1571044

Jerusalem in the Tanzimat Period: The New Ottoman Administration and the NotablesAuthor(s): B. Abu-MannehSource: Die Welt des Islams, New Series, Bd. 30, Nr. 1/4 (1990), pp. 1-44Published by: BRILLStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1571044 .Accessed: 21/11/2014 07:40

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

BRILL is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Die Welt des Islams.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 194.27.202.75 on Fri, 21 Nov 2014 07:40:56 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=baphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/1571044?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

Die Welt des Islams XXX (1990)

JERUSALEM IN THE TANZIMAT PERIOD THE NEW OTTOMAN ADMINISTRATION AND

THE NOTABLES*

BY

B. ABU-MANNEH

University of Haifa In memory of the late Dr. Alexander Sch6lch, a friend and a colleague

1. Jerusalem and Its Countryside in the Pre-Tanzimat Period

The pre-Tanzimat sanjak' of Jerusalem was a relatively small district on the mountain highway that ran from Gaza to Nablus and from there northward to Damascus. Except for the city of

Jerusalem, the sanjak itself was of limited political and economic

importance. It was rural in character. Jerusalem and Hebron were the only towns at that time, and Bethlehem was not more than a townlet. The great majority of the inhabitants were peasants who farmed small plots of land in valley or mountain terraces that were

barely sufficient for their upkeep. Power in the sanjak rested in the hand of rural shaikhly families, who, as we shall see, controlled the

* The author of this paper owes a debt of gratitude to a number of people and institutions. First of all I am grateful to the Qadi and the officials of the sharCi-court in Arab Jerusalem and to shaikh AsCad al-Imam al-Husayni of that court. I am indebted as well to the Alexander-von-Humboldt-Stiftung of West Germany and to the Centre for the study of Eretz Yisrael of Yad ben Zvi and the University of Haifa for their support in the course of the collection of the material for this paper. Moreover, my thanks are due to the staff of the Bas Bakanlik Arsivi in Istanbul, the Public Record Office in London and the French Diplomatic Archives in Nantes. I am also grateful to Professors A. H. Hourani, Roger Owen and Gad Gilbar for reading the manuscript and commenting on it. The reader's indulgence is asked for some inconsistencies in the Ottoman and Arabic transliterations.

1 A sub-province in the Ottoman administrative system. It is also called Liva or Miitesarriflik (Liwa' and Mutasarrifiyya in Arabic). Throughout this paper, the term sanjak is used and it is transcribed as pronounced in Turkish. See J. Deny, "Sandjak" in ElI, IV, 150.


http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

B. ABU-MANNEH

countryside almost up to the city walls and held sway over the

peasantry.2 In the later Ottoman centuries, the governor of the sanjak was

appointed by the vali of Damascus and was his personal deputy; he was hence called miitesellim. But the miitesellim did not have much coercive power outside the city walls,3 and if the need to demon- strate power arose, it required the sending of a strong contingent of troops by the vali, if not his personal appearance.4 The Ottoman

garrison in the citadel was very small, numbering perhaps not more than a few scores of men, the basic duty of whom was to defend the

city.5 The number of inhabitants of Jerusalem was also relatively small, an estimated twelve thousand at the beginning of our period, about half of whom were non-Muslims.6

Jerusalem therefore exercised much less power than the rural shaikhs who ruled the countryside and equipped their peasants with

2 See below p. 4ff. 3 For the weakness of the governor in the 18th century, see A. Cohen, Palestine

in the 18th Century (Jerusalem, 1973), pp. 170, 172: "The Pasa was unable to extend his control beyond the walls of the towns themselves." This situation did not change for the better in the early decades of the 19th century. See also M. Hoexter, "The Role of the Qays and Yaman Factions in Local Political Divisions ...," AAS IX, 3 (1973), p. 308.

4 Cohen, p. 171; Lutfi, Tarih, I, 229; EI2, V, 335. 5 See U. Heyd, Ottoman Documents on Palestine 1552-1615 (Oxford, 1960), p. 190;

see also p. 102 where he says that in the fortress of Jerusalem there were 90 guards (miistahfiz) in the middle of the 17th century. For the 18th century, however, Cohen (op. cit., p. 271) stated that according to Maliye registers, the Porte allocated salaries for 300 "regular soldiers" (Kapu Kullari) in Jerusalem. But he doubts whether there was such a large number of soldiers in the city at all times. Accord- ing to him they were aware of that in Istanbul but "continued to allocate the full

regular sum." Soon after the withdrawal of Ibrahim Pasha in 1840, we find the qadi of Jerusalem, who held authority until the arrival of an Ottoman governor, appointing a commander for the citadel and 60 artillerymen. Moreover, he appointed a commander of police (tiifekfi basi) and thirty policemen to keep order in the city. See Jerusalem SharCi Court Sijill (Record) [hereafterJSR.] no. 324, pp. 43- 5. See also M. Abir, "Local Leadership and Early Reforms in Palestine 1800- 1834," p. 292, in M. MaCoz (ed.), Studies on Palestine During the Ottoman Period (Jerusalem, 1975).

6 The estimate of E. Robinson, who visited the city in 1838, was 11,500 as cited in Y. Ben-Arieh, "The Population of the Large Towns in Palestine During the First Eighty Years of the Nineteenth Century, According to Western Sources," pp. 49-69 in M. MaCoz (ed.), Studies; see pp. 51, 53.

2



JERUSALEM IN THE TANZIMAT PERIOD

firearms.7 This perhaps explains why the Ottomans, at an early stage in their rule, decided to rebuild the walls of the city.8

As a religious city and a place of pilgrimage, Jerusalem was in fact sustained by the imperial power. Ottoman sultans beginning with Sulaiman the Magnificent paid special attention to the city and its Muslim holy places. The income derived from services per- formed in these places formed a basic source of livelihood for many families of the Muslim elite before our period.9 In fact, until about the mid-nineteenth century, they seem to have owned no property beyond the limits of the city, as inheritance or family waqf documents in the shar'i court records show.10 And when they began to own property outside the city before 1841, it was in a town like

Jaffa and not within the sanjak of Jerusalem."I Moreover, we have no evidence that any member of the Jerusalem elite had a lease

(iltizam) or controlled malikane within the sanjak itself, which would have given them power over peasants in the countryside. When

CUmar Fahmi (al-Husayni) attempted as late as 1286/1869-70 to lease a number of villages in the sanjak of Nablus, for instance, he was unable to collect the revenue and lost about thirty thousand

qurush. 2 In other words, we can assume that the interest of this elite was mainly confined to the city.

Indeed, Jerusalem, encircled by walls, had limited interaction with the countryside even though it was the capital of the sanjak. Consequently, it was not only incapable of dominating the sur-

7 On the question of the spread of firearms in Palestine, see U. Heyd, pp. 61, 80, where he states that the peasants of Palestine were buying and using muskets as early as the 16th century. For the Tanzimat period in Jerusalem, see Finn- Malmesbury, F. 0. 78/1383, desp. 25 (pol.), dated 9.10.1858, where he speaks of "the accumulation of firearms by the peasantry" and says that "gunpowder is made by the peasantry themselves when necessary."

8 Built between 1537-1541. See EI2, V, 333f. and 344. 9 For short biographies of members of this elite in the 18th and 19th centuries,

see Hasan al-Husayni, Tarajim ahl al-Quds fi al-Qarn al-Thani CAshar, ed. S. al- Nu'aimat (Amman, 1985); Adel Mannac, AClam Filastin fi Awakhir al-CAhd al- cUthmani (Jerusalem, 1986). 10 This is the picture that emerges after reviewing many volumes of the sharci court records of Jerusalem and from talking to a number of elderly people in the city.

1 Ibid. 12 Bas Bakanllk Arsivi-Istanbul (hereafter BBA.) Meclis-i Mahsus, doc. no. 1643

dated 5 Ramadan 1287/[Nov.-Dec. 1870] (the irade and enclosures).

3



B. ABU-MANNEH

rounding countryside before the Tanzimat period, it is doubtful whether the elite had strong incentives for doing so. Some members of this elite may have had connections with country shaikhs, but

certainly they enjoyed no power over them. On the contrary, power was in the hands of country shaikhs, as we shall see hereafter.

On the other hand, until our period, the rural areas were self- subsistent and did not depend on the city for their livelihood, in contrast to the situation that began to develop in the Tanzimat

period.13 At any rate, perhaps the major interest of the inhabitants of

Jerusalem outside the city in the pre-Tanzimat period was to have the roads to and from it open and secure, in order to safeguard the free movement of visitors. This duty seems to have been assigned to some country shaikhs.

2. The Shaikhly Families in the pre-Tanzimat Period

In the administrative division of provinces in the pre-Tanzimat period, each province was divided into sanjaks and each sanjak into nahiyes (sub-districts). In the rural areas, groups of villages of varied numbers could form nahiyes.'4

In the period of Ottoman decline, when valis became practically the chief tax farmers of their provinces, collection of taxes took

priority over other considerations.15 The valis entrusted the collection of taxes (miri) in rural nahiyes to the hands of a local shaikh,

13 On the economic transformation, see I. M. Smilianskaya, "The disintegra- tion of Feudal Relations in Syria and Lebanon in the Middle of the Nineteenth Century" in Ch. Issawi, The Economic History of the Middle East (Chicago, 1966), pp. 226ff.; R. Owen, The Middle East in the World Economy 1800-1914 (London, 1981), pp. 91ff.; on the penetration of European trade and its impact upon Palestine, see Alexander Sch6lch, Paldstina im Umbruch 1856-1882 (Stuttgart, 1986), pp. 47ff.

14 On Nahiye see M. T. G6kbilgin IA IX, 37-39; on the "Nahiye" following the Vilayet Law of 1864, see I. Ortayll, Tanzimattan Sonra Mahalli Idareleri (1840-1878) (Ankara, 1974), pp. 87ff.; see also H. A. R. Gibb, and H. Bowen, Islamic Society and the West I (London, 1951), p. 153.

