Sediton

Egypt

The 7th of Jumada 822 <1 June 1419>, the sultan of Egypt <Malik Mu?ayyad
Abu Nasr> (al-Malik Sayf ad-Din, Mamluk sultan of Egypt, from the Burji dynasty
?1412-21?) summoned the Christian patriarch to appear before him in the
presence of the qadis and doctors of the Law. While remaining standing, he
received reproaches and blows and was berated by the sultan on account of
the humiliations to which the Muslims had been subjected by the prince of
the Abyssinians; he was even threatened with death. Next, the chief of the
Cairo police, Shaykh Sadr ad-Din Ahmad b. Al-Ajami, was summoned and
reprimanded on account of the contempt of the Christians toward the laws
relating to their [specific] costume and their outward attire. After a long
discussion between the doctors of the Law and the sultan on this subject, it
was decided that none of these infidels would be employed in government
offices, nor by the emirs; neither would they escape the measures taken to
maintain them in a state of humiliation. Thereupon the sultan summoned
al-Akram Fada?il, the Christian, the vizier?s secretary, who had been
imprisoned for several days; he was beaten, stripped of his clothes, and
ignominiously paraded through the streets of Cairo in the company of the
chief of police, who proclaimed: "This is the reward for Christians employed
in government offices!" After all this, he was thrown back into prison.

So thoroughly did the sultan carry out these measures, that nowhere in
Egypt was a Christian to be found employed in the administration. These
infidels, as well as the Jews, were obliged to remain at home, decrease the
volume of their turbans, and shorten their sleeves. All were prevented from
riding on donkeys, with the result that when the [common] people saw a
mounted Christian, they attacked him and confiscated his donkey and all
that he had. Consequently, none are to be found mounted on horseback,
except outside of Cairo. The Christians made every effort to recover
employment and offered great sums of money for this purpose; however,
despite the support they had from the Coptic scribes, the sultan did not
comply with their requests and refused to retract the prohibitions that he had
decreed.

Whereupon I reflected: in view of this deed, Allah will perhaps pardon all the
sins of al-Malik al-Mu?ayyad! For, in acting thus, he effectively contributed
greatly to Islam, since the employment of Christians in official functions is
one of the greatest evils, which results in the exalting of their religion, since
most Muslims need to frequent these officials in the course of their business.
For every time they have some business that is dependent on an office run
by such officials, they are obliged to behave humiliatingly and politely to
them, be they Christians, Jews, or Samaritans. [pp. 115-16]

Thus the edict issued by this prince is tantamount to a second conquest of
Egypt; in this manner was Islam exalted and infidelity humiliated, and
nothing is more praiseworthy in the eyes of Allah. [p. 117]

Ibn Taghribirdi

Morocco

[Al-Maghili, d. 1504] showed an unbending stubbornness in upholding good
and prohibiting evil. He thought that the Jews <May Allah curse them> no
longer enjoyed the status of a protected minority <dhimma>; this status was
now abolished on account of their association with the Muslim ruling class.
Such participation in governing is contrary to the degradation and scorn that
accompany the payment of the jizya. It is enough that an individual <or a
group> of them violate the status for it to be invalidated for all of them. <Our
doctor> [al-Maghili] declared lawful the shedding of Jewish blood and the
plundering of their belongings and he maintained that their repression was a
more urgent duty than that of all other infidels. He wrote a book on the
subject, consisting of several chapters <? > that incurred the disagreement
of most of the jurists of his time, including Shaykh Ibn Zakri and other
<eminent personalities>. A great discussion ensued. The work arrived in
Fez, the capital, where the jurists examined it at great length. Some
expressed their disdain, while others reacted equitably <faminhum man
anifa waminhum man ansafa>. [pp. 806-7]

Ibn Askar

Collection of the poll Tax (Jizya)

On the day of payment they shall be assembled in a public place like the
suq. They should be standing there waiting in the lowest and dirtiest place.
The acting officials representing the Law shall be placed above them and
shall adopt a threatening attitude so that it seems to them, as well as to the
others, that our object is to degrade them by pretending to take their
possessions. They will realise that we are doing them a favour to take their
possessions. They will realise that we are doing them a favour <again> in
accepting from them the jizya and letting them <thus> go free. Then they
shall be dragged one by one <to the official responsible> for the exacting of
payment. When paying, the dhimmi will receive a blow and will be thrust
aside so that he will think that he has escaped the sword through this
<insult>. This is the way that the friends of the Lord [Allah], of the first and
last generations will act toward their infidel enemies, for might belongs to
Allah, to His Prophet, and to the believers. [p. 811]

Al-Maghili

On an appointed day the dhimmi – Christian or Jew – must present himself
in person, and not through the intermediary of an agent <wakil>, before the
emir responsible for the collection of the jizya. The latter must be seated on
a chair raised in the form of a throne; the dhimmi will come forward bearing
the jizya held in the middle of the palm of his hand, whence the emir will take
it in such a way that his hand is above and the dhimmi?s hand underneath.
Following this, the emir will strike the dhimmi on the neck with his fist; a man
will stand near the emir to chase away the dhimmi in haste; then a second
[dhimmi] and a third will come forward to suffer the same treatment as well
as all those to follow. All [Muslims] will be admitted to enjoy this spectacle.
None [of the dhimmis] will be allowed to delegate a third party to pay the
jizya in his stead, for they must suffer this degradation personally; for
perchance they will eventually come to believe in Allah and his Prophet and
be consequently delivered from this distasteful yoke. [JA 19 (1852), 107-8]

Al-Adawi

Persia (Seventeenth to Eighteenth Century)

Deportation of the Population of Armenia by Shah Abbas I (1604)

(The transfer of populations was always carried out on a very large scale, both by the
Arabs at the time of their conquest and by the Seljuks, Ottomans, and Safavides. Here
are given some testimonies, which indicate how these traumas were experienced. For
examples from the deportations of the Byzantines by the Turks, see Vryonis Jnr., The
Decline; for the Jewish communities of the Ottoman empire, see Joseph Hacker, "The
Surgun System and Jewish Society in the Ottoman Empire during the 15th –17th
Centuries," in Zion 55 ?1990?: 27-82 ?Hebrew?).

[Shah-Abbas] summoned his officers into his presence and chose the
leaders and administrators of the population from among them, one
commandant per district. Emir Guna-Khan was especially put in charge of
the town of Erevan, of the land of Ararat and of the small districts in the
vicinity. They had for instructions, wherever their power could reach, to hunt
down and take away everything – down to the last living dog – either
Christians or subjected Muslims; for those who resisted and rebelled against
the royal order – the sword, death and captivity.

Having received this cruel and deadly order from the monarch, the generals
departed, each with his division, and went to the districts of Armenia that
had been assigned to them. It was like a flame spread by the wind among
reeds. Immediately, in all haste and without drawing breath, the inhabitants
of the provinces, forced to leave their dwellings and exiled from their
homeland, were driven forward like herds of light and heavy cattle, violently
dragged and forced back into the province of Ararat, where they filled the
vast plain from one end to the other. [?] The Persian troops entrusted with
the operation, gathered the population together no matter where, in villages
or towns, the consigned houses and buildings to the flames; they burned
and destroyed the stores of forage, piles of corn, barley and other useful
things; they pillaged, they cleared out everything, so that the Osmanli
[Ottoman] troops should be destitute and die, and that the deportees, seeing
this, would lose the hope and thought of return.

