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

(li-‘adami iqrārihi).” Although the Makhzan correspondence did not name the Jewish suspects, we learn from elsewhere that they were Jacob (Akkan) Ben Yehudah (or Benhuda), Makhluf Aflalo, Sa‘diah Ben Moyal (Saïdo, Shido)—all Moroccan subjects—and Eliyahu Lalouche (or Elias Beneluz), an Ottoman subject probably from Tunisia. 69 It soon became clear, however, that capital punishment had in fact been demanded by the Spanish authorities: “The Spanish ambassador requested that the two dhimmīs who are imprisoned in Safi be killed, just as their [the Spanish] official who was poisoned [was killed].” 70 The Spanish had even threatened the Makhzan with attack should the sultan fail to execute the Jewish suspects. 71 This explanation makes sense given that Moroccan courts rarely sentenced murderers to death. Rather, as discussed in Chapter Five, the normal punishment for murder was the payment of blood money to the heirs of the deceased. Some of the foreign newspapers reporting on the affair even noted that the Spanish were in this instance more bloodthirsty than the Moroccans. 72 Before the Makhzan authorities could fully comply with the Spanish ambassador’s request, a complication arose concerning the validity of the Jews’ confessions. One of the Jews 69 Littman, “Mission to Morocco,” 178-9; Kenbib, Juifs et musulmans, 124; Fenton and Littman, L’exil au Maghreb, 397. Kenbib gives the names of two more Jews (Chalom el-Qaïm and Jacob Benharroche) who were also implicated but, it seems, imprisoned only briefly. Lalouche is described as a Turkish subject in the Moroccan sources. His father apparently had a passport issued in Gibraltar by Cardoza, the Tunisian consul there (Littman, “Mission to Morocco,” 181). However, Littman seems to think that Lalouche had been granted protection by Frederick Carstensen, the British consul in Safi. The Moroccan sources, on the other hand, clearly indicate that the British consular authorities were involved because they had agreed to look after the interests of Ottoman subjects in Morocco: see especially DAR, Safi, 4718, al-Ṭayyib b. Hīma to Muḥammad Bargāsh, 25 Rabī‘ I 1280. 70 Mā ṭalabahu bāshadūr al-ṣbanyūl [sic] min qatli al-dhimmīyayn al-maḥbūsayn bi-sijni Asafī fī mithli [sic] qatli amīnihim alladhī summima (DAR, Safi, 4713, al-Ṭayyib b. al-Yamānī to Muḥammad Bargāsh, 11 Rabī‘ I 1280). See also DAR, Safi, Muḥammad Bargāsh to al-Ṭayyib b. al-Yamānī, 27 Ṣafar 1280. 71 Kenbib, Juifs et musulmans, 126. Littman reports that Merry y Colom, the Spanish ambassador, sent a warship to Safi to demand Akkan’s execution; however, he does not come to the conclusion that the pressure to execute the Jews came primarily from Spain: Littman, “Mission to Morocco,” 188. 72 See, for instance, the article in The Jewish Chronicle, 6 November 1863, p. 6 (cited in Littman, “Mission to Morocco,” 180). Yet before Kenbib’s discussion of the Safi affair, historians tended to ignore this observation made by contemporaries in favor of an explanation that blamed the Moroccan authorities. 350

etracted his initial testimony claiming that he had confessed under duress. 73 Because the confession was now questionable, Mawlāy Muḥammad “sent the matter to the qāḍīs and the ‘ulamā’ (Muslim scholars).” 74 Although there was some disagreement among them, 75 the scholars eventually “rendered a legal opinion (aftaw) that their [the two suspects’] confession was valid and that they were guilty of the murder.” 76 Because the original testimony of Jacob Ben Yehudah and Eliyahu Lalouche was upheld, they were both were sentenced to death; Ben Yehudah, a Moroccan subject, was executed in Safi on September 3. 77 On September 9, Ibn Hīma reported that he had asked the British consul whether he wanted to claim jurisdiction over Lalouche, an Ottoman subject. 78 The British consul replied that “in such a grave matter, he does not speak for him [literally, about him—that is, for the Ottoman subject], rather, the jurisdiction of the Gharb [Morocco] should prevail in this matter; and he gave his signature to this effect.” 79 On September 13, Lalouche was beheaded in Tangier. 80 As for Aflalo and Ben Moyal, the other two suspects, the ‘ulamā’ consulted by Mawlāy Muḥammad ruled that their confessions did not constitute sufficient evidence and that they should be pardoned (i‘dhār). 81 The sultan ordered that the matter be judged in a sharī‘a court, either by the qāḍī of Safi or of Tangier (according to the preference of the Spanish ambassador). 73 See DAR, Safi, 4720, Mawlāy Muḥammad to Muḥammad Bargāsh, 9 Rabī‘ II 1280. 74 DAR, Safi, 4718, al-Ṭayyib b. Hīma to Muḥammad Bargāsh, 25 Rabī‘ I 1280. 75 Safi, 4715, Mawlāy Muḥammad to Muḥammad Bargāsh, 17 Rabī‘ I 1280. The letter does not specify the nature of the disagreement. 76 DAR, Safi, 4718, al-Ṭayyib b. Hīma to Muḥammad Bargāsh, 25 Rabī‘ I 1280. Kenbib relates that the matter was solved by having a lafīf testify that Ben Yehudah was a “voyou et un malfaiteur,” which was intended to “contrebalancer la rétraction du comdamné” (Kenbib, Juifs et musulmans, 127). 77 DAR, Safi, 4716, al-Ṭayyib b. Hīma to Muḥammad Bargāsh, 19 Rabī‘ I 1280. However, another source indicates that Ben Yehudah was executed on 14 September (see FO, 99/117, Frederick Carstensen to Thomas Reade, 14 September 1863, reprinted in Bashan, Moshe Montefiore ve-yehudei Maroko, 220). 78 DAR, Safi, 4718, al-Ṭayyib b. Hīma to Muḥammad Bargāsh, 25 Rabī‘ I 1280. 79 Wa-dhakara anna lā yatakallamu ‘alayhi fī mithli hādhihi al-da‘wā li-‘iẓamihā wa-innamā yatawallā al- ḥukūmatu ‘alayhi fī hādhihi al-nāzilati wilāyatu al-gharbi wa-a‘ṭā khaṭṭa yaddihi bi-dhālika (ibid.). 80 Littman, “Mission to Morocco,” 182: Littman cites FO, 99/117, Reade (British consul in Tangier) to Earl Russell (British foreign secretary), 10 October 1863. See also DAR, Safi, 4716, al-Ṭayyib b. Hīma to Muḥammad Bargāsh, 19 Rabī‘ I 1280. 81 DAR, Safi, 4720, Mawlāy Muḥammad to Muḥammad Bargāsh, 9 Rabī‘ II 1280. 351

