IN THE COURTS OF THE NATIONS - DataSpace - Princeton ...
IN THE COURTS OF THE NATIONS - DataSpace - Princeton ... IN THE COURTS OF THE NATIONS - DataSpace - Princeton ...
without their consent. 117 The sultan chastised al-Jilālī and ordered him to treat the Jews well (an…yuḥsina al-sīrata ma‘ahum) as was customary with Jews in other cities. Mawlāy Ḥasan also assured al-Jilālī that he had reminded the Jews that they, in turn, should not exceed the boundaries of behavior allotted them—that is, the conditions of the dhimma contract. 118 Nearly a year later, Mawlāy Ḥasan wrote another letter to al-Jilālī in response to the Jews’ repeated complaint that al-Jilālī had prevented them from nominating their own shaykh. 119 The sultan ordered al-Jilālī to convene the Jews along with the qāḍī and the tax collector—to whom he also sent letters—to ensure that the Jews were able to choose a shaykh to act as their intermediary with the Makhzan. 120 When Jews felt that the right to their own legal system was threatened, they appealed to the state to ensure that their judicial autonomy was respected. Moreover, the state responded by affirming the jurisdictional boundaries which determined the authority of Jewish courts. These appeals demonstrate the extent to which the functioning of Jewish law depended on and was inherently embedded in the state. Collective Appeals against Jews Although the vast majority of Jews’ collective petitions to the Makhzan concerned the abuses of Makhzan officials, there were also instances in which groups of Jews complained 117 DAR, Demnat, 15598, copy of ẓahīr from Mawlāy Ḥasan, 23 Dhū al-Qa‘da 1301. The other complaints included: forcing Jews to work without compensation and on days which are holy in their religion; forcing Jews to sell their goods at half the market price, or to sell when prices were low; seizing Jews’ goods when prices were high; and putting the Jews’ domestic animals to work without compensation. 118 Kamā na’muruhum hum [sic] an…yaqifū ‘inda al-ḥudūdi al-ma’khūdhati minhum ‘alayhā al-‘uhūd. 119 DAR, Demnat, Mawlāy Ḥasan to al-Ḥājj al-Jilālī al-Dimnātī, 1 Sha‘bān 1302. A similar incident occurred in Radānā in 1891; in this year the Jews wrote to the Ministry of Complaints about their governor, al-Rāshidī, who insisted on choosing their shaykh al-yahūd (BH, K 174, p. 79, 29 Rajab 1308). 120 DAR, Demnat, Mawlāy Ḥasan to amīn al-mustafādāt of Demnat, 1 Sha‘bān 1302 and Mawlāy Ḥasan to qāḍī of Demnat, 1 Sha‘bān 1302. Both these letters are quite similar to the letter from Mawlāy Ḥasan to al-Jilālī of the same date. 264
about their own coreligionists. These appeals are not unlike those intra-Jewish complaints registered by individual Jews discussed in the previous chapter. Yet in their collective appeals against other Jews, the petitioners claimed that the objects of their complaint posed a threat to the Jewish community as a whole. The practice of collectively petitioning the state to resolve intra- religious disputes was hardly unique to nineteenth-century Morocco; Jews across the Islamic world from the Middle Ages to modern times similarly turned to their Islamic rulers even when their quarrel lay with members of their own community. 121 In 1884, the Jews of Demnat recorded complaints about their coreligionists in two Islamic legal documents which were sent to the sultan. 122 (Undoubtedly the Jews had their testimony notarized by ‘udūl in order to bolster the legitimacy of their claim.) The legal documents, although only a few months apart, concerned two distinct issues. Firstly, the Jews of Demnat complained about their coreligionist Mordekhai Azulay. They accused Azulay of making false accusations against fellow Jews and submitting complaints to Christians and to the sultan that he was owed debts by the people of Misfīwa, despite the fact that Azulay was penniless (and thus, according to the Jews, in no position to be a creditor). 