IN THE COURTS OF THE NATIONS - DataSpace - Princeton ...
IN THE COURTS OF THE NATIONS - DataSpace - Princeton ... IN THE COURTS OF THE NATIONS - DataSpace - Princeton ...
officials saw their intervention on behalf of foreign nationals and protected persons as a useful tool with which to increase their influence in Morocco. The Makhzan, on the other hand, became increasingly concerned about the threat to its authority posed by the growing ranks of protégés. This conflict came to something of a head during the Madrid Conference of 1880, when representatives of eleven foreign nations and the Makhzan’s minister of foreign affairs convened with the stated goal of preventing abuses of protection. 20 Despite the adoption of a new treaty regulating diplomatic relations and the nature of extraterritoriality in Morocco, the status quo hardly shifted. 21 The Makhzan continued to protest the abuses of protection until colonization in 1912. The fact that so many Moroccan Muslims acquired patents of protection made the protégé system in Morocco distinct. In the Ottoman Empire, the vast majority of protégés were non-Muslims. 22 This is part of what leads Timur Kuran to argue that Muslims could not reap the advantages of forum shopping in consular courts, since for Muslims to acquire foreign protection would have signaled “a radical challenge to the Islamic legal system, which required them to live by Islamic law.” 23 In Morocco, some jurists argued that Muslims who acquired patents of protection were in violation of Islamic law. 24 Yet these protests this did not stop large numbers 20 On the Madrid Conference, see Bowie, “The Protégé System in Morocco”; Parsons, The Origins of the Morocco Question; Kenbib, Les protégés, 57-66. The eleven nations represented include: Austria-Hungary, Belgium, Germany, Great Britain, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden-Norway, and the United States (ibid., 59). 21 As evidenced by calls for a second Madrid Conference as soon as 1887: see Frederick V. Parsons, “The Proposed Madrid Conference on Morocco, 1887-88,” Historical Journal 8, no. 1 (1965). 22 In fact, historiographical discussions of protection in the Ottoman Empire tend to describe all protégés as being non-Muslim (see Salahi R. Sonyel, “The Protégé System in the Ottoman Empire,” Journal of Islamic Studies 2, no. 1 (1991); Van Den Boogert, The Capitulations and the Ottoman Legal System). Yet it seems to me unlikely that there were absolutely no Ottoman Muslims who acquired foreign protection (I am thinking in particular of guards and other employees of consulates), even if most protégés were non-Muslims. 23 Kuran, The Long Divergence, 204. 24 On the opposition of ‘ulamā’ to protection, see Ja‘far b. Idrīs al-Kattānī, Al-Dawāhī al-madhiyya li-’l-firaq almaḥmiyya : fī al-walā’ wa-’l-barā’ (Amman: Dār al-Bayāriq, 1998); Laroui, Origines, 315-17; al-Manūnī, Maẓāhir, 276
of Muslims from becoming protégés or nationals of foreign states. Much like Jews, Moroccan Muslims who acquired patents of protection abused their status in order to further their own pecuniary interests. 25 Kuran’s theory about the impact of protection on the legal choices of Ottoman subjects is inapplicable to the Moroccan case, where Jews and Muslims both had access to consular courts and thus to the expanded opportunities for forum shopping which they provided. Nonetheless, while protection was not an exclusively Jewish issue, there is little question that Jews acquired patents of protection or became naturalized abroad in disproportionate numbers compared to their Muslim neighbors. 26 Jews’ acquisition of protection was particularly disruptive to the social order because of its implicit challenge to the dhimma pact which had heretofore guided the relationship between the sultan (and by extension the Moroccan state) and his non-Muslim subjects. 27 Indeed, Jewish protégés came to form something of a new aristocracy and a patent of protection became practically de rigueur for membership in the elite echelons of Moroccan Jewish society. 