IN THE COURTS OF THE NATIONS - DataSpace - Princeton ...
IN THE COURTS OF THE NATIONS - DataSpace - Princeton ... IN THE COURTS OF THE NATIONS - DataSpace - Princeton ...
settlement among Ya‘aqov Assarraf, his business associate Eliyahu b. ‘Azūz Kohen, and the Muslim Idrīs b. Ya‘īsh al-Najjārī. 89 Ya‘aqov and Eliyahu claimed that Idrīs owed them 6,945 riyāls—a large sum—for debts which Idrīs had guaranteed to the two Jews. 90 Idrīs’s sons came to court and demanded that “the dhimmīs take an oath (yamīn al-qaḍā’ wa-ṣiḥḥat al-mu‘āmalāt) concerning the signature of their father that they [the two dhimmīs] presented.” Instead, two Jewish mediators (man aṣlaḥa baynahum), al-ḥazān Wīdāl b. al-ḥazān Abnīr al-Sal‘ātī al-Fāsī, and the merchant Zūbīl b. Ya‘aqov b. Samḥūn al-Fāsī, arrived in court. With the mediators’ help, Ya‘aqov and Eliyahu agreed to a reduced payment of 4,000 riyals and “forgave” (yusāmiḥ) the remaining 2,945 riyals. The resulting release attested that the two Jews received the 4,000 riyals settled upon and that they had no further claims on their debtor. 91 It is significant that the mediators among Jewish and Muslim disputants were both Jewish; given Jews’ lower social status, one might expect Muslims to be called upon to mediate. Perhaps these two Jews had relationships with the Muslim debtors. In any case, this particular release was clearly arrived at only after some disagreement, an appearance in court, and engaging outside parties to help resolve the dispute. In a few instances, releases specified that the Jewish creditor not only released his debtor from any further claims, but also authorized the debtor’s physical release from prison. For instance, in a document from February 5, 1885, Shalom Assarraf released al-Ḥājj Muḥammad b. 89 TC, File #6, 8 Ṣafar 1327. 90 In fact, Idrīs had guaranteed a total of 8,000 riyals but had already paid 1,055 riyals in four separate payments. 91 For another case in which a release was made after appearances in court, see the release from 30 Muḥarram 1309 (TC, File #3), in which two dhimmīs, Mas‘ūd b. Shlomoh Shīnīgū and Ḥaim b. Ya‘aqov b. Harosh released al-Mu‘ṭī b. al-Bashīr al-Jāmi‘ī al-Ma‘īshī, the brother of the late Idrīs b. al-Bashīr al-Jāmi‘ī al-Ma‘īshī. Mas‘ūd and Ḥaim sued al-Mu‘ṭī in court (majālis al-aḥkām) claiming that he had taken bills of debt which were owed to his late brother Idrīs; the two Jews wanted al-Mu‘ṭī to return the documents to Idrīs’s heirs so that they could be paid (presumably for debts which Idrīs had owed to them at the time of his death). The release document specifies that the two Jews and al-Mu‘ṭī settled for approximately half of the amount the creditors originally demanded (111 riyals out of 218). See also the releases from TC, File #5, 16 Dhū al-Ḥijja 1292 and 27 Sha‘bān 1309 (both of these are written on the same physical document as the lawsuits which they resolved); File #5, 9 Shawwāl 1332. 94
al-faqīh Aḥmad al-Filālī al-Maṣlūḥī after Muḥammad paid fifty riyals of his debt (attested to in legal documents) and agreed to pay the rest (an unspecified amount) within three months. Shalom “permitted the Makhzan authorities to release [Muḥammad] from prison immediately.” 92 Presumably Shalom had asked the local government officials to have Muḥammad arrested for non-payment of his debts. (I discuss the role of Makhzan officials in imprisoning recalcitrant debtors in Chapter Five.) Now that Muḥammad had paid at least part of what he owed, Shalom authorized his release from prison. In this particular case, the legal function of the document is not entirely clear given that Muḥammad still owed Shalom money—and thus the release did not actually attest that Muḥammad had fulfilled all his obligations to his creditor. Instead, this release served as proof that Muḥammad had paid part of his debt and could be released from prison, rather than as a final release from all obligations. The third most common type of notarial document in the Assarraf collection is contracts for the lease or sale of property, of which there are a total of thirty-two (about 2% of the entire collection). 