Dhimmīs in the muslim court: Legal autonomy and religious discrimination

International Journal of Middle East Studies

Volumn 31, Issue 3, 1999, Pages 429-444

  Al Qattan, Najwa ^a  

^a LOYOLA MARYMOUNT UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0039181635     PISSN: 00207438     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0020743800055501     Document Type: Article

References (91)

1. ⊃lot u Tshuvot (Responsa) (Warsaw, 1882), I, nos. 29, 114, quoted in Aryeh Shmuelevitz, The Jews of the Ottoman Empire in the Late Fifteenth and the Sixteenth Centuries: Administrative, Economic, Legal and Social Relations as Reflected in the Responsa (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1984), 51.
2. ⊃lot u Tshuvot (Responsa) (Warsaw, 1882), I, nos. 29, 114, quoted in Aryeh Shmuelevitz, The Jews of the Ottoman Empire in the Late Fifteenth and the Sixteenth Centuries: Administrative, Economic, Legal and Social Relations as Reflected in the Responsa (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1984), 51.
3. ⊃ l-Makht + (Combining dot below)ūtāt, where the center keeps microfilm copies of a large number of Damascus sijills. Reference to documents obtained from the center are, therefore, followed by the appropriate microfilm catalogue number, but not by document and page numbers, which in the majority of cases were illegible. Two additional notes are in order. First, a number of sijill cases cited in this paper are identified as "Aleppo" cases on account of a filing error at the center in Jordan - they are in fact Damascene sijills. Second, in the sijill cases cited, the abbreviations "b.," "w.," and "bt." refer to ibn (son of), walad (dhimmi son of), and bint (daughter of), respectively.
4. See Halil Inalcik, "Ottoman Archival Material on Millets," in Christians and Jews of the Ottoman Empire: The Functioning of a Plural Society, ed. Benjamin Braude and Bernard Lewis, 2 vols. (London and New York: Holmes and Meier Publishers, 1982), The Central Lands, 2:437.
5. ⊂a doctrine.
6. ⊂a doctrine.
7. In fact, intra-communal cases outnumbered inter-communal cases on the order of two to one.
8. ⊂arūs resmī). The relatively small number of registered Muslim and dhimmī marriages challenges this as an explanation.
9. ⊂arūs resmī). The relatively small number of registered Muslim and dhimmī marriages challenges this as an explanation.
10. ⊂arūs resmī). The relatively small number of registered Muslim and dhimmī marriages challenges this as an explanation.
11. In fact, the distinction between the two is often blurred at the level of function as well as at the level of titles. See, for example, Amnon Cohen, Jewish Life Under Islam: Jerusalem in the Sixteenth Century (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1984), 48-49, and Alexander Russell, The Natural History of Aleppo, 2 vols. (London: G. G. & J. Robinson, 1794), 2:62.
12. In fact, the distinction between the two is often blurred at the level of function as well as at the level of titles. See, for example, Amnon Cohen, Jewish Life Under Islam: Jerusalem in the Sixteenth Century (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1984), 48-49, and Alexander Russell, The Natural History of Aleppo, 2 vols. (London: G. G. & J. Robinson, 1794), 2:62.
13. Joseph R. Hacker, "Jewish Autonomy in the Ottoman Empire: Its Scope and Limits: Jewish Courts from the Sixteenth to the Eighteenth Centuries," in The Jews of the Ottoman Empire, ed. Avigdor Levy (Princeton, N.J.: Darwin Press, 1994), 185.
14. ⊂a courts on all occasions (Jews of the Ottoman Empire, 43-44); Pantazopoulos stresses Ottoman equivocation regarding the matter (N. J. Pantazopoulos, Church and Law in the Balkan Peninsula During the Ottoman Rule [Amsterdam: Adolf M. Hakkert, 1984], 103-7). Hacker argues that dhimmī courts had no official standing in the empire ("Jewish Autonomy," 183-84).