28 Protection was far more than a legal status which gave access to consular courts; it was a ticket to social advancement, permission to avoid taxes, a tool to more effectively collect unpaid debts, and an excuse for foreign diplomats to chip away at the Makhzan’s authority. In many ways the system of protection was the defining controversy of nineteenth-century Moroccan politics. The impact of protection on the Moroccan legal system was anything but negligible, v. 1, 321-34; Etty Terem, “Al-Mahdī al-Wazzānī,” in Islamic Legal Thought: A Compendium of Muslim Jurists, ed. Oussama Arabi, David S. Powers, and Susan Spectorsky (Leiden: Brill, Forthcoming). 25 There are numerous examples of this in the archives: see, e.g., DAR, Tetuan, 825, Muḥammad Ash‘āsh to Muḥammad Bargāsh, 14 Rabī‘ II 1281 (about a Muslim who abused his Portuguese protection); Fez, 23322, Mawlāy Ḥasan to Muḥammad Bargāsh, 28 Ṣafar 1302 (about a Muslim who abused his French protection). 26 Kenbib, Juifs et musulmans, 193-252; idem, Les protégés, 225-44. 27 See Laroui, Origines, 310-14. 28 Jean Louis Miège, “La bourgeoisie juive du Maroc au XIXe siècle” in Judaisme d’Afrique du Nord aux XIXe-XXe siècles, ed. Michel Abitbol (Jerusalem: Institut Ben Zvi, 1980). 277
- 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 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: of consular courts functioned throu
- 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
- Page 325 and 326: ordered Assayag to stop paying Zagu
- Page 327 and 328: efused. 100 Faced with this dead en
- Page 329 and 330: claimed that Emsellem had no right
- Page 331 and 332: number of foreign subjects and prot
- Page 333 and 334: By subjecting the suit to Moroccan
- Page 335 and 336: sued Mas‘ūd al-Shayẓamī (Meso
of Muslims from becoming protégés or nationals of foreign states. Much like Jews, Moroccan<br />
Muslims who acquired patents of protection abused their status in order to further their own<br />
pecuniary interests. 25 Kuran’s theory about the impact of protection on the legal choices of<br />
Ottoman subjects is inapplicable to the Moroccan case, where Jews and Muslims both had access<br />
to consular courts and thus to the expanded opportunities for forum shopping which they<br />
provided.<br />
Nonetheless, while protection was not an exclusively Jewish issue, there is little question<br />
that Jews acquired patents of protection or became naturalized abroad in disproportionate<br />
numbers compared to their Muslim neighbors. 26 Jews’ acquisition of protection was particularly<br />
disruptive to the social order because of its implicit challenge to the dhimma pact which had<br />
heretofore guided the relationship between the sultan (and by extension the Moroccan state) and<br />
his non-Muslim subjects. 27 Indeed, Jewish protégés came to form something of a new<br />
aristocracy and a patent of protection became practically de rigueur for membership in the elite<br />
echelons of Moroccan Jewish society. 28<br />
Protection was far more than a legal status which gave access to consular courts; it was a<br />
ticket to social advancement, permission to avoid taxes, a tool to more effectively collect unpaid<br />
debts, and an excuse for foreign diplomats to chip away at the Makhzan’s authority. In many<br />
ways the system of protection was the defining controversy of nineteenth-century Moroccan<br />
politics. The impact of protection on the Moroccan legal system was anything but negligible,<br />
v. 1, 321-34; Etty Terem, “Al-Mahdī al-Wazzānī,” in Islamic Legal Thought: A Compendium of Muslim Jurists, ed.<br />
Oussama Arabi, David S. Powers, and Susan Spectorsky (Leiden: Brill, Forthcoming).<br />
25<br />
There are numerous examples of this in the archives: see, e.g., DAR, Tetuan, 825, Muḥammad Ash‘āsh to<br />
Muḥammad Bargāsh, 14 Rabī‘ II 1281 (about a Muslim who abused his Portuguese protection); Fez, 23322,<br />
Mawlāy Ḥasan to Muḥammad Bargāsh, 28 Ṣafar 1302 (about a Muslim who abused his French protection).<br />
26<br />
Kenbib, Juifs et musulmans, 193-252; idem, Les protégés, 225-44.<br />
27<br />
See Laroui, Origines, 310-14.<br />
28<br />
Jean Louis Miège, “La bourgeoisie juive du Maroc au XIXe siècle” in Judaisme d’Afrique du Nord aux XIXe-XXe<br />
siècles, ed. Michel Abitbol (Jerusalem: Institut Ben Zvi, 1980).<br />
277