15 Gibb and Bowen, I, 201; Cohen, pp. 197f. Compare M. Nuri, Neta'ic-iil- VukuCat, 2nd ed. (Istanbul, A.H. 1327) I, 148; II, 90 f.

4




usually the head of a powerful family, in return for a fixed share.16 But along with the collection of taxes, the shaikh was also responsi- ble for law and order in the nahiye and for the dispensing of justice in accordance with Curfi law.17 In each village within his nahiye, a shaikh would also appoint a local deputy, called the village shaikh, to be his deputy and to run the affairs of that village.18

Once the annual taxes were paid to them, valis tended not to interfere in the affairs of a nahiye. In other words, the shaikhs

enjoyed a considerable degree of autonomy. When these functions started to pass from father to son, or to a near relative, a local

shaikhly family emerged in each nahiye. Officially these shaikhs were accountable to the miitesellim of the sanjak, if he controlled

enough power to impose his authority over them. As far as

Jerusalem was concerned, the power of the miitesellim was, as we have seen, confined to the city-the country shaikhs were uncon- trollable. Moreover, as the deputy of the vali, the miitesellim's tenure in office was at best limited to the tenure of his master. Thus while the miitesellim changed often, nahiye shaikhs tended to establish

"ruling" families. In the rural areas of the sanjak of Jerusalem there were at the

beginning of our period about twelve such shaikhly families.19 The most powerful among them, however, were four, situated to the

north, west and south of Jerusalem. Three of these families had their nahzyes on the roads that led to Jerusalem, which suggests that

guaranteeing the safety of these roads fell to them.20 At least one

16 I. al-Nimr, TarikhJabalNablus wa-l-Balqa'II (Nablus, 1961), pp. 184-5, 233; R. A. S. Macalister and E. W. G. Mastermann, "Occasional papers on the Modern Inhabitants of Palestine," part 1 in PEFQS (1905), p. 344. Cohen assumed (p. 123) that the vali used "to farm out the ... nahiye" to local nahiye shaikhs. I found no evidence for such a practice in the sanjak of Jerusalem.

17 M. M. al-Dabbagh, Biladuna Filastin, vol. VIII, 2 (Beirut, 1974), p. 44; Cohen, 165; E. Pierotti, Customs and Traditions of Palestine (Cambridge, 1864), 205 p.; O. S. el-Barguthy, "Traces of the Feudal System in Palestine," JPOS IX, 2 (1929), pp. 78-9; see also Gibb and Bowen, I, 213.

18 On village shaikhs, see Nimr, II, 184-5. 19 Macalister and Mastermann, part 2, pp. 352ff.; Hoexter, pp. 285ff.;

Scholch, Paldstina im Umbruch, pp. 212ff. 20 Securing the safety of roads and mountain passes was an important function

in the Ottoman lands. On this subject, see C. Orhunlu, Osmanlz Imparatorlugunda Derbend Teskilati (Istanbul, 1967), esp. pp. 25f. (for Palestine). For the safety of the

5



B. ABU-MANNEH

of them, the Abu Ghosh family, was known to have such a duty officially.

To the north of the city there was the family of Ibn Simhan, which controlled the nahiye of Bani Harith as well as a number of

villages in Jabal al-Quds. The head of this family was regarded as the principal shaikh along the road between Jerusalem and Nablus.21 In the west, the Abu Ghosh family controlled the nahiye of Bani Malik, which comprised the mountain villages on both sides of the highway to Jaffa. This family was entrusted with the safety of pilgrims and travellers on that road from the plain at the foot of the mountain up to the city, a function it continued to perform well into the Tanzimat period. Formerly, the shaikh of the nahiye was entitled to charge a fixed toll for safe passage,22 but after the Tan- zimat, he was paid a fixed amount by the treasury for this service.23

Thirdly, there was the 'Amr family of Dura, which controlled the nahiye ofJabal al-Khalil (Mount Hebron) on the high road to Gaza, and fourthly, the Lahham family, which controlled the mountain

valley to the south-west of Jerusalem. Each of these shaikhs could muster several hundred peasant war-

riors armed with muskets or other fire arms.24 But they were divided among themselves into two hostile factions-Qais and Yaman. The first was led by Ibn Simhan, the second by Abu

coastal highway Damascus-Cairo, see Heyd, pp. 102ff. He, however, did not refer to the alternative route Gaza-Jerusalem-Nablus or to the Jaffa-Jerusalem route. The role of Nahiye shaikhs in the safety of these roads needs to be studied; see also Cohen, p. 272.

21 See Finn-Canning, FO. 195/210, desp. 5, 27.8.1846. No source defines exactly their domain. It was certain, however, that they controlled the "Nahiye of Bani Harith" divided after 1841 into the northern part, ruled by Husayn ibn Sacid with his seat at Ras Karkar, and the southern part, which was smaller and ruled by his cousin Abdullatif ibn Ismail with his seat at al-Janiya. His brother Muham- mad ibn Ismacil was appointed by the qadi of Jerusalem about the end of 1840 on a quarter of nahiyat Jabal al-Quds with his seat at Beit Iksa (JSR no. 324, p. 48). The villages of Ramallah and Bireh were put under Husayn. See also Abir, in MaCoz (ed.), Studies, p. 290.

22 Sch6lch, Paldstina im Umbruch, p. 214; A. Rustum, al-Mahfuzat al-Malakiyya al-Misriyya, 4 vols. (Beirut, 1940-1943), I, 138, 188, docs. 375, 495.

23 He was paid first by Ibrahim then by the Ottomans 40,000 then 50,000 kurus per annum (JSR, no. 328, p. 69); J. Finn, Stirring Times (London, 1878), I, 232.

24 Finn-Palmerstone, F. 0. 195/292, desp. 20, dated Jerusalem 27.9.1850 (for shaikhs in Mt. Hebron); J. Finn, Stirring Times, II, 188-9.

6




Ghosh. Until the occupation of Ibrahim Pasha, their power was more or less equal, so that each side could prevent the other from

gaining overall control of the area, a fact which added to the sense of security of the city. But as the roads leading to Jerusalem were under their control, they could also sometimes exercise a certain

power over the city, as happened, for instance, at the start of the 1834 revolt against Ibrahim Pasha. According to the Egyptian commander of Jerusalem, the shaikhs Ibn Simhan on the road to Nablus and Abu Ghosh on the road to Jaffa put the city practically under siege. Their peasants "interfered with the food and water

supplies of the city and resorted to looting".25 One thousand soldiers under his command were inadequate to tackle the situation or relieve the city. Some of these rural shaikhs seem to have

regarded themselves as superior to the Efendis (i.e. notables) of

Jerusalem. Ihsan al-Nimr may have been right to note that the notable families of the city were "factionally divided [among them-

selves] following the two external shaikhs' ,26 i.e. the leaders of the

Qais and Yaman factions in the countryside.

3. Jerusalem and the Tanzimat

The power of the rural shaikhs in the sanjak could not have lasted

long after the Ottoman restoration in 1841. However, the under-

mining and elimination of their power did not materialize from within, as happened, for instance, in Galilee at the hands of shaikh Dahir al-'Umar around the middle of the 18th century. The Judean hills failed to breed a leader who could have succeeded in

eliminating other shaikhly families and imposing unity upon the

region as Dahir did in Galilee.27 This failure may have been due to the difficulty of the terrain on the one hand and to the more or less even power of the two factions on the other. Indeed, only a

stronger external force was capable of affecting a process of change. There was first Ibrahim Pasha of Egypt, who occupied the country

25 Asad I. Rustum, The Royal Archives of Egypt and the Disturbances in Palestine - 1834 (Beirut, 1938), p. 56.

26 Nimr, I (2nd ed.), p. 343, n. 1; II, p. 405, n. 1; see also Hoexter, p. 303 and M. Abir, in MaCoz (ed.), Studies, p. 293.

27 N. Qassatly, "Mulakhkhas Tarikh al-Zayadina" in al-Jinan VIII (1877), pp. 847ff.

7



B. ABU-MANNEH

at the end of 1831.28 But his rule was too short to bring about a substantial change. It was left to the Ottomans to introduce and maintain a process of change in the land.

One of the first measures taken by the Porte after the restoration in 1841 was to remove the seat of the governor general of the province of Sidon from Acre to Beirut.29 Acre itself, hit hard by the

war, was reduced to the status of a mere centre of a sanjak, which consisted of Galilee and the coastal region as far to the South as Caesarea.30 But the fact that the capital of the province had moved northwards created the need for a major political and administrative centre in the central and southern parts of Palestine due to the distance between Beirut and those regions.

Moreover, those regions had suffered negligence in the preceding period, something the Ottomans could not have allowed any longer after the conflict of the previous decade with Muhammad 'Ali Pasha of Egypt. Consequently, Jerusalem was chosen to become the capital of the southern sanjaks. This may have been the most

important single decision concerning Jerusalem in the later Ottoman period.

