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

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

dataspace.princeton.edu
from dataspace.princeton.edu More from this publisher
20.04.2013 Views

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

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

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!