123 Azulay seems to have been a fairly influential person; the fact that he submitted complaints to Christians suggests that he was himself a protégé, since otherwise it is hard to imagine why foreign consular officials would have paid him any heed. Even more significantly, it is hard to imagine that the Jews of Demnat would have felt compelled to appeal to the sultan against an inconsequential member of their community. Secondly, the petitioners complained that a group of fellow Demnati Jews had 121 On the Geniza, see Goitein, A Mediterranean Society, v. 2, 405-7; Rustow, “At the Limits of Communal Autonomy.” On the Ottoman Empire, see Hacker, “Jewish Autonomy in the Ottoman Empire.” On twentiethcentury Yemen, see Wagner, “Halakhah through the Lens of Sharī‘a.” 122 DAR, Yahūd, 15597, 14 Shawwāl 1301 and 15599, 3 Ṣafar 1302. Kenbib discusses these incidents briefly: Kenbib, Juifs et musulmans, 236-7. 123 Misfīwa is the name of a tribe located near Demnat, to the south of Marrakesh. 265
- 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 and 252: governor). 46 The next winter the J
- Page 253 and 254: along with a legal document contain
- 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: In other instances, Makhzan officia
- 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
- Page 303 and 304: The following two chapters examine
- Page 305 and 306: clarify when and why he had taken t
- Page 307 and 308: Even scholars who argue against see
- Page 309 and 310: ecognize their contract since “th
- Page 311 and 312: of the individuals concerned. 31 Pr
- Page 313 and 314: concerning the incident, which they
- Page 315 and 316: speculated that the reluctance of t
- Page 317 and 318: protection) of Yitzḥaq b. Nissim
- Page 319 and 320: cooperate with foreigners’ reques
- Page 321 and 322: Dinar Ohana), an American protégé
- Page 323 and 324: Jews tried to ensure a fortuitous o
about their own coreligionists. These appeals are not unlike those intra-Jewish complaints<br />
registered by individual Jews discussed in the previous chapter. Yet in their collective appeals<br />
against other Jews, the petitioners claimed that the objects of their complaint posed a threat to the<br />
Jewish community as a whole. The practice of collectively petitioning the state to resolve intra-<br />
religious disputes was hardly unique to nineteenth-century Morocco; Jews across the Islamic<br />
world from the Middle Ages to modern times similarly turned to their Islamic rulers even when<br />
their quarrel lay with members of their own community. 121<br />
In 1884, the Jews of Demnat recorded complaints about their coreligionists in two<br />
Islamic legal documents which were sent to the sultan. 122 (Undoubtedly the Jews had their<br />
testimony notarized by ‘udūl in order to bolster the legitimacy of their claim.) The legal<br />
documents, although only a few months apart, concerned two distinct issues. Firstly, the Jews of<br />
Demnat complained about their coreligionist Mordekhai Azulay. They accused Azulay of<br />
making false accusations against fellow Jews and submitting complaints to Christians and to the<br />
sultan that he was owed debts by the people of Misfīwa, despite the fact that Azulay was<br />
penniless (and thus, according to the Jews, in no position to be a creditor). 123 Azulay seems to<br />
have been a fairly influential person; the fact that he submitted complaints to Christians suggests<br />
that he was himself a protégé, since otherwise it is hard to imagine why foreign consular officials<br />
would have paid him any heed. Even more significantly, it is hard to imagine that the Jews of<br />
Demnat would have felt compelled to appeal to the sultan against an inconsequential member of<br />
their community. Secondly, the petitioners complained that a group of fellow Demnati Jews had<br />
121<br />
On the Geniza, see Goitein, A Mediterranean Society, v. 2, 405-7; Rustow, “At the Limits of Communal<br />
Autonomy.” On the Ottoman Empire, see Hacker, “Jewish Autonomy in the Ottoman Empire.” On twentiethcentury<br />
Yemen, see Wagner, “Halakhah through the Lens of Sharī‘a.”<br />
122<br />
DAR, Yahūd, 15597, 14 Shawwāl 1301 and 15599, 3 Ṣafar 1302. Kenbib discusses these incidents briefly:<br />
Kenbib, Juifs et musulmans, 236-7.<br />
123<br />
Misfīwa is the name of a tribe located near Demnat, to the south of Marrakesh.<br />
265
Change language