15. ⊂a courts on all occasions (Jews of the Ottoman Empire, 43-44); Pantazopoulos stresses Ottoman equivocation regarding the matter (N. J. Pantazopoulos, Church and Law in the Balkan Peninsula During the Ottoman Rule [Amsterdam: Adolf M. Hakkert, 1984], 103-7). Hacker argues that dhimmī courts had no official standing in the empire ("Jewish Autonomy," 183-84).
16. ⊂a courts on all occasions (Jews of the Ottoman Empire, 43-44); Pantazopoulos stresses Ottoman equivocation regarding the matter (N. J. Pantazopoulos, Church and Law in the Balkan Peninsula During the Ottoman Rule [Amsterdam: Adolf M. Hakkert, 1984], 103-7). Hacker argues that dhimmī courts had no official standing in the empire ("Jewish Autonomy," 183-84).
17. See Cohen, Jewish Life Under Islam, 36-58, and Abraham Marcus, Middle East on the Eve of Modernity: Aleppo in the Eighteenth Century (New York: Columbia University Press, 1989), 108-9, who appear to assume it.
18. See Cohen, Jewish Life Under Islam, 36-58, and Abraham Marcus, Middle East on the Eve of Modernity: Aleppo in the Eighteenth Century (New York: Columbia University Press, 1989), 108-9, who appear to assume it.
19. See Hacker, "Jewish Autonomy," 183, who appears to assume that Christians, unlike Jews, enjoyed an officially sanctioned legal autonomy between the 16th and 18th centuries; Shmuelevitz, Jews of the Ottoman Empire, 43, who argues that until the 18th century, the church courts were limited to matters of personal religious law, while 15th- and 16th-century Jewish courts dealt with all but criminal cases; Pantazopoulos, Church and Law, 19, 43, 56-57, 103-7, who maintains that until the 18th century, the Ottomans limited the church's authority to religious matters; Inalcik, "Ottoman Archival Material," 440, who argues that until the 18th century, the authority of the church leadership was restricted to matters dealing with church organization and property; and Richard Clogg, "The Greek Millet in the Ottoman Empire," in Christians and Jews, 1:186-87, who connects judicial authority to the rise of the millets.
20. See Hacker, "Jewish Autonomy," 183, who appears to assume that Christians, unlike Jews, enjoyed an officially sanctioned legal autonomy between the 16th and 18th centuries; Shmuelevitz, Jews of the Ottoman Empire, 43, who argues that until the 18th century, the church courts were limited to matters of personal religious law, while 15th- and 16th-century Jewish courts dealt with all but criminal cases; Pantazopoulos, Church and Law, 19, 43, 56-57, 103-7, who maintains that until the 18th century, the Ottomans limited the church's authority to religious matters; Inalcik, "Ottoman Archival Material," 440, who argues that until the 18th century, the authority of the church leadership was restricted to matters dealing with church organization and property; and Richard Clogg, "The Greek Millet in the Ottoman Empire," in Christians and Jews, 1:186-87, who connects judicial authority to the rise of the millets.
21. See Hacker, "Jewish Autonomy," 183, who appears to assume that Christians, unlike Jews, enjoyed an officially sanctioned legal autonomy between the 16th and 18th centuries; Shmuelevitz, Jews of the Ottoman Empire, 43, who argues that until the 18th century, the church courts were limited to matters of personal religious law, while 15th- and 16th-century Jewish courts dealt with all but criminal cases; Pantazopoulos, Church and Law, 19, 43, 56-57, 103-7, who maintains that until the 18th century, the Ottomans limited the church's authority to religious matters; Inalcik, "Ottoman Archival Material," 440, who argues that until the 18th century, the authority of the church leadership was restricted to matters dealing with church organization and property; and Richard Clogg, "The Greek Millet in the Ottoman Empire," in Christians and Jews, 1:186-87, who connects judicial authority to the rise of the millets.
