IN THE COURTS OF THE NATIONS - DataSpace - Princeton ...
IN THE COURTS OF THE NATIONS - DataSpace - Princeton ... IN THE COURTS OF THE NATIONS - DataSpace - Princeton ...
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
- 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 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: In another instance of oath avoidan
- 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.
- Page 163 and 164: the Moroccan legal system more broa
- Page 165 and 166: translated as the territories under
- Page 167 and 168: elatively scant work on the legal h
- Page 169 and 170: law, even if they did not consisten
- Page 171 and 172: abrupt end after his death, as the
- Page 173 and 174: put it, “in all medieval Muslim s
- Page 175 and 176: about its image in the eyes of fore
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