While the Persian soldiers, charged with escorting these masses, were
dragging them towards the plain of Etchmiadzin, Shah Abbas was in
Aghdja-Ghala [Yervandashat], and the Osmanli sardar [commander],
Kshqal-Oghli, arrived with his troops at Kars. Knowing that he was not able
to keep up the campaign against the Osmanlis, whose numerical superiority
discouraged him, Shah Abbas turned towards Nakhidjevan and, with all his
men, set out to follow in the tracks of the hordes going to Persia. The
Osmanlis, for their part, set out hot on the heels of the Persians. There were
therefore, three great and endless assemblies: that of the populations; of the
Persian; and of the Osmanlis. As a result, it came to pass that when the
populations began to move off, Shah Abbas and the Persians swooped
down on their former camp and, when they left the place, it was occupied by
Dshqal-Oghli, with the Osmanli troops. They followed one after another,
putting their feet in the same tracks, until the people and the Persians had
reached the village of Julfa and the Osmanlis Nakh-ovan [Nakhidjevan].
From then on, the Persians did not allow the people to halt not even for an
hour: they hustled them, hurried them, caused some of them to die from
blows with sticks, cut the ears or noses off others, cut off heads and stuck
them on posts. It was in this way that Iohandjan, brother of the Catholicos
Arakel, and another man had their heads cut off and stuck onto a pole by
the side of the river Araxes. The purpose of these tortures and even worse
inflicted on the population was to force them by excessive terror to make
haste and cross the river. The cunning Persian nation tormented the people
in this way, out of fear of the Osmanlis advancing behind them: they saw the
people?s camp, crowded to overflowing – with their own men, also very
numerous – and they understood that many days would be required to make
the crossing. They were afraid that the Osmanlis would take advantage of
this delay and hurl themselves upon them unawares and inflict a disaster
upon them, or that they would take the population away from them and lead
them back, which would later cause them considerable harm. That is why
they harassed the people and hurried them to cross. But there were not
enough boats and chests for such a throng. Many boats had been brought
along from various places and a number of chests constructed on the spot,
but the people and the Persians formed such a large body that nothing
sufficed. The Persian warriors, charged with escorting the deportees
surrounded them and watched that no one fled, dealt blows with sticks,
broke everything, drove the people into the water, overflowing its [deep]
banks, so that the sufferings and dangers for the people were appalling.

The wretched multitude saw the vast river, that sea that was going to
swallow them; at their backs, the murderous sword of the Persians, leaving
no hope of flight. A concert of heart-breaking lamentations, floods of tears,
forming another Araxes, cries, groans, sobs, howls of grief, invectives,
harrowing wailing; pleas and shrieks mingled: neither pity nor means of
salvation appeared from any quarter.

Here, our people would have needed Moses of ancient times and his
disciple Joshua to extricate Israel from the hands of another Pharaoh, to
calm the waves and the swell of a great, wide river; but they did not have
them, because the multitude of our crimes had closed the righteous God?s
gates of mercy.

The cruel Persian soldiers, escorting the crowd, filled the river with them
and themselves amid the waters, caused redoubled cries and lamentations,
torn from their breasts by the danger. Some clung to the planks of the boats
or even the chests, others seized the tails of horses, oxen and buffalo, still
others swam across. Those who did not know how to swim, the weak, old
men and women, children, young girls and boys covered the surface of the
water which swept them along like autumnal wisps of straws; the river
disappeared under men borne along by the current; some succeeded in
crossing, many drowned there and met their death.

Some Persian horsemen, who had sturdy mounts, or were endowed with
strength themselves, went among the Christians, observed the girls and
boys, and if one of them pleased them –woman, boy or girl-deceived their
master [their father of relative] by saying to him: "Give, I will take them
across to the other side?; having crossed, instead of setting them down on
the ground, they took them away to suit their fancy. Others carried them
swimming, others took them away, killed the master, and led them off; others
went off, throwing the children on the road and abandoning them; the
masters escaped themselves, leaving the sick, because of the intolerable
dangers and fatigues to which they were exposed. In a word, I say that our
nation was prey to such misery and intolerable dismay and torment that I am
incapable of recounting the details of the mortal hardship which broke the
Armenian nation, crushed by such calamities [?] At last it came about that
the whole throng crossed the river, and pell-mell with them, the Persian
army. Emir-Guna, their leader until then, was ordered by Shah Abbas to join
his army, leaving Khalifalu Elias-Sultan, to guide the throng, with orders to
lead these people on forced marches, to distance them from the Osmanlis
and to deposit them on Persian soil. As for the Shah, he marched straight to
Tauriz [Tabriz] with his troops, following the royal route or dshadeh, but the
throng did not follow the road going straight to the town, for fear that,
marching behind the king, they would be separated from him and taken
away by the Ottomans. He had therefore instructed Elias-Sultan to lead
them by roundabout routes, through places which were difficult to approach,
where the Osmanlis could not follow them. Elias made the multitude march
and guided them through valleys where the Araxes followed its course,
through mountain gorges, rough both to enter and to descend, as well as
through small valleys and narrow places. They did not cross mountain
gorges or move from one rough spot to another without pain and suffering
[?].

The Hunt for Fugitives

When this matter was ended, the khan and his troops marched against other
refugees from the same district of Garhni-Zur: those they succeeded in
halting, they despoiled, slaughtered and took with them. By coming and
going, they reached the large valley called Kurhudara. Although there were
several caves and fortified places in this valley where Christians were
hiding, they neglected them in favour of the famous cave of Iakhsh-Khan
where a thousand Christians, men and women, had gathered, attracted by
its strong position, and who carefully watched over its approaches. The
Persian soldiers had attacked them in vain for a long time, but they obtained
no results from down below because it was a very high position. Their
diabolical imagination presented them with another method. A detachment of
two hundred men left the valley and scaled the rocks, where stones formed
tiers up to the peak. Having fastened themselves together by long ropes,
they went down, one after the other, from one level to the next, and in this
way reached the level of the summits where the cave was. There, they
clothed four of their men with iron breast-plated, covering them from head to
toe, to which four or five swords were attached. Each man had a bared
sword in his hand and four or five ropes around his body, so that if one were
cut the other would hold him. They suspended these people from a dizzy
height until they had reached the cave. When they arrived at the centre of
the hideout, they began to strike men and women mercilessly with their
swords, bent on slaughtering them, the wretched Christians set up a great
cry of grief; there were sobs, lamentations, tears, and groans torn from them
by mortal horror; they moved about, became restless, jostled each other in
disarray, went to and fro from side to side like the waves of a stormy sea,
seeking safety where there was no way out. Hearing the cries and
understanding what had happened, the people who guarded the paths
leading to the cave abandoned their posts out of concern for their comrades
and went within to help them. When they saw the guards arrive outside, the
Persians went altogether into the cave and fell on the Christians with their
swords. From the entrance up to the furthermost corner of the hideout, it
was like mown grass, all were slaughtered and hurled down below. Men, old
women and those who did not please them were killed and the floor of the
cave ran with Christian blood which reddened all the stones. The child was
torn from its mother?s breast and thrown below. A few women, young men
and young girls, who escaped the carnage, seeing themselves given into
the hands of these fierce, inhuman beasts who would lead them into
captivity, torture them and sully their purity, preferred death to a short and
fleeting life full of crime and suffering. Many of them covered their heads
with veils or with their gowns and threw themselves from the top of the cave
into the abyss, and thus met their death. However, there was a dense forest
in the valley. Some of those who threw themselves from the cave were
caught in the branches of the trees which bore their weight; the branches
went through their stomachs and came out of the backs of some of them;
they reached the hearts and tore the shoulders of others, and their death
was all the more cruel and painful. Lastly, those who remained were pillaged
and robbed, and the rich booty share out among the Persian soldiers, who
seized them and took them to the main camp.

