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

Questioning Jews’ Claims
In addition to the obstacles which could delay or prevent the settlement of Jews’
petitions, Makhzan officials sometimes refused to accept Jews’ claims at face value. Local
officials accused Jews of deceiving the Makhzan for their own personal gain. Significantly,
Makhzan officials’ questioning of Jews’ claims rarely stemmed from anti-Jewish sentiment.
Rather, the weakness of the central government, and the resulting difficulties in determining the
truth of legal claims, was a more important factor in Makhzan officials’ skepticism.
Some local Makhzan officials wrote back to the Minister of Complaints explaining that a
Jew’s claim had already been settled, implying that the Jewish petitioner was trying to deceive
the Makhzan in order to collect twice. 138 The official might even mention that the perpetrators
had been formally released from their obligations to the victims, or that the creditor had released
his debtors from their debt. 139 It is possible that in some cases which were reported already
settled, the Jewish petitioner’s complaint had only been processed after he had received payment
and thus that the local Makhzan official was merely updating the central government. Yet in
other instances, the Makhzan officials explicitly accused Jews of bad faith, such as a case in
which a local official claimed that the debtor had already paid and been released from his debt. 140
138 For debts, see: BH, K 181, p. 92, 12 Jumādā II 1309; p. 107, 4 Rajab 1309; p. 111, 10 Rajab 1309; p. 226, 24
Dhū al-Ḥijja 1309; p. 264, 29 Ṣafar 1310; p. 297, 30 Rabī‘ II 1310. In some instances the Jewish creditor denied
having received payment: BH, K 157, p. 169, 28 Jumādā II 1307 and BH, K 181, p. 137, 21 Sha‘bān 1309. For
theft, see BH, K 157, p. 144, 25 Jumādā I 1307; BH, K 171, p. 65, 21 Ramaḍān 1307; BH, K 181, p. 55, 14 Rabī‘ II
1309; p. 69, 6 Jumādā I 1309. See also DAR, Yahūd, 14467, Mawlāy Ḥasan to Ghalāl b. Muḥammad, 13 Jumādā I
1297, in which Ghalāl claimed that he had already settled the case concerning the theft of six loads of goods
belonging to Jewish merchants in Essaouira; Mawlāy Ḥasan, however, ordered him take what the dhimmī was due
(his ḥaqq) from the perpetrators, suggesting that he did not believe the claim that the case was already settled.
139 For theft, see BH, K 157, p. 84, 19 Muḥarram 1307; BH, K 171, p. 54, 11 Ramaḍān 1307; BH, K 181, p. 209, 24
Dhū al-Qa‘da 1309. For debts, see BH, K 157, p. 149, 29 Jumādā I 1307; BH, K 181, p. 191, 2 Dhū al-Qa‘da 1309;
p. 196, 9 Dhū al-Qa‘da 1309; p. 222, 15 Dhū al-Ḥijja 1309. In other cases, it was simply stated that the debtor had a
“legal document” (rasm) attesting to payment of the debt; undoubtedly this was either a release or the equivalent.
See BH, K 171, p. 6, 20 Rajab 1307; p. 117, 3 Dhū al-Ḥijja 1307.
140 BH, K 171, p. 2, 18 Rajab 1307.
216