Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T20:31:33.487Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Christian and Jewish Waqf in Palestine during the late Ottoman period1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 February 2009

Ron Shaham
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

This article deals with Palestinian Christians and Jews who availed themselves of the Muslim pious endowment institution (waqf, pi. awqāf) during the late Ottoman period. In Judaism and Christianity we find pious endowment institutions: the Jewish ‘Hekdesh’ and the Christian ‘Piae Causae’. In both religions there exists an ancient tradition of endowments for purposes which are quite similar to those of the waqf. In spite of this, Christians and Jews in Muslim territories availed themselves of the waqf from the Middle Ages until the end of the Ottoman state. This is an example of the use by minorities of the majority's legal system.

Type
Articles
Information
Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies , Volume 54 , Issue 3 , October 1991 , pp. 460 - 472
Copyright
Copyright © School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London 1991

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 I should like to thank Professor A. Layish, who devotedly instructed me through the several stages of the research for this paper, and Professor Z. Falk, Professor H. Lazarus-Yafeh and Dr. M. Hoexter for their help.

2 Concerning the Jewish pious endowment see Elon, M., ‘Hekdesh’, Encyclopaedia Judaica, Vol. 8 (Jerusalem, 1971), 279–87Google Scholar; concerning the Christian pious endowment see G. Baer, ‘The Muslim waqf and similar institutions in other civilizations’, a paper submitted to the International Seminar on Social and Economic Aspects of the Muslim Waqf, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 24–28 June 1979 (hereafter Baer, the Muslim waqf); Jones, W. R., ‘Pious endowments in medieval Christianity and Islam’, Diogenes, 109, 1980, 23–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

3 Polak, A. N., Toldot ha-Yeḥasim ha-Qarqa‘iyyim be-Miẕrayim Suriya ve-Ereẕ Yisrael be-Sof Yemey ha-Beynayim (Jerusalem, 1940), 46–7Google Scholar; Ashtor, E., Toldot ha-Yehudim be-Miẕrayim uve-Suriya, Vol. 2 (Jerusalem, 1951), 229–32Google Scholar; Heyd, U., Ottoman documents on Palestine 1552–1615 (Oxford, 1960), 169Google Scholar; Gerber, H., Yehudey ha-Imperiya ha-‘Otmanit ba-Meot 16–17: Kalkala ve-Ḥevra (Jerusalem, 1983), 33Google Scholar (hereafter Gerber, Jews of the Ottoman empire); idem, ‘Ha-Yehudim u-Mosad ha-Heqdesh ha-Muslemi (Waqf) ba-Imperiya ha-‘Otmanit’, Sefunot, Vol. 17 (Jerusalem, 1973), 105–31Google Scholar (hereafter Gerber, Jews and the waqf); Cohen, A., Jewish life under Islam: Jerusalem in the sixteenth century (Cambridge Mass., 1984), p. 62, n. 10, pp. 76–86, 210–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Barnai, J., Yehudey Ereẕ Yisrael ba-Mea ha-18 ba-ḥasut Pqidey Qushṭa (Jerusalem, 1982), 156, 186, 256Google Scholar (hereafter Barnai, Jews of Palestine); Peri, O.. ‘Temurot Poliṭiyyot ve-Hashlakhoteyhen ke-Gormim be-Yissud Awqaf bi-Yerushalayim shel Sof ha-Mea ha-18’ Kathedra, 21, 1981, 83Google Scholar; Shpizen, A., ‘ha-Ishshiyyut ha-Mishpaṭit ve-Heqdeshim Yehudiyyim bi-Yerushalayim shel Sof ha-Mea ha-19’, Kathedra, 19, 1981, 73–82.Google Scholar

4 See Appendix—Documents index.

5 Shapira, J., Mea Shana Migve-Yisrael (Tel Aviv, 1970), 161–3.Google Scholar

6 Kark, R., ‘Ha-Ma‘aravim- Rishoney ha-Yerushalmim bi-Vniyyat Shkhuna mi-Ḥuẕ la-Ḥoma‘, Peamim, 21, 1984, 30Google Scholar; Barnai, J., ‘Ha-‘Eda ha-Ma‘aravit bi-Yerushalayim 1830–1918‘ (unpublished M.A. thesis, Jerusalem, 1971), 9, 32, 34–5, 45, 49–50.Google Scholar

