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

on September 7, 1892, a cousin of the debtor accused the Jewish creditor of falsifying
documents:
The leader (naqīb) of Zāwiyat al-Jānīya says that one of his cousins whom he named [in
the original letter] died five years ago, and that the dhimmī Hārūn al-Tāzī came with a
falsified document [showing that his cousin owed al-Tāzī] 50 riyāls. And when the royal
command was given to the governor to force his son [the son of the deceased cousin] to
settle, the governor (al-‘āmil) seized [the son’s] cattle and sent them to the qā’id of the
mashwar, 66 and [the cattle] are now in [the qā’id’s] possession. [The leader of the
zāwiya] asks that the matter be taken to the sharī‘a court and that the cattle be returned to
their owner. 67
This case has a number of elements which make it more complicated than many. Firstly, the
debtor had been dead for five years, meaning that any payment would have to be made as part of
a belated settlement of the inheritance. 68 Secondly, the leader of Zāwiyat al-Jānīya believed that
the Jewish creditor Hārūn forged the bills of debt in the first place. 69 Thirdly, the governor of the
region had already ruled in the Jew’s favor and seized the debtor’s son’s cattle. It seems likely
that some of the governor’s motivation for requesting settlement in a sharī‘a court stemmed from
the desire to make sure such a complicated case was judged by experts. 70 Similarly, in a case
Jumādā I 1309; p. 85, 29 Jumādā I 1309; p. 118, 17 Rajab 1309; p. 229, 28 Dhū al-Hijja 1309; p. 253, 8 Ṣafar 1310;
p. 346, 10 Sha‘bān 1310; p. 352, 23 Sha‘bān 1310. In one instance Mawlāy Ḥasan’s son, the governor of
Marrakesh, wrote directly to a qāḍī with instructions to settle a case and report the outcome: DAR, Marrakesh,
25551, [Mawlāy] ‘Uthmān to Qāḍī al-Ḥājj ‘Alī al-Rajrājī, 16 Rabī‘ II 1302.
66
The mashwar is the public part of the sultan’s palace compound where the offices of the different ministries were
located. The qā’id of the mashwar was responsible for keeping order and for the presentation of people to the
sultan. See Michaux Bellaire, “La beniqat ech chikaïat,” 248-50; Park and Boum, Historical Dictionary of
Morocco, 227.
67
BH, K 181, p. 255, 14 Ṣafar 1310.
68
For another case sent to the sharī‘a court which involved inheritance, see BH, K 181, p. 126, 1 Sha‘bān 1309.
69
There were a number of cases sent to a sharī‘a court in which the Jewish creditor was accused of lying: see, for
instance, BH, K 174, p. 30, 21 Rabī‘ I 1308; BH, K 181, p. 151, 10 Ramaḍān 1309.
70
For other complicated cases with a number of variables involved in their settlement, see, for instance, BH, K 171,
p. 58, 14 Ramaḍān 1307. In this case, the Makhzan official reported that the debtors had escaped, and that their
guarantor was imprisoned in Oujda. The sultan responded that a sharī‘a court should determine whether the
guarantor had to pay or not. See also DAR, Marrakesh, Aḥmad b. al-Ṭāhir to Muḥammad b. ‘Azūz, 24 Jumādā I
1282. In this case, a Jew named Ibn Shaqrūn had rented a fundūq to Sāliḥ b. ‘Alī, who was now imprisoned
(presumably for not paying his rent). Sāliḥ provided a guarantor for the lease, but Ibn Shaqrūn did not accept the
guarantor and the case went to a sharī‘a court. See also DAR, Fez, Mawlāy Ḥasan to Sa‘īd b. Farajī, 29 Rabī‘ I
1298, in which the sultan instructed Sa‘īd to help a Jewish creditor collect his debts and to send anyone who resisted
to the sharī‘a court to settle.
200