IN THE COURTS OF THE NATIONS - DataSpace - Princeton ...
IN THE COURTS OF THE NATIONS - DataSpace - Princeton ... IN THE COURTS OF THE NATIONS - DataSpace - Princeton ...
415 entries are either subsequent hearings related to these suits, documents attesting to guarantors for the appearance of defendants in court, or depositions of witnesses. 122 One of the most striking patterns in these seventy cases is that Jews were plaintiffs far more often than they were defendants, about 86% of the time. 123 It is possible that this pattern reflects the particular situation of the Assarrafs, 124 and does not tell us anything about Jews’ experience suing and being sued in sharī‘a courts more generally. 125 However, it seems more likely that Jews were plaintiffs more often because they acted as creditors more often than debtors in their business relations with Muslims. This was the case for the Assarrafs, whose collection does not contain a single document attesting debts which an Assarraf owed to a Muslim. The vast majority of lawsuits in which Jews were the plaintiffs were for unpaid debts. 126 Conversely, not a single one of the ten lawsuits in which Jews were defendants concerned unpaid debts. The fact that Jews were more likely to lend money to Muslims naturally meant that they were more likely to sue those Muslims in order to ensure payment. These lawsuits are also of interest because Muslim women appeared in them more than in any other type of legal document. For instance, Shalom sued two different Muslim women in court, both for having guaranteed debts owed to him by their male relatives. 127 One of these women, Zaynab b. Mulūk al-Qamrī, appeared in court with Shalom a number of times (discussed 122 Furthermore, the litigious entries which were not recorded directly on the same documents as the initial claims might be related to other lawsuits whose initial claims are not preserved in the collection. 123 Sixty cases concerned Jews as plaintiffs, while only ten concerned Jews as defendants. 124 In fact, only sixty-one cases concerned the Assarrafs (Shalom and his son Ya‘aqov); the other nine concerned other Jews who were, presumably, their business associates. Nonetheless, the proportion of cases in which the Assarrafs were plaintiffs remains overwhelming (88% of the cases concerning Assarrafs). 125 The evidence from other collections supports this hypothesis to some extent. Although I only found five lawsuits in other collections, the overwhelming pattern from the Assarraf collection was not apparent among these documents: there were three in which the Jew was the plaintiff (UL, Or.26.543 (1), 27 Dhū al-Ḥijja 12??, Ḥaim Corcos, Marrakesh; 7 Sha‘bān 1298, Ḥaim Corcos, Marrakesh; YBZ, 280, 6 Muḥarram 1234, Shlomoh b. Menaḥem b. Walīd) and two in which the Jew was the defendant (UL, Or.26.543 (1), 18 Jumādā I 1295, ‘Amrān Corcos, Marrakesh; YBZ, 280, 17 Dhū al-Qa‘da 1308, Rafael b. ‘Azīz Harosh). 126 56 out of 60, or 93%. 127 TC, File #8, 25 Rabī‘ I 1271, in which Shalom sued Fāṭima bint Qudūr al-Ūdī al-Sūsī. 102
elow). Although the majority of lawsuits in the Assarraf collection are among men only, the Assarrafs’ commercial relations with Muslim men often involved these men’s female relatives as well. 80% of the lawsuits concern Jews suing Muslims for unpaid debts—either for debts the defendants themselves had contracted or for ones they had guaranteed for other Muslims (or both). 128 The amounts of the unpaid debts varied widely, from four mithqāls (which, in 1908, could buy approximately thirteen grams of raw wool) to 3,000 riyāls (worth approximately seventy-six kilos of raw wool), though most were for amounts in the hundreds of riyāls. 129 In addition to claiming unpaid debts, Shalom sued Muslims for three other kinds of claims: in one, he sued a Muslim debtor who had said he was bankrupt, but who Shalom later learned had a servant (waṣīf) and a slave girl (ama) in his possession; 130 in a second, he sued a Muslim who had sold his nephew what he said were gold earrings but which turned out to be made of copper (the case with which this chapter began); 131 and in a third, Shalom sued a Muslim who allegedly had a mule in his possession which belonged to one of Shalom’s debtors (and which Shalom presumably wanted as payment for the debt). 132 Muslims, on the other hand, sued Shalom and his associates for a wide variety of matters. On December 7, 1875, a Muslim named al-Taraghī b. al-Ghazwānī al-Faqālī sued Shalom for 128 56 out of 70 concerned unpaid debts. Two of these were lawsuits against the heirs of deceased debtors (TC, File #5, 14 Muḥarram 1315 and File #3, 21 Rajab 1329). 