IN THE COURTS OF THE NATIONS - DataSpace - Princeton ...
IN THE COURTS OF THE NATIONS - DataSpace - Princeton ... IN THE COURTS OF THE NATIONS - DataSpace - Princeton ...
Muslims, despite certain inequalities. Moreover, Jews used sharī‘a courts with proficiency; Shalom Assarraf was even employed by Muslims to represent them in sharī‘a court. The services of qāḍīs and ‘udūl facilitated Jews’ economic endeavors, especially the commercial relations that bound them to their Muslim business associates. Why Go to Court? Jews engaged the services of qāḍīs and ‘udūl for a variety of reasons. A relatively complete collection such as that of the Assarrafs gives us a picture of a Jewish family’s use of the court over a period of more than sixty years. The patterns discernible in the collection tell us about the legal services for which Jews turned to sharī‘a courts most often. Table 2.1 shows the distribution of types of entries in the Assarraf collection. The collection includes a total of 1,930 documents. 5 98% of the documents concerned matters in which one or more Jews were involved with one or more Muslims. 6 Although the documents concerning matters among Jews generally do not differ in form or content from those concerning Jews and Muslims, I treat these separately (in the following chapter) and thus have chosen to keep them as a distinct category. 5 I should specify that by 1,930 documents, I mean 1,930 separate entries. At times, a single page has multiple entries, almost always concerning the same subject. However, I did not count two entries from the same date on a single document as two separate documents because it was clear that the proceedings happened at the same time and were simply recorded separately out of compliance with a standard format. I discuss such documents at greater length in the section on lawsuits. I also did not include a handful of documents which concerned only Muslims and did not explicitly mention Jews at all; while these documents undoubtedly had some relationship to the Assarraf family (since they ended up in their personal archive), it is impossible to know exactly how any given intra-Muslim document related to Jews’ use of sharī‘a courts. Most of these documents are powers of attorney, which undoubtedly wound up in the Assarrafs’s hands because the family was somehow involved in a lawsuit with the Muslim being represented. Others concern the settlement of a theft indemnity (from Rajab 1274), a debt owed by one Muslim to another (13 Jumādā I 1290), etc. 6 I counted 39 entries which concerned only Jews (about 2% of the total). 70
Table 2.1 Types of Entries 2% 2% 2% Debt: 64% Litigious: 25% Release: 5% Rent/Sale: 2% Intra-Jewish: 2% Miscellaneous: 2% 25% The vast majority of documents, about 73% of the total, are notarial—that is, contracts of one sort or another which Jews and Muslims brought to ‘udūl to have formalized according to Islamic legal standards. The single largest category of these notarial documents concerns debts (64% of the total 7 ), that is, money owed by Muslim debtors either to members of the Assarraf family or their Jewish business partners. Most of these debts are for goods sold on credit, rather than straightforward money lending. Other notarial documents include: releases, 8 in which Jews and Muslims in some sort of business relationship attest that they have fulfilled their obligations towards one another and no longer owe one another any money; contracts for the sale or rental of property; 9 and other “miscellaneous” types such as partnerships, attestations to the (often partial) 7 1,229 entries. 8 I counted 97 releases, about 5% of the total. 9 I counted 32 sale or rental agreements, about 2% of the total. 5% 71 64%
- Page 29 and 30: alternative framework to that of au
- Page 31 and 32: including courts—which were of pr
- Page 33 and 34: Recently scholars working on the me
- Page 35 and 36: We are left with two models of Jewi
- Page 37 and 38: Legal pluralism is an approach to u
- Page 39 and 40: orders. I also turn the focus from
- Page 41 and 42: Nonetheless, the tendency of forum
- Page 43 and 44: Legal pluralism does not explain wh
- Page 45 and 46: Jewish communities were no less var
- Page 47 and 48: is perhaps best attested by the fac
- Page 49 and 50: To help remind readers that the thr
- Page 51 and 52: abusive Makhzan officials, infringe
- Page 53 and 54: Chapter One: Between Batei Din and
- Page 55 and 56: went to batei din and sharī‘a co
- Page 57 and 58: school relevant for our purposes is
- Page 59 and 60: Jewish and Islamic legal systems re
- Page 61 and 62: ehind, a large number were undoubte
- Page 63 and 64: atei din generally, it does reflect
- Page 65 and 66: Jews used batei din not only as not
- Page 67 and 68: Jerusalem. 33 The collection consis
- Page 69 and 70: (azraqu al-‘aynayn)—a trait for
- Page 71 and 72: undoubtedly made much of their mone
- Page 73 and 74: preventing members of the community
- Page 75 and 76: ‘udūl. 76 These ‘udūl, whose
- Page 77 and 78: Eliyahu b. Ya'aqov Zohra bat Ya‘a
- Page 79: and Muḥammad would return the mon
- Page 83 and 84: allegation or deposition in a case
- Page 85 and 86: court approximately once a week, ei
- Page 87 and 88: The introduction of the “protecti
- Page 89 and 90: ule; the ‘udūl almost always too
- Page 91 and 92: documents would stand up as evidenc
- Page 93 and 94: Empire. 49 A document in the Assarr
- Page 95 and 96: legal procedure was relatively mino
- Page 97 and 98: een optional as not all bills of de
- Page 99 and 100: Qa‘da 1309 (June 12, 1892), two
- Page 101 and 102: mostly meant extending credit on go
- Page 103 and 104: Other release documents specify tha
- Page 105 and 106: al-faqīh Aḥmad al-Filālī al-Ma
- Page 107 and 108: Lease contracts, on the other hand,
- Page 109 and 110: which was operated by Muslims durin
- Page 111 and 112: Shalom’s knowledge of Islamic law
- Page 113 and 114: elow). Although the majority of law
- Page 115 and 116: weeks after the plaintiff filed the
- Page 117 and 118: gathered twelve men who testified t
- Page 119 and 120: whether the qāḍī accepted al-
- Page 121 and 122: in the Assarraf collection indicate
- Page 123 and 124: (ittifāqīyan) and were testifying
- Page 125 and 126: In another instance of oath avoidan
- Page 127 and 128: Sharī‘a courts provided a crucia
- Page 129 and 130: agreement notarized according to Is
Table 2.1<br />
Types of Entries<br />
2% 2% 2%<br />
Debt: 64% Litigious: 25% Release: 5%<br />
Rent/Sale: 2% Intra-Jewish: 2% Miscellaneous: 2%<br />
25%<br />
The vast majority of documents, about 73% of the total, are notarial—that is, contracts of one<br />
sort or another which Jews and Muslims brought to ‘udūl to have formalized according to<br />
Islamic legal standards. The single largest category of these notarial documents concerns debts<br />
(64% of the total 7 ), that is, money owed by Muslim debtors either to members of the Assarraf<br />
family or their Jewish business partners. Most of these debts are for goods sold on credit, rather<br />
than straightforward money lending. Other notarial documents include: releases, 8 in which Jews<br />
and Muslims in some sort of business relationship attest that they have fulfilled their obligations<br />
towards one another and no longer owe one another any money; contracts for the sale or rental of<br />
property; 9 and other “miscellaneous” types such as partnerships, attestations to the (often partial)<br />
7 1,229 entries.<br />
8 I counted 97 releases, about 5% of the total.<br />
9 I counted 32 sale or rental agreements, about 2% of the total.<br />
5%<br />
71<br />
64%
Change language