22. See Hacker, "Jewish Autonomy," 183, who appears to assume that Christians, unlike Jews, enjoyed an officially sanctioned legal autonomy between the 16th and 18th centuries; Shmuelevitz, Jews of the Ottoman Empire, 43, who argues that until the 18th century, the church courts were limited to matters of personal religious law, while 15th- and 16th-century Jewish courts dealt with all but criminal cases; Pantazopoulos, Church and Law, 19, 43, 56-57, 103-7, who maintains that until the 18th century, the Ottomans limited the church's authority to religious matters; Inalcik, "Ottoman Archival Material," 440, who argues that until the 18th century, the authority of the church leadership was restricted to matters dealing with church organization and property; and Richard Clogg, "The Greek Millet in the Ottoman Empire," in Christians and Jews, 1:186-87, who connects judicial authority to the rise of the millets.
23. See Hacker, "Jewish Autonomy," 183, who appears to assume that Christians, unlike Jews, enjoyed an officially sanctioned legal autonomy between the 16th and 18th centuries; Shmuelevitz, Jews of the Ottoman Empire, 43, who argues that until the 18th century, the church courts were limited to matters of personal religious law, while 15th- and 16th-century Jewish courts dealt with all but criminal cases; Pantazopoulos, Church and Law, 19, 43, 56-57, 103-7, who maintains that until the 18th century, the Ottomans limited the church's authority to religious matters; Inalcik, "Ottoman Archival Material," 440, who argues that until the 18th century, the authority of the church leadership was restricted to matters dealing with church organization and property; and Richard Clogg, "The Greek Millet in the Ottoman Empire," in Christians and Jews, 1:186-87, who connects judicial authority to the rise of the millets.
24. Benjamin Braude, "Foundation Myths of the Millet System," in Christians and Jews, 1:69-88.
25. Ibid. See also Amnon Cohen, "On the Realities of the Millet System," in Christians and Jews, 2:15, and Shmuelevitz, Jews of the Ottoman Empire, 15-30, whose argument is suggestive of a historiographic "foundation myth" reversed - in other words, that the limited judicial autonomy that the Jews of the early Ottoman period may have enjoyed is erroneously forwarded into the later centuries and simply assumed.
26. Ibid. See also Amnon Cohen, "On the Realities of the Millet System," in Christians and Jews, 2:15, and Shmuelevitz, Jews of the Ottoman Empire, 15-30, whose argument is suggestive of a historiographic "foundation myth" reversed - in other words, that the limited judicial autonomy that the Jews of the early Ottoman period may have enjoyed is erroneously forwarded into the later centuries and simply assumed.
27. Ibid. See also Amnon Cohen, "On the Realities of the Millet System," in Christians and Jews, 2:15, and Shmuelevitz, Jews of the Ottoman Empire, 15-30, whose argument is suggestive of a historiographic "foundation myth" reversed - in other words, that the limited judicial autonomy that the Jews of the early Ottoman period may have enjoyed is erroneously forwarded into the later centuries and simply assumed.
28. Shmuelevitz, Jews of the Ottoman Empire, 49-50; Cohen, Jewish Life Under Islam, 116, 126, 131.
29. Shmuelevitz, Jews of the Ottoman Empire, 49-50; Cohen, Jewish Life Under Islam, 116, 126, 131.
30. Ronald C. Jennings, "Zimmis (non-Muslims) in Early 17th Century Ottoman Judicial Records: The Sharia Court of Anatolian Kayseri," Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 21, 3 (1978): 251, 271, 274; idem, Christians and Muslims in Ottoman Cyprus and the Mediterranean World, 1571-1640 (New York: New York University Press, 1993), 69, 133; and Faroqhi, Men of Modest Substance, 154, 200-210.
