IN THE COURTS OF THE NATIONS - DataSpace - Princeton ...
IN THE COURTS OF THE NATIONS - DataSpace - Princeton ... IN THE COURTS OF THE NATIONS - DataSpace - Princeton ...
chapter, the Jews of Casablanca wrote to the Jews of Tangier when they wanted the sultan to punish their city’s governor. 52 They requested that the Jews of Tangier write to the minister of foreign affairs, Muḥammad Bargāsh, who was responsible for such petitions submitted by Jews, in the hope that he would convince the sultan to order the Jewish prisoners released. Indeed, the letter eventually reached Bargāsh and he passed the matter along to the sultan. 53 It is likely that the Jews of Casablanca did not have any connections with high-ranking officials, and thus did not think it would be effective to write directly to a vizier or to the sultan. They knew, however, that the Jews of Tangier came into regular contact with Muḥammad Bargāsh—not only because Bargāsh lived in Tangier but also because so many Jews were foreign protégés whose legal cases Bargāsh oversaw. In this instance their strategy successfully convinced the sultan to attend to their case. 54 Although uncommon, it was not unheard of for groups of Jews to submit legal documents notarized by ‘udūl in support of their claims. (This was in fact the standard practice when individual Jews appealed to the Makhzan concerning legal matters, as discussed in the previous chapter.) In 1887, a group of Jews in Meknes wrote to the vizier Muḥammad b. Aḥmad al- Ṣanhājī concerning the outrageous actions of the city’s muḥtasib. 55 The Jews reported that the muḥtasib had cut off supplies of flour, first to the millāḥ and then to the Muslim quarters. He only permitted a few individuals to sell flour at exorbitant prices, forcing Jews to travel to Fez to obtain this staple. The Jews requested that al-Ṣanhājī transmit their complaint to the sultan, 52 DAR, Yahūd, 15587, Jews of Casablanca to Jews of Tangier, 26 Rabī‘ I 1294. 53 See DAR, Yahūd, 34155, Ḥājj ‘Abdallāh al-Ḥaṣār to Muḥammad Bargāsh, 16 Jumādā I 1294, in which the qā’id Ḥaṣār responded to Bargāsh concerning the Jews’ complaint. Ḥaṣār mentioned orders from the sultan regarding the imprisoned Jews, showing that both Bargāsh and the sultan were eventually involved. 54 For other examples of Jews of one city writing to Jews in another city, see DAR, Yahūd, 32977, Rabbi Abnīr and the Jews of Fez to Muḥammad b. al-‘Arabī al-Mukhtār, 2 Dhū al-Qa‘da 1297. The Jews in Meknes wrote to the Jews in Fez, asking them to request the Makhzan’s intervention concerning their qā’id’s infringement on Jewish legal autonomy. 55 DAR, Yahūd, 33481, Jews of Meknes to Muḥammad b. Aḥmad al-Ṣanhājī, 28 Ramaḍān 1304. 242
along with a legal document containing the testimony of ten ‘udūl affirming that their claim was true. 56 The Makhzan’s Response Although we cannot know with certainty what percentage of petitions resulted in the Makhzan taking action—the archives are too incomplete for such an analysis—we can nonetheless discern the different ways in which the Makhzan addressed Jews’ claims. The response of the central government ranged from acting as arbiter in order to bring about a settlement between the parties concerned, to reprimanding the officials accused of misbehavior, to replacing problematic officials with others who would presumably refrain from mistreating Jews. In some instances the accused official responded by defending his actions and calling into question the Jewish petitioners’ version of events. Needless to say, there were undoubtedly many petitions that received no response whatsoever. This could have been a result of the petitioners’ inadequate connections with the Makhzan or because their petition simply fell through the cracks of an inefficient bureaucracy. 57 On a number of occasions the sultan was able to bring about reconciliation between Jews and the Makhzan officials they had accused of abuse. Upon hearing of an incident which merited his attention, the sultan would send a representative to the petitioners’ city, both to investigate the various claims and to try to bring about a settlement. This is how Mawlāy Ḥasan 56 The significance of the number ten is not clear; normally, one would only need the testimony of two ‘udūl to ensure that a document would stand up as evidence under Islamic law (although it is possible to have more ‘udūl sign a given document: see Tyan, Le notariat, 55). It seems that the Meknesi Jews in this case included the testimony of ten ‘udūl for added impact. 57 On petitions from Jews in medieval Egypt which did not receive responses, see Rustow, “A Petition to a Woman at the Fatimid Court,” 6. 243
- Page 201 and 202: appears numerous times). 29 While t
- Page 203 and 204: matter what their religious backgro