7 Ram, H., ‘Ha-Yishuv ha-Yehudi be-Yafo le-min ha-Maḥaẕit ha-Shniyya shel ha-Meah ha-18 ‘ad la-Shanim ha-Rishonot shel Shilṭon ha-Mandaṭ ha-Briti’ (unpublished PhD thesis, Ramat gan, 1982), 135Google Scholar; Rubin, R., ‘Ha-‘Edot ha-Noẕriyyot be-Yafo u-Mosdoteyhen’, Qardom, 15, 1981, 80’1.Google Scholar

8 Manṣūr, A., Ta'rīkh al-Nāṣira min Aqdam Azmāniha ila Ayyāmina al-Ḥāḍira (Cairo, 1923), 209, 233, 237, 241, 251.Google Scholar

9 Kark, R., Jaffa: a city in evolution 1799–1917 (Jerusalem, 1990), 56, 163–7Google Scholar (hereafter Kark, Jaffa).

10 Stendel, O., Naẕeret be-‘avar uva-Hove (Jerusalem, 1966), 11Google Scholar; Manṣūr, 85, 177–80Google Scholar; Kark, , Jaffa, 26.Google Scholar

11 Manṣūr (p. 198) notes that the Protestant community in Nazareth was economically active, and that its waqf the most prosperous in the town. Yet we must consider his remark with some scepticism, since he himself was a Protestant clergyman.

12 Kark, , Jaffa, 70–2, 239 ff.Google Scholar

13 Granovsky, A., Ha-Mishṭar ha-Qarqa‘i be-Ereẕ Yisrael (Tel Aviv, 1949), 152Google Scholar (hereafter of Granovsky, The agrarian system).

14 Manṣūr, , 196–7.Google Scholar

15 Bāshā, M. Qadrī, Kitāb Qanūn al-‘Adi wal-Inṣāf lil-Qaḍā ‘alā Mushkilāt al-Awqāf (Cairo, 1902), 25–7, arts. 87–96.Google Scholar

16 Hilmi, O., The laws of Evqaf (Nicosia, 1922), chs. 6–17.Google Scholar

17 Layish, A, ‘The family waqf and the sharī‘a law of succession’, in G., Baer and G., Gilbar (ed.), Social and economic aspects of the Muslim waqf (forthcoming).Google Scholar

18 Shilo, Sh., ‘Succession’ in Elon, M., The principles of Jewish law (Jerusalem, 1975), 445–53.Google Scholar ‘Amiel waqf seems to improve the status of females as compared to their status according to the Jewish inheritance law. The same motivation was traced in Istanbul. See Gerber, , Jews and the waqf, 127.Google Scholar

19 For further discussion of this point see below, pp. [16–17].

20 Manṣūr, , 102, 198, 214, 260–1.Google Scholar

21 See above, pp. 463

22 Dār al-Yahūd was the name of the courtyard (including buildings) which had been endowed as a waqf in 1820 by Y. Ajiman, the banker of the head of the Yenicheries in Istanbul, in favour of the Sefaradi Kolel in Jerusalem, for hospitality to Jewish immigrants arriving in Palestine. See Kark, , Jaffa, 56, 181Google Scholar; Yizhaqi, A., ‘Atarim be-Yafo’, Qardom, 15, 1981, 82.Google Scholar It is difficult to affirm with certainty the exact legal status of Dār al-Yahūd. The author has not traced the waqfiyya itself, if it exists at all.

23 See also Young, G., Corps de droit ottoman, Vol. 6 (Oxford, 1905), 18.Google Scholar

24 Manṣūr, , 196–8.Google Scholar

25 Baer, , The Muslim waqf.Google Scholar

26 Gil, M., Documents of the Jewish pious foundations from the Cairo Geniza (Leiden, 1976), 37.Google Scholar

27 Jaffa's, Sharī‘a court (hereafter sijill), Vol. 63 (ḥujaj no. 69), p. 36; Vol. 76, pp. 15–16.Google Scholar

28 Sijill, Vol. 60, p. 97; Vol. 71, pp. 4, 96.

29 Sijill, Vol. 29, pp. 46–8, 76–82; Vol. 33, pp. 6–11; Vol. 43, p. 232. Concerning the tamlīk sulṭānī it is worth noting that during the Ottoman period people used to endow miri lands without asking the competent authority's consent, and even without notifying it. If afterwards the question of the waqf's legality arose, the founders resorted to the religious court, which dealt with the matter without regard for the secular laws. See Layish, A., ‘The Muslim waqf in Israel’, Asian and African Studies, 2, 1966, 46Google Scholar (hereafter Layish, ‘The Muslim waqf’); idem, ‘The Druze testamentary waqf’, Studio Islamica, 71, 1990, 139.Google Scholar

