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

while his wife was imprisoned. 93 Subsequently, the deceased Muslim’s relatives settled with the
Jewish leaders, who presumably agreed to pay the victim’s blood money. The Jews obtained a
legal document releasing the two suspects from any further responsibility. 94 Yet despite this
settlement, the Jewess remained in prison and the husband continued to hide in the zāwiya of the
local saint. The Jews requested the release of their two coreligionists, to which the sultan
acceded as long as there were no further claims against them. 95
The instances in which groups of Jews petitioned the Makhzan on behalf of individual
Jews demonstrate the blurry lines separating individual and communal concerns. These
instances suggest that Jews were not always willing to leave the pursuit of justice to those
directly involved in the case at hand, especially when criminal matters were involved.
The Malfunctioning of Islamic Legal Institutions
Another matter which spurred Jews to collectively petition the Makhzan concerned the
malfunctioning of their local Islamic legal institutions. Jews wrote to complain about the
corruption of legal officials, their prejudice against Jews, or their attempts to prevent Jews from
accessing Islamic legal institutions. These petitions tell us much about Jews’ integration into the
93
There are indications that Jews regularly took refuge in Muslim sanctuaries. See, e.g., MAE Courneuve, C.P.
Maroc 47, Ordega to Freycinet, 20 July 1882, in which Ordega discussed a zāwiya in Essaouira to which Jews fled
to escape prosecution: “Cette Zaouïa, située au centre de la ville, est entourée d’une vingtaine de maisons—formant
un quartier sacré, dont l’accès est permis à tous, sans distinction de race et de religion. Les Israélites de Mogador ne
se font pas faute de recourir eux-mêmes à cette abusive protection pour se mettre à l’abri des poursuites de leurs
créanciers et échapper à l’action de la justice locale.”
94
The entry does not specifically explain that the Jews paid the blood money; however, since it is mentioned that the
Jews settled with those responsible for avenging the murder (awliyā’ al-dam), the settlement must have involved a
payment of bloodmoney.
95
For another case in which Jews protested the unfair imprisonment of their coreligionists, see DAR, Fez, 21720,
Ismā‘īl to Mawlāy Ḥasan, 6 Rajab 1303. Ismā‘īl, the governor of Fez, transmitted a complaint from the Jews of
Manī‘ that the qā’id of Meknes, Ḥammu b. al-Jilālī, had unjustly imprisoned some Jews from Manī‘ while they were
in Meknes as suspects in the murder of two Jews in Sāyis. However, the Jews argued, their imprisoned
coreligionists were not guilty of the murder; they asked that other people from Manī‘ be arrested. Al-Jilālī defended
himself saying that the sultan had ordered him to arrest some Jews from Manī‘ in relation to the Jews killed in Sāyis,
and that these were the Jews he found in Meknes.
254