Thus the deportation to Persia did not extend to one or two districts but to a
large number, from Nakhidjevan to Eghegadzor, on the frontier of Gegham,
and to Lore on Hamzatshimar and Aparan; to Charapkhan and Chiracavan;
to Zarishat and to part of the villages of Kars [near Ani]; the whole Gaghzvan
valley, to all the territory of Alashkert, to the village of Macon and to the land
of Aghbak; to Salamast and Khoy, to Urmi, to all the foreigners and
transitory people, who had remained in Tauriz and in its villages; to the
entire plain of Ararat and the town of Yerevan; to the lands of Kerkh-Bulaqh
and Dzaghcnots-Dzor, to Garni-Dzor and Urtza-Dzor, and earlier to the
districts of Karin, Basen, Khnus and Manazkert, Artzke, Ardjesh, Berkri, and
Van, where the inhabitants had been dragged to Yerevan in captivity and
taken further afield.

All these districts of the beautiful land of Armenia, with their dependencies,
where the population had been taken away forceably to Persia by order of
the shah, were sacked and depopulated.

Many depopulated villages and sizeable market towns can still be seen
today on their rich and fertile soil their fields and gardens. [pp. 287-95]

After having ruined the region of Ararat, the Jelalis moved on to
Ghegharkunik and pillaged its villages (1605)

In addition, they seized women and children and took them away with them
into captivity in order to force their masters to redeem them with gold and
silver. After having done everything to their hearts? content, they made the
captive women and children march, loaded the beasts of burden and the
oxen, using the guards who had fallen into their hands, then they took the
many flocks of sheep, the provisions and the herds of horses on the road
with them. As this expedition was taking place in winter – and the cold
season that year was harsh, the snow heavy – they had not marched for two
days when the exhausted animals fell by the way and they divided the loads
of those who failed and distributed them among the captive women and
children. In this way, they crossed the mountain and arrived in the village of
Karbi. How much suffering was endured by the wretched people employed
in this task! Some of them lost hands, feet and ears from the frost and it cut
into their flesh; for others, the icy breezes took their breath away and they
fell by the road and expired. These died as it were on the journey; the
survivors were taken to Karbi, some sold for silver, others reserved as
slaves to serve the Jelalis, who rested until the spring. [pp. 309-10]

Conversion of the Jews of Persia (1657-1661) under Shah Abbas II

After having removed the Armenian nation from the heart of Isfahan, they
planned to eliminate the Jews from there as well. In the time of Shah Abbas
II, in the Armenian year 1106 <Wednesday, 8 October> =1657, a Friday,
eve of the Sabbath, toward evening, the same ehtim al-dawla [minister]
Mehmed-Bek, who had expelled the Armenians from the heart of Isfahan,
wanted to do the same thing to the Jews; he therefore chose soldiers and
sent them against the Hebrews or Jhuds [Yehuds]: "All you Jews must leave
the town centre [Isfahan] and settle outside on one of the outskirts. As you
are non-Muslim and an impure race, quit the town and live outside, as the
monarch commands" (From remote antiquity one of the districts of Isfahan was
populated with Jews and was called Yahudiyah).

"Since such is the monarch?s order concerning us", said the Jews, in tones
of supplication, "his order is on our heads and we will execute it completely;
we only ask you to give us a few days? grace so that we can leave with our
sons and daughters, with our possessions and belongings. Moreover, you
see that today it grows late, that we have many sick and invalids, old men
and young children, who cannot leave by night: therefore, we ask you for
three days? grace."

However, the soldiers who had already arrived did not allow them to wait
until the morrow and insisted that they leave with the utmost haste, that
same evening, such being the order of the ehtim al-dawla, which did not
permit them to wait till morning, and enjoined them to make them [the Jews]
clear out forthwith, they and their families; because if a single one of them
remained the next day, the stick, prison and torture would punish the
unubmissive who remained in contempt of the order of the ehtim al-dawla.

The minister [ehtim al-dawla] acted in this way towards the Jews in order to
force them to commit the crime of violating the Sabbath, which they observe
by doing nothing.

The soldiers of the ehtim al-dawla come to drive them out by blows and ill
treatment, made them leave their dwellings by sword and stick, by shoving
them about brutally, scattering their belongings and breaking down their
doors. As for the Jew, crying out, uttering lamentations, weeping and
bewailing, each holding his son or daughter by the hand, dragging their
beds and clothing along the ground, they left at a late hour, going from door
to door across streets and squares, without any Muhammadan taking pity on
them.

Having left the town and having arrived at the district of Djugha and
Gaurabad, they were still not able to halt there because several soldiers
came over and, claiming to have an order from the ehtim al-dawla, gave
orders to the people of Djugha and Gaurabad not to give them asylum, and
they all rested in the open air. As they were not under cover, and as there
were many poor of both sexes among them, the cold of autumn and early
winter caused great suffering. [Among them were many women nursing their
babies, some of whom were pregnant and had heavy feet. There were
young girls and handsome boys toward whom was turned the passion of
impure, lustful and adulterous men from the Persian nation, who said ugly,
dirty and vicious things, causing them great shame.] (These five lines in the
Armenian text were omitted by Brosset in the French translation, as were another eight
lines, toward the end of this description, also included in square brackets). Also other
Muhammadans who crossed their path treated them with disdain and
disgust, beat them and heaped many insults on these wretched people.

After this, the ehtim al-dawla, seeing that there was no way of leading them
to become Muslims willingly, resolved to use violence to this end. He
enjoined every Muslim and especially soldiers, wherever they found a Jew
to seize him and bring him to his door. As a result, as soon as a Muslim
caught a Jew they acted in this way. The minister first spoke to the Jew in a
sweet tone: ?Come along, good people, leave your vain religion,
acknowledge the God who created the heavens and the earth and let us
become brethren".

The Jews answered: "We know the God, creator of the heavens and the
earth, we serve him, but we do not wish for brotherhood with you and we will
not avow your religion. Ours is true, given by God, through the intermediary
of the prophet Moses, whom you yourself recognise".

"By embracing our religion", the ehtim al-dawla replied, "you will be our
well-beloved brethren; in addition we will heap upon you rich gifts and
distinguished honours". [?]

Having consulted together, the Jews presented the ehtim al-dawla with a
petition, in order to have a place to live: "As", they said, "in expelling the
Armenians from the centre of the town, you assigned them a place to live
elsewhere, do the same for us, in any place on the outskirts of the town,
where little by little we will build ourselves houses: this will be our permanent
dwelling after having vacated the town?.