Immediately after the restoration, the sanjak of Jerusalem, which, as we have seen, formerly included the Judean hills only, was extended to include the sanjak of Gaza-Jaffa and in early 1842 the

sanjak of Nablus as well31 (the first permanently and the second until 1858). In this way the city of Jerusalem became the centre of a large region which comprised the area from the Esdraelon plain in the north to Rafah and the Sinai Peninsula in the south. The for-

28 For the policy of Ibrahim Pasha in Palestine, see Abir, pp. 308f.; Sh. Shamir, "Egyptian Rule (1832-1840) and the Beginning of the Modern Period in the

History of Palestine", in A. Cohen and G. Baer (eds.), Egypt and Palestine (New York, 1984), pp. 214-31. See also Asad Rustum, "Idarat al-Sham, ruhuha wa- haikaluha wa-atharuha", in Sh. Ghurbal et al., Dhikra Ibrahim Pasha 1848-1948

(Cairo, 1948), pp. 107-28. 29 M. Ma'oz, Ottoman Reform in Syria and Palestine (Oxford, 1968), p. 33; see also

B. al-Bustani in Da'irat al-MaCarif, V, 750ff. and Laila Fawwaz, Merchants and

Migrants in Nineteenth Century Beirut (Cambridge, Mass., 1983), p. 21. 30 "Akka" in EI2 I, 341. 31 I. al-Nimr, Tarikh ..., I (Damascus, 1938), p. 267; MaCoz, Ottoman Reform,

pp. 32-3; see also my article "The Rise of the Sanjak of Jerusalem" in G. Ben Dor, The Palestinians and the Middle East Conflict (Ramat Gan, 1978), p. 15 and J. Finn, Stirring Times, I, 161f.

8




mation of this large sanjak marked a desire at the Porte to end the

fragmentation of the southwestern parts of greater Syria and unite them under one political and administrative centre. The new sanjak was separated from Damascus and put under the vali of Sidon,32 perhaps because of the rising importance of this vali after the Egyp- tian episode and the growth of European interests in the region.

The question is, why was Jerusalem chosen to be the centre of this new sanjak and not Jaffa, Gaza or Nablus? First of all, it was the largest town. Its population was estimated at about twelve thousand at this juncture.33 It was in the interior, more secure than Jaffa or Gaza. Above all, Jerusalem was gaining international importance because of rapidly growing interest among Christian nations in the Christian holy places and increasing numbers of visitors to them. The British government had already established a consulate in the city (1838). Nablus and all the other towns lacked this status. Indeed, the Ottomans were aware of the "importance and delicate site of [Jerusalem]" (ehemiyyet ve nezaket mevkicz), to use the phrase of the Ottoman vali of Syria in the late 1860's.34 In other words, after 1841 Jerusalem had become the major administrative and

political centre in southern Syria, taking the place of Acre before it and of Nablus (which acquired a temporary primacy in the 18th

century). It can even be suggested that with the rise of Jerusalem, the modern history of Palestine began.

The new Ottoman administration carried with it a new concept and a new ideal of government-that of direct and centralized rule, which was launched by the first Tanzimat edict known as the Giilhane Rescript. In this edict, the sultan pledged to end arbitrary government and reinforce the rule of law. Life, honour, and the

property of the inhabitants were to be guaranteed; iltizam, the farm-

ing of the taxes of a province by its vali, was to come to an end and taxes were to be levied by the treasury; and thirdly, regular con-

scription was to be introduced and evenly applied to the Muslim

32 See my article, n. 31 above. 33 Robinson estimated the inhabitants of Jerusalem in 1838 at 11,500 and of

Nablus at 8000. See n. 6 above and Ben-Arieh, p. 64. Acre before the campaign of Ibraihim Pasha had perhaps a similar number of inhabitants, but after that it started to decline both in importance and in population.

34 BBA., Meclis-i Mahsus, doc. no. 1386, dated 13 ?evval 1283/[18.2.1867].

9



B. ABU-MANNEH

population throughout the Empire.35 The state was therefore to take upon itself full governmental responsibilities and apply them

directly by its own functionaries and not through self-governing bodies such as rural shaikhs and shaikhly families. There were to be no intermediaries between governmental institutions and the

people. The application of these principles meant that the central govern-

ment in Istanbul would be involved in the affairs of the provinces far more than was the case during the period of decline; secondly, the new system would give cities and towns a new role in the

government of their respective districts, one that was far more active and influential than they had known until then.

4. The New Government of Jerusalem

Following the establishment of the new sanjak of Jerusalem in

1841, an officer of the rank of ferik (general), Mehmed Tayyar Pasha, was appointed as governor (mitesarrif) of the sanjak by the Porte.36 After that, and until the fall of the Ottoman Empire, the

governors of Jerusalem were on the whole appointed directly by the central government. They all belonged to the new class of senior bureaucrats and officers that started to dominate the Ottoman lands in the Tanzimat period.37

As mentioned above, the miitesellim, the older type of governor of a sanjak, was the representative or deputy of the vali of Damascus and was often not a stranger.38 He knew the language and was

35 For the "Guilhane Rescript" see J. C. Hurewitz, Diplomacy in the Near and Middle East ... 1535-1914 (New York, 1956), I, 113-6. In the translation of the Rescript in The Middle East and North Africa in World Politics, vol. I (ed. by the same author), a long paragraph is missing at the end. See pp. 269-71.

36 On Tayyar Pasha, seeJSR no. 325, p. 36; SO III, 259; (Ata, Tarih, II, 223-6. According to the latter, Tayyar Pasha "studied Arabic perfectly and was able to read it" (p. 224). After the Tanzimat period, governors of sanjaks carried the title of miitesarrif almost exclusively.

37 For the governors between 1864-1914, see D. Kushner, "The Ottoman Governors of Palestine, 1864-1914," MES XXIII, 3 (July, 1987), pp. 274-290.

38 Since many of the governors general of Damascus in the 18th and early 19th centuries were of local origin (the CAzms or members of their household), it is probable that their mitesellims were also of local origin. There is a list of the miitesellims of Jerusalem in al-'Arif, al-Mufassal, pp. 319-21. Nimr gives names of

10




familiar with the social milieu of the city. The new governors, how-

ever, were on the whole strangers to the land and most of them

ignorant of the language and customs of the people.39 Moreover, where the miitesellim lacked adequate coercive power,

the new miitesarrif depended upon a much stronger power. After the withdrawal of Ibrahim Pasha from Syria and Palestine, the Ottoman fifth army corps was stationed in Syria.40 In Jerusalem and in other towns of the sanjak, relatively strong regular units were

stationed, better equipped and organized than any local force.41 And though these units were not under the immediate command of the mutesarrif but under their own officer who received his orders

directly from the commanding general in Damascus (miisir), the

presence of those units provided the civil authority with the

necessary support, and the governor could coordinate its deploy- ment if need arose.42

But this was only one side of the picture. The new Ottoman

system introduced a new body into the administrative structure of the sanjak: the administrative council (Meclis-i Idaret). This body was new in structure and purpose, though it may not have been a com-

pletely innovation in Syria. In the earlier period there existed in Jerusalem a body called the

Diwan which had no defined function but may have been of a deliberative nature. Neither was its membership defined. Its

meetings seem to have been casual.43 Ibrahim Pasha (1831-1840) introduced a new type of council called the Majlis al-Shura (the con-

such mutesellims who belonged to families from Nablus in the 18th century; see vol. I (lst ed.), pp. 89, 94, 104, 109, 110, 117-9, 147, 155, 157, 195. For others who came from other places in Palestine, see Mannac, pp. 26, 32, 37, 202, 205. See also Cohen, p. 124, Nimr, I, 158, 239, for mamluks from Acre who served in such a capacity.

39 Finn, Stirring Times, I, 163. 40 On the Ottoman army in Syria, see MaCoz, Ottoman Reform, p. 48. On the

reorganization of the army, see Lutfi, Tarih, VII, 74ff. and Ahmet Rasim, Tarih, IV, 1894-5.

41 On the army units in Jerusalem, see Young-Aberdeen, F.O. 195/210, desp. 37, dated Jerusalem 23.10.1844. See also E. Pierotti, Customs and Traditions, pp. 257ff.; Finn, Stirring Times, I, 258 and 472-3.

42 See for instance Finn-Canning, F.O. 195/210, desp. 2, dated Jerusalem, 20.5.1946.

43 On the "Diwan" see CArif al-CArif, al-Mufassalfi Tarikh al-Quds (Jerusalem, 1961), pp. 310, 352, 358; Abir in Macoz (ed.), Studies, p. 292.

11



B. ABU-MANNEH

sultative council). It was composed of leading city notables and other dignitaries. Its basic duty was to guarantee justice and to assist the governor in administrative and legal matters.44 In the case

ofJerusalem, its head, called nazir, was in the later 1830's the hanafi mufti, shaikh Muhammad Tahir al-Husayni.45

There were certain similarities between the council founded by Ibrahim Pasha and the administrative council (Meclis-i Idaret) of the Tanzimat.46 But there were also dissimiliarities in structure and

possibly in purpose. When the sultan pledged in the Giilhane

Rescript to end arbitrary government, the question was how to

implement that and secure justice in the provinces, far away from the supervision of the Porte. In other words, the problem was how to establish a system of checks and balances for the new Ottoman

provincial authorities. This is not the place to analyse the structure of this council. It

is sufficient to note that it was composed partly of senior Ottoman officials of the sanjak, partly of "elected" city notables, and of the

hanafi mufti and the naqib al-ashraf, both of whom were ex-officio members. In addition, there was one representative from each of the non-Muslim communities.47 Taken together, the local members formed a majority in the council. It is significant that according to the regulations, all the local members came from the city itself and none from other towns or from the countryside.

44 On the "Majlis al-Shura," see Y. Hofman, "The Administration of Syria and Palestine Unter the Egyptian Rule (1831-1840)", in Ma'oz (ed.), Studies, pp. 330ff.; Rustum, al-Mahfuzat, II, 358; IV, 262. For the Majlis in Damascus, see Amin Sami, Taqwim al-Nil (Cairo, 1928), II, 401.

45 Mahfuzat, IV, 139. 46 On the Meclis-i Idaret (administrative council), see R. Davison, "The Advent

of the Principle of Representation in the Government of the Ottoman Empire," pp. 93-108 in W. Polk and R. L. Chambers, Beginnings of Modernization in the Middle East (Chicago, 1968) and MaCoz, Ottoman Reform, pp. 89ff.

