IN THE COURTS OF THE NATIONS - DataSpace - Princeton ...
IN THE COURTS OF THE NATIONS - DataSpace - Princeton ... IN THE COURTS OF THE NATIONS - DataSpace - Princeton ...
The bills of debt found in the Assarraf collection conform to Islamic legal prescriptions against the outright charging of interest. 76 While it seems that at times the Assarrafs and other Jews did charge hidden interest on loans (see the discussion below and in Chapter Five), they were careful to ensure that their bills of debt did not reflect anything that could be considered usury. At least according to the official documentation, Jews’ lending practices were largely similar to those of Muslims. Nonetheless, Jews were overrepresented as moneylenders in nineteenth century Morocco. 77 Much of the historiography has explained Jews’ predominance as moneylenders as a result of Islam’s absolute prohibition on lending at interest, while Jewish law permitted Jews to lend at interest to non-Jews. 78 Yet the legal documents indicate that Jews did not charge interest openly; if this is so, then the fact that Jews were permitted by their own law to charge interest was irrelevant since in any case they followed the prescriptions of Islamic law. We must look for other reasons to explain Jews’ overrepresentation as moneylenders in nineteenth-century Moroccan society. The fact that, at least for the Assarrafs, lending money commercial transactions since the services of ‘udūl would presumably have been harder to find than in big urban centers like Fez. However, there is strong evidence from the pre-colonial and colonial periods that Jews and Muslims in rural areas did employ the services of ‘udūl: see Boum, “Muslims Remember Jews,” 232-44 and Schroeter, “Views from the Edge,” 181-5. 76 On legal ways to charge interest, see Abdullah Saeed, Islamic Banking and Interest: A Study in the Prohibition of Riba and its Contemporary Interpretation (Leiden: Brill, 1996), esp. 37-9. The Mālikī school was generally less tolerant of such legal fictions (see Mir Siadat Ali Khan, “The Mohammedan Laws against Usury and how they are Evaded,” Journal of Comparitive Legislation and International Law 11, no. 4 (1929); Joseph Schacht, “Riba,” in Encyclopedia of Islam, ed. P. Bearman, et al. (Leiden: Brill, 2003)). 77 Schroeter, Merchants of Essaouira, 110, 72-3; Kenbib, Juifs et musulmans, 253-62; Mohammed Ennaji, Expansion européenne et changement social au Maroc : (XVIe-XIXe siècles) (Casablanca: Editions Eddif, 1996), 60-5. This seems not to have been the case in the medieval period or in most parts of the early modern Ottoman Empire, where Jews were just as likely to borrow from Muslims as were Muslims from Jews: Goitein, A Mediterranean Society, v. 1, 256-8; Haim Gerber, “Jews and Money-lending in the Ottoman Empire,” The Jewish Quarterly Review 72, no. 2 (1981); idem, “Muslims and Zimmis in Ottoman Economy and Society: Encounters, Cultures and Knowledge,” in Studies in Ottoman Social and Economic Life, ed. Motika Raoul et. al. (Heidelberg: Heidelberger Orientverlag, 1999). 78 See, e.g., Salo W. Baron, A Social and Religious History of the Jews, 18 vols. (New York: Columbia University Press, 1957), v. 4, 197-202; Leland Bowie, “The Protégé System in Morocco, 1880-1904” (Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Michigan, 1970), 242; Michael M. Laskier and Reeva Spector Simon, “Economic Life,” in The Jews of the Middle East and North Africa in Modern Times, ed. Reeva Spector Simon, Michael M. Laskier, and Sara Reguer (New York: Columbia University Press, 2003), 32. 90
mostly meant extending credit on goods suggests that money lending in general was deeply intertwined with consumption patterns. Jews’ prominence as peddlers, middlemen, and— increasingly as the nineteenth century wore on—import/export merchants goes a long way in explaining Jews’ overrepresentation as moneylenders. 79 The predominance of bills of debt is not surprising given that individual extension of credit was the only way most Jews and Muslims in nineteenth-century Morocco could borrow money. A formal banking system only began to develop in the late nineteenth century, and even then it was largely limited to the coasts where more foreign nationals and protégés resided. 80 In places like Fez, however, the economy relied on merchants’ ability to sell goods on credit; merchants, in turn, relied on the services of sharī‘a courts to ensure that their loans would be honored. In this sense, the services of ‘udūl both helped the Moroccan economy run and helped tie Jewish businessmen to their Muslim clients. Partnerships, Releases, Sales, Leases, and Powers of Attorney Although bills of debt brought the Assarrafs and their associates to sharī‘a courts most often, there were a number of other types of transaction which they and other Moroccan Jews typically had notarized. The most common kinds of documents found in the collection consist of releases, sales (mostly of animals), leases of real estate, and powers of attorney. When the Assarrafs entered into formal partnerships with Muslims, they went to the sharī‘a court to notarize contracts detailing the nature of the arrangement. For instance, in the summer of 1898, Ya‘aqov notarized a document attesting to the fact that he and a Muslim were 79 On Jews’ overrepresentation as merchants in rural areas in particular, see Deshen, The Mellah Society, 32-9. 80 Starting around 1890, some Jews in Tangier opened European-style banks and extended credit to merchants in Fez. However, this was on a very limited scale before 1912 and did not disrupt the older forms of credit extension (Le Tourneau, Fès avant le protectorat, 289-90). 91
