IN THE COURTS OF THE NATIONS - DataSpace - Princeton ...
IN THE COURTS OF THE NATIONS - DataSpace - Princeton ... IN THE COURTS OF THE NATIONS - DataSpace - Princeton ...
not qualify for the ḥadd punishment, and were treated like torts requiring the return of the stolen object or the payment of an indemnity. Although there is some evidence that the ḥadd punishment was applied in Morocco in the nineteenth century, it is never mentioned in the Ministry of Complaints records. 33 It seems that most cases of theft were considered torts, and their remedy was to return the property or its value to the victim. 34 Moreover, because theft was treated as a tort, there was no difference in the way Muslims and non-Muslims were compensated. It is important to note that unlike debt cases, about which Jews complained much more often than Muslims because Jews were overrepresented as moneylenders, Jews and Muslims appear in the registers as victims of theft with similar regularity. Although I did not systematically examine entries concerning Muslims, even a cursory investigation shows that they, too, were victims of theft. 35 Nor is there evidence that Jews were consistently singled out to be stolen from; rather, it seems that thieves preyed on people traveling in isolated areas no must be surreptitious and taken from a place which is locked or guarded; the goods taken must be moveable property worth more than a minimum value (defined as 8.91 grams of silver or 1.06 grams of gold by Mālikīs); and the victim of theft must be the full owner of the stolen goods. In Santillana’s discussion of theft in Mālikī law, he simply describes theft as a tort requiring the return of the stolen object or its value (Santillana, Istituzioni di diritto musulmano malichita, v. 2, 454-5). 33 See, for instance, DAR, Safi, 4769, Mawlāy Sulaymān to ‘Abd al-Khāliq b. Ibrāhīm, 12 Dhū al-Qa‘da 1224. 34 See, for instance, the notarized document attesting to the payment of an indemnity for theft: “Muḥammad, called al-Aḥal, b. Ḥamūda b. al-Bashīr b. Zarūq al-Ya‘qūbī, who lives in Bū Mu‘āwiya, testifies that he received from Muḥammad Fatḥan b. al-Mutawakkil b. al-Khaḍīr, his relative, all that he (Muḥammad Fatḥan) had paid to his fellow tribesmen [literally, brothers], the Bū Mu‘āwiya, from his personal wealth (mālihi al-khāṣṣ) for the female camel (farṣā’) which his aforementioned brothers stole from the children of Muḥammad b. Muḥammad, [which was worth] 50 French riyāls. And he [Muḥammad] released him [Muḥammad Fatḥan], and there will be no investigation afterwards (lā ta‘aqqub ba‘dahā),” (TC, File #4, Rajab 1274). The entries in the Ministry of Complaints registers rarely specify whether the victim of theft was to receive the goods or an indemnity. In one instance the Makhzan official reported having returned the stolen goods to the Jewish victim (BH, K 181, p. 340, 23 Rajab 1310). In another instance from a few years earlier the sultan specified that the Jew should receive the equivalent of his stolen goods (rather than the goods themselves): DAR, Fez, ‘Abdallāh b. Aḥmad to Mawlāy Ḥasan, 29 Rabī‘ I 1301. For a similar settlement, see also FO, 631/3, Elton to Hay, 10 October 1864. 35 In order to give a sense of the frequency of theft cases involving Muslims, I looked through a random sample of entries from Ramaḍān 1306 to Muḥarram 1307 and found a number of instances in which Muslims were victims of theft: BH, K 157, p. 31, 14 Ramaḍān 1306; p. 31, 17 Ramaḍān 1306 (two separate entries on this page); p. 35, 22 Ramaḍān 1306; p. 39, 30 Ramaḍān 1306; p. 40, 5 Shawwāl 1306; p. 40, 7 Shawwāl 1306; p. 85, 20 Muḥarram 1307. 192
matter what their religious background. The fact that in some instances thieves stole from Jews and Muslims together suggests that the perpetrators did not care much about the confession of their targets. 36 There are, however, two factors which made Jews more vulnerable to theft than Muslims. The first is that as dhimmīs, Jews were not permitted to own weapons, and thus were more likely to be unable to defend themselves. 37 Secondly, and probably more importantly, many Jews made a living by peddling goods from village to village; it was common for these peddlers to be absent from their hometowns for long spans of time, often returning home only for the High Holidays in the fall and Passover in the spring. 38 The fact that Jews might have been easier targets is thus in part connected to their religious identity, but it does not mean that Muslim thieves stole from Jews out of an express desire to harm Jews. Although the vast majority of the Jewish victims of theft were men, I found one case concerning a Jewish woman who was stolen from named Esther (Īstīr) al-Ṭanjawīya (from Tangier), described as “al-dhimmīya.” 39 We know little about what happened except that the theft occurred in the jurisdiction of al-Sufyānī (who was the governor of the Gharb and the same official involved in the case of the mule driver with which this chapter began). The only other information we have about Esther is that the Makhzan assigned her a house in Tangier. 40 The Makhzan often gave houses to important merchants, government officials, and foreign diplomats. It is possible that Esther was a merchant of some sort, though this would have been unusual for a 36 BH, K 157, p. 69, 11 Dhū al-Ḥijja 1306; BH, K 171, p. 11, 24 Rajab 1307. See also DAR, Yahūd, ?? to ‘Umar Barrāda (no date). 37 On the prohibition against dhimmīs carrying weapons, see the Pact of ‘Umar in Abū Bakr Muḥammad b. al-Walīd al-Ṭurṭūshī, Sirāj al-Mulūk, 2 vols. (Cairo: Al-dār al-miṣrīya al-lubnānīya, 1994), v. 2, 542-4. For an English translation see Stillman, The Jews of Arab Lands, 157-8. 38 For a discussion of Jewish peddling in Morocco, see Schroeter, Merchants of Essaouira, Chapter 5. 39 There are five separate entries about this case: BH, K 157, p. 171, 1 Rajab 1307 (two entries); BH, K 171, p. 47, 3 Ramaḍān 1307; p. 48, 3 Ramaḍān 1307 (two entries). 40 See BH, K 171, p. 81, 4 Shawwāl 1307, in which the governor of Tangier reported that the house assigned to “aldhimmīya Īstīr”—who was probably the same person as the victim of the theft—was still being repaired. 193
