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

Castiel, a Jewish Dutch protégé, was broken into. 35 As soon as Castiel realized what had
happened, he summoned two ‘udūl as well as the Dutch consul. The ‘udūl proceeded to record
his testimony and notarized it according to Islamic law. 36 Castiel probably chose to record his
evidence before ‘udūl because he suspected that the perpetrators were Muslim Moroccan
subjects and that the case would be tried in either a Makhzan or a sharī‘a court, requiring
evidence notarized by ‘udūl. It was particularly common for foreign subjects and protégés to
submit Islamic legal documents in support of claims that their agents had been robbed. In a case
from 1882, the French subject Joseph Bensimon, a Jew from Morocco living in Marseille,
reported to the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Paris that the store of his agent in Fez had
been robbed. 37 Bensimon included a legal document signed by ‘udūl which recorded the
testimony of the night guard who witnessed the theft. 38
Sharī‘a legal documents were used even in criminal cases in which the defendant was a
foreign subject or protégé. For instance, in 1880, Jack b. Rūmīya, an English Jew, was accused
of violently hitting Ḥaim b. Bakkash, a Jewish Moroccan subject living in Marrakesh. 39 As an
English subject, Jack could only be tried at the British consulate in Essaouira (the closest one to
Marrakesh). Nonetheless, the local Makhzan officials had two ‘udūl draw up a legal document
35 DNA, 2.05.119, Guagnins to Rappard, 11 May 1909. Guagnins reported that the pasha came and instructed the
‘udūl to include in the document that there was a spider web in the space where the thieves supposedly entered, thus
making it impossible that they could have actually got in; it seems, however, that the ‘udūl did not write this down.
36 The dossier includes a translation of this document, which was written on 21 Ṣafar 1327.
37 MAE Nantes, Tanger A 140, Ben Simon to Gambetta, 31 March 1882. It was unusual for a French subject to
write directly to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Paris, rather than going through the local consul or the
ambassador in Tangier. It is possible that Bensimon wrote directly to Gambetta because he was living in Marseille,
and thus felt more connected to the officials in metropolitan France than to the French consular officials in Morocco.
38 USNA, Reg. 84, Box no. 1, Benatuil Case, 1901; v. 13A, Mimon Dahan to Toel, 18 August 1904; v. 150, Dossier
of Mimon Dahan, 1907; MAE Nantes, Tanger B 487, G. Berenaudat to Malpertuy, 1909. For instances in which
Islamic legal documents were used as evidence in cases of crimes against foreign subjects or protégés themselves
(and not their agents), see: DAR, Safi, Italian consul in Safi to al-Ṭayyib b. Hīma, 10 and 11 Rabī‘ II 1299, and four
legal documents from 3 Rajab 1299; DAR, Ḥimāyāt, 35509, Muḥammad Bargāsh to Mawlāy Ḥasan, 27 Muḥarram
1301; MAE Nantes, Tanger A 165, Dossier Eliahu Tordjman, 1895; USNA, Reg. 84, v. 150, Dossier of Meir Cohen,
1896-8. For an instance in which the testimony of a lafīf was submitted concerning the robbery of Rafael Kohen, a
French subject, see MAE Nantes, Tanger A 161, ?? to Ordega, 11 September 1884. (On lafīf, see Chapter Two.)
39 About this case, see DAR, Yahūd, 32594, Mawlāy Ḥasan to Muḥammad Bargāsh, 5 Dhū al-Ḥijja 1297.
302