- Page 49 and 50: To help remind readers that the thr
- Page 51 and 52: abusive Makhzan officials, infringe
- Page 53 and 54: Chapter One: Between Batei Din and
- Page 55 and 56: went to batei din and sharī‘a co
- Page 57 and 58: school relevant for our purposes is
- Page 59 and 60: Jewish and Islamic legal systems re
- Page 61 and 62: ehind, a large number were undoubte
- Page 63 and 64: atei din generally, it does reflect
- Page 65 and 66: Jews used batei din not only as not
- Page 67 and 68: Jerusalem. 33 The collection consis
- Page 69 and 70: (azraqu al-‘aynayn)—a trait for
- Page 71 and 72: undoubtedly made much of their mone
- Page 73 and 74: preventing members of the community
- Page 75 and 76: ‘udūl. 76 These ‘udūl, whose
- Page 77 and 78: Eliyahu b. Ya'aqov Zohra bat Ya‘a
- Page 79 and 80: and Muḥammad would return the mon
- Page 81 and 82: Table 2.1 Types of Entries 2% 2% 2%
- Page 83 and 84: allegation or deposition in a case
- Page 85 and 86: court approximately once a week, ei
- Page 87 and 88: The introduction of the “protecti
- Page 89 and 90: ule; the ‘udūl almost always too
- Page 91 and 92: documents would stand up as evidenc
- Page 93 and 94: Empire. 49 A document in the Assarr
- Page 95 and 96: legal procedure was relatively mino
- Page 97 and 98: een optional as not all bills of de
- Page 99: Qa‘da 1309 (June 12, 1892), two
- Page 103 and 104: Other release documents specify tha
- Page 105 and 106: al-faqīh Aḥmad al-Filālī al-Ma
- Page 107 and 108: Lease contracts, on the other hand,
- Page 109 and 110: which was operated by Muslims durin
- Page 111 and 112: Shalom’s knowledge of Islamic law
- Page 113 and 114: elow). Although the majority of law
- Page 115 and 116: weeks after the plaintiff filed the
- Page 117 and 118: gathered twelve men who testified t
- Page 119 and 120: whether the qāḍī accepted al-
- Page 121 and 122: in the Assarraf collection indicate
- Page 123 and 124: (ittifāqīyan) and were testifying
- Page 125 and 126: In another instance of oath avoidan
- Page 127 and 128: Sharī‘a courts provided a crucia
- Page 129 and 130: agreement notarized according to Is
- Page 131 and 132: ability and desire to move among di
- Page 133 and 134: ‘udūl. 14 Most real estate trans
- Page 135 and 136: equire or benefit from adjudication
- Page 137 and 138: Simultaneous Use of Jewish and Isla
- Page 139 and 140: evidence from the nineteenth centur
- Page 141 and 142: to sue other Jews in sharī‘a cou
- Page 143 and 144: But what about intra-Jewish lawsuit
- Page 145 and 146: ut for the most part this is a here
- Page 147 and 148: the sum of three duoros per month.
- Page 149 and 150: only in Jewish law. This happened i
mostly meant extending credit on goods suggests that money lending in general was deeply<br />
intertwined with consumption patterns. Jews’ prominence as peddlers, middlemen, and—<br />
increasingly as the nineteenth century wore on—import/export merchants goes a long way in<br />
explaining Jews’ overrepresentation as moneylenders. 79<br />
The predominance of bills of debt is not surprising given that individual extension of<br />
credit was the only way most Jews and Muslims in nineteenth-century Morocco could borrow<br />
money. A formal banking system only began to develop in the late nineteenth century, and even<br />
then it was largely limited to the coasts where more foreign nationals and protégés resided. 80 In<br />
places like Fez, however, the economy relied on merchants’ ability to sell goods on credit;<br />
merchants, in turn, relied on the services of sharī‘a courts to ensure that their loans would be<br />
honored. In this sense, the services of ‘udūl both helped the Moroccan economy run and helped<br />
tie Jewish businessmen to their Muslim clients.<br />
Partnerships, Releases, Sales, Leases, and Powers of Attorney<br />
Although bills of debt brought the Assarrafs and their associates to sharī‘a courts most<br />
often, there were a number of other types of transaction which they and other Moroccan Jews<br />
typically had notarized. The most common kinds of documents found in the collection consist of<br />
releases, sales (mostly of animals), leases of real estate, and powers of attorney.<br />
When the Assarrafs entered into formal partnerships with Muslims, they went to the<br />
sharī‘a court to notarize contracts detailing the nature of the arrangement. For instance, in the<br />
summer of 1898, Ya‘aqov notarized a document attesting to the fact that he and a Muslim were<br />
79<br />
On Jews’ overrepresentation as merchants in rural areas in particular, see Deshen, The Mellah Society, 32-9.<br />
80<br />
Starting around 1890, some Jews in Tangier opened European-style banks and extended credit to merchants in<br />
Fez. However, this was on a very limited scale before 1912 and did not disrupt the older forms of credit extension<br />
(Le Tourneau, Fès avant le protectorat, 289-90).<br />
91
Change language