IN THE COURTS OF THE NATIONS - DataSpace - Princeton ...
IN THE COURTS OF THE NATIONS - DataSpace - Princeton ... IN THE COURTS OF THE NATIONS - DataSpace - Princeton ...
(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
- 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
- Page 337 and 338: Foreign subjects and protégés wer
- Page 339 and 340: confirmed that this meant the Jews
- Page 341 and 342: AIU’s attention either through pe
- Page 343 and 344: A competing narrative of Moroccan J
- Page 345 and 346: non-Jewish Westerners alike, I argu
- Page 347 and 348: international press. Demnat might s
- Page 349 and 350: attribute the Makhzan’s efforts t
- Page 351 and 352: The events in Demnat were not the o
- Page 353 and 354: finally wrote to Muḥammad Bargās
- Page 355 and 356: wearing Muslim clothing and told hi
- Page 357 and 358: of 1863. Four Jews were accused of
- Page 359: made an honest mistake, the effect
- Page 363 and 364: the remaining two subjects. Only af
- Page 365 and 366: organizations, and the foreign pres
- Page 367 and 368: Marseillais, The Times, The Pall Ma
- Page 369 and 370: coreligionists’ position. 112 Avn
- Page 371 and 372: had been following the standard pra
- Page 373 and 374: did not declare that Jews and Musli
- Page 375 and 376: under the jurisdiction of Makhzan o
- Page 377 and 378: tolerance. 142 Such a policy would
- Page 379 and 380: concede to the American ambassador
- Page 381 and 382: Epilogue On March 30, 1912, France
- Page 383 and 384: courts to matters of personal statu
- Page 385 and 386: This sort of continuity in legal pr
- Page 387 and 388: intra-Jewish cases to these courts
- Page 389 and 390: Glossary of Arabic and Hebrew Terms
- Page 391 and 392: Ẓahīr: Royal decree (spelled “
- Page 393 and 394: United States: United States Nation
- Page 395 and 396: ———. Kitāb al-istiqṣā li-
- Page 397 and 398: Becker, Jerónimo. España y Marrue
- Page 399 and 400: Chetrit, Joseph. Diglossie, hybrida
- Page 401 and 402: Ennaji, Mohammed. Expansion europé
- Page 403 and 404: Gotzmann, Andreas. “At Home in Ma
- Page 405 and 406: ———. Les protégés : contrib
- Page 407 and 408: Marcus, Abraham. The Middle East on
- Page 409 and 410: Perron, M. Précis de jurisprudence
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