93 Of these, seventeen are for leases and fifteen are for sales. All sale and lease contracts followed a relatively fixed formula: they specified the seller/landlord and the buyer/tenant, the property to be bought or leased (with a description), and the amount paid (or the amount to be paid per month in the case of a lease). 94 92 Wa-annahu adhina man lahu al-aḥkāmu al-makhzanīyatu fī tasrīḥihi min al-sijni min al-ān: (TC, File #10, 19 Rabī ‘ II 1302). For other releases which specified that the debtor should be physically released from prison, see File #5, 16 Jumādā I 1302 and File #6, 7 Jumādā II 1303. In both these releases, Shalom specified that he was still owed some of the debt by the imprisoned debtors, but permitted their release from prison upon their agreement to pay the rest of what they owed. 93 In other collections I counted 32 contracts for sales or leases (about 11% of the total). 94 Binānī includes formulas for the sale and lease of specific goods or types of property, though they are mostly identical: Binānī, al-Wathā’iq al-fāsīya, 26-30, 52-54. 95
- 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 and 100: Qa‘da 1309 (June 12, 1892), two
- Page 101 and 102: mostly meant extending credit on go
- Page 103: Other release documents specify tha
- 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
- Page 151 and 152: in the millāḥ of Marrakesh on Ap
- Page 153 and 154: aware of Jewish law and sometimes t
al-faqīh Aḥmad al-Filālī al-Maṣlūḥī after Muḥammad paid fifty riyals of his debt (attested to in<br />
legal documents) and agreed to pay the rest (an unspecified amount) within three months.<br />
Shalom “permitted the Makhzan authorities to release [Muḥammad] from prison immediately.” 92<br />
Presumably Shalom had asked the local government officials to have Muḥammad arrested for<br />
non-payment of his debts. (I discuss the role of Makhzan officials in imprisoning recalcitrant<br />
debtors in Chapter Five.) Now that Muḥammad had paid at least part of what he owed, Shalom<br />
authorized his release from prison. In this particular case, the legal function of the document is<br />
not entirely clear given that Muḥammad still owed Shalom money—and thus the release did not<br />
actually attest that Muḥammad had fulfilled all his obligations to his creditor. Instead, this<br />
release served as proof that Muḥammad had paid part of his debt and could be released from<br />
prison, rather than as a final release from all obligations.<br />
The third most common type of notarial document in the Assarraf collection is contracts<br />
for the lease or sale of property, of which there are a total of thirty-two (about 2% of the entire<br />
collection). 93 Of these, seventeen are for leases and fifteen are for sales. All sale and lease<br />
contracts followed a relatively fixed formula: they specified the seller/landlord and the<br />
buyer/tenant, the property to be bought or leased (with a description), and the amount paid (or<br />
the amount to be paid per month in the case of a lease). 94<br />
92<br />
Wa-annahu adhina man lahu al-aḥkāmu al-makhzanīyatu fī tasrīḥihi min al-sijni min al-ān: (TC, File #10, 19<br />
Rabī ‘ II 1302). For other releases which specified that the debtor should be physically released from prison, see<br />
File #5, 16 Jumādā I 1302 and File #6, 7 Jumādā II 1303. In both these releases, Shalom specified that he was still<br />
owed some of the debt by the imprisoned debtors, but permitted their release from prison upon their agreement to<br />
pay the rest of what they owed.<br />
93<br />
In other collections I counted 32 contracts for sales or leases (about 11% of the total).<br />
94<br />
Binānī includes formulas for the sale and lease of specific goods or types of property, though they are mostly<br />
identical: Binānī, al-Wathā’iq al-fāsīya, 26-30, 52-54.<br />
95
Change language