However, the ehtim al-dawla, after consultation with the other Persian lords,
designated a certain place, far from the town, called Gozaldaba, near
Muthallath-Imam, an entirely unsuitable place and without resources, first
because it was far from the town, then because water was so scarce there
that if one wished to bring it from afar, it would not get there because of the
distance. If a well was dug, water did not spring from that hilly and stony soil,
which had been chosen precisely to make the Jews who would be living
there suffer and to reduce them to the last extremities. They were, therefore,
not able to go there and remained isolated outside.

After this, the ehtim al-dawla resolved progressively to increase the
sufferings of the Jews. From time immemorial there had been a place on the
outskirts of the town, far from any inhabited dwelling, a place surrounded by
a high wall with a door to the interior in which there was not a single
building, only the wall forming the enclosure.

He ordered that one Persian soldier should be attached to each couple of
Jews in order to torment them; that all the Jews who could be found should
be seized and led into the enclosure in chains, that water be sprinkled over
the whole surface of the ground and that they be made to sit there without
clothing. As it was the time of the cold autumn season <in 1658>, the water
was not only cool but icy. The Jews sat there [and the Persian soldiers were
beating them] for three days and three nights, and the Jews stayed there on
empty stomachs and without food, for no one gave them anything, and their
compatriots who remained outside having brought bread which they threw
over the walls into the enclosure, the soldiers took it away and ate it
themselves. After this, the ehtim al-dawla had them taken from there and
thrown into prison.

He [the ehtim al-dawla] then asked this question to the sadr, the head of the
Persian religion: "What should be done if these people do not consent to
embrace our faith? Convert them by force or not?". "Our law", replied the
sadr, "does not permit conversion by violence". "What should be done
then?" repeated the minister. "That is nothing to do with me", said the sadr.
"It is your business".

Having made the Jews come into his presence again, the ehtim al-dawla
urged them to submit and to embrace the faith of Muhammad: "Everyone
who does so?, he added, "will receive two tumans from me, will be freed from
torments and will sit peace in his house; he who first acknowledges our faith
will have authority as leader." [?]

[One of them, Ovadia, renounced Judaism and advised the Persians.]
Through his advice, the Hakham [rabbi], called Sa?id, was hastily sought
and when he was found he was brought to the ehtim al-dawla who said to
him: "Yield to my advice, carry out the royal order; come and embrace the
Muslim faith and I will heap gifts and benefits upon you". Instead of
consenting, the Hakham replied with a refusal; the nobles spoke in vain, he
held firm and asked only to return to his house. The nobles having
dismissed him, the renegade Ovadia, who was there at the time, urged them
to retain him and to keep him near them, which they decided to do. The next
day he was called back to the divan [council room] and he was again urged
to embrace the Muslim faith; but this time again he refused. The same
manoeuvre was repeated on the third day with the same result. At last, on
the following day, after many words and promises, the Hakham?s sentence
was pronounced. ?If he does not embrace the Muslim faith, his stomach will
be split open and he will be paraded through the town attached to a camel;
his property and his family would be consigned to pillage". The sentence
given, a camel was brought, on which he was seated, the executioners
came and bared his stomach, then they beat him with a naked sword, saying
that either he apostatised or his stomach would be split open. Fear of death
as well as affection for those close to him having led him to weaken, he was
made to pronounce his belief in the Muslim faith, and he was incorporated
into the religion of Muhammad, which was cause of untold joy to the
Persians.

After having converted the Hakham to their religion, they made Jews come
to the divan, one or two together, and said to them; "What reason have you
for persisting in your resistance, when the Hakham has made his profession
[of faith]?" As these people held firm, the nobles had them escorted back to
prison by soldiers. They were taken out, led away and taken back several
times, and on the way the soldiers, slaves and servants of the nobles
present there, insulted them, abused them, beat them, slapped their faces,
threw them to the ground and dragged them along, then brought them into
the presence of the ehtim al-dawla and the nobles, and strove to tear out
from them acceptance of the Muslim faith. If Jews, willingly or unwillingly,
pronounced it from fear of death, the Persians immediately clothed the
renegades in new robes, gave them two tumans from the royal treasury and
allowed them to return home. Those who resisted were kept in prison; then
they were brought back to the tribunal two or three times, even more often,
and were urged to apostasize. By these actions, all the prisoners were led to
the religion of Muhammad; in the space of a month, three hundred and fifty
men became Muslims.

Ever since then, half the Jews having adopted the religion of the Persians,
their nation lost what the Persians gained by their ascendancy over them:
they were not even allowed to exist any longer, for every day they were
dragged by force before the ehtim al-dawla and there they were forced to
become Muslims.

The Persians put so much determination into their violence, aimed at
conversion, that all the Jews living in Isfahan, and they were not many,
about three hundred families, adopted the religion of Muhammad.

As a last measure, a Muslim mollah was forced on them, entrusted with
teaching them the law of Muhammad, with escorting them assiduously to the
place of prayer, with making them in Persian, with teaching the children
Persian letters and history; the Jews were also forced to give their
daughters to the Muhammadans, to marry Muslim women themselves, not to
slaughter animals according to their ancient ritual, to buy their meat from the
shops of Muslim butchers; in a word, they were subjected to a mass of
Persian customs.

However, there were Jews who did not attend the Persian mosque and
avoided all closer relationship with them; who, instead of buying the meat
from the butcher?s shop, secretly slaughtered sheep at home, or even did
not buy meat for days on end. If they went to the Persian butcher?s shop to
buy meat from time to time for fear of traitors, they ostentatiously and boldly
carried it to their home for all to see and, instead of eating it themselves,
gave it to the dogs and made them eat it. The Jews indulged in many other
similar practices, proving that they did not want to renounce Judaism. [?]

The Jews therefore, did not practice the precepts of Islam at their local
gatherings, but those of Judaism. "Every year we put aside the annual taxes
we owe to the royal exchequer and capitalise them in our treasury", they
said, "in order to be able to hand them over at the first levy and protect
ourselves. As for the two tumans that were paid for our apostasy, we keep
them and we draw an annual interest on them, in order to acquit ourselves
with the Persians and meet all their requirements". This is then the situation
between Persians and Jews upto the moment of our writing this, in our year
1109 <1660> [?] As for the future, God knows it.

It should also be known that at the period when the Jews were brought,
willingly or unwillingly, to the faith of Muhammad, the ehtim al-dawla
obtained from the monarch a decree for all heads of provinces under
Persian rule, to make all Jews and communities in villages and towns
wherever they were to renounce Judaism. If they submitted with good grace,
so much the better; recalcitrants had to be brought by force and torture to
embrace the law of Muhammad. As soon as the royal decree was received
in a place, it was as if fire raged among reeds. The Jews were assembled
and forced to carry out this supreme edict. Not all of them submitted; a few
escaped by means of bribes, by flight, or thanks to their shrewdness; those
who remained, caught off their guard, went along, willy-nilly, with the Muslim
religion; assumed at least the appearances of it in the eyes of the Persians,
without the reality, and practised the laws of Judaism in secret.