47 Concerning representatives of the non-Muslim communities in the Council of Jerusalem there were sometimes three: see JSR. no. 324, p. 44 and Finn- Canning, F.O. 195/292 desp. 13, dated 21.8.1850; at other times there were more than three; inJSR. no. 342, p. 57, there were four non-Muslim members. But a document in 1869 carried the signitures of five non-Muslim members out of 12 signatures; BBA. Dahiliye Iradesi , no. 41579, laf. 3, dated 12, R.2 1286; three of these were clerics (ra's ruhani), and two were laymen, one Greek Orthodox and one Latin. Moreover, in 1872 we find even six non-Muslim members of the council. See BBA. Hariciye Iradesi, no. 15389; of these, four were clerics and two laymen.

12




Shortly after the withdrawal of Ibrahim Pasha, such an administrative council was constituted in Jerusalem. The edict of its formation, signed by an army general, Hasan Husni, stated that its members were to be chosen after consultations with the

dignitaries and sharifs (wujuh wa-ashraf) of the city. Its duties were "to supervise the [assessment and allocation of] taxes and to examine civil cases in Jerusalem and its countryside (ru'yat al-amwal

al-miriyya wa-l-dacawa al-ahliyyafi al-Quds wa-qarayaha" (sic!). A certain CAli Muhsin [al-Darwish!] was appointed as nazir of the council and was enjoined to examine with equity all matters brought to the council for consideration.48

In another edict in 1846, signed by the defterdar of the province of Sidon, it was stated that the council of Jerusalem "would con- sider the affairs of the Jerusalem districts and their dependencies Gaza and its subjoined (region) and observe the interests of the

people (Cibad) and miri affairs".49 In other words, the council was invested with wide powers. It was perhaps the first time that the notables of the city were presented with such powers, both vis-a-vis the new Ottoman authorities and over the countryside. This was

equally true of such other towns in the sanjak as Jaffa, Gaza or

Nablus, where such administrative councils were constituted

during this period.50 But the council of Jerusalem enjoyed a position of primacy among them. It was officially a council for the whole sanjak.51 In addition, its members had direct access to the

governor and the central administration of the sanjak. Once the new system was fully implemented, those powers pro-

vided the notables of Jerusalem with a privileged position not only within the district of Jerusalem but among the notables of other towns in the sanjak as well and with much influence throughout the

country.

48 JSR. no. 324, p. 85, dated 7 Safar 1257/[31.3.1841]. The appointment of "nazir" was perhaps a continuation of the Egyptian practice. It does not seem to have been repeated later.

49 JSR. no. 329, p. 92, dated 9 Muharram, 1263/[28.12.846]. 50 For an order to establish an administrative council in Jaffa, see Young-

Ponsonby, F.O. 195/170, desp. 14, dated Jerusalem 28.6.1841. 51 See n. 49 above.

13



B. ABU-MANNEH

5. The New Ottoman Administration and the Notables

We do not know how the new administrative council of

Jerusalem functioned. No records of its deliberations relevant to the

period under discussion here are available, if they ever existed at all. But the interaction between the new Ottoman authorities and the notables in the city appears to have been a central issue during the Tanzimat and should be analysed in order to understand prop- erly the course of the socio-political development of the city during that period.

To start with, notability in Jerusalem at the beginning of our

period was not a function of wealth, landownership or of para- military power, as was the case in a city like Aleppo, for instance, or (to a certain extent) Damascus. In keeping with the character of

Jerusalem, it was of a classical kind, i.e. a notability of service and descent, if we may use these terms.52

In the later Ottoman period, a practice had taken root in

Jerusalem according to which religious or legal functions passed in the same family from father to son or to the nearest kin. The qadi within whose administrative responsibility those functions fell used the following phrase in letters of appointment of new functionaries, saying that the appointee was entitled to the post "particularly [because] it was the function of your father and grandfather".53 In the case of the appointment of shaikh Yasin al-Khalidi as chief

secretary (bashkatib) of the sharci court of Jerusalem in 1864, the qadi emphasized that the office "passed over to him from his father and

grandfather" in accordance with a legal statement (taqrir sharci) in his hands dated 1231 (1816).54 Even though certain public functions, such as mufti or naqib al-ashraf, were renewed annually, they usually remained with the same person or in the same family.

The outcome of this practice was that a limited number of

52 On the question of notables, see A. H. Hourani, "Ottoman Reform and the Politics of Notables" in Polk and Chambers, op. cit., pp. 41-68.

53 See my article "The Husaynis: The Rise of a Notable Family in 18th Cen- tury Palestine" in D. Kushner (ed.), Palestine in the Late Ottoman Period (Jerusalem and Leiden, 1986), pp. 93-108, esp. p. 93; alsoJSR. no. 327, p. 83 concerning the appointment of Najm al-Din al-JammaCi in place of his father as the chief preacher (khatib) of al-Aqsa mosque.

54 JSR. no. 347, p. 198.

14




families monopolised higher legal and religious functions and, in

consequence, acquired status and influence within the city. It is

likely that the Ottoman government in the pre-Tanzimat period was aware of this outcome, perhaps even interested in it. It

appears, moreover, that by observing this practice, the Ottoman authorities helped to diminish the bitter rivalry among Jerusalem families for these posts and to pacify them.

Consequently, in 1841, the returning Ottoman authorities found an oligarchy of families that controlled among themselves the

higher functions in the city. And though those families were

politically divided into two factions, Qais and Yaman-following the split in the countryside-, the social order in the city was

reasonably observed, and the bitter rivalry for functions among these families seems to have subsided or become dormant.

But due to political considerations that shall be referred to below, the Tanzimat authorities tended in some cases to disregard the

practice of preserving offices within the family. The outcome of this deviation from the existing norms in the city was grave. Indeed, it was not differences in outlook toward the Tanzimat reforms which caused the revival of tension among those families at this time. Such differences, if they existed, do not seem to have been serious before the second half of the Tanzimat period and the 1860's in par- ticular. Thus it is believed that the revival of tension among those families in the 1840's and 1850's was the result of government measures taken against certain families, especially against the

Husayni family and some of its allies. The Husaynis were a large family, perhaps the most powerful in

the city. During the two or three preceding generations, they had held three senior offices in the city, namely that of the hanafi mufti, of the naqib al-ashraf (i.e. the doyen of the descendents of the

Prophet), and of shaikh al-haram, the superintendent of the two mos-

ques, the Dome of the Rock and al-Aqsa, by virtue of which they enjoyed much influence over their officials and servants.55

Another important notable family was that of the Khalidis. In the

preceding generations they had held the office of the chief secretary

55 On this, see my article in n. 53, and CA. Mannac, A lam Filastin, pp. 102-3, 113-4; 119-22, 125, 127.

15



B. ABU-MANNEH

(bashkatib) of the sharci court and that of the locum tenens (na ib) of the Ottoman qadi.56 By virtue of these posts they controlled the judicial affairs of the city. But during this phase and until the 1860's they held no other first rank offices.

The CAlamis were also an ancient family in Jerusalem, but while it was a large family, it was, unlike the Husaynis, not a united one. Its members in the 18th century were sufi shaikhs of the shadhili order. Early in that century we find one of them serving as hanafi mufti. Others were teachers and preachers at the al-Aqsa mosque.57 In the 19th century, however, some of them served for a time as custodians of the waqf of the Haramain, namely of Jerusalem and Hebron, and of the Salahi convent. But they actually started to become serious rivals to the Husaynis when Abdullah, son of Wafa', was appointed naqib al-Ashraf for the first time in the 1830's, after the exile of the Husayni naqib.58 Under the new Ottoman authorities, Abdullah Efendi was again appointed to this post and served in it intermittently for many years.59

The Husaynis, who belonged to the Yamani faction, entered the

period at a great disadvantage. During the episode of the Egyptian occupation in the previous decade, shaikh Muhammad Tahir al-

Husayni, hanafi mufti ofJerusalem as of 1809, and his cousin CUmar Efendi, the naqib al-ashraf as of 1800, committed the mistake of sign- ing the fatwa (a formal juristic opinion) issued by the ulama of al- Azhar against the sultan in 1832.60 In spite of that they were exiled

56 On the Khalidis in the 18th century, see Hasan al-Husayni, Tarajim Ahl al- Quds, pp. 290ff. For the 19th century, see Mannac, pp. 144-51; see also N. al- Asad, Muhammad Ruhi al-Khalidi (Cairo, 1970), pp. 25-6 and 36ff.; Scholch, Paldstina im Umbruch, pp. 225ff.

57 On the CAlamis, see Tarajim Ahl al-Quds, pp. 186f. and pp. 250f.; Nimr, Tarikh, I (Damascus, 1938), p. 76 and n. 2.

58 JSR. no. 324, p. 49 dated 1 Jumada I, 1256, andJSR. no. 325, p. 16. It must be added that Sayyid Wafa, Abdullah's father, served in this capacity for a short time in 1810 instead of CUmar al-Husayni. See JSR. no. 293, pp. 98-9.

59 JSR. no. 324, p. 50; JSR. no. 326, p. 210; JSR. no. 327, p. 82; JSR. 328, pp. 45, 179, 340. See also Finn-Clarendon, F.O. 78/1217, desp. 54 (pol.), dated 1 September 1856.

60 See A. Rustum, Mahfuzat, II, 233, doc. 2539. On thisfatwa, see D. Barakat, al-Batal al-Fatih Ibrahim Pasha (Cairo, n.d.), pp. 26-7; see also CAli al-Wardi, Lamahat min Tarikh al-'lraq al-Hadith, vol. II (Baghdad, 1971), pp. 28f.; and Rustum, op. cit., II, 183 and 184, docs. nos. 2280 and 2289. Cf. ibid., I, 179 and 202.

