20.04.2013 Views

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

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

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

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

nature of sharī‘a courts. 83 In some instances it is clear that Jews preferred not to settle in a<br />

sharī‘a court because they felt their legal documents would not hold up to the scrutiny of a qāḍī.<br />

In a case from March 4, 1891, the Jew Yūsif b. al-Ḥazān al-Qayḍābī refused to go to a sharī‘a<br />

court to sanction a release of his debtors. 84 This is undoubtedly because Yūsif never produced<br />

the legal documents proving his debt, claiming that they were in the possession of his partner<br />

and, more implausibly, that it was not customary to present such documents. 85 Just as Ibn al-<br />

Baḥar probably knew that a qāḍī would judge his case favorably and thus requested settlement in<br />

a sharī‘a court, Yūsif knew that he was bound to lose before a qāḍī without legal proof of his<br />

claim.<br />

Reaching a Settlement<br />

Two basic tasks faced Makhzan officials who were charged with settling complalints. On<br />

the one hand, they had to verify that the petitioner’s claims were indeed valid—which frequently<br />

involved requiring notarized documentation of the case at hand. On the other, they had to<br />

convince (or force) the recalcitrant debtors, theifs, or murderers to pay what they owed in debt,<br />

compensation for theft, or blood money. When all these conditions were met, Makhzan officials<br />

could report to the Ministry of Complaints that a case was settled.<br />

83<br />

BH, K 157, p. 31, 17 Ramaḍān 1306.<br />

84<br />

BH, K 174, p. 75, 23 Rajab 1308.<br />

85<br />

In another case (BH, K 181, p. 126, 2 Sha‘bān 1309), the Jewish creditor Ḥaim b. Yosef al-Qasrī did not<br />

completely refuse to go to the sharī‘a court but rather insisted that the case be judged by the qāḍī of the city<br />

(presumably where Ḥaim lived), rather than the qāḍī of the region where the debtors lived (which would have been<br />

the more customary practice). The Makhzan official responsible for the case noted that Ḥaim was known for<br />

falsifying documents and forging the signatures of qāḍīs and ‘udūl. It seems likely that Ḥaim had better connections<br />

with the qāḍī in his hometown, and thus thought he would have a better chance there.<br />

203

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!