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

Making sure that the petitioner’s claims were valid was usually accomplished by ordering
that a case be settled “with legal proof” (bi-mūjib). 86 An entry from May 22, 1890, reads: “Al-
Zarārī concerning the complaint of the dhimmī Ibn Sūsān about what is owed to him by those
whom he named [i.e. in the letter, though the names are not recorded in the register]. [Al-Zarārī]
says that he sent [the debtors] to meet [with Ibn Sūsān]. Our lord says: settlement with legal
proof (bi-mūjib).” 87 Legal proof here refers to bills of debt written according to Islamic law and
signed by two ‘udūl and, sometimes, a qāḍī. 88 As discussed in Chapter Two, these bills of debt
were central to the commercial activities of Jews and Muslims. The records of the Ministry of
Complaints show that this sort of documentation was important not only when it came to proving
one’s case in a sharī‘a court, but also when individuals wanted a case resolved by the Makhzan.
Similarly, in many theft cases the sultan specified that the case must be settled with legal proof
(bi-mūjib), meaning notarized documents which recorded what was stolen and when. 89 (Murder
cases, on the other hand, rarely involved notarized documents. 90 ) While normally the sultan
ruled that legal proof was necessary in a particular case, there were also debt cases in which the
local Makhzan official or even the debtors themselves requested the Jewish creditor to produce
86 De Premare defines mūjib as “motif plausible, raison légale” or “acte notarié établi sur le témoignage de vingt
quatre témoins pour faire cesser un état de chose préjudiciable à la collecitivité” (De Premare, Dictionnaire arabefrançais,
v. 12, 141). Although neither definition corresponds exactly to the way in which mūjib is used in our
documents (that is, to mean simply “legal proof”), it is clear that the word as it was used in Morocco meant a legal
document.
87 BH, K 171, p. 80, 2 Shawwāl 1307.
88 See also BH, K 181, p. 322, 18 Jumādā II 1310, in which the sultan specified that the Makhzan official was to
“settle [the case] with sharī‘a legal proof” (bi-’l-fiṣāli bi-mūjibin shar‘iyyin).
89 BH, K 171, p. 107, 11 Dhū al-Qa‘da 1307; BH, K 181, p. 107, 4 Rajab 1309; p. 361, 6 Ramaḍān 1310. This last
entry did not specify that the case must be settled with “legal proof,” but rather that the parties must settle “for the
money which is established,” presumably through legal proofs. In another instance, the Makhzan official actually
reported having settled the case without proof, but requested that legal proof be sent subsequently: BH, K 181, p.
315, 30 Jumādā I 1310 (two relevant entries). See also BH, K 157, p. 144, 25 Jumādā I 1307, in which the Makhzan
official reported that the Jewish victim declared his losses before ‘udūl. See also DAR, Demnat, Mawlāy Ḥasan to
al-Ḥājj al-Jīlānī al-Dimnātī, 27 Shawwāl 1300, in which the sultan first reprimanded al-Dimnātī for failing to settle a
theft case and then demanded that he do so after obtaining legal proof of the Jew’s claim.
90 See, however, the case discussed in BH, K 171, p. 1, 18 Rajab 1307 and p. 72, 28 Ramaḍān 1307.
204