16




to Egypt by Muhammad 'Ali following the disturbances in Palestine in 1834. After their release two years later, shaikh Tahir tended toward cooperation with the Egyptian authorities, as did the Abu Ghosh family.61 As mentioned, he was after his return

appointed nazir of the consultative council, which was established

by Ibrahim Pasha in Jerusalem.62 All this shows a good deal of bad

judgement on the part of shaikh Tahir.63 In spite of his services to the Egyptian authorities, however,

Muhammad Ali Pasha seems to have been unable to protect him after the withdrawal of Ibrahim. Soon after the restoration of the Ottoman government, shaikh Tahir was banished to Istanbul and "was barred from returning to Jerusalem".64 He remained in the Ottoman capital for over 25 years and died there in 1282 (1865- 6),65 a matter which caused much indignation among the Husayni family.

It was perhaps a sign of the deep-rooted power of the Husaynis in Jerusalem and of the strength of their connections in Istanbul that the post of mufti remained in the family and that Tahir's eldest

son, Mustafa, was appointed deputy (wakil) for his father.66 More than that, they even regained the post of naqib al-ashraf, perhaps as a result of the intercession of Giircii Necib Pasha (Nejib Pasha the

Georgian), a friend of the family who served for a short while at this

juncture as vali (governor general) of Damascus.67 Indeed, the post of naqib had been held by the Husaynis for at least four successive

generations. CUmar ibn Abd al-Salam held it from 1800 almost

61 As is known, Jabir Abu Ghosh was appointed governor of Jerusalem by Ibrahim in 1834-5. See Rustum, Mahfu,zat, III, 4; M. Dabbagh, Biladunafilastin, VIII, 2 (Beirut, 1974), pp. 115-7.

62 Mahfuzat, IV, 129, doc. 5915. 63 H. Bahri, a senior aid to Ibrahim Pasha, reported that at a meeting held at

the tent of Emir Bashir II in 1832, shaikh Tahir "read the hadith: laCnatu allahi Cala al-sultan al-dacif' (God's curse upon the weak sultan), meaning Mahmud II (Mahfu.zat, I, 724).

64 JSR. no. 326, p. 63 dated 8 zilkicda, 1258/[August 1842]: "he has residea in Istanbul for two years."

65 JSR. no. 353, p. 140, dated 1283/[1866] and Sicill-i Osmdni (hereafter SO.), III, 249.

66 JSr. no. 324, p. 74 and p. 78, dated Muharram 1257/[Feb. 1841]. 67 JSR. no. 324, p. 90, dated Muharram 1257/[Feb. 1841];JSR. no. 326, p.

9, dated Jumada I, 1258/[June 1842].

17



B. ABU-MANNEH

until the time he was exiled by Muhammad CAli to Egypt (1834). He was so much identified with it that his descendents began carry- ing the family name of al-Naqib, with or without the surname of Husayni. In 1841, the incumbent naqib, Abdullah al-CAlami, was dismissed, and Muhammad CAli, the eldest son of CUmar, was appointed as naqib, as has been mentioned, at the intercession of Nejib Pasha. Thus, despite the expatriation of Tahir, the Husaynis held the three posts in Jerusalem that they had traditionally held. But it did not last long. Nejib Pasha was transferred to Baghdad, and Jerusalem was separated from Damascus and appended to Sidon. In June 1842 the mitesarrifTayyar Pasha dismissed Muham- mad CAli from the Niqaba and reappointed Abdullah al-CAlami instead.68 Then in August, Mustafa, the mufti's deputy, was dismissed and the aged Abdulrahman al-Jammaci, the head preacher of the al-Aqsa mosque, was appointed hanafi mufti.69 For no reason known to us, Tayyar then challenged the power of the Husaynis and other notables in a way that recalls the acts of Muhammad CAli Pasha in 1834. He exiled four leading notables to Cyprus, among them the elderly CUmar Efendi.70

At one blow the Husaynis lost their leading position in the city. Though Mustafa was restored four years later to the post of mufti, the power of the family was shaken. They would, however, soon recoup their position, as we shall see.

The post of naqib al-ashrafwas among the senior posts in the city, the naqib enjoying certain prerogatives of a social and legal nature over the descendents of the Prophet.71 Since we know that many of

68 JSR. no. 326, p. 9, dated 1 Jumada I, 1257/[10.6.1842]. 69 JSR. no. 326, p. 63, dated 24Jumada II, 1258/[3.8.1842];JSR. no. 327, p.

174, dated 21 Jumada I, 1260/[8.6.1844];JSR. no. 329, p. 9, dated 13 RabiCI, 1262/[11.3.1846].

70 They were "CAli Efendi (?), CUmar Efendi [al-Husayni] Muhammad CAli the bashkatib [al-Khalidi] and Muhammad Darwish". We do not have a reference for the time of their exile, but as Tayyar Pasha was removed in September 1842, it must have taken place before that. They were released by the vali of Sidon in July 1843. See JSR. no. 326, p. 226 dated Rajab 1259. The vali warned them that "each one should busy himself in his own affairs and not interfere in the affairs of the sanjak at all" (ibid.).

71 See my article "The Husaynis ...," in n. 53, pp. 96-7, and documents 1, 2 and 3; see also Gibb and Bowen, Islamic Society and the West, II (London, 1957), p. 93.

18




the leading families in the city claimed sharifian descent, we can

imagine what a powerful position he normally enjoyed, and why the post was much coveted by the notables. Moreover, the naqib al-

ashraf was an ex-officio member of the administrative council, which enhanced his position in the city and the sanjak.

Thus, when Abdullah Wafa' al-CAlami was reappointed naqib in 1842 instead of Muhammad 'Ali al-Husayni, it was a change of considerable importance and a sign of the rising fortunes of the CAlami family. What helped Abdullah in this venture was his uncle Yusuf, who was residing at that time in the Ottoman capital, close

enough to ?eyh-iil-Islam Mekki-Zade Mustafa CAsim Efendi to have been able to protect his nephew at the higher echelons of the Ottoman government.72

The policy of the Ottoman authorities of undermining the power of one family and trying to promote others revived the old tensions

among the notable families, and rivalry and intrigue raged again in Jerusalem-reminding us of the situation in the early years of the

century.73 This renewed conflict manifested itself in the affair of the French flag, an event used by those notables to humiliate each other.

On the second day after the arrival in Jerusalem of the newly appointed French consul (20 July 1843), Reshid Pasha, the gover- nor, paid him an official congratulatory visit. The consul, Count de Lantivy, used that occasion to hoist the French flag on top of his

temporary residence, declaring to Reshid Pasha that he was doing so as a token of honour to him.74 It was the first time the flag of a foreign country had been hoisted in Jerusalem by a consular or any other representative. The British consulate, which had opened five years earlier, had not hoisted the British flag until then: "There was no precedent for it either in Cairo, Aleppo or Damas- cus", stated the British consul.75

72 On Yusuf al-CAlami, see SO. IV, 674 and A. Lutfi, Tarih IX, 85, ed. M. Aktepe (Istanbul, 1984); see also Heurs et malheurs des Consuls de France a Jerusalem ... II (Jerusalem, 1948), p. 36.

73 See p. 99 of my article "The Husaynis ..." in n. 53 above. 74 Heurs et malheurs, pp. 33ff.; see also the letter of Abdullah al-'Alami in n. 76

below. 75 Young-Rose, F. 0. 195/221, desp. 29 (confidential), dated 29.7.1843; see

also J. Finn, Stirring Times, II, 31.

19



B. ABU-MANNEH

According to a letter written by Abdullah al-CAlami-the

naqib-and addressed to his uncle in Istanbul,76 no sooner did the

governor return to the Saray, than five notables whose names he

gives,77 went to see him to protest against the consul's act. Reshid Pasha told them that he himself was displeased by it, but he did not convene the council to discuss the matter with its members. Instead he decided along with the five protesters to send a presentation to the Governor General in Beirut (on 22 July) and ask him what to do because "the whole population had risen against the act" of the French consul. When the answer of the Governor General came to

say that he in his turn had turned the matter over to the Porte, the five lost patience and decided to arouse the public. The Governor, Reshid Pasha, did not object, and thus on the 29th of July, the consul was invited to the sharci court, apparently to discuss the matter with the qadi and the mitesarrif (governor). That afternoon, a dem- onstration took place opposite the consul's temporary residence.

According to the naqib's letter, Faidi al-CAlami, one of the five and a distant cousin of his, went up to the roof with a lieutenant colonel, tore down the flag, threw it to the demonstrators below, and broke the mast.78

What brought Abdullah al-'Alami to write this letter was that

somebody tried to implicate him and 'Ali al-Khalidi, who had until

recently been the bashkatib, in the tumult; they thus reacted by writing first to the consul, giving the names of the five; then the

naqib wrote to his uncle, explaining what had taken place and

strangely enough asking him to have the letter read to the French Ambassador, "so that he would distinguish their friends from their enemies".79

76 A copy of the letter is enclosed in desp. no. 15 of de Lantivy to the French Ambassador, dated 28.8.1843. See (Ministere des Affaires Etrangeres) Archives Diplomatiques - Nantes, cote 896 (Jerusalem); see also desp. 13, dated Jerusalem 13.8.1843 in ibid. and enclosure of an original letter signed by Abdullah al-'Alami and CAli al-Khalidi addressed to the French Consul.

77 They were Muhammad CAli al-Husayni, Khalil al-CAfifi, Faidi al-CAlami, Ahmad al-Dizdar and Tahir al-Khalidi; see also Lantivy-Ambassador, desp. 13, dated 13.8.1843, and desp. 15, dated 28.8.1843 in Archives Diplomatiques -

Nantes, cote 896; Heurs et malheurs, p. 37. 78 Young in his desp. in n. 75 above stated that he was eyewitness to what had

taken place. His dispatch generally agrees with the naqib's letter. 79 See a note appended to the above letter of the naqib in n. 76.