30 The Christian litigants quoted for instance from al-Ramlī, Kh.Kitāb al-Fatāwī al-Khayriyya li-Naf‘ al-BariyyaGoogle Scholar; al-Tarābulsī, I., Kitāb al-Is‘āf fi Aḥkām al-AwqāfGoogle Scholar; al-Kurdurī, I., al-Fatāwī, al-BazāziyyaGoogle Scholar; ‘Abidīn, M. Ibn, Ḥashiyat Radd al-Muḥtār ‘ala al-Durr al-Mukhtār Sharḥ Tanwīr al-Abṣār fi Fiqh Madhhab Abī ḥanīfa al-Nu‘mān.Google Scholar

31 Gerber, , Jews and the waqf, 111Google Scholar

32 Vitta, E., The conflict of laws in matters of personal status in Palestine (Tel Aviv, 1947), 3, 145, 176.Google Scholar

33 Goadby, F. M., International and inter-Religious private law in Palestine (Tel Aviv, 1935), 128Google Scholar; Layish, , The Muslim waqf, 47Google Scholar; Gerber, , Jews of the Ottoman Empire, 32–3Google Scholar; Vitta, , 145, 176Google Scholar

34 According to Professor Falk (interview, 28.8.1985) the British Mandatory legislation testifies to the legal situation prevailing during the Ottoman period. Art. 2 of the ‘Civil and Religious Courts (Jurisdiction) Ordinance, 1925’ enabled the transformation of awqāf, constituted by non-Muslims before the sharī‘a courts prior to the promulgation of the ‘Palestine Order in Council, 1922’ into charitable trusts (under the provisions of the ‘Charitable Trusts Ordinance, 1924’), that is to say, into civil charitable endowment institutions, constituted before a civil court. This ordinance was aimed to correct the injustice, which existed during the Ottoman period, when non-Muslims were forced to establish awqāf before the sharī‘a courts. Concerning this legislation see Drayton, R. H., The laws of Palestine, Vol. 1 (London, 1934), ch. 14, pp. 112–27 and ch. 18, pp. 141–2.Google Scholar Art. 3 of the above-mentioned ‘Civil and Religious…Ordinance’ left to the shaī‘a courts parallel jurisdiction (when the two parties agreed to submit the question at issue to these courts) in matters concerning the constitution or validity of awqāf, constituted by non-Muslims before those courts prior to the ‘Palestine Order in Council’, and not transformed into charitable trusts according to the above-mentioned ordinance of 1924. This amendment too testifies to the legal situation prevailing during the Ottoman period.

35 Shpizen, , 75 (especially, n. 10), 80–2.Google Scholar

36 Polak, , 46, 73Google Scholar; Cohen, , 210–11Google Scholar; Doukhan, M., Diney Qarqa‘ot be-Ereẕ Yisrael (Jerusalem, 1925), 33Google Scholar; Baer, G., Studies in the social history of modern Egypt (Chicago, 1969), 79 (hereafter Baer, Social history).Google Scholar

37 Concerning confiscation by creditors see Gerber, , Jews of the Ottoman Empire, 138Google Scholar; Ashtor, , 231Google Scholar; Baer, , Social history, 79.Google Scholar Concerning the childless Jews see Barnai, , Jews of Palestine, 271–4Google Scholar; Ashtor, , 232.Google Scholar Compare to the same motivation existing in areas governed by the Mālikī school, by using the testamentary waqf; Layish, A., ‘The Mālikī family waqf according to wills and waqfiyyāt’, BSOAS, XLVI, 1, 1983, 1–3CrossRefGoogle Scholar, (hereafter Layish, ‘The Mālikī waqf’). In the case of ‘Amiel the founder probably feared the confiscation of his property after his death, because his only heir, his grandson, we still a minor (interview with Mr. E. ‘Amiel, the present administrator of the waqf, 18.12.85).

