資、猶太教堂、烤肉房、屠宰場(chǎng)和社區(qū)教堂的維護(hù)費(fèi)用，以及對(duì)窮人的慈善捐贈(zèng)。拉比的 takkanot（社區(qū)法令）還涉及家庭法、婚姻、離婚和繼承等問(wèn)題，還有一些拉比對(duì)基督教或穆斯林統(tǒng)治下出現(xiàn)的情況做出了回應(yīng)。德國(guó)的格爾肖姆·本·猶大（968-1020 年）因其禁止一夫多妻制和禁止騷擾決定回歸猶太教的被迫皈依者的Takkanot（社區(qū)法令）而聞名。
Takkanot (communal ordinances) were an essential means of securing the integrity of a Jewish community and its institutions. Rabbis issued takkanot to determine the amount of community taxes to pay for essential services such as the salary of the prayer leader; the maintenance of the synagogue, baking house, butchery, and community hall; and charitable gifts to the poor. The takkanot of the rabbis also dealt with matters of family law, marriage, divorce, and inheritance, while others responded to circumstances arising from the subjugation to Christian or Muslim rule. Rabbi Gershom ben Judah of Germany (968–1020) is famous for his takkanot banning polygamy and forbidding the harassment of forced converts who decided to return to Judaism.
? ? ? ? ? 猶太法院由拉比主持，或者由四名自由選舉產(chǎn)生的男性領(lǐng)袖主持的非宗教法院來(lái)維護(hù)內(nèi)部社會(huì)和諧、法律和秩序。中世紀(jì)的猶太教答辯書(shū)證明，非宗教領(lǐng)袖在做出最終決定之前，可能會(huì)經(jīng)常向來(lái)自不同社區(qū)的拉比尋求法律專業(yè)知識(shí)。除了拉比的權(quán)威之外，整個(gè)社區(qū)還可以就涉及其普遍福利的事項(xiàng)進(jìn)行投票，例如向窮人提供慈善和防御服務(wù)。例如，某些職業(yè)的成員，如商人、屠夫或面包師，也可以成立公司，制定并執(zhí)行規(guī)范其職業(yè)的法規(guī)。猶太宗教和公民領(lǐng)袖有權(quán)逮捕、審判和懲罰罪犯和不法分子，基督教和穆斯林當(dāng)局也授予并確保這些權(quán)力。
Jewish law courts presided over by a rabbi or, alternatively, a lay court presided over by four freely elected male leaders maintained internal social harmony, law, and order. Medieval Jewish responsa bear witness to the frequency with which lay leaders might seek out the legal expertise of a rabbi from a different community before making a final decision. In addition to the authority of the rabbis, the community could as a whole vote on matters concerning their general welfare, such as providing charity to the poor and networks of defense. Members of certain occupations, merchants, butchers, or bakers, for instance, might also form corporations to establish and enforce statutes regulating their professions. Jewish religious and civic leaders had the power to arrest, judge, and punish criminals and wrongdoers, and these powers were granted and ensured by Christian and Muslim authorities.
? ? ? ? ? ?當(dāng)法庭案件中的沖突雙方屬于不同的宗教團(tuán)體時(shí)，情況就不同了。由于法律狀況因地、因時(shí)而異，因此無(wú)法一概而論。以阿拉貢王國(guó)為例，12 世紀(jì)的法典（fueros）規(guī)定，在涉及猶太人和基督徒之間的訴訟案件中，雙方一律平等。法庭案件應(yīng)在公共市場(chǎng)的中立地點(diǎn)進(jìn)行仲裁，而不是在基督教或猶太教機(jī)構(gòu)內(nèi)進(jìn)行仲裁。必須有兩名主審法官，一名是猶太人，另一名是基督徒，如果其中一方不同意他們的一致裁決，那么案件可以由四名法官審理，其中兩名是猶太人，兩名是基督徒。在智者阿方索十世統(tǒng)治下的卡斯蒂利亞王國(guó)（1252-1284 年），所有宗教間的糾紛都必須由當(dāng)事人居住地區(qū)的皇家法院裁決。相比之下，在 14 世紀(jì)的德國(guó)科隆，涉及猶太人和基督徒的案件可以提交給由猶太教非宗教領(lǐng)袖主持的市民法庭。
The situation was different when conflicting parties in a court case belonged to different religious communities. Since the legal situation varied from place to place and time to time, it is impossible to generalize. Returning to the example of the Kingdom of Aragon, the 12th-century legal code (fueros) prescribed equality in cases involving lawsuits between Jews and Christians. Court cases were to be arbitrated on the neutral ground of a public marketplace, rather than inside a Christian or Jewish institution. There had to be two presiding judges, one a Jew, the other a Christian, and in the event that one of the parties disagreed with their unanimous verdict, then the case could be tried before four judges, two Jewish and two Christian. In the Kingdom of Castile under Alfonso X the Wise (1252–84), all interfaith disputes had to be decided in the Crown court in the district where the parties resided. By contrast, in 14th-century Cologne, Germany, cases involving Jews and Christians could be brought before the civic court presided over by Jewish lay leaders.
? ? ? ? ? 在伊斯蘭國(guó)家，涉及穆斯林和“迪米”的糾紛必須由伊斯蘭法庭裁決，并由穆斯林法官（Qadi）裁定。有趣的是，伊斯蘭教徒甚至將自己的內(nèi)部案件提交給卡迪（Qadi）的情況也并非罕見(jiàn)。在非穆斯林相對(duì)于穆斯林的地位問(wèn)題上，各法律流派之間存在一些分歧。例如，哈乃斐法庭對(duì)非法殺害穆斯林的伊斯蘭教徒判處死刑，對(duì)非法殺害伊斯蘭教徒的穆斯林判處死刑。其他法律流派則拒絕平等，規(guī)定在此類案件中判處伊斯蘭教徒死刑，但如果受害者是伊斯蘭教徒，則只需支付“血腥錢”賠償（在伊斯蘭用語(yǔ)中，Qisas（????）犯人付給的血腥錢數(shù)目隨不同國(guó)家和不同案件而變化，前提是受害人的家人原諒了犯人，不原諒的話，犯人會(huì)被處以極刑）。
In Islamic countries disputes involving Muslims and dhimmis had to be decided in an Islamic court and adjudicated by a Muslim judge (qadi). Interestingly, it was not unknown for dhimmis to take even their internal cases to a qadi. There were some differences among the legal schools regarding the status of non-Muslims vis-à-vis Muslims. Hanafi law courts, for instance, decreed the death sentence for dhimmis who wrongfully murdered Muslims and for Muslims who wrongfully murdered dhimmis. Other schools of law rejected parity and dictated the death sentence for dhimmis in such cases but only the payment of “blood money” compensation if the victim was a dhimmi.
《Handbook To Life in The Medieval World》（2008）
By Madeleine Pelner Cosman and Linda Gale Jones?
資源推薦
中國(guó)哲學(xué)書(shū)電子化計(jì)劃（簡(jiǎn)體字版）：https://ctext.org/zhs（不用梯子）