20




What followed afterwards was that the Governor, Reshid Pasha, tried to protect the five, declaring them to be "perfectly innocent of the charges laid against them".80 In the meantime, the French Ambassador put pressure on the Porte to dismiss the Governor and punish the culprits. To prevent this, Reshid claimed that if the five were punished, riots would take place in town and there would be a "disturbance of shaikhs in the countryside".81 However, it was not the five that were punished first but the naqib Abdullah al- CAlami and the ex-bashkatib CAli al-Khalidi. They were invited on a pretext by Ascad Pasha, the vali of Sidon, and then imprisoned in Acre (November 1843).82

At about the same time Reshid was recalled, the new Governor, Haider Pasha, who reached Jerusalem on the 20th of December, brought with him orders to banish the five. According to the British consul, they came the next day to congratulate him on his arrival "when without any delay or ceremony or further communication with their families, they were apprehended on the spot and placed in charge of a strong guard of soldiers and hurried out of the city in the middest of the most tempestious weather' .83 They were sent to Beirut and stayed away from Jerusalem for many months.84 A few weeks afterwards, Abdullah returned via Beirut on board the French warship "L'Alcibiad". He landed at Jaffa to a salute of five guns and was accompanied to Jerusalem by his friends and partisans in addition to the French agent at Jaffa.85

The whole episode was an example of the intense tension that developed in Jerusalem among the notable families during this phase. However, the disturbances which Reshid Pasha predicted dit not take place immediately. Only after the last of the five was

80 Young-Canning, F. 0. 195/210, desp. 17, dated Jerusalem 28.10.1843. 81 De Lantivy-Ambassador, desps. 27 and 28, Jerusalem 3 and 6.10.1843, in

Archives Diplomatiques - Nantes, cote 896. 82 De Lantivy-Ambassador, desps. 36 and 38, dated 20.11.1843 and

16.12.1843, and Heurs et malheurs ..., p. 36. 83 Young-Canning, F. 0. 195/210, desp. 20, dated Jerusalem 21.12.1843 and de Lantivy, desp. 39, dated 20.12.1843.

84 The last two to return were CAlami and CAfifi in summer 1844; see de Lan- tivy, desp. 77, dated 9.7.1844.

85 De Lantivy to the Ambassador, desp. 43 Jerusalem 15.1.1844; see also Young-Canning, F. 0. 195/210 desp. 11, dated 11.3.1844 (fol. 200); Heurs et malheurs, p. 36.

21



B. ABU-MANNEH

allowed to return did hostilities break out in the countryside. They were initiated by Abu Ghosh against Ibn Simhan, the leader of the

Qaisi faction, ostensibly because of villages that were the subject of

dispute between them,86 as we shall see in section 6. Before going any further we should try to define who it was that

made up these factions within the city. Our sources are not clear

enough about who supported whom, but we can perhaps point to the hard core of each of these factions.

The Yamani faction was led within the city by the Husayni family, and after the early 1840's by Muhammad CAli, who, as

mentioned, was dismissed as naqib al-ashrafin favour of Abdullah al- CAlami and who was one of the five who organized the demonstra- tion against the hoisting of the French flag. The Husaynis were

joined by the Darwish family, which ran the Khasseki Sultan or al-

Takkiyya (convent), a hostel established in the 16th century to accomodate pilgrims and other visitors to Jerusalem and to provide free meals for the needy.87 This was an influential position because

through it much help was distributed among low-paid religious functionaries in the city.88 The friendship between the Husayni and Darwish families, which went back to the previous generation, was

strengthened by the marriage of Muhammad Darwish, first to the sister then to the daughter of Mustafa, the mufti;89 his son, also called Mustafa, was then married to the granddaughter of the same

mufti.90 Faidi al-CAlami, one of the five mentioned above, seems to have

allied himself with this faction. Faidi was later to become a member of the administrative council,91 thus preserving the fortunes of this branch of the CAlami family and keeping it among the front line of notables in the following generations.

86 See below, p. 000. 87 JSR. no. 324, p. 42, no. 327, p. 63 and no. 340, p. 174. On Khasseki Sultan,

see Oded Peri, "The Waqf as [an] Instrument to Increase and Consolidate Political Power: The Case of Khasseki Sultan Waqf in Late 18th Century Ottoman Jerusalem" in AAS XVII (1983), pp. 48f. 88 JSR. no. 324 for many entries concerning such help. 89 JSR. no. 339, p. 42 and no. 353, p. 142. 90 Oral tradition and CA. Mannac, p. 178.

91 JSR. no. 329, p. 92, dated 9 Muharram 1263/[28.12.1846].

22




But perhaps the most important ally of the Husaynis in the city at this time, though little known, was Sulaiman al-Nashashibi, a newcomer among the senior notables in the city who reached the

upper echelons of society not through religious or public service but

through wealth. A very wealthy merchant in Jerusalem, he married at about this time a niece of Muhammad CAli al-Husayni92 and in the 1850's became a member of the administrative council.93

Sulaiman might have become better known had he lived longer. In 1858 while on a pilgrimage to Mecca, he died at an early age, before any son of his by his Husayni wife had reached maturity.94 However, it is perhaps worth noting here that it was through this marital connection that Sulaiman laid the foundations for the

political fortunes of the family afterwards. It was first his son Rashid by his Husayni wife and then his grandson Raghib (son of

Rashid) and later his great-grandson Fakhri who were to challenge the Husayni dominance in the city and the country that had existed since early in this century.95

The importance of Sulaiman to the Husayni faction was of a different kind. He seems to have been very close to Mustafa Abu Ghosh, the leader of the Yamani faction in the countryside, to whom he had given his sister in marriage (1846).96 He was also his creditor. At his death shaikh Mustafa owed him a large sum of

money.97 This relationship strengthened the alliance of Hajj Mustafa with the Husayni faction and made of him the mainstay of the policy of this faction in the countryside.

These men were perhaps the core members of this faction. There

may have been others upon whom they could have counted when

necessary, but even as such they were quite strong and could with- stand the pressure of the authorities.

92 JSR. no. 342, pp. 162ff. 93 JSR. no. 339, p. 7; Manna', pp. 350-1. 94 JSR. no. 342, p. 166. 95 For a short biography of Rashid al-Nashashibi, see Mannac, p. 349; Fakhri

was a grandson of Muhammad, an older son of Sulaiman from a wife of the Qutb family. See also M. Z. Ormandag (ed.), Who is Who in the Balkans and the Orient, vol. IV, Palestine 1934-1935 (erusalem, n.d.), pp. 47-9.

96 JSR. no. 328, dated awakhir Muharram 1262/[January 1846]. 97 JSR. no. 342, p. 162.

23



B. ABU-MANNEH

On the opposite side there stood the CAlami naqib backed apparently by SaCid al-Mustafa, the contractor of the revenue of the sanjak, a wealthy man but rather a stranger to the city.98 He died suddenly, however, in 1844.99 His son, Mustafa al-SaCid, served in various functions as Kehya of the governor in 1843/4 and later as Kaimmakam of Gaza or of Jaffa.100 Because of this official service, he could not be openly active in the faction.

The other partner was CAli al-Khalidi, who was, until shortly before this time, the chief secretary of the sharci court. For some reason he was dismissed from this post in favour of his brother Tahir, one of the five notables mentioned above. CAli signed the letter to the consul along with Abdullah al-CAlami, the naqib. Conse- quently he was exiled together with CAlami, and though the latter managed to return to his post without much delay, CAli Efendi was kept in exile much longer at the order of AsCad Pasha, the Governor General of the Province. However, we find him in 1845 as qadi of Nablus. 0'

In the countryside this faction was supported by the leaders of the Qais, the Ibn Simhan family in the nahiye of Bani Harith, and Abdulrahman al-CAmr in the nahiye of Hebron. In the early 1850's, Uthman al-Lahham of CArqub joined this faction too. These shaikhly families were, however, weakened by internal family strife, as we shall see.

Other notable families seem to have remained neutral in the face of these factions. One of these was the Abu al-SuCud family. The Abu al-SuCuds were sufi shaikhs who belonged to the Qadiri and Khalwati orders in the city.102 During the period of Ibrahim Pasha,

98 On Sacid al-Mustafa see Nimr, I (Damascus, 1938), pp. 98 and 132 and on his farming of the revenues, see Young-Canning, F. 0. 195/210, desp. 2, Jerusalem, 22.8.1842; see also Manna3, pp. 202-4. He seems to have come originally from the vicinity of Jenin, settled in Jaffa and served Abdullah Pasha of Acre before the Egyptian invasion; see al-CArif, al-Mufassal, pp. 275-6.

99 Young-Canning, F. 0. 195/210 desp. 3, Jerusalem 23.1.1844. 100 De Lantivy to the French Embassy, desp. 39, dated Jerusalem 20.12.1843;

Young-Canning, F. 0. 195/210, desp. 3 Jerusalem 23.1.1844; Finn-Canning, F. 0. 195/292, desp. 20, dated 22.5.1849; Mannac, pp. 205f.; Nimr, I, 303. 101 JSR. no. 328, p. 1 dated Jumada II, 1261.

102 JSR. no. 324, p. 415 and no. 348, p. 18; Hasan al-Husayni, Tarajim, pp. 297ff., and Mannac, pp. 20f.; H. Ayvansaryl, Hadiqat-iil Cevamic (Istanbul, A.H. 1281), I, 250.

24




'Uthman Abu al-SuCud served as a member of the consultative council (majlis al-shura).'03 We find him again as a member of the administrative council after the Ottoman restoration and for most of the 1840's.104 At the same time we find him as custodian

(mutawalli) of the waqf of the Dome of the Rock and of the Mosque of al-Khalil in Hebron,105 but only for a short time. However, there is some indication that his brother Muhammad was appointed as shaikh al-Haram in place of CUmar al-Husayni, at least for a time, in the 1840's.106

In spite of these favours, CUthman Abu al-Sucud seems to have remained neutral toward the two contesting factions. Either he was

incapable of or unwilling to oppose the Husaynis. When he did not

prove the man whom the authorities were looking for, they, it seems, turned to the Khalidi family.

