The 1996 ‘Muslim holiday’ affair. Religious competition and state mediation in contemporary Mozambique

Political commentators often cast religious con? ict as the result of the numerical growth and political rise of a single faith. When Islam is involved, arguments about religious fundamentalism are quick to surface and often stand as an explanation in their own right. Yet, as useful as this type of explanation may be, it usually fails to address properly, if at all, two sets of important issues. It avoids, Ž rst, the question of the rise of other religions and their contribution to tensions and con? icts. Second, it reduces the role of the State to a reactive one. The State becomes an object of contest or conquest, or it is simply ignored. Adopting a different approach, this article investigates a controversy that took place in Mozambique in 1996 around the ‘ofŽ cialisation’ of two Islamic holidays. It looks at the role played by religious competition and state mediation. The article shows that the State’s abandonment of religious regulation – the establishment of a free ‘religious market’ – fostered religious competition that created tensions between faiths. It suggests that strife ensued because deregulation was almost absolute: the State did not take a clear stand in religious matters and faith organisations started to believe that the State was becoming, or could become, confessional. The conclusion discusses theoretical implications for the understanding of religious strife as well as Church and State relations. It also draws some implications for the case of Mozambique more speciŽ cally, implications which should have relevance for countries such as Malawi, Zambia and Zimbabwe where problems of a similar nature have arisen.

La Comunità ebraica di Shanghai

The Jewish community in Shanghai was among the first to settle in the Treaty Ports which were opened after the Opium war. Jewish population grew until the rendition of the foreign settlements to the Chinese authorities, and its history broadly consists of three periods.The first Jews came to Shanghai in the XIX century were sephardits from Iraq and India. Among those emigrated to Shanghai following the expansion of the British commerce in China were such famous families as Sassoons, Hardoons and Kadoories.The second wave arrived with the White Russians exodus after the October Revolution; they were askanzits Jews who fled from pogroms and the Russian civil war. The third wave were Jews fleeing from central Europe in the 1930s. This group was the largest of the three.The first settlers saw Shanghai as a port of opportunities, while the others came there seeking refuge.The interwar Shanghai could offer protection and a temporary place of residence for Jewish people. In the 1920s and 1930s Jews coming to Shanghai were helped by local Jewish associations, which supported them in the search for accommodations and jobs. This net of associations was effective until WWII. The war, however, made them face increasing number of contraints. In this constrained situation we should remember that the Japanese authorities, occupying the International Settlement, imposed a ban for new Jewish arrivals to settle in the Hongkou district; while the French authorities under the Vichy government imposed a complete ban on Jewish residents in their concession. Finally, the Jewish immigration to Shanghai had stopped completely in 1942, because there were no more ways to get there.Japanese authorities, however, were not interested in applying the racial laws as their priority lay in the conquest of China. And although the Jews were in an enemy's territory, they were not persecuted. In fact, when the war was over they left Shanghai directly to the United States and Israel.

Divided Conquerors: the Rump Parliament, Cromwell's Army and Ireland

This article reassesses the relationship that existed in the period 1649–53 between war in Ireland and politics in England. Drawing upon a largely overlooked Irish army petition, it seeks to remedy an evident disconnect between the respective historiographies of the Cromwellian conquest of Ireland on the one hand and the Rump Parliament on the other. The article reconstructs some of the various disputes over religion, authority and violence that undermined the unity of the English wartime regime in Ireland. It then charts the eventual spilling over of these disputes into Westminster politics, arguing that their impact on deteriorating army-parliament relations in the year prior to Oliver Cromwell’s expulsion of the Rump in April 1653 has not been fully appreciated. The key driver of these developments was John Weaver, a republican MP and commissioner for the civil government of Ireland. The article explains how his efforts both to place restraints on the excessive violence of the conquest and to exert civilian control over the military evolved, by 1652, into a determined campaign at Westminster to strengthen the powers of Ireland’s civil government and to limit the army’s share in the prospective Irish land settlement. Weaver’s campaign forced the army officers in Ireland to intervene at Westminster, thus placing increased pressure on the Rump Parliament. This reassessment also enables the early 1650s to be viewed more clearly as a key phase in the operation of the longer-term relationships of mutual influence that existed between Dublin and London in the seventeenth century.

Lay Catholicism and Religious Policy in Cromwellian Ireland

The conquest of Ireland between 1649 and 1653 created almost as many problems as it solved for the English government of the country. Not least of these was how, if at all, the majority Catholic population was to be won over to Protestantism. This article reassesses Cromwellian religious policy towards the Catholic laity and traces its evolution up to the end of the decade, taking account also of Catholic responses to official measures. It argues that the supposed leniency of government policy has been overstated and that Catholics who refused to conform to Protestantism in fact risked heavy penalties.

Oliver Cromwell and the 'Cromwellian' Settlement of Ireland

Oliver Cromwell remains a deeply controversial figure in Ireland. In the past decade, his role in the conquest has received sustained attention. However, in recent scholarship on the settlement of Ireland in the 1650s, he has enjoyed a peculiarly low profile. This trend has served to compound the interpretative problems relating to Cromwell and Ireland which stem in part from the traditional denominational divide in Irish historiography. This article offers a reappraisal of Cromwell's role in designing and implementing the far-reaching ‘Cromwellian’ land settlement. It examines the evidence relating to his dealings with Irish people, both Protestant and Catholic, and his attitude towards the enormous difficulties which they faced post-conquest. While the massacre at Drogheda in 1649 remains a blot on his reputation, in the 1650s Cromwell in fact emerged as an important and effective ally for Irish landowners seeking to defeat the punitive confiscation and transplantation policies approved by the Westminster parliament and favoured by the Dublin government.