Jews residing in Persian towns had no option but to appear to comply with
the laws of the land. This was the case at Kashan, Qum, Ardavel, Taurez
[Tabriz], Qazbin, Lar, Shiraz, Banderi-i-Qum. Those who saved themselves
by bribes, flight or shrewd means, stayed at Gulpekian, Khunsar, Bandar,
Shushtar, Hamadan, Yezd, in the Kirman, Khurasan, at Dumavand,
Astarbad, in the Gilan and in the villages of Phahrabad.

As for those who remained in the town of Phahrabad itself, they openly
resisted the royal decree and did not conform with the faith of Muhammad.
Having learned that the Jews of Isfahan had adopted it, their governor,
prince Mirza-Satgh, undertook to compel the Jews of the aforesaid village to
adopt it too. Before receiving the royal decree, the Jews, worried by his
violent actions, had told him directly: "You do not have the sovereign?s order
on this matter, why are you tormenting us?". These words slightly lessened
his arrogance, but a sharp resentment remained in his heart and he waited
patiently until he had received the rescript. After that, he summoned the
Jews and said to them: "What have you got to say? Here is the sovereign?s
decree, submit yourselves to carry it out and become Muslims".

As for the Jews they persisted in their opposition without weakening: "We do
not recognise the law of Muhammad", they said. "We will not renounce the
faith of our fathers; do with us what you please".

The prince employed various types of torture in order to compel them: some
were hung from a post and the breath beaten out of them; others were
suffocated in the water of the lake, taken out and beaten. In addition, he
sent soldiers to ransack their houses, sully their women, things which these
people carried out with frenzy against boys and girls. The Jews of this
country were rich and wealthy; many of them owning shops [dukans] in the
market, where they traded in fine fabrics and silverware; the prince of the
Muslims had ordered that their rich shops be plundered, which was soon
done.

More than one hundred of the Jewish men were arrested, their necks laden
with a long and heavy iron chain which they bore one behind the other – as
there was only one chain – and they were dragged daily to the prince?s door
to be judged; then they were led back to prison.

The matter having lasted for three or four months, even the prince became
sick and tired of his orders for torture and spontaneously took this decision:
"Since you refuse to renounce Judaism, place a sign on yourselves which
will make everyone know that you are Jews". These people eagerly
accepted such a sign. [?] [And the prince, as an insult to them, ordered that
from the neck of each Jewish male should be hung on a single string,
copper pieces of iron and copper, handles of water-drinking jugs and
spouts. With this distinctive sign. Jews had to walk about in the streets,
squares, markets and all other places. Any Jew who failed to bear this sign
was subject to blows, prison and fines. Accepting this order, Jews willingly
put on their necks what the prince wished (the string of objects) and so went
everywhere.

The Jews still had to suffer so many torments and snubs that the Persians
themselves became bored with it and stopped altogether persecuting them.
Delivered in this way from the hands of the Persians, they perserved up to
this day in the faith of their fathers (in 1661, an edict authorised the Jews to
profess their religion openly on payment of the jizya and the wearing of a distinctive
patch on their clothes. For a Jewish account of these same events in English, see
Hizkiya?s elegy ?Arnes mi-Hizkiya?, in Bat Ye?or, The Dhimmi, doc. 98, pp. 359-61; for a
more complete version of this text in Hebrew, cf. Bat Ye?or, Ha-Dimmim ?Hebrew,
enlarged edition?. Foreword by Moshe Sharon. Translated by Aharon Amir.
?Jerusalem, 1986?, 295-303 ?text by Ammon Netzer?). [?] To God, who know the
future, glory for eternity! Amen. [1:489-96]

Arakel of Tauriz

Deportation of Armenians from Ararat (1735)

After the departure of the khan [Nadir Shah] (Nadir Khan defeated the Turks at
Bagravan in 1735, taking Tiflis. He was proclaimed Shah of Persia ?1736-47? under the
nominal reign of the infant Abbas III, the last of the Safavids), I remained at Tiflis for
three days. In fact, the fearsome sovereign had ordered that three hundred
families be taken out from that town, as he had already commanded for
Ararat, and be made to move into the Khorasan. The Khan of Erevan, the
Kalanthar (a high officer, below the Khan, but above the melik) and the melik (a
high-ranking officer in Iran and eastern Armenia ?fourteenth – eighteenth centuries?,
responsible for tax collecting in a town) already had orders to register these
three hundred families, to tear them, willy-nilly, from their dwellings and
make them emigrate. A like number of families from Tiflis were also
registered. The people assembled in a church and, as several had learned
of the departure and arrest of their people, they hurried to the place where I
was lodged. There arose a clamor, wails, cries rising toward heaven; there
were tears, groans, lamentations; they writhed on the ground, begged me to
ask the khan to free them, not to take them to a foreign land. Grieved by the
sight of the pain of my people, the men as much as the women; and with a
heavy heart, burning, shedding tears of blood, I set to knocking on the doors
of the great, entreating, pleading, begging that they be saved from such a
misfortune. Thanks be to God, certain arguments softened the heart of the
khan, who granted them a pardon, in return for three thousand tumans and
three thousand loads of corn, which they collected altogether and were thus
redeemed. As for the three hundred families of Ararat, although it cost me
much bitter anguish and fatigue, nothing could be done. He ordered two
buffalo per house to be supplied at the exchequer?s expense, in order to
transport what they wanted; each of those who remained had to give three
oxen, three cows, three litras of copper objects, three carpets, three Iheps
<? > of flour and wheat and one tuman of silver, in aid of each refugee?s
house. [2:278-79]

Abraham of Crete

Palestine

Jews and Christians in Jerusalem (1700)

We [Jews] were obliged to give a large sum of money to the Muslim
authorities in Jerusalem in order to be allowed to build a new synagogue.
Although the old synagogue was small and we only wanted to enlarge it very
slightly, it was forbidden under Islamic law to modify the least part [?]. In
addition to the expenses in bribes destined to win the favour of the Muslims,
each male was obliged to pay an annual poll tax of two pieces of gold to the
sultan. The rich man was not obliged to give more, but the poor man could
not give less. Every year, generally during the festival of Passover, an
official from Constantinople would arrive in Jerusalem. He who did not have
the means to pay the tax was thrown into prison and the Jewish community
was obliged to redeem him. The official remained in Jerusalem for about two
months and consequently, during that period, the poor people would hide
wherever they could, but if they were ever caught, they would be redeemed
by community funds (these procedures, the captivity and redemption of the
tributaries, have already been mentioned in abundance by the pseudo-Dionysius of
Tell-Mahre, Michael the Syrian, the Jewish geniza documents published by Shlomo
Dov Goitein, Armenian and foreign authors, d?Arvieux, Tavernier, and so on. They can
be regarded as permanent components of dhimmitude). The official sent his
soldiers throughout the streets to control the papers of the passersby, for a
certificate was provided to those who had already paid the tax. If anyone
was found without his certificate, he had to present himself before the official
with the required sum, otherwise he was imprisoned until such time as he
could be redeemed. [fols. 3a-b]

The Christians are also obliged to pay the poll tax [?] The Muslims,
however, are not permitted to exact payment of the tax of the Sabbath or
Holy Days, and consequently we could walk in the streets unmolested on
those days. However, during the week, the paupers dared not show
themselves outside. Likewise, the soldiers are not allowed to carry out their
controls to collect the tax from door to door, and all the less so in prayer
houses. But in their wickedness, the soldiers would go to the synagogues,
waiting by the doors, requesting the certificate of payment from the
congregants who emerged [?]. No Jew or Christian is allowed to ride a
horse, but a donkey is permitted, for [in the eyes of Muslims] Christians and
Jews are inferior beings]. [Fol. 7b]