- 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
- Page 177 and 178: an injustice or an act of oppressio
- Page 179 and 180: In designing its new army, the Makh
- Page 181 and 182: The Ministry itself, although in co
- Page 183 and 184: Minister of Complaints, a man about
- Page 185 and 186: It is not entirely clear whether th
- Page 187 and 188: initial letters. 102 The convention
- Page 189 and 190: whether the sultan simply failed to
- Page 191 and 192: Chapter Five: Appeals to the Minist
- Page 193 and 194: Jews and the Ministry of Complaints
- Page 195 and 196: The nature of these sources prevent
- Page 197 and 198: Causes for Complaint Most of the ap
- Page 199 and 200: products (such as barley). 23 This,
- Page 201: appears numerous times). 29 While t
- Page 205 and 206: when amounts are specified they ten
- Page 207 and 208: cases which were ultimately settled
- Page 209 and 210: Jews who had been robbed. 62 The su
- Page 211 and 212: from July 28, 1892, a group of Jews
- Page 213 and 214: nature of sharī‘a courts. 83 In
- Page 215 and 216: legal proof of his claim. 91 It is
- Page 217 and 218: the Jewish victims were compensated
- Page 219 and 220: central government could only do so
- Page 221 and 222: and Muslim was responsible for arra
- Page 223 and 224: sometimes the Makhzan officials’
- Page 225 and 226: A more formidable obstacle to settl
- Page 227 and 228: The Jewish creditor, however, reque
- Page 229 and 230: The practice of exaggerating the va
- Page 231 and 232: official accused a Jew of falsifyin
- Page 233 and 234: esolve disputes with their Jewish d
- Page 235 and 236: property. 178 In this case, the Mak
- Page 237 and 238: Chapter Six: Collective Appeals to
- Page 239 and 240: frequency of Jews’ petitions acro
- Page 241 and 242: The concentration of petitions duri
- Page 243 and 244: “right”—as in, the rights to
- Page 245 and 246: merchants serve as judges on a rota
- Page 247 and 248: Makhzan officials at times evoked t
- Page 249 and 250: The evidence of Jews’ appeals to
- Page 251 and 252: governor). 46 The next winter the J
matter what their religious background. The fact that in some instances thieves stole from Jews<br />
and Muslims together suggests that the perpetrators did not care much about the confession of<br />
their targets. 36 There are, however, two factors which made Jews more vulnerable to theft than<br />
Muslims. The first is that as dhimmīs, Jews were not permitted to own weapons, and thus were<br />
more likely to be unable to defend themselves. 37 Secondly, and probably more importantly,<br />
many Jews made a living by peddling goods from village to village; it was common for these<br />
peddlers to be absent from their hometowns for long spans of time, often returning home only for<br />
the High Holidays in the fall and Passover in the spring. 38 The fact that Jews might have been<br />
easier targets is thus in part connected to their religious identity, but it does not mean that<br />
Muslim thieves stole from Jews out of an express desire to harm Jews.<br />
Although the vast majority of the Jewish victims of theft were men, I found one case<br />
concerning a Jewish woman who was stolen from named Esther (Īstīr) al-Ṭanjawīya (from<br />
Tangier), described as “al-dhimmīya.” 39 We know little about what happened except that the<br />
theft occurred in the jurisdiction of al-Sufyānī (who was the governor of the Gharb and the same<br />
official involved in the case of the mule driver with which this chapter began). The only other<br />
information we have about Esther is that the Makhzan assigned her a house in Tangier. 40 The<br />
Makhzan often gave houses to important merchants, government officials, and foreign diplomats.<br />
It is possible that Esther was a merchant of some sort, though this would have been unusual for a<br />
36<br />
BH, K 157, p. 69, 11 Dhū al-Ḥijja 1306; BH, K 171, p. 11, 24 Rajab 1307. See also DAR, Yahūd, ?? to ‘Umar<br />
Barrāda (no date).<br />
37<br />
On the prohibition against dhimmīs carrying weapons, see the Pact of ‘Umar in Abū Bakr Muḥammad b. al-Walīd<br />
al-Ṭurṭūshī, Sirāj al-Mulūk, 2 vols. (Cairo: Al-dār al-miṣrīya al-lubnānīya, 1994), v. 2, 542-4. For an English<br />
translation see Stillman, The Jews of Arab Lands, 157-8.<br />
38<br />
For a discussion of Jewish peddling in Morocco, see Schroeter, Merchants of Essaouira, Chapter 5.<br />
39<br />
There are five separate entries about this case: BH, K 157, p. 171, 1 Rajab 1307 (two entries); BH, K 171, p. 47, 3<br />
Ramaḍān 1307; p. 48, 3 Ramaḍān 1307 (two entries).<br />
40<br />
See BH, K 171, p. 81, 4 Shawwāl 1307, in which the governor of Tangier reported that the house assigned to “aldhimmīya<br />
Īstīr”—who was probably the same person as the victim of the theft—was still being repaired.<br />
193
Change language