31. Ronald C. Jennings, "Zimmis (non-Muslims) in Early 17th Century Ottoman Judicial Records: The Sharia Court of Anatolian Kayseri," Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 21, 3 (1978): 251, 271, 274; idem, Christians and Muslims in Ottoman Cyprus and the Mediterranean World, 1571-1640 (New York: New York University Press, 1993), 69, 133; and Faroqhi, Men of Modest Substance, 154, 200-210.
32. Ronald C. Jennings, "Zimmis (non-Muslims) in Early 17th Century Ottoman Judicial Records: The Sharia Court of Anatolian Kayseri," Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 21, 3 (1978): 251, 271, 274; idem, Christians and Muslims in Ottoman Cyprus and the Mediterranean World, 1571-1640 (New York: New York University Press, 1993), 69, 133; and Faroqhi, Men of Modest Substance, 154, 200-210.
33. Hacker, "Jewish Autonomy," 181; Marcus, Middle East, 108-9.
34. Hacker, "Jewish Autonomy," 181; Marcus, Middle East, 108-9.
35. For a discussion of the limitations of the Responsa as sources, see Shmuelevitz, Jews of the Ottoman Empire, 1-9.
36. See Shmuelevitz, Jews of the Ottoman Empire, 43-44, 65-68. See also Hacker, "Jewish Autonomy," 182.
37. See Shmuelevitz, Jews of the Ottoman Empire, 43-44, 65-68. See also Hacker, "Jewish Autonomy," 182.
38. Pantazopoulos, Church and Law, 53-57, 59, 65-66, 93, 107. See also Shmuelevitz, Jews of the Ottoman Empire, 66-67, 69, and the instances mentioned in Cohen, Jewish Life Under Islam, 110-39.
39. Pantazopoulos, Church and Law, 53-57, 59, 65-66, 93, 107. See also Shmuelevitz, Jews of the Ottoman Empire, 66-67, 69, and the instances mentioned in Cohen, Jewish Life Under Islam, 110-39.
40. Pantazopoulos, Church and Law, 53-57, 59, 65-66, 93, 107. See also Shmuelevitz, Jews of the Ottoman Empire, 66-67, 69, and the instances mentioned in Cohen, Jewish Life Under Islam, 110-39.
41. Mohammad Afifi, "Reflections on the Personal Laws of Egyptian Copts," in Women, the Family, and Divorce Laws in Islamic History, ed. Amira El Azhary Sonbol (Syracuse, N.Y.: Syracuse University Press, 1996), 203-6. On added clauses to the marriage contract, see Nelly Hanna, "Marriage Among Merchant Families in Seventeenth Century Cairo," in Women, the Family, 143-54.
42. Mohammad Afifi, "Reflections on the Personal Laws of Egyptian Copts," in Women, the Family, and Divorce Laws in Islamic History, ed. Amira El Azhary Sonbol (Syracuse, N.Y.: Syracuse University Press, 1996), 203-6. On added clauses to the marriage contract, see Nelly Hanna, "Marriage Among Merchant Families in Seventeenth Century Cairo," in Women, the Family, 143-54.
43. See Shmuelevitz, Jews of the Ottoman Empire, 66, 69.
44. ⊂ II 1180 (1766). For an example of a sadāq from a rural area, see the case from the village of al-Jadida (sijill 212/film 225/12 Ramadān 1196 [1782]).
45. ⊂idda) to insure that the woman was not with child.
46. 6Other cases touching on divorce involved more sensitive issues, as illustrated by the case of a Christian man, Fadlallah w. Hanna Zughaib, who appealed to the qadi against his wife, Mariam bt. Ilyas Kasarni, for denying him sexual intercourse even though he had paid her sadāq. Because he was unable to prove his claim in court, the qadi ordered him not to harass his wife (sijill 300/film 191/p. 227/11 Rajab 1238 [1823]).
47. ⊂bān 1239 (1824).
48. ⊂ban 1194 (1780). See also sijill 213/film 225/4 Jumādā I 1196 (1782).