The Muslims do not allow entry to the Temple area to any member of
another faith, unless he converts to their religion – for they claim that no
member of another religion is sufficiently pure to enter this holy spot. They
never weary of claiming that, although God had originally chosen the people
of Israel, He had since abandoned them on account of their iniquity in order
to choose the Muslims. [fols. 8b-9a]

In the Land of Israel, no member of any other religion besides Islam may
wear the green colour, even if it is a thread [of cotton] like that with which we
decorate our prayer shawls. If a Muslim perceives it, that could bring trouble.
Similarly, it is not permitted to wear a green or white turban. On the
Sabbath, however, we wear white turbans, on the crown of which we place
a piece of cloth of another colour as a distinguishing mark. [fols. 13a-b]

The Christians are not allowed to wear a turban, but they wear a hat
instead, as is customary in Poland. Moreover, the Muslim law requires that
each religious denomination wear its specific garment so that each people
may be distinguished from another. This distinction also applies to footwear.
Indeed, the Jews wear shoes of a dark blue colour, whereas Christians wear
red shoes. No one can use green, for this colour is worn solely by Muslims
(in 1730, in order to avoid reprisals, the French consul tore down a curtain made of
green fabric in his dwelling because that colour is reserved solely for the sharifs, that is
to say the descendants of the Prophet; see Charles-Roux, p. 54). The latter are
very hostile toward Jews and inflict upon them vexations in the streets of the
city. It is rare, however, for the Turkish or even the Arab notables to harm
the Jews when passing them [in the street], but the common folk persecute
the Jews, for we are forbidden to defend ourselves against the Turks or the
Arabs. If an Arab strikes a Jew, he [the Jew] must appease him but must not
rebuke him, for fear that he may be struck even harder, which they [the
Arabs] do without the slightest scruple. This is the way the Oriental Jews
react, for they are accustomed to this treatment, whereas the European
Jews, who are not yet accustomed to being assaulted by the Arabs, insult
them in return. [?]

Even the Christians are subjected to these vexations. If a Jew offends a
Muslim, the latter strikes him a brutal blow with his shoe in order to demean
him, without anyone?s being able to prevent him from doing it. The
Christians fall victim to the same treatment and they suffer as much as the
Jews, except that the former are very rich by reason of the subsidies that
they receive from abroad, and they use this money to bribe the Arabs. As for
the Jews, they do not possess much money with which to oil the palms of
the Muslims, and consequently they are subject to much greater suffering.
[folio 13b]

Gedaliah of Siemiatyc

Egypt

Coptic Pilgrimage from Egypt to Jerusalem in 1756

The Coptic Christians wanted to make a pilgrimage to Jerusalem. Their
leader, who was then Nurauz, a writer from Ridwan Katkhoda, imparted this
plan to Sheikh Abdallah al-Shabrawi and offered him a gift of a thousand
dinars. The sheikh then handed him a fatwa which allowed those who
enjoyed the protection of the Muslims to have complete freedom in their
religion and their pilgrimages. When they had this fatwa in their hands, the
Copts proceeded to make immense preparations and set out to leave. Their
retinue was impressive and ostentatious; they carried with them immense
loads of baggage, gilded wooden chests; their women and children were
carried in litters and they did not forget to take musical instrument with them.
While awaiting the time of departure, they set up a camp at Qubbat al-Azab
and they hired Bedouin to escort them on the journey. They gave them
sums of money, robes of honour, clothing and gratuities.

The news of this pilgrimage soon spread in the town and this deed was
found reprehensible. [2:114-15]

[A notable reproached Sheikh al-Shabrawi for it.] "The deed you have
authorised them to undertake will become a custom; next year they will
make themselves a carpet and in future the Christians? pilgrimage will be
spoken of in the same way as one talks of the Muslims? pilgrimage. Sheikh
Abdallah, listen well to what I will tell you: you will carry the responsibility of
this decision until the Day of the Resurrection."

Sheikh Abdallah then rose, filled with wrath. He left the house of Sidi
al-Bakri and authorised the people to fall on the Copts who were making the
pilgrimage and pillage them. The throng, swelled by a party of students of
Al-Azhar, then went to the Copts? camp, which it pillaged; it ill-treated the
pilgrims and spared them neither blows from sticks, nor from stones. It also
pillaged the nearby church, situated at Demirdashi. The Christians were
very badly ill-treated on the occasion of this pilgrimage and they were not
able to take vengeance for the insults that they were made to suffer. The
enormous costs they had borne were lost. [2:115-16]

Al-Djabarti

Opinion of an Eighteenth – Century Egyptian Jurist

As Badr (Badr ad-Din Muhammad al-Qarafi ?1533-1601?, author of the work of
jurisprudence, ad-Durar an-Nafa?is) says in al-Durar al-Nafa?is, quoting from Abu
Ubayd (Al-Qasim Abu Ubayd ?d. 838?, a scholar who lived in Iraq): The foundation
of Muslim cities varies according to local conditions. Thus, for example, in
Madina, Taif, Yaman, peace treaties were negotiated; uninhabited area[s]
demarcated and settled by Muslims, such as Cairo, Kufa, Basra, Baghdad,
Wasit; any village that was taken by force and that the caliph did not see fit
to return to those from whom it had been taken. These are Muslim cities in
which the protected people may not display any of their religious symbols,
for example, erect churches, bring out wine or pork, or sound the clapper.
No new synagogue, church, monk?s cell, prayer assembly of theirs is
allowed in these cities, by the consensus of the doctors [theologians]. It has
been mentioned above that our city, Cairo, is an Islamic town, started after
the conquest of Egypt, under the reign of the Fatimids. Therefore, no
church, synagogue, and the rest, may be erected in it. Among those who
affirmed this was the mufti of Islam, the erudite Hanafi, Shaykh Qasim b.
Qutlubugha (Qasim b. Qutlubugha ?1399-1474?, eminent Egyptian of the Hanafi
school) disciple of Ibn al-Humam (Kamal ad-Din Muhammad Ibn al-Humam ?d.
1457?, an Egyptian jurist). The books of the school are unanimous in the
prohibition of the erection of dhimmi-owned churches and the like in any
Islamic territory. How then can it be permitted in this Islamic settlement, in a
city over which unbelief has never had a hand, not since the city?s
inception? The Prophet, peace and blessing upon him, said: No
emasculation and no church in Islam. The word "emasculation", khisa,
follows the pattern fi?al, as the verbal noun of khsy, "to emasculate". The
relation between "emasculation" and "church" is that the erection of a church
in Muslim territory denotes the elimination of manliness in the people of the
territory, just as emasculation, in reality, is the elimination of virility in an
animal, though the sense of the word in our context is withdrawal from
women by attachment to churches. The connection is evident. By "no
church" the Prophet meant no construction thereof, a prohibition, that is, that
no church be built in Islamic territory because the erection of a new church
in Islamic territory signifies the elimination of virility in the people of that
territory, which is not permissible, even as the elimination of man?s virility by
castration is not. [pp. 20-21]