After the affair of the French flag, the Porte found it proper to send Mustafa Hamid, son of Musa al-Khalidi, a former chief secretary of the sharci court, to be qadi of Jerusalem in 1844. When early in the century a conflict developed between shaikh Musa and the Husaynis, he left for Istanbul and served Sultan Mahmud II.107 Never returning to Jerusalem, his son Mustafa grew up and studied in the madrasas of Istanbul,108 as such and for all practical purposes, he was ottomanized. However, his appointment as qadi of Jerusalem at this time may have boosted the Khalidi fortunes in the city and the sanjak.

One of his first acts was to restore Muhammad ibn CAli al- Khalidi to the post of chief secretary and to make him his na'ib (locum tenens).109 By far the most capable among his brothers and cousins, Muhammad ibn CAli was exiled by Ibrahim Pasha in

103 Mahfuzat, IV, 262. 104 JSR. no. 324, p. 44; no. 325, p. 188; no. 329, p. 92. 105 JSR. no. 325, p. 70 and JSR. no. 327, p. 172. 106 Finn-Cowley, F. 0. 195/292, desp. 2, dated 5.1.1848. Finn calls him "the

chief of the Haram." 107 See my article "The Husayini ..." in Kushner (n. 53 above), p. 99. On

Musa al-Khalidi, see also Ahmad Taimur, AClam al-fikr al-Islamifi al- Asr al-Hadith (Cairo, 1967), pp. 224-5; JSR. no. 297, p. 149, and ;anizade, Tarih, II, 221-2.

108 On Mustafa Hamid (al-Khalidi), see SO. II, 107-8, Taimur, pp. 234-5, and Mannac, pp. 147f. 109 JSR. no. 328, pp. 1 and 237, Manna', pp. 145f.

25



B. ABU-MANNEH

1834110 and again by Tayyar Pasha in 1842.11 He was then

appointed qadi of Erzurum in Anatolia before returning to

Jerusalem. He remained chief secretary for the next two decades."2

Moreover, Mustafa Hamid appointed other brothers of Muham- mad CAli as na)ibs in other towns of the sanjak. Thus, CAli was

appointed as na'ib of Nablus,"3 Sulaiman as na'ib of Jaffa,"4 and Ibrahim as na'ib of Lydda."5 But Mustafa Hamid died within a

year of his arrival in Jerusalem, and we do not know for how long the Khalidi brothers served in these capacities. At any rate, it is not certain whether the Khalidis were ready at this stage for a leading political role in the city.

It would appear that the struggle for power and influence in the

city in the first two decades of our period was confined to the

Husaynis and their allies on the one hand and to the naqib Abdullah al-'Alami and his supporters on the other. Indeed, the Husayni faction was more powerful, and until the late 1850's, few governors felt powerful enough to stand up against it. These governors were

Tayyar (1841-2), Haider (end of 1843-4) and Mehmed Kibrisli (December 1845-January 1847). But the latter's successor, Mustafa Zarif (1847-8), showed favour towards this faction.

The Husayni faction reached the peak of its power between 1851 and 1854 under Hafiz and Yacqub Pashas, two old and feeble

governors. The first having been very ill "was carried down in a

palanquin to Jaffa on his way to Constantinople" 116 and the second died of old age in the city.117 It was an opportunity for the Husayni faction to enhance its power in the countryside and to try to

dislodge Qaisi shaikhs from their domains. But Siireyya Pasha, the

governor of the sanjak in the late 1850's, put an end to all this, as we shall see in the following section.

10 Spyridon in Journal of the Palestine Oriental Society XVIII (1938), p. 120. 1 JSR. no. 326, p. 226.

112 JSR. no. 347, p. 198. 113 JSR. no. 328, p. 1. 114 Ibid.; Mannac, p. 142. 115 JSR. no. 328, p. 1. 116 See Finn, Stirring Times, I, 395; according to SO., Hafiz Pasha died in

Jerusalem, which is an error (see II, 99). He seems, however, to have died on the way back.

117 SO. IV, 650-51.

26




6. Nahiye Shaikhs and the New Ottoman Authorities

After the restoration in 1841, the Ottoman authorities did not

attempt to change the existing socio-political order. Nahiye shaikhs were left in their places. The only change that took place was in the title, namely from shaikh to nazir.

From the beginning, however, the Ottoman authorities enjoyed the support of the Qaisi faction, especially the Ibn Simhan family in Jabal al-Quds and shaikh Abdulrahman al-CAmr in Hebron. Because these families suffered at the hands of Ibrahim Pasha, they declared their support for the Ottomans the moment the Egyptian Pasha started his withdrawal.118 They were consequently rewarded

by the Ottomans. Abdulrahman was appointed governor of Hebron as well as over the domain of his father, i.e. shaikh of the nahiye of Jabal al-Khalil.19 The Ibn Simhans held their nahiye of Bani Harith and received in addition Ramallah and Bireh.l20 At the same time, two sons of the family were appointed to be the governors of Ramleh and Lydda, respectively.'21

In spite of the fact that the Abu Ghosh family had cooperated with Ibrahim Pasha, the Ottoman authorities confirmed them in their function as shaikhs of the nahiye of Bani Malik and wardens of the road that leads to Jerusalem from Bab al-Wad (Wadi CAli). 122 But following the favours of the Ottomans to the Ibn Simhans, the Abu Ghosh family found itself surrounded by them, their tradi- tional enemies, from the north, northeast, and the west. Conse-

quently, they waited for an opportunity to hit back at the Simhans. Before long, this opportunity presented itself from two directions.

118 After the revolt in Palestine in 1834, Ibrahim Pasha put to death shaikh Ismail al-Simhan, the head of this family, and shaikh CIsa al-'Amr the father of 'Abd al-Rahman. See Macalister and Mastermann, "Occasional Papers ..." in PEFQS (1905), pt. II, 354, and (1906) pt. III, 39. 119 M. M. Dabbagh, Biladuna Filastin, V, 2 (Beirut, 1972), pp. 126, 198; Macalister and Mastermann, "Occasional Papers ...,"II, 352; Scholch, Paldstina im Umbruch, p. 176; Finn, Stirring Times, I, 237, and MaCoz, Ottoman Reform, p. 119.

120 See n. 21 above and JSR. no. 324, p. 43. 121 Finn, Stirring Times, I, pp. 232f. 122 Finn, op. cit., p. 232; Scholch, Palistina im Umbruch, pp. 214ff.; see alsoJSR.

no. 327, p. 143, and p. 169;JSR. no. 328, p. 69. I owe special thanks to dr. Subhi Abu Ghosh for his kind help in obtaining oral information about his family.

27



B. ABU-MANNEH

First, from some quarters in the city to whose faction Mustafa Abu Ghosh belonged, and secondly, following feuds in the Simhan

family, out of which internal strife among the members emerged.123 When Abdullatif found himself threatened by his more powerful cousin, Husayn, he allied himself with Mustafa Abu Ghosh.'24

In the summer of 1844, when hostilities broke out between the two shaikhs, Abu Ghosh and Husayn ibn Simhan, Young, the British Consul, was certain that it was "fomented by parties who desire to exaggerate and complicate the difficulties of the Turkish authorities".125 Ramallah, which belonged to Husayn, was seized

by Abu Ghosh along with four villages of the nahiye of Bani Salem, the shaikh of which was an ally of Husayn.126 Husayn seems to have asked shaikh Rabbah al-Wuhaidi, a beduin of the Gaza region, for

help. For his part, Abu Ghosh seems to have asked Muhammad al-

Jarrar and Sadiq al-Rayyan of the Yamani faction in the district of Nablus to attack the Qaisi nahiye of Bani Zaid, the nearest to this district, which it seems they did.'27 Following this development, the

miitesarrif, Haider Pasha, sent to the scene his Kehya Mustafa al- Sacid with a small force armed with cannons.l28 Upon hearing that, Abu Ghosh "quickly withdrew from Ramallah to his own town-

Qaryat al-CInab".129 A little later there were rumours in Jerusalem that Mustafa Abu

Ghosh had held a meeting of shaikhs in Bethlehem and called upon them to take sides with him against the government. Moreover, he threatened to assault Jerusalem "in order to avenge himself on ...

123 Macalister and Mastermann, "Occasional Papers ...," II, 41. 124 Ibid. 125 Young-Canning, Memorandum, F. 0. 195/210 dated 19.7.-3.8.1844. 126 Macalister and Mastermann, "Occasional Papers ...," III, 44; Young-

Canning, F. 0. 195/210, memorandum dated 6th-31th August. 127 Ibid., pp. 41-44; see also BBA. Mesail Miihimme-i Kidiis, no. 2353, lef. 3,

dated 4 Rejeb 1260/+ [20.7.1844]. 128 Macalister and Mastermann, "Occasional Papers ...," III, 44. This must

have happened in 1844 and not in 1846 as the author stated because after describ- ing these events he added "after this a new governor was sent to Jerusalem ... named M. Kubrusli"; ibid., III, 46. We know that this governor arrived in Jerusalem late in 1845 (seeJSR. no. 328, p. 139). In Young's memorandum of 6th August (see n. 124 above), there is a reference to a mission sent to the scene of hostilities from Jerusalem.

129 Macalister and Mastermann, "Occasional Papers ...," III, 44.

28




whom he is pleased to designate as obnoxious persons".i30 Had such an act taken place, a considerable party within the city would have sided with him.'31 But nothing came of it except the killing of the two Simhan brothers, the governors of Lydda and Ramleh.