49. ⊂ II 1195 (1781). See also, sijill 216/film 225/16 Jumādā I 1197 (1783), for an example from a village in Hawran. On the different types of divorce, see Judith E. Tucker, In the House of the Law: Gender and Islamic Law in Ottoman Syria and Palestine (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998), 78-112.
50. ⊂bān 1197 (1783). This case is of further interest because the woman was accompanied by her father and shaykh al-hāra (the elder of the Jewish neighborhood) Musa w. Khadr, suggesting that her act of seeking divorce in the Muslim court was not considered reprehensible in communal terms.
51. ⊂i judge, respectively.
52. ⊂ II 1220 (1805); see also sijill 211/film 225/14 Jumādā I 1195 (1781).
53. ⊂Ubaid over her share of an inheritance from their deceased mother.
54. Sijill 301/p. 144-45/22 S + (Combining dot below)afar 1239 (1823).
55. ⊃l-Hijja 1194 (1780); sijill 217/film 193/mid-Muharram 1199 (1784); sijill 204/p. 68/no. 155/13 Jumādā I 1192 (1778); sijill 204/ p. 69/no. 157/3 Jumādā II 1192 (1778). It was apparently not uncommon for some dhimmīs to misrepresent either the law or their own family relationships in fraudulent attempts to inherit from others. See, for example, sijill 508/p. 18/no. 30/14 Shawwāl 1276 (1860).
56. ⊂iyya), see sijill 123/film 222/pp. 266-67/2 Jumādā II 1200 (1786) and sijill 270/p. 236/no. 262/9 Ramadān 1225 (1810).
57. ⊂a courts over inheritance. The author also notes that the Jewish authorities sometimes made concessions in the application of Jewish law (by conceding some share of the inheritance to daughters, for example) in order to forestall recourse to the Muslim court.
58. ⊂a courts over inheritance. The author also notes that the Jewish authorities sometimes made concessions in the application of Jewish law (by conceding some share of the inheritance to daughters, for example) in order to forestall recourse to the Muslim court.
59. ⊂a courts over inheritance. The author also notes that the Jewish authorities sometimes made concessions in the application of Jewish law (by conceding some share of the inheritance to daughters, for example) in order to forestall recourse to the Muslim court.
60. ⊂a courts over inheritance. The author also notes that the Jewish authorities sometimes made concessions in the application of Jewish law (by conceding some share of the inheritance to daughters, for example) in order to forestall recourse to the Muslim court.
61. ⊂oz, Ottoman Reform in Syria and Palestine, 1840-1861: The Impact of Tanzimat on Politics and Society (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1968), 154.
62. ⊂oz, Ottoman Reform in Syria and Palestine, 1840-1861: The Impact of Tanzimat on Politics and Society (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1968), 154.
63. ⊃l-Hijja 1238 (1823). See also sijill 213/film 225/5 Muharram 1196 (1781); sijill 211/film 225/2 Ramadān 1195 (1781); sijill 298/film Aleppo 214/13 Rajab 1236 (1821), and sijill 211/film 225/6 Jumādā I 1195 (1781).
64. ⊂ II 1180 (1766) and sijill 257/p. 198/no. 309/27 Jumādā II 1221 (1806).
65. ⊂bān 1247 (1832).
66. ⊂ II 1249 (1833) for a similar case involving a Christian woman whose claims against a Muslim (the nāz + (Combining dot below)ir of the treasury) were upheld by the court.
67. Dhimmī testimony and oaths were not, according to the Hanafi school, valid against Muslims. Hanafi doctrine accepted dhimmī testimony against other dhimmīs not only because "all dhimmīs are one community of infidels," but also in the interest of justice, since most dhimmi business dealings involved other dhimmī;s (Antoine Fattal, Le Statut légal des non-musulmans en pays d'Islam (Beirut: Imprimerie Catholique], 361-65).