Even though some data may be understood from the above, know that just
as the dhimmis are prohibited from building churches, other things also are
prohibited to them. They must not assist an unbeliever against a Muslim,
Arab, or non-Arab; or indicate to the enemy the weak points of the Muslims,
such as the Muslims? unpreparedness for battle. The dhimmis must not
imitate the Muslims in garb, wear military attire, abuse or strike a Muslim,
raise the cross in an Islamic assemblage; let pigs get out of their homes into
Muslim courtyards; display banners on their own holidays; bear arms on
their holidays, or carry them at all, or keep them in their homes. Should they
do anything of the sort, they must be punished, and the arms seized. Neither
Jew nor Christian should ride a horse, with or without saddle. They may ride
asses with a packsaddle. They must not wear the qaba <full-sleeved
garment>, silk garments, turbans, but may wear quilted qalansuwa [conical
bonnet] headgear. If they pass by a Muslim assembly, they must dismount,
and they may ride only in an emergency such as sickness or leaving for the
country, and their path is to be made narrow. They must not imitate the garb
of the men of learning and honour, or wear luxurious garb, silk, or, say, fine
cloth. They must be distinguished from ourselves in attire, as the local
custom of each area may have it, but without adornment, so that it indicates
their humiliation, submission, and abasement. Their shoelaces must not be
like ours. Where closed shoes are worn, not laced footwear, their shoes
should be coarse, of unpleasant (unadorned) colour. The Companions [of
the Prophet] agreed upon these points in order to demonstrate the
abasement of the infidel and to protect the weak believer?s faith. For if he
sees them humbled, he will not be inclined toward their belief, which is not
true if he sees them in power, pride, or luxury garb, as all this urges him to
esteem them and incline toward them, in view of his own distress and
poverty. Yet esteem for the unbeliever is unbelief.

In al-Ashbah wa-l-naza?ir (the title of several volumes on ?the systematic structure
of positive law?. The work referred to is perhaps that by Ibn Nujaym ?d. 1562?, a Hanafi
author of books of this kind), it says:

Deference for the unbeliever is unbelief. He who greets a dhimmi with
deference is guilty of unbelief. He, who says to a Magian (Zoroastrian), in
deference, "O, Master" is guilty of unbelief. That is so because they are the
enemies of our beloved, the Lord of the Messengers; and he who honours
the enemy of his beloved has humiliated his beloved. That is why it is not
permissible to install infidels as officials. To let them gain sway over a
Muslim by empowering them to beat, imprison, or oppress him in order to
exact money turns the infidel into [a] tax collector from a Muslim, all on
behalf of a chieftain or dignitary who, for the sake of worldly affairs and in
disregard of punishment in the hereafter, fears not the consequences of
endowing unbelievers with power over believers. If the infidel has behaved
this way, he has violated the covenant [dhimma] with the Muslims as
mentioned above, and is subject to death.

Kamal b. al-Humam [d. 1457] say: "The dhimmi infidel who raises himself
above the Muslims so as to become overbearing may be slain by the caliph".

It is prohibited to assign them a seat of honour in a session attended by
Muslims, to show friendship for them, to extend greetings to them.

If you greeted one whom you considered a Muslim, only to learn he was a
dhimmi, withdraw your word, pretending "he answered my salutations". If
one of them salutes he is answered with "same to you" only. If you
correspond with one, you say: "Salutation to him who follows right
guidance". But avoid congratulating, consoling, or visiting them, unless you
expect the person visited to convert to Islam. If you do expect so, visit him
and proffer Islam to him.

Infidels are prohibited from raising a structure higher than that of a Muslim
neighbour, even if the Muslim?s structure is very low and the Muslim is
reconciled to the infidel?s high building. They are forbidden to buy a Koran,
or a book of Islamic law or of prophetic tradition, or to take one as a pledge.
Neither case would be correct. One should not rise in their honour to start
saluting them, as mentioned above. If a Muslim accompanies the greeted
infidel, direct the salutation at him, and do not indulge in "How are you, how
have you been, how do you feel?" One may say "May God honour and
guide you", meaning toward Islam. One may say "May God give you long
life, much wealth and progeny", because it implies the payment of many poll
taxes.

Just as Muslims must be clearly different from infidels in life, so their graves
must be clearly distinguished from those of the infidels, and must be remote
from them. [pp. 55-57]

Al-Damanhuri

Turkey

Letters from British Ambassadors to Constantinople (1662-1785)

Pera at Constple, Aprill 25th 1662

[?] This present Vizier (Fazil Ahmed Koprulu Pasha ?1661-76?, grand vizier to
Sultan Muhammad IV) degenerates nothing from the tyranie, & severitie of his
father (Mehmed Koprulu ?1656-61?), but rather exceeds him in a natural
abhorrencie of Christians & their religion. For those Churches, that were 2
yeares past burnt down in Galata & Const:ple the ground was purchased at
a deare rate from the Grand Sig:r by the Greekes, Armenians, & Romanists;
but not wth licence to build in the forme of Chruches; or therein use any
more rites, or services of religion. But these religions being too forward in
their zeale, not only reedifyed them in the fashion of Churches, but resorted
theirther publickly to their divine service; wch the vizier hath made use of, as
wellcome opportunitie to demolish, & levell their Churches wth the ground,
wch hee doth wth much passion, & Malice, & comitted those who had the
chiefe hand in the building to a severe imprisonment, excepting only my
chiefe Druggerman, or interpreter who yet escapes free from any
molestation by that security hee enjoyes under my protection (the head of the
carpenters and masons, accused of having allowed the workers to build churches, was
strangled by order of the vizier. ?SP 97-17, pp. 274-75, Winchilsea,
Pera-Constantinople, 20 May 1662).

SP 97-17 [pp. 272b-73]

Winchilsea to the Foreign Office, London

Constantinople, 3d Febry 1758

[?] The order against Christians & Jews Dress, except in modest Cloaths,
browns blacks & c:a & as to caps & boots is most regorously executed in a
Manner unknown before, which alarms much all those who are not
Mahometans, & makes them apprehend the utmost Rigour; it seems
however but natural, when it is considered, that it comes from a self-denying
religious Prince [Sultan Mustafa III].

SP 97-40 (n.p.)

Porter to Pitt, London

Constantinople, 3d of June 1758

This time of Ramazan is mostly taken up by day in sleep, by Night in eating,
so that we have few occurrences of any importance, except what the Grand
Seignor [Sultan Mustafa III] himself affords us he is determin?d to keep to his
laws, and to have them executed that concerning dress has been often
repeated, and with uncommon solemnity, yet as in the former Reigns, after
some weeks it was seldom attended to, but gradually transgress?d, these
people whose ruling Passion is directed that way, thought it was forgot, and
betook themselves to their old course, a Jew on his Sabbath was the first
victim, the Grand Seignor going the rounds incognito, met him, and not
having the Executioner with him, without sending him [the Jew] to the Vizir,
had him executed, and his throat cut that moment, the day after an Armenian
follow?d, he was sent to the Vizir, who attempted to save him, and
condemn?d him to the Galleys, but the Capigilar Cheaia [head of the guards]
came to the Porte at night, attended with the executioner, to know what was
become of the delinquent, that first Minister had him brought directly from
the Galleys and his head struck off, that he might inform his Master he had
anticipated his Orders. A general terror has struck all the people, and greatly
embarras?d the Ministers of the Porte, the very Draggoman?s or Interpreters
and afraid to walk the streets, tho? excepted in the command, the Vizir has
order?d all his own people, tho? protected by Berrat [official certificate], to
conform to the vigour of the law. [?]

