The unfounded belief that there was a peasant commune in the Levant very similar to the Russian mir, and that it was inefficient, precluded historians from understanding the true role of the institution of mushāʿ in this region. The mushāʿ land title represented the attachment of a particular community to specific plots of land. In this context, ‘community’ often meant nuclear and extended families in suprahouseholds, as well as the entire village. People in these communities tended to derive income from land according to recognized arrangements such as mutual use of grazing lands, and joint or individual cultivation with or without land repartition among cultivators. The comparison with mir was relevant only for one form of the institution, namely, repartitioned mushāʿ. Redistribution or repartition varied according to specific ‘factors of production’ or to informal and formal property rights. It did not prove less efficient than the reformed, individualized system of land management, and was possibly more effective in resisting laws that allowed the seizure of lands that had not been cultivated for three years. All forms of mushāʿ required greater communal mutual support and responsibility, which significantly reduced risks in times of crisis.

中文翻译：

---

重新考虑黎凡特的农民公社，c。1850到1940年代†

没有理由相信黎凡特有一个农民公社，与俄罗斯米尔非常相似，而且效率低下，这使历史学家无法理解穆沙拉夫制度在该地区的真正作用。在武者'土地所有权代表一个特定的社会对土地的具体地块的附件。在这种情况下，“社区”通常是指超家庭中的核心家庭和大家庭以及整个村庄。这些社区的人们倾向于根据公认的安排从土地中获得收入，例如相互使用牧场，以及在耕种者之间分配土地或不分配土地的联合或单独耕种。与mir的比较仅与一种形式的机构有关，即重新划分的mushārelevant。重新分配或重新分配根据特定的“生产要素”或非正式和正式产权而变化。它的效率没有比改革后的个性化土地管理体系低，并且在抵制允许没收三年未耕种土地的法律上可能更有效。各种形式的蘑菇都需要更大的社区相互支持和责任，这大大减少了危机时期的风险。