- Page 205 and 206: when amounts are specified they ten
- Page 207 and 208: cases which were ultimately settled
- Page 209 and 210: Jews who had been robbed. 62 The su
- Page 211 and 212: from July 28, 1892, a group of Jews
- Page 213 and 214: nature of sharī‘a courts. 83 In
- Page 215 and 216: legal proof of his claim. 91 It is
- Page 217 and 218: the Jewish victims were compensated
- Page 219 and 220: central government could only do so
- Page 221 and 222: and Muslim was responsible for arra
- Page 223 and 224: sometimes the Makhzan officials’
- Page 225 and 226: A more formidable obstacle to settl
- Page 227 and 228: The Jewish creditor, however, reque
- Page 229 and 230: The practice of exaggerating the va
- Page 231 and 232: official accused a Jew of falsifyin
- Page 233 and 234: esolve disputes with their Jewish d
- Page 235 and 236: property. 178 In this case, the Mak
- Page 237 and 238: Chapter Six: Collective Appeals to
- Page 239 and 240: frequency of Jews’ petitions acro
- Page 241 and 242: The concentration of petitions duri
- Page 243 and 244: “right”—as in, the rights to
- Page 245 and 246: merchants serve as judges on a rota
- Page 247 and 248: Makhzan officials at times evoked t
- Page 249 and 250: The evidence of Jews’ appeals to
- Page 251: governor). 46 The next winter the J
- Page 255 and 256: Following this escalation of violen
- Page 257 and 258: The governor of Debdou similarly pr
- Page 259 and 260: custom and the sultan’s command.
- Page 261 and 262: minister of foreign affairs, receiv
- Page 263 and 264: Yet murder cases were not the only
- Page 265 and 266: Moroccan legal system. On the one h
- Page 267 and 268: In 1884 the Jews of Fez appealed to
- Page 269 and 270: Although at first these appeals mig
- Page 271 and 272: The Jews of Meknes appealed to the
- Page 273 and 274: In other instances, Makhzan officia
- Page 275 and 276: about their own coreligionists. The
- Page 277 and 278: Europeans—a sentiment that at oth
- Page 279 and 280: complain about their muḥtasib, em
- Page 281 and 282: Chapter Seven: Foreign Protection a
- Page 283 and 284: Perhaps most important, however, is
- Page 285 and 286: of consular courts functioned throu
- Page 287 and 288: of Muslims from becoming protégés
- Page 289 and 290: cases between its own nationals or
- Page 291 and 292: of consular courts by specifying th
- Page 293 and 294: an important moment in the history
- Page 295 and 296: were required to notify their consu
- Page 297 and 298: dealt with cases by means other tha
- Page 299 and 300: In other instances, consuls wrote t
- Page 301 and 302: qāḍī” attesting a debt owed t
along with a legal document containing the testimony of ten ‘udūl affirming that their claim was<br />
true. 56<br />
The Makhzan’s Response<br />
Although we cannot know with certainty what percentage of petitions resulted in the<br />
Makhzan taking action—the archives are too incomplete for such an analysis—we can<br />
nonetheless discern the different ways in which the Makhzan addressed Jews’ claims. The<br />
response of the central government ranged from acting as arbiter in order to bring about a<br />
settlement between the parties concerned, to reprimanding the officials accused of misbehavior,<br />
to replacing problematic officials with others who would presumably refrain from mistreating<br />
Jews. In some instances the accused official responded by defending his actions and calling into<br />
question the Jewish petitioners’ version of events. Needless to say, there were undoubtedly<br />
many petitions that received no response whatsoever. This could have been a result of the<br />
petitioners’ inadequate connections with the Makhzan or because their petition simply fell<br />
through the cracks of an inefficient bureaucracy. 57<br />
On a number of occasions the sultan was able to bring about reconciliation between Jews<br />
and the Makhzan officials they had accused of abuse. Upon hearing of an incident which<br />
merited his attention, the sultan would send a representative to the petitioners’ city, both to<br />
investigate the various claims and to try to bring about a settlement. This is how Mawlāy Ḥasan<br />
56<br />
The significance of the number ten is not clear; normally, one would only need the testimony of two ‘udūl to<br />
ensure that a document would stand up as evidence under Islamic law (although it is possible to have more ‘udūl<br />
sign a given document: see Tyan, Le notariat, 55). It seems that the Meknesi Jews in this case included the<br />
testimony of ten ‘udūl for added impact.<br />
57<br />
On petitions from Jews in medieval Egypt which did not receive responses, see Rustow, “A Petition to a Woman<br />
at the Fatimid Court,” 6.<br />
243
Change language