38 Cohen, , 211–2.Google Scholar

39 See above, 465.

40 Sijill, Vol. no. not identified (1280 A.H./A.D. 1864), 32–3. All these acts are prohibited in Islam. Some of them, like adultery (zinā) and wine drinking (sharb khamr), are included among ḥudud allah. Others, like usury (ribā) taking illegal taxes (mukūs) and gambling (maysir), are considered as ethical prohibitions.

41 Polak, , 46–7, 54, 73Google Scholar; Ashtor, , 230Google Scholar; Peri, , 78–81.Google Scholar

42 Peri, , 82.Google Scholar

43 Goadby, F. and Doukhan, M., The land law of Palestine (Tel Aviv, 1935), 361, 364.Google Scholar

44 ibid., 361.

45 loc. cit.; Doukhan, , 180Google Scholar; Granovsky, A., Shiṭṭat ha-Missim be-Ereẕ Yisrael (Jerusalem, 1933), 126Google Scholar (hereafter Granovsky, Tax system).

46 Manṣūr, , 64.Google Scholar

47 Kark, , Jaffa, 247–8.Google Scholar

48 Doukhan, , 69–70.Google Scholar

49 Eliav, M., Ba-Ḥbsut Mamlekhet Osṭriya- Mivḥar Te‘udot me-Arkhiyyon ha-Qonsuliya ha-Osṭrit be-Yerushalayim 1849–1917 (Jerusalem, 1986), 293–4, 407.Google Scholar

50 Shpizen, , 73–82.Google Scholar

51 Granovsky, , The agrarian system, 152Google Scholar; Qanūn al-Aḥwāl al-Shakhṣiyya lil-Tā'ifa al-Rūm Katūlīk al-Malakiyya fi Isrā'īl (n.d.), p. 52, art. 241; see one example of registering the church property in the name of the Coptic cardinal: sijill, Vol. 66, p. 77.Google Scholar

52 Gil, , 91Google Scholar; Jones, , 26–32.Google Scholar

53 Ashtor, , 231Google Scholar; Gerber, , Jews and the waqf, 113Google Scholar; Layish, A., ‘The Mālikī waqf’, 30–1.Google Scholar

54 Goadby, , 134–5.Google Scholar

55 loc. cit.; there is enough evidence even from the British Mandatory period to this effect. See Tiberias's, sijill, wathā'iq, Vol. 3 (1920–1922), case no. 56, p. 44 and case no. 17, p. 141.Google Scholar Even Jews applied to the sharī'a court, asking for inheritance decrees. See ibid., case 43, p. 80; case 61, p.93; case 80, p. 108.

56 Jews did not have the option to avail themselves of the will in order to circumvent the inheritance law, because the Jewish law recognizes only a will of a person who is ‘ill and confined to bed’ (mattenat shekhiv me-ra‘). A will in the common use of the term is in Judaism a gift of the healthy (mattenat bari), and therefore it is practically a regular gift (during the giver's lifetime), and not a will (after his death). See Shilo, Sh., ‘Wills’, in M., Elon (ed.), The principles of Jewish law (Jerusalem, 1975), 453–64Google Scholar; as for the Christians, they availed themselves of the will to a certain extent, as in the case of the Maronite community in Lebanon. This community was obliged to apply the Muslim inheritance law for about ninety years. As a result those Maronites used to circumvent this restriction by applying the Christian religious will, which accords total freedom to will up to two-thirds of the estate. See Aouad, I., Le droil privé de Maronites au temps des Emirs Chihab (1697–1841) (Paris, 1933), 197, 200, 244.Google Scholar

57 Gerber, , Jews and the waqf, 112–15Google Scholar; Ashtor, , 232Google Scholar; Barnai, , Jews of Palestine, 273–4.Google Scholar

58 Baer, , The Muslim Waqf, 21, 29, 31.Google Scholar

59 cf. Goitein, S. D., A Mediterranean society, Vol. 3 (Berkeley, 1978) 142.Google Scholar