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

from July 28, 1892, a group of Jews from Meknes complained about the murder of some of their
coreligionists. 71 The Jews had twice disagreed with the tribe from which the murderers hailed
concerning the amount of blood money. 72 The Makhan official responsible for settling the case
requested that it be sent to the appropriate qāḍī and ‘udūl for resolution, to which the sultan
agreed. 73
Sometimes the sultan gave the local Makhzan official a choice between resolving the
case himself and sending it to a sharī‘a court. 74 On November 26, 1889, al-‘Arabī b. al-Sharafī
al-Ḥimānī wrote concerning the case of a Jewish creditor. 75 The sultan instructed him either to
settle the Jew’s case (bi-faṣli al-dhimmī) or to send the Jew and his debtors to a sharī‘a court (aw
ṣarfihim lil-shar‘); al-‘Arabī chose to send the case to the sharī‘a court. Although al-‘Arabī’s
motives for recusing himself are not clear, his choice reflects those of most Makhzan officials
who, when given the option to choose between a sharī‘a court and settling the matter himself,
generally opted to send the case to a qāḍī. 76 As in the two cases above, it was also fairly
common for a local Makhzan official to request that a case be resolved in a sharī‘a court. 77
71
BH, K 181, p. 232, 3 Muḥarram 1310.
72
The word used is tadmiya, which is the maṣdar (verbal noun) of form two of the verb “damā”—meaning to strike
someone until he bleeds (Lane, An Arabic-English Lexicon, 916). However, in this context tadmiya clearly means
responsibility for the murder generally, and thus for the blood money.
73
For another example of a complicated murder case, see BH, K 181, p. 345, 5 Sha‘bān 1310, in which the Jewish
plaintiffs were accused of lying about their claim. Perhaps the Makhzan official resorted to the sharī‘a court to sort
out the competing testimonies.
74
For cases in which the local official could choose between sending the matter to a sharī‘a court or resolving it
himself, see: BH, K 157, p. 123, 25 Rabī‘ II 1307; BH, K 181, p. 68, 4 Jumādā I 1309; p. 123, 29 Rajab 1309; p.
155, 18 Ramadan 1309; p. 200, 15 Dhū al-Qa‘da 1309; p. 219, 9 Dhū al-Ḥijja 1309; p. 265, 30 Ṣafar 1310; p. 334,
12 Rajab 1310.
75
The creditor was named in al-‘Arabī’s letter but not in the entry (the phrase is al-dhimmī al-musammā dākhilahu,
literally “the dhimmī named inside it [the letter]”): BH, K 157, p. 99, 2 Rabī‘ II 1307.
76
The single exception is BH 181, p. 219, 9 Dhū al-Ḥijja 1309, in which the Makhzan official settled the case
himself. In BH 181, p. 200, 15 Dhū al-Qa‘da 1309, it is not clear whether the Makhzan official decided to send the
case to a sharī‘a court or settle it himself.
77
BH, K 174, p. 23, 29 Ṣafar 1308; BH, K 181, p. 126, 1 Sha‘bān 1309; p. 212, 27 Dhū al-Qa‘da 1309; p. 242, 23
Muḥarram 1310; p. 255, 14 Ṣafar 1310; p. 334, 12 Rajab 1310.
201