They were on their way to Jerusalem in disguise when discovered and killed not far from the residence of Abu Ghosh.132 Mustafa Abu Ghosh was accused, but he denied the charge.

In the fall of 1844, the conflict in Jabal al-Quds district between the Abu Gosh and Ibn Simhan seems to have subsided when a new conflict emerged in Jabal al-Khalil (the district of Hebron). Shaikh Abdulrahman al-'Amr, the leading southern Qaisi shaikh, was forced to flee Hebron, his seat of government. Muhammad, one of his younger brothers, revolted against him, accusing him of

"tyranny and general misrule".133 It is difficult to ascertain the truth of this accusation since we know that there was a feud among the CAmr brothers over the patrimonial possessions.'34 Accusing Abdulrahman of appropriating most of it to himself, his brothers succeeded in turning a faction of the peasantry to their side. Thus helped by peasants, part of the people of Hebron, and some Tarabin beduins, Muhammad succeeded in forcing his brother out of town. The governor of Jerusalem, who sent four hundred

irregular cavalry and two field pieces, failed in the attempt to restore him. 35

Due perhaps to these disturbances in the sanjak, the Porte decided to appoint a strong governor in Jerusalem. Mehmed Kibrsli was dispatched with the assignment of restoring order in the sanjak. He was a vigorous man who combined both civil and military train-

ing.'36 Assembling in Jerusalem more than 3500 troops, regulars

130 Young-Aberdeen, F. O. 195/210, desp. 37, dated 23.10.1844. 131 Ibid. 132 Young-Rose, F. 0. 195/210, desp. 31, datedJerusalem 16.10.1844; see also

de Barrire to the French Embassy in Istanbul, desp. 2, dated 29.12.1844 cote 896, Archives Diplomatiques, Nantes. According to this evidence, the action occurred in 1844 and not in 1843, as Finn mistakenly stated; Finn, Stirring Times, I, 232.

133 Finn-Canning, F. O. 195/210, desp. 3, Jerusalem 30.5.1846. 134 Finn-Palmerstone, F. O. 195/292, desp. 20, Jerusalem 27.9.1850. 135 Newbott-Canning, F. 0. 195/210, desp. 1, Jerusalem, 19.11.1845 and

Finn-Same, F. 0. 195/210 desp. 3, dated 30.5.1846. 136 On Kibnslh, see M. K. Inal, Son Sadrzazamlar (Istanbul, 1940), pp. 83ff. and

SO. IV, 300f.

29



B. ABU-MANNEH

and irregulars, among whom was Husayn ibn Simhan, the Qaisi shaikh of Jabal al-Quds district,'37 Klbrlsli marched on 15 May 1846 against Hebron. "The object of the expedition was to restore the shaikh Abdulrahman ..." to the seat of government in the town, reported Finn.'38 As we have seen, the shaikh was a sup- porter of Ottoman rule, and the Ottoman government gave him its

backing for a few more years, at least. Hebron was relatively well defended by townsmen, peasants and by beduins of the Tarabin tribe. But after a three-hour battle, it was occupied, and government authority was restored to the region.

After that, Klbrlsl proceeded to Beit Jibrin where he suppressed all dissatisfaction in the region and carried the leading shaikhs with him; 139 he then encamped at Ramleh. At this camp were Mustafa Abu Ghosh and Muhammad 'Ali al-Husayni, the two leaders of the Yamani faction. Suddenly he ordered their seizure and sent them to exile along with Muslih al-'Azzeh, the shaikh of Beit Jibrin, and M. Abd al-Nabi al-CAmleh, the shaikh of Beit CUla.140 The exile of

Husayni was perhaps a sign of the suspicion of the authorities that he had had a hand in the disturbances that had taken place in the

sanjak during recent years. That Kbnrsli was of such an opinion could perhaps be inferred from a proclamation which he sent to

Jerusalem after the act of exile mentioned above. In this proclamation he stated that "those who are loyal, the exalted state rewards them with honours continuously and makes them happy. But those who deviate from the straight path ... suffer punishment such as

reprimand, imprisonment or exile .... "The wise man, he added, follows what brings him comfort and avoids what brings him

punishment. It was necessary to issue this proclamation, he con- cluded, "as a warning to the high and the low that everyone should

busy himself in his affairs and [care for] the livelihood of his family ... and avoid all intrigue and idle talk".141

137 Macalister and Mastermann, "Occasional Papers ...," II, 46. 138

Finn-Canning, F. 0. 195/210, desp. 3, Jerusalem 30.5.1846; see also M. M. al-Dabbagh, Biladuna Filastin, vol. 5,2 (Beirut, 1972), p. 198.

139 Finn-Canning, F. 0. 195/210, desp. 5, Jerusalem 27.8.1846.

140 Ibid. it is interesting to note that in his book (Stirring Times, I, 228) Finn erroneously put Abdulrahman al-CAmr among the four exiled instead of M. CAli al-Husayni, contrary to the dispatches of the preceding two notes. See also Jorelle to the French Embassy, desp. 16 and 17, dated 16.8. and 15.9.1846, Archives diplomatiques, cote 897.

141 JSR. no. 328, p. 51, dated [Sept. 1846].

30




Whether Klbrlsll succeeded in intimidating the notables by such threats is perhaps doubtful. However, before he left the sanjak about two months later he appointed a new administrative council which, strangely enough, included among its members three of the five notables exiled after the affair of the French flag, namely Tahir al- Khalidi, Faidi al-CAlami, and Khalil al-CAfifi.l42 The two other

appointed members, CUthman Abu-SuCud and Najm al-Din al-

JammaCi, were not known to belong to any of the competing factions. Thus the only member that represented the other faction was the naqib, Abdullah al-CAlami, an ex-officio member. It was

perhaps an attempt to establish balance. While striking at the Yamani faction in the countryside, the new council gave power to its partisans in the city.

Mustafa Zarif Pasha replaced Mehmed Kibrlsll as governor of the sanjak.143 During his tenure he seems to have shown favour to the Husaynis. He brought back with him Muhammad CAli al-

Husayni, who had been exiled about eight months earlier. In early May 1847, M. CAli was made naqib al-ashraf in place of Abdullah al-Alami.l44 His appointment, a year after Mustafa, son of Tahir, was restored to the post of mufti, 145 represents a comeback of the

Husaynis and a strengthening of their faction. This change of fortunes was due perhaps to the rise of Seyyid Ahmet CArif Hikmet

Bey to the post of Seyhiil-Islam in Istanbul.'46 Ahmet CArif Hikmet

Bey, who claimed to be of sharifian descent,'47 served in his youth as qadi of Jerusalem in the year 1231/1816.148 During that year a

friendship was forged between him and shaikh Tahir al-Husayni, who was the then hanafi mufti of Jerusalem and of about the same

142 JSR. no. 329, p. 92, dated 9 Muharram 1263/[28.12.1846]. 143 On Mustafa Zarif, see SO. III, 262. 144 JSR. no. 330, p. 11; Finn-Palmerstone, F. 0. 195/210, desp. 21,Jerusalem

26.5.1847. 145 JSR. no. 329, p. 9, dated 13 Rabi) I, 1262/[11.3.1846]. This appointment

took place in the last days of ,eyh-iil-Islam Mekki-zade Mustafa CAslm Efendi. 146 On Seyyid Ahmet CArif Hikmet Bey, see Ahmet Rifrat (Topal), Devhat iil-

Mesayih (Istanbul, n.d.), pp. 129-31; SO. III, 274f.; M. K. Inal, Son Asir Turk 5airleri (Istanbul, 1930) I, 620.

147 E. J. W. Gibb, A History of Ottoman Poetry (London, 1905), IV, 351. 148 Gibb, ibid., says (p. 350) that he was a "titular" molla of Jerusalem but

according to his Turkish biographers he actually served there. See also M. A. Ziver (ed.), Divan Arif Hikmet Bey Efendi (Istanbul, 1283/1866-7) pp. 21 and 68, where Arif Hikmet refers to his being in Jerusalem.

31



B. ABU-MANNEH

age. The forced residence of shaikh Tahir in Istanbul after 1841149

may have helped to bring these two men closer together. CArif Hikmet Bey, who wrote poetry in Turkish as well as in Arabic, referred to shaikh Tahir as his "dear friend" and praised him in two different places in his Divan.'50 According to one piece of

evidence, when 'Arif Hikmet Bey died in 1859, shaikh Tahir was at his bedside,'15 a sign of the strength of their friendship. Thus we assume that throughout the period during which he served in the

post of seyh-ul-Islam (1846-1854), CArif Hikmet Bey was beneficial to the Husaynis and provided them with much needed support and

protection at the Porte. Zarif Pasha's tenure in Jerusalem did not last for more than a

year. During this time, however, he dismissed shaikh Abdulrahman from his post as governor of Hebron for no apparent reason and appointed in his place Rasul Agha, a commander of

irregulars. But Abdulrahman assembled his supporters from

among the fellahin and attacked the town, occupying it in July of 1848. The new governor, Bahri Pasha, restored him officially to his

post, thus closing this matter for the time being.152 To summarize matters, it could be stated that by the end of the

1840's, when Mustafa Abu Ghosh and other shaikhs were in exile, the Qaisi faction was on the ascendant in the countryside. Husayn ibn Simhan in Jabal al-Quds, Abdulrahman al-CAmr in Jabal al- Khalil (Hebron), and even CUthman al-Lahham, the shaikh of the

nahiye of 'Arqub-who originally belonged to the Yamani faction, were to change sides, as we shall see.'53 Within the city, the Yamani faction led by the Husaynis remained fairly strong.

But time was not on the side of the Qaisi shaikhs, or indeed of the shaikhs altogether in the countryside. The conflict among them cont

1571044

Documents

Transcript of 1571044