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

Makhzan officials also charged Jews with lying outright about their claims. 144 For
instance, the leader of the Zāwiyat al-Jāniyya reported that the dhimmī Hārūn al-Tāzī brought a
falsified document saying that his deceased cousin owed al-Tāzī fifty riyāls. 145 The sultan
ordered the deceased man’s son to pay the alleged debt; when he could not, the governor
confiscated his cattle and sent them to the Makhzan as payment. 146 The leader of the zāwiya
requested that the matter be taken to a sharī‘a court where, one assumes, the falsified documents
would be identified as such and the cattle returned to their owner. 147 In another case, the pasha
Ḥamar argued that the Jewish victim must have been lying about the robbery since he was
traveling with both goods and animals, but claimed that only his goods were stolen; if the
robbery had actually happened, his animals would have been taken as well. 148 It is important to
note that Jews were not the only ones accused of lying about theft cases; in at least one entry the
Makhzan official claimed that a Muslim lied because the region in which he claimed to have
been robbed was extremely remote and impossible to reach. 149
144 For theft cases, see BH, K 171, p. 29, 8 Sha‘bān 1307; BH, K 174, p. 30, 24 Rabī‘ I 1308; BH, K 181, p. 271, 16
Rabī‘ I 1310. In two cases the Makhzan official noted that the Jews had no proof of their claim (BH, K 181, p. 12,
27 Dhū al-Qa‘da 1308; p. 105, 1 Rajab 1309). For debt cases, see BH, K 181, p. 55, 14 Rabī‘ II 1309; p. 340, 23
Rajab 1310; p. 368, 25 Ramaḍān 1310. For murder cases, see BH, K 171, p. 49, 4 Ramaḍān 1307; BH, K 174, p.
30, 23 Rabī‘ I 1308.
145 BH, K 181, p. 255, 14 Ṣafar 1310.
146 The entry specified that the cattle were sent to the qā’id al-mashwar, who was responsible for the mashwar in
Fez—that is, the part of the palace in which the viziers of various ministries had their offices. Presumably the qā’id
al-mashwar was to give either the cattle or their price in cash to al-Tāzī as payment.
147 For another case of falsified documents, see BH, K 181, p. 326, 27 Jumādā II 1310. Here, the Makhzan official
reported that the Jewish creditor had increased the amounts owed to him in his documents—that is, when he was
owed 10 he wrote 100, and when he was owed 50 he wrote 500 (similar to the kind of hidden interest which Shalom
Assarraf was accused of charging—discussed in Chapter Two). The sultan responded to this accusation cryptically;
“it [the amount of the debt] reached whatever it amounted to, and it cannot exceed [the amount] that was attested to
[presumably in the original documents] (balaghat mā balaghat lā tajāwiza al-mashhūda ‘alayhi).”
148 BH, K 157, p. 162, 18 Jumādā II 1307. See also BH, K 174, p. 31, 11 Rabī‘ II 1308, in which the official
responded that the petition must have been made under false pretences since there was no road which gives access to
the place in which the Jews claimed to have been robbed. See also BH, K 174, p. 38, 28 Rabī‘ II, 1308, in which the
official noted that the area where the robbery supposedly occurred was safe and that nothing could have happened
there.
149 BH, K 157, p. 173, 5 Rajab 1307.
218