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

ule; the ‘udūl almost always took care to mark Jews as such in the legal documents they
produced.
In addition to distinct titles, a slightly different concluding formula was often used at the
end of documents concerning Jews. Notarized documents typically ended with the two ‘udūl
testifying to their having witnessed the agreement to which the document pertains. The standard
formula is: “[The ‘udūl] testify that they [the parties to the contract] know the content [of the
contract] and testify concerning them completely” (‘arafū qadrahu shahida bihi ‘alayhim bi-
akmalihi). 32 However, when a Jew was concerned, the formula specified that “the dhimmī is in
an acceptable state,” (al-dhimmī wa-huwa bi-’l-ḥālati al-jā’izati). 33 The manual for legal
documents from nineteenth-century Fez does not include any examples of a special concluding
formula for Jews, nor have I found any mention of this formula elsewhere. 34 More research is
needed in order to determine the origins of this formula and how common it was in pre-colonial
Morocco and beyond.
Besides prefacing Jews’ names with markers such as “dhimmī” and slight variations in
the concluding formulae, the basic form of sharī‘a court documents was mostly similar
32 See, e.g., Binānī, al-Wathā’iq al-fāsīya, 26. However, the shurūṭ manual has the verb “know” in the dual (‘arafā),
since presumably contracts normally refer to two parties, whereas the formulation I quote here (from TC File #1, 11
Muḥarram 1298) refers to three people involved in the contract. For the translation, see Ahmed Attif, “Court
Judgments and Decisions and Adul’s Deeds: Translation and Commentary” (Thesis, Diplôme de Traducteur,
Université Abdelmalek Essadi, Ecole Supérieure Roi Fahd de Traduction, 1990-1), e.g. 98-103; Attif translates
‘arafū qadrahu shahida bihi ‘alayhim as “The Aduls testify that both parties know the content and legal importance
of the present” (100). In other words, the verb ‘arafū (and the subsequent ‘alayhim) refers to the parties concerned
(although it is not clear why, in the document Attif translates here, the parties are dual while the verb is in the plural;
one would expect it to be in either the singular or the dual), whereas the verb shahida refers to the ‘udūl (and can be
in the singular even to refer to a dual subject since the verb precedes the subject).
33 See, e.g., TC File #1, 11 Muḥarram 1298. For a slightly different version of this, see, e.g. TC, File #1, 6 Shawwāl
1283, which reads: “They testified about them completely regarding the Muslim…and regarding the dhimmī he is in
a proper…and acceptable state” (shahida bihi ‘alayhimā bi-akmalihi bi-’l-nisbati li-l-muslimi…wa-fī ḥāli
ṣiḥḥati…wa-jawāzin bi-’l-nisbati li-l-dhimmī). I also found this formula in documents from Marrakesh (see, e.g.,
UL, Or.26.543 (1), 15 Ṣafar 1292, 5 Rabī‘ I 1293, 19 Shawwāl 1295, etc.). See also documents from Tetuan in
which the formula states that the ‘udūl “know the Jew” (‘arafa al-yahūdīya): PD, 21 Muharram 1314, 21 Dhū al-
Ḥijja 1315, etc. However, I did not find this formula in any shurūṭ manuals that I consulted.
34 I also consulted ‘uqūd from the Cairo Geniza (found in Khan, Arabic Legal Documents).
79