68. Compare with Jennings's similar findings for Kayseri, in "Zimmis," 257, 263. For a detailed discussion of the evidentiary value of dhimmi witnessing and oath and the attitude of the different legal schools, see Fattal, Le Statut légal, 191-203, 365. For a provocative study of the dhimmī witness based on Ottoman fatwā literature, see Mario Grignaschi, "La Valeur du temoignage des sujets non-musulmans (dhimmi) dans l'empire ottoman," in Recueil de la Société Jean Bodin pour l'Histoire Comparative des Institutions 18, 3 (1963): 211-324.
69. Compare with Jennings's similar findings for Kayseri, in "Zimmis," 257, 263. For a detailed discussion of the evidentiary value of dhimmi witnessing and oath and the attitude of the different legal schools, see Fattal, Le Statut légal, 191-203, 365. For a provocative study of the dhimmī witness based on Ottoman fatwā literature, see Mario Grignaschi, "La Valeur du temoignage des sujets non-musulmans (dhimmi) dans l'empire ottoman," in Recueil de la Société Jean Bodin pour l'Histoire Comparative des Institutions 18, 3 (1963): 211-324.
70. Compare with Jennings's similar findings for Kayseri, in "Zimmis," 257, 263. For a detailed discussion of the evidentiary value of dhimmi witnessing and oath and the attitude of the different legal schools, see Fattal, Le Statut légal, 191-203, 365. For a provocative study of the dhimmī witness based on Ottoman fatwā literature, see Mario Grignaschi, "La Valeur du temoignage des sujets non-musulmans (dhimmi) dans l'empire ottoman," in Recueil de la Société Jean Bodin pour l'Histoire Comparative des Institutions 18, 3 (1963): 211-324.
71. ⊂ II 1277 (1860). See also sijill 301/p. 151/no. 631/19 Muh + (Combining dot below)arram 1240 (1824).
72. The same procedure was administered when both parties were Muslims. Refusal to testify under oath was interpreted as proof of fraudulence. Compare Cohen, Jewish Life Under Islam, 122-23, for similar practices in the Jerusalem courts.
73. ⊂Īsā (he swore in the name of God, the Great, He Who sent the Gospel to the Prophet Jesus). Compare with Klara Hegyi, "The Terminology of the Ottoman-Turkish Judicial Documents on the Basis of the Sources from Hungary," Acta Orient 30 (1965): 198.
74. Compare Shmuelevitz, Jews of the Ottoman Empire, 48, according to which Ottoman qadis of the early period regularly had Jewish courts administer the Jewish oath.
75. ⊂i) doctrine allowed Jewish and Christian oaths (Fattal, Le Statut légal, 365).
76. See Jennings, Christians and Muslims, 71, according to which "when [dhimmī] formal complaints were made at court, they were almost always made in the form: I want my complaint to be considered in accordance with the sharia." Fattal notes that a distinction should be made between the question of what law applies to dhimmīs in the Muslim court and what authority the court holds in inter-dhimmī cases ( Le Statut légal, 352).
77. See Jennings, Christians and Muslims, 71, according to which "when [dhimmī] formal complaints were made at court, they were almost always made in the form: I want my complaint to be considered in accordance with the sharia." Fattal notes that a distinction should be made between the question of what law applies to dhimmīs in the Muslim court and what authority the court holds in inter-dhimmī cases ( Le Statut légal, 352).
78. ⊂idda. In addition, a dhimmī couple separated through a triple divorce could not remarry until the wife had married (and divorced) another. Should they remarry otherwise, the qadi had the authority to invalidate their union, even when both wished to stay married. However, the courts were not to consider cases involving the ownership and consumption of alcohol and pork (Fattal, Le Statut légal, 128-29).
79. See Carlo Ginzburg, The Cheese and the Worms: The Cosmos of a Sixteenth Century Miller, trans. John and Anne Tedeschi (New York: Penguin Books, 1982), ix.
