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

The Jews of Meknes appealed to the sultan concerning a similar threat to Jewish
autonomy twice in a single decade, eliciting sharp rebukes from Mawlāy Ḥasan to Ḥammu al-
Jīlālī, qā’id of Meknes. The first incident occurred in 1880: two Jewish residents of Meknes
went to a Jewish court to adjudicate a disagreement. 109 However, the plaintiff was dissatisfied
with the decision. Instead of accepting his fate, the plaintiff decided to take the matter to the
Makhzan court. To ensure a more favorable ruling, he struck a deal with the qā’id al-Jīlālī in
which they agreed to split the proceeds of the lawsuit in exchange for the qā’id’s promise to
judge the matter in the plaintiff’s favor. Sure enough, al-Jīlālī ruled in favor of his co-
conspirator. Word of the deal leaked to the broader Jewish community, who became incensed at
their coreligionist for daring to flout the authority of Jewish law. However, this matter did not
concern internal Jewish affairs alone. While the qā’id al-Jīlālī abused his authority in accepting a
bribe from the Jewish plaintiff, he also threatened the legal autonomy of the Jews of Meknes by
accepting a case which fell under Jewish jurisdiction. While this sort of forum shopping among
Jewish and Islamic legal institutions was not uncommon (as discussed in Part one), it
undermined the authority of Jewish courts. The Jewish leaders of Meknes understandably
wanted the sultan to reinforce the jurisdictional boundaries and prevent the qā’id from stepping
on the toes of the city’s Jewish judges.
In 1890, the Jews of Meknes again appealed to the Makhzan complaining that al-Jīlālī
was overstepping his authority. 110 Less than a week later Mawlāy Ḥasan wrote to al-Jīlālī
109
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 in this
matter. (The letter does not mention the names of the plaintiff or the defendant.)
110
DAR, Yahūd, 26098, dayyanim of Meknes to Muḥammad b. Aḥmad al-Ṣanhājī, 20 Jumādā I 1307. In fact, the
authors of this letter complained that the sultan had already written to al-Jīlālī—presumably upon their request—
instructing him not to interfere with the exercise of Jewish law, but that the qā’id had ignored the sultan’s warning.
It is possible that the dayyanim were referring to Mawlāy Ḥasan’s reaction to their complaint of 1880.
261