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

ecognize their contract since “they only recognize contracts notarized by ‘udūl.” 20 Had Rey
realized that Benzecri was a Moroccan subject, he clearly would have had their contract
notarized by ‘udūl to ensure that it would be upheld under Islamic law. 21
It was thus in the interest of foreign nationals and protégés to make sure that all their
commercial transactions with Moroccan subjects were documented according to Islamic law.
Indeed, this became the standard of legal proof regardless of nationality. Foreign subjects and
protégés regularly brought their civil contracts to ‘udūl to be notarized for a wide variety of
matters, including debts, partnerships, and real estate transactions. 22 Protégés often emphasized
the fact that their commercial documents were signed by ‘udūl in their attempts to press their
legal claims with a consulate, thereby preempting any doubts that their case would not hold up in
a sharī‘a court. 23 Jewish protégés even had their documents notarized by ‘udūl for intra-Jewish
commercial exchanges. For instance, on July 19, 1882, Aaron b. Makhlūf Rabūḥ from Essaouira
guaranteed the presence of his coreligionist Aharon b. Avraham Ohana to face the British subject
Georges Broome; the legal document attesting to the guarantee was drawn up by ‘udūl in the
sharī‘a court of Essaouira. 24
20
“…elle ne reconnait que les actes dresses par les adduls [sic]” (ibid.).
21
Others under foreign jurisdiction faced similar problems when they failed to notarize legal documents with ‘udūl:
see, e.g., FO, 631/3, p. 139b-140a, Carstensen to Hay, 4 February 1869; FO, 631/7, p. 28b, David Corcos vs. Ester
Penyer, 29 September 1879; MAE Nantes, Tanger A 161, ‘Abd al-Salām al-Swīsī to Craveri, 1 Jumādā I 1301/ 16
February 1885.
22
See, e.g., DNA, 2.05.119, Guagnins to Le Chevalier de Rappard, 26 July 1909. This letter concerns the dispute
between Judah Castiel, a Moroccan Jew who worked as the official interpreter for the Dutch consulate in Larache
(and thus had Dutch protection), and the Makhzan over a store that Castiel had been renting from the Makhzan for
many years. In his claim, Castiel included a document notarized by ‘udūl which permitted him to make repairs on
the disputed store (dated 13 Shawwāl 1326), and which, according to Castiel, justified his leasing the store at a
higher rate than he was paying to the Makhzan for rent.
23
See, e.g., MAE Nantes, Tanger A 161, Messaoud Ben Hlouz to Ordega, 28 February 1884 and Amsellem to
Ordega, 1 Oct 1884; USNA, Reg. 84, v. 150, Coriat to Burke, 8 September 1896 and Coriate to Gummere, 9
February 1900.
24
PD, 2 Ramaḍān 1299. See also a second notarized document from this collection, dated 3 Ramaḍān 1299, in
which Georges Broome and Aharon b. Avraham Ohana came to a settlement concerning their business accounts.
See also DAR, Marrakesh, 5 Rabī‘ II 1282 (in this document a Jew guaranteed the presence of another Jew, not in
the court of a qāḍī but in that of the British consul in Essaouira).
299