Ambivalence and Islam in the institutional-building of the Spanish Sahara Province
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18042/hp.2024.AL.10Abstract
This paper argues that the ambivalence in the colonial institutions during the Spanish Sahara provincialización may have allowed the continued existence of some sovereignty social relations of the colonized population. For that purpose, late colonial administration is analysed, followed by an anthropologically informed lecture of the legal institutions building is done. In this regard, the Spanish imperial discourse’s definition of the Islamic religion as an essential element of the territory’s population and uttermost limit for it to be effectively integrated into the nation favored a certain autonomy of the legal realm. On the other hand, the qadis of the cheranic juridical institutions, subordinated from the perspective of provincial organization, engaged in legal practices of regional scope that exceeded the colonial state’s capacity for action. The stress produced by this ambiguity can help to under[1]stand not only the sovereignty social relations in the territory, but also the Spanish imperial discourse presumptions.
Downloads
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Enrique Bengochea Tirado
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Authors whose contributions are accepted for publication in this journal, accept the following terms:
a. The authors retain their copyright and guarantee to the magazine the right of first publication of their work, which will be simultaneously subject to the Creative Commons Attribution License Attribution-Noncommercial-No derivative works 4.0 Spain, which allows third parties to share the work as long as its author and its first publication is indicated.
b. Authors may adopt other non-exclusive license agreements to distribute the version of the published work (e.g. deposit in an institutional repository or archive, or published in a monographic volume) provided the initial publication in this journal is indicated.
PLAGIARISM AND SCIENTIFIC FRAUD
The publication of work that infringes on intellectual property rights is the sole responsibility of the authors, including any conflicts that may occur regarding infringement of copyright. This includes, most importantly, conflicts related to the commission of plagiarism and/or scientific fraud.
Plagiarism is understood to include:
1. Presenting the work of others as your own.
2. Adopting words or ideas from other authors without due recognition.
3. Not using quotation marks or another distinctive format to distinguish literal quotations.
4. Giving incorrect information about the true source of a citation.
5. The paraphrasing of a source without mentioning the source.
6. Excessive paraphrasing, even if the source is mentioned.
Practices constituting scientific fraud are as follows:
1. Fabrication, falsification or omission of data and plagiarism.
2. Duplicate publication.
3. Conflicts of authorship.