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

the Jewish victims were compensated, this indicates that initially, at least, imprisonment did not
always have the desired effect. 99
When it came to unpaid debts, imprisonment often ended up functioning as a punishment
in itself without securing the repayment of the debt when bankrupt debtors in prison were unable
to pay back the money they owed. 100 The bankrupt and the poor sometimes languished in jail
until they died. 101 It even occurred that when a debtor died in prison without having paid his
debts, members of his family—such as his brothers or his sons—were imprisoned, presumably
until they paid the debts in question. 102 Perhaps it was believed that imprisoning bankrupt
debtors would eventually convince their family or friends to pay for them. Meanwhile, their
imprisonment might have served as a deterrent to others who were considering defaulting on
their debts. 103
Yet despite the challenges of ensuring that a claim was valid and extracting payment,
there were many cases which did reach some kind of settlement. It is difficult to know with any
99
BH, K 157, p. 85, 20 Muḥarram 1307; BH, K 181, p. 300, 2 Jumādā I 1310. See also BH, K 181, p. 259, 20 Ṣafar
1310. In this case, the Makhzan official reported that another official had released the thief “out of greed” (‘alā
ṭama‘), but the sultan did not specifically order the thief re-imprisoned.
100
BH, K 157, p. 99, 2 Rabī‘ II 1307; BH, K 174, p. 23, 29 Ṣafar 1308; BH, K 181, p. 153, 13 Ramaḍān 1309. See
also DAR, Fez, Mawlāy Ḥasan to Sa‘īd b. Farajī, 6 Rabī‘ II 1298, in which four Muslims imprisoned for debts owed
to a Jew were unable to pay. In this case, however, the sultan commanded that they be sent to Tangier along with
their creditor, presumably to settle their debts (though there is no indication of why they were sent to Tangier to do
so). A European traveler in the sixteenth century observed that there were two prisons in Fez, one for debtors and
those responsible for minor crimes and another for murderers (Mediano, “Justice, crime et châtiment au Maroc,”
614), though by the nineteenth century this separation does not seem to have existed.
101
See, for instance, BH, K 157, p. 99, 2 Rabī‘ II 1307; p. 178, 16 Rajab 1307; BH, K 181, p. 127, 4 Sha‘bān 1309;
p. 262, 25 Ṣafar 1310.
102
For brothers being imprisoned, see BH, K 181, p. 153, 13 Ramaḍān 1309. For sons being imprisoned, see BH, K
181, p. 262, 25 Ṣafar 1310. However, I also found cases in which it was recorded that the debtors had died without
leaving any inheritance with which to pay the debts, but with no mention of imprisoning their heirs: BH, K 181, p.
121, 19 Rajab 1309 and p. 271, 16 Rabī‘ I 1310.
103
There are a few instances in which the sharī‘a court was somehow involved in the imprisonment of a debtor. In
one case (BH, K 157, p. 178, 16 Rajab 1307), a Muslim was put in prison by a sharī‘a court in Meknes for eight
days because of outstanding debts he owed to several Jewish creditors. In another case (BH 181, p. 242, 23
Muḥarram 1310), a Makhzan official was trying to settle a debt owed to a Jew named Kohen the Tall (Kūhīn al-
Ṭawīl) whose debtors were imprisoned in Sefrou. The official managed to get 200 riyāls out of the debtors, but
Kohen refused to settle until the rest was paid. The official asked the sultan to force Kohen to settle the matter in a
sharī‘a court, presumably in order to have the prisoners released.
207