etracted his initial testimony claiming that he had confessed under duress. 73 Because the<br />

confession was now questionable, Mawlāy Muḥammad “sent the matter to the qāḍīs and the<br />

‘ulamā’ (Muslim scholars).” 74 Although there was some disagreement among them, 75 the<br />

scholars eventually “rendered a legal opinion (aftaw) that their [the two suspects’] confession<br />

was valid and that they were guilty of the murder.” 76 Because the original testimony of Jacob<br />

Ben Yehudah and Eliyahu Lalouche was upheld, they were both were sentenced to death; Ben<br />

Yehudah, a Moroccan subject, was executed in Safi on September 3. 77 On September 9, Ibn<br />

Hīma reported that he had asked the British consul whether he wanted to claim jurisdiction over<br />

Lalouche, an Ottoman subject. 78 The British consul replied that “in such a grave matter, he does<br />

not speak for him [literally, about him—that is, for the Ottoman subject], rather, the jurisdiction<br />

of the Gharb [Morocco] should prevail in this matter; and he gave his signature to this effect.” 79<br />

On September 13, Lalouche was beheaded in Tangier. 80<br />

As for Aflalo and Ben Moyal, the other two suspects, the ‘ulamā’ consulted by Mawlāy<br />

Muḥammad ruled that their confessions did not constitute sufficient evidence and that they<br />

should be pardoned (i‘dhār). 81 The sultan ordered that the matter be judged in a sharī‘a court,<br />

either by the qāḍī of Safi or of Tangier (according to the preference of the Spanish ambassador).<br />

73<br />

See DAR, Safi, 4720, Mawlāy Muḥammad to Muḥammad Bargāsh, 9 Rabī‘ II 1280.<br />

74<br />

DAR, Safi, 4718, al-Ṭayyib b. Hīma to Muḥammad Bargāsh, 25 Rabī‘ I 1280.<br />

75<br />

Safi, 4715, Mawlāy Muḥammad to Muḥammad Bargāsh, 17 Rabī‘ I 1280. The letter does not specify the nature<br />

of the disagreement.<br />

76<br />

DAR, Safi, 4718, al-Ṭayyib b. Hīma to Muḥammad Bargāsh, 25 Rabī‘ I 1280. Kenbib relates that the matter was<br />

solved by having a lafīf testify that Ben Yehudah was a “voyou et un malfaiteur,” which was intended to<br />

“contrebalancer la rétraction du comdamné” (Kenbib, Juifs et musulmans, 127).<br />

77<br />

DAR, Safi, 4716, al-Ṭayyib b. Hīma to Muḥammad Bargāsh, 19 Rabī‘ I 1280. However, another source indicates<br />

that Ben Yehudah was executed on 14 September (see FO, 99/117, Frederick Carstensen to Thomas Reade, 14<br />

September 1863, reprinted in Bashan, Moshe Montefiore ve-yehudei Maroko, 220).<br />

78<br />

DAR, Safi, 4718, al-Ṭayyib b. Hīma to Muḥammad Bargāsh, 25 Rabī‘ I 1280.<br />

79<br />

Wa-dhakara anna lā yatakallamu ‘alayhi fī mithli hādhihi al-da‘wā li-‘iẓamihā wa-innamā yatawallā al-<br />

ḥukūmatu ‘alayhi fī hādhihi al-nāzilati wilāyatu al-gharbi wa-a‘ṭā khaṭṭa yaddihi bi-dhālika (ibid.).<br />

80<br />

Littman, “Mission to Morocco,” 182: Littman cites FO, 99/117, Reade (British consul in Tangier) to Earl Russell<br />

(British foreign secretary), 10 October 1863. See also DAR, Safi, 4716, al-Ṭayyib b. Hīma to Muḥammad Bargāsh,<br />

19 Rabī‘ I 1280.<br />

81<br />

DAR, Safi, 4720, Mawlāy Muḥammad to Muḥammad Bargāsh, 9 Rabī‘ II 1280.<br />

351

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!