129 See TC, File #6, 12 Dhū al-Ḥijja 1291 (in which Shalom Assarraf claimed four mithqāls from al-Ḥilālī b. Ḥamm al-Ḥayānī al-‘Imrānī al-‘Isāwī, who had guaranteed a debt owed by his relative Mas‘ūd b. Aḥmad); File #6, 19 Rabī‘ II 1292 (in which Shalom Assarraf claimed 3,000 riyāls from al-‘Arabī b. Laḥsan al-Dūblālī al-Ya‘qūbī, who had guaranteed them for al-Mu‘ṭī b. Ḥamm al-Dublālī al-‘Ajīwī and al-Ḥājj ‘Abdallah b. Muḥammad al-Shayẓamī). The value of these sums in terms of amounts of wool is, I admit, extremely approximate. I base my estimations on Le Tourneau’s valuation of raw wool before 1912, which he valued at twenty-five riyāls for 632.5 grams: the mithqāl in 1908 was worth between 8 and 14 riyals. See Le Tourneau, Fès avant le protectorat, 279-80, 84. 130 TC, File #8, 8 Jumādā I 1297. 131 TC, File #4, 10 Jumādā II 1297; in the ensuing settlement, Shalom agreed to return the earrings to the Muslim, and the Muslim returned Shalom’s money. 132 TC, File #8, 18 Muḥarram 1302. The other lawsuit in which a Jew was a plaintiff was brought by Ḥaim b. Ya‘aqov Harosh (File #9, 1 Rabī‘ I 1301), discussed below. 103
- 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 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: Shalom’s knowledge of Islamic 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
- Page 155 and 156: of a rabbi to determine the proper
- Page 157 and 158: ‘Aṭṭār, in order to find out
- Page 159 and 160: Muslims’ jurisdictional boundary
- Page 161 and 162: that they had successfully done so.
elow). Although the majority of lawsuits in the Assarraf collection are among men only, the<br />
Assarrafs’ commercial relations with Muslim men often involved these men’s female relatives as<br />
well.<br />
80% of the lawsuits concern Jews suing Muslims for unpaid debts—either for debts the<br />
defendants themselves had contracted or for ones they had guaranteed for other Muslims (or<br />
both). 128 The amounts of the unpaid debts varied widely, from four mithqāls (which, in 1908,<br />
could buy approximately thirteen grams of raw wool) to 3,000 riyāls (worth approximately<br />
seventy-six kilos of raw wool), though most were for amounts in the hundreds of riyāls. 129 In<br />
addition to claiming unpaid debts, Shalom sued Muslims for three other kinds of claims: in one,<br />
he sued a Muslim debtor who had said he was bankrupt, but who Shalom later learned had a<br />
servant (waṣīf) and a slave girl (ama) in his possession; 130 in a second, he sued a Muslim who<br />
had sold his nephew what he said were gold earrings but which turned out to be made of copper<br />
(the case with which this chapter began); 131 and in a third, Shalom sued a Muslim who allegedly<br />
had a mule in his possession which belonged to one of Shalom’s debtors (and which Shalom<br />
presumably wanted as payment for the debt). 132<br />
Muslims, on the other hand, sued Shalom and his associates for a wide variety of matters.<br />
On December 7, 1875, a Muslim named al-Taraghī b. al-Ghazwānī al-Faqālī sued Shalom for<br />
128<br />
56 out of 70 concerned unpaid debts. Two of these were lawsuits against the heirs of deceased debtors (TC, File<br />
#5, 14 Muḥarram 1315 and File #3, 21 Rajab 1329).<br />
129<br />
See TC, File #6, 12 Dhū al-Ḥijja 1291 (in which Shalom Assarraf claimed four mithqāls from al-Ḥilālī b. Ḥamm<br />
al-Ḥayānī al-‘Imrānī al-‘Isāwī, who had guaranteed a debt owed by his relative Mas‘ūd b. Aḥmad); File #6, 19 Rabī‘<br />
II 1292 (in which Shalom Assarraf claimed 3,000 riyāls from al-‘Arabī b. Laḥsan al-Dūblālī al-Ya‘qūbī, who had<br />
guaranteed them for al-Mu‘ṭī b. Ḥamm al-Dublālī al-‘Ajīwī and al-Ḥājj ‘Abdallah b. Muḥammad al-Shayẓamī).<br />
The value of these sums in terms of amounts of wool is, I admit, extremely approximate. I base my estimations on<br />
Le Tourneau’s valuation of raw wool before 1912, which he valued at twenty-five riyāls for 632.5 grams: the<br />
mithqāl in 1908 was worth between 8 and 14 riyals. See Le Tourneau, Fès avant le protectorat, 279-80, 84.<br />
130<br />
TC, File #8, 8 Jumādā I 1297.<br />
131<br />
TC, File #4, 10 Jumādā II 1297; in the ensuing settlement, Shalom agreed to return the earrings to the Muslim,<br />
and the Muslim returned Shalom’s money.<br />
132<br />
TC, File #8, 18 Muḥarram 1302. The other lawsuit in which a Jew was a plaintiff was brought by Ḥaim b.<br />
Ya‘aqov Harosh (File #9, 1 Rabī‘ I 1301), discussed below.<br />
103