80. For an interesting comparison, see S. D. Goitein, "The Documents of the Cairo Geniza as a Source for Islamic Social History," in Studies in Islamic History and Institutions, ed. S. D. Goitein (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1966). The Geniza collection includes not only records of rabbinic courts in Fatimid times but also evidence that the Jews frequently used the qadi courts either instead of or in conjunction with the latter (pp. 283, 291).
81. Wael B. Hallaq, "The Qadi Diwan (Sijill) Before the Ottomans," Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 61, no. 3 (1998), makes a compelling case against necessary connections between lost archives and negative arguments concerning the existence of related institutions.
82. See Walter P. Zenner, "Jews in Late Ottoman Syria: Community, Family and Religion," in Jewish Societies in the Middle East: Community, Culture, and Autonomy, ed. Shlomo Deshen and Walter P. Zenner (Lanham, Md.: University Press of America, 1982), 188.
83. See, for example, Shmuelevitz, Jews of the Ottoman Empire, 49-50; Cohen, Jewish Life Under Islam, 116, 126, 131; Zenner, "Jews in Late Ottoman Syria," 188; Russell, Natural History, 2:61-62.
84. See, for example, Shmuelevitz, Jews of the Ottoman Empire, 49-50; Cohen, Jewish Life Under Islam, 116, 126, 131; Zenner, "Jews in Late Ottoman Syria," 188; Russell, Natural History, 2:61-62.
85. See, for example, Shmuelevitz, Jews of the Ottoman Empire, 49-50; Cohen, Jewish Life Under Islam, 116, 126, 131; Zenner, "Jews in Late Ottoman Syria," 188; Russell, Natural History, 2:61-62.
86. See, for example, Shmuelevitz, Jews of the Ottoman Empire, 49-50; Cohen, Jewish Life Under Islam, 116, 126, 131; Zenner, "Jews in Late Ottoman Syria," 188; Russell, Natural History, 2:61-62.
87. Hacker, among others, has suggested that the extent of legal autonomy available to Ottoman Jews has been exaggerated, thanks primarily to European Jewish travelers who found it impressive compared with what they themselves experienced at home. Additionally, one can speculate about the relationship between the power and status of dhimmī communities, on the one hand, and the extent of legal autonomy, on the other. For a good comparison, see Amnon Cohen, who notes that the Jerusalem rabbinical authorities of the 16th century sought to excommunicate those who disobeyed, and Goitein who points out that even in Fatimid Cairo, where the Jewish community was quite cohesive, the authorities still had to resort to both public pressure and the threat of excommunication to prevent Jews from using the Muslim court (S. D. Goitein, A Mediterranean Society: The Jewish Communities of the Arab World as Portrayed in the Documents of the Cairo Geniza, 3 vols. [Berkeley: University of California Press, 1971] 2:398-400).
88. ⊂at (innovation) was also used to refer to innovations in kanun (Studies in Old Ottoman Criminal Law, ed. V. L. Menage [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1973], 187).
89. Fattal, Le Statut légal, 357-58.
90. Compare with Jennings's conclusions regarding the Kayseri courts' treatment of dhimmīs in "Zimmis," 285-87. Here, as elsewhere, Jennings stresses that the law as applied in the Kayseri court was one law - a law intended to serve everybody's needs. See also Jennings, "Limitations of the Judicial Powers of the Kadi in 17th C. Ottoman Kayseri," in Studia Islamica 50 (1979): 169-70.
91. Compare with Jennings's conclusions regarding the Kayseri courts' treatment of dhimmīs in "Zimmis," 285-87. Here, as elsewhere, Jennings stresses that the law as applied in the Kayseri court was one law - a law intended to serve everybody's needs. See also Jennings, "Limitations of the Judicial Powers of the Kadi in 17th C. Ottoman Kayseri," in Studia Islamica 50 (1979): 169-70.