SP 97-40 (n.p.)

Porter to Pitt, London

Constantinople, 17th Septre. 1770

[?] The Bostangi Bashi [guardian in chief of the Sultan Mustafa III], is
changed, and the new one immediately issued Orders, that no Greeks,
Armenians, or Jews should be seen out of their houses at half an hour after
Sunset; for that if he found any one in the streets, after the hour, he would
hang him without Distinction. It is imagined that the reason for this order is,
that the Turks go disguised in their [non-Muslim] Dress. [?]

SP 97-46 [pp. 216-216b]

Murray to Weymouth

Constantinople, 10th January 1785

[?] The Grand Visir [of Sultan Abd al-Hamid I] has been induced to take a
very harsh, and impolitical step with the Greek inhabitants of this Capital,
who, in the grand Conflagration in the month of August last, had, by
astonishing exertion, and at a vast expense, saved from the Flames two of
their Churches situated in the City. These, my Lord, though nighly ruined,
had, with great trouble, been secretly repaired, and the work, with great
cost, entirely completed, when some mischievous Turks in that
neighbourhood, complained of this industry as an infraction of the Law, by
which Christian Churches in the City of Constantinople are neither to be
demolished, nor repaired, but permitted to exist for the purposes intended,
so long as it shall please God to preserve them. In this moment, the Visir did
not think proper to oppose the Fanaticism of the Mob, and at break of the
day on the 8th instant, some Turk Workmen were employed to take down all
the new Repairs made in these two Buildings.

FO 216-1 (n.p.)

Ainslie to Carmarthen, London

Morocco (Nineteenth century)

Letter from the Sultan of Morocco, Mulay Abd ar-Rahman (1822-1859),
to the French Consulate at Tangiers (1841)

The Jews of Our fortunate Country have received guarantees from which
they benefit in exchange for their carrying out the conditions imposed by our
religious Law on those people who enjoyed its protection: these conditions
have been and still are observed by Our coreligionists. If the Jews respect
these conditions, Our Law prohibits the spilling of their blood to be split and
their belongings to be taken. Our glorious faith only allows them the marks
of lowliness and degradation, thus the sole fact that a Jew raises his voice
against a Muslim constitutes a violation of the conditions of protection. If in
your country they are your equals in all matters, if they are assimilated to
you, this is all well and good in your country, but not in Ours. Your status
with Us is different from theirs: you are considered as [having the status of]
"reconciled", whereas they are the "protected".

Consequently, if one of them ventures into Our fortunate Empire in order to
engage in commerce, he must conform to the same obligations as the
"protected [peoples]" in Our midst and adopt the same external signs [of
discrimination]. He who does not desire to observe these obligations would
be wiser to stay in his own county, for we have no need of his commerce, if
the latter is to be conducted in circumstances contrary to Our blessed Law.
[?]

Ended the 20th of the holy month of dhu I-Hijja, of the year 1257 <1841>.
[pp. 14-16]

Eugene Fumey

They [the Jews] were first permitted the usage of this kerchief in Morocco
[Marrakesh] and Meknez, as a means of covering their ears. They really
wanted to elude the customary insult of Moorish children, who delighted in
knocking off their bonnets, which were a sign of servitude. They are not
allowed to fasten the kerchief with a double knot below the chin; this knot
must be a simple one and the Kerchief removed in the presence of Muslim
dignitaries [?] They are obliged always to wear the black or dark blue cloak
(ya?lak); it is only as a concession that they wear the white slam, a small
coat, useful against the hot sun. The coat?s hood, made of blue cloth, must
not fold over the head, lest the Jew be mistaken from afar for a Moor; for the
Moor sometimes wears a hood of the same colour, except with a different
rim.

Moreover, the black bonnet must always be visible. Furthermore, the coat
must have a little opening on the right, and the hood must fall over the left
shoulder in order to trouble the movement of the arm as another sign of
servitude. [pp. 27-28]

Abbe Leon Goddard

Afghanistan

Expulsion of the Jews from Mashhad (1839) and from Hirat (1857-1859)

In the year 1839, in the wake of a false libel, the Muslims rose up against
our forefathers on Thursday the 13th of Nissan [March-April] and threatened
to kill and annihilate all the Jews [of Mashhad] and plunder their belongings
unless they converted to Islam. Thirty-one Jews were murdered and had it
not been for the mercy of Heaven, we would all have perished. [?] Some
time afterward those who wished to remain faithful to the word of God
departed from the city of Mashhad and journeyed to Hirat [north-west of
Afghanistan], and from 1840 onward they dwelled there in peace and
tranquillity for fifteen years. [?] However, in the year 1856, on account of
our numerous sins, the army of Nasir al-Din Shah Qajar [1848-96] attacked
and besieged the city of Hirat for nine months. At the end of the month of
Tishri [October], 1857, the city fell through trickery, without a fight.
Thenceforth, [the assailants] started to humiliate us with accusations and
threaten us, saying you have perpetrated this and therefore we will punish
you with that. They calumniated us with lies before our king and his princes
and persuaded him to banish us from the city and to send us into exile in the
city of Mashhad. Thus on the 15th of Sebat [January-February], 1858, the
assailants fell upon us with mortal blows, saying "Get out of your houses by
the order of the king?. They threw out everybody, men, women, and children
from their homes, without sparing the old or the infants, without mercy or
compassion (for another description of these events, see N. de Khanikoff, "Meched,
la Ville Sainte, et son territoire. Extraits d?un voyage dans le khorassan ?1858?." In Le
Tour du Monde ?Paris, 1861?, 2d quarter, 280-82). The whole city echoed with the
wailing of the poor and the orphans. We had no time even to gather our
belongings and prepare provisions, for within three days all the Jews had
been expelled from the city and assembled at a place called Musalla. On the
19th of Sebat they marched us away, and for nearly 30 days we walked by
the way, surrounded by Muslim soldiers. It was cold; snow and hail fell from
the heavens and several people perished on the road on account of the
extreme cold, lack of food, and other innumerable misfortunes. We reached
the city of Mashhad in the month of Adar [February-March]. We were not
allowed into the city but were parked in animal pens in the fort known as
Bab Qudrat, which was no more than a prison, the narrowness of which
added to our shame and humiliation. Because of the great suffering a few of
our brethren converted to Islam. It could have been said of us "The sword
without and terror within [?]" [Deut. 32:25], for our captors beat us daily
most savagely and exacted from us payment for the hire of the camels that
had brought us [?] and moreover we were plagued with disease and
pestilence and several people died. Other misfortunes befell us which it
would be wearisome to recount, as it is said: "Captivity is worse than the
sword of death" [TB Baba Bathra, 8b]. We remained there for two whole
years until such time as our sins had been forgiven in heaven and the king
decided to allow us to return to our homes. In Kislev [November –
December] 1859 we set forth from Mashhad and arrived in Hirat on Monday
the 13th of Tebet [December-January], and each man returned to his
household. [pp. 12-13]

Mattatya Garji