IN THE COURTS OF THE NATIONS - DataSpace - Princeton ...

IN THE COURTS OF THE NATIONS - DataSpace - Princeton ... IN THE COURTS OF THE NATIONS - DataSpace - Princeton ...

dataspace.princeton.edu
from dataspace.princeton.edu More from this publisher
20.04.2013 Views

synagogue and swore an “oath of payment” (yamīn al-qaḍā’). 189 At times Muslims similarly acquiesced in Jews’ demands that they take an oath. 190 Overall, there was little difference in how Jews and Muslims used the oath as a legal tool. The litigious documents in the Assarraf collection show that Jews used the sharī‘a court not only as a notary public, but also as a tribunal. They pursued recalcitrant debtors, sued guarantors for the sums they had guaranteed, and were, in turn, sued for sums they owed others. As non-Muslims in an Islamic system of justice, Jews were in some ways disadvantaged; in Morocco, their religious identity particularly affected their ability to testify as part of a lafīf. However, most aspects their experience in a sharī‘a court were not fundamentally different from that of Muslims. Jews submitted documents signed by ‘udūl as evidence, took oaths, and even solicited muftīs for fatāwā in support of their pleas in the same ways as did Muslims. * * * Sharī‘a courts in nineteenth-century Morocco were institutions which applied Islamic law and were staffed by Muslims, but they were far from exclusively Muslim. On the contrary, Jews were habitual patrons of sharī‘a courts, availing themselves of the services of qāḍīs and ‘udūl on a regular basis. As businessmen, Jews fostered countless commercial relations with Muslims. In the case of the Assarraf family, as for many other Jewish merchants, this mostly meant selling goods on credit. It was in Jews’ interest to ensure that each of these relationships was attested by legally binding documentation—that is, notarized by ‘udūl. Producing this kind of documentation meant that Jews could rely on sharī‘a courts to enforce the contracts they signed, should they need to sue pursue litigation. 189 TC, File #1, 6 Jumādā II 1299 (on the back of a bill of debt dated 1 Rabī‘ II 1295). For an instance in which a Jew agreed to take an oath, see File #1, 6 Shawwāl 1283. 190 See, e.g., File #1, 29 Dhū al-Qa‘da 1291; File #9, 4 Ṣafar 1294 (in which Shalom demanded that a Muslim swear that Shalom had given him a mule: the Muslim swore that this was true, and that the mule had subsequently died). 116

Sharī‘a courts provided a crucial ingredient in the glue of commercial relations which bound Jews and Muslims to one another. The records produced by sharī‘a courts for Jewish businessmen like the Assarrafs preserve a slice of life in Morocco that was at the center of Jewish-Muslim encounters. They also allow us a unique view of how Jews used sharī‘a courts— a dimension of Jewish experience in the Islamic world which has hitherto received too little attention. 117

synagogue and swore an “oath of payment” (yamīn al-qaḍā’). 189 At times Muslims similarly<br />

acquiesced in Jews’ demands that they take an oath. 190 Overall, there was little difference in<br />

how Jews and Muslims used the oath as a legal tool.<br />

The litigious documents in the Assarraf collection show that Jews used the sharī‘a court<br />

not only as a notary public, but also as a tribunal. They pursued recalcitrant debtors, sued<br />

guarantors for the sums they had guaranteed, and were, in turn, sued for sums they owed others.<br />

As non-Muslims in an Islamic system of justice, Jews were in some ways disadvantaged; in<br />

Morocco, their religious identity particularly affected their ability to testify as part of a lafīf.<br />

However, most aspects their experience in a sharī‘a court were not fundamentally different from<br />

that of Muslims. Jews submitted documents signed by ‘udūl as evidence, took oaths, and even<br />

solicited muftīs for fatāwā in support of their pleas in the same ways as did Muslims.<br />

* * *<br />

Sharī‘a courts in nineteenth-century Morocco were institutions which applied Islamic law<br />

and were staffed by Muslims, but they were far from exclusively Muslim. On the contrary, Jews<br />

were habitual patrons of sharī‘a courts, availing themselves of the services of qāḍīs and ‘udūl on<br />

a regular basis. As businessmen, Jews fostered countless commercial relations with Muslims. In<br />

the case of the Assarraf family, as for many other Jewish merchants, this mostly meant selling<br />

goods on credit. It was in Jews’ interest to ensure that each of these relationships was attested by<br />

legally binding documentation—that is, notarized by ‘udūl. Producing this kind of<br />

documentation meant that Jews could rely on sharī‘a courts to enforce the contracts they signed,<br />

should they need to sue pursue litigation.<br />

189<br />

TC, File #1, 6 Jumādā II 1299 (on the back of a bill of debt dated 1 Rabī‘ II 1295). For an instance in which a<br />

Jew agreed to take an oath, see File #1, 6 Shawwāl 1283.<br />

190<br />

See, e.g., File #1, 29 Dhū al-Qa‘da 1291; File #9, 4 Ṣafar 1294 (in which Shalom demanded that a Muslim swear<br />

that Shalom had given him a mule: the Muslim swore that this was true, and that the mule had subsequently died).<br />

116

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!