Governing property, making the modern state - PSI424

unacceptable acts: pretending to defend villagers but in fact deceiving them so
that their claims would not be examined by the government; appointing and
dismissing village headmen; and compelling the nomads not to give over the
livestock taxes along with misappropriating taxes [rightfully] part of government
revenue. 33 Just last year, ‘Abbada continues, the owners of livestock had drawn
arms against the officials sent to count their flocks. Thereupon, an officer was sent
with a detachment of soldiers and seized some of the livestock concealed [from
the inspectors]. A report having been sent to the mutasarrıfiye and thence to the
vilayet, an order came to sell the livestock, to cover the taxes due and to deposit
the remainder in an account in the finance department. The report, ‘Abbada adds,
makes it clear that no livestock inspectors had come to the nahiye. Every year
people paid the livestock tax directly to Ibrahim Sa‘d al-Din. A further report has
been compiled on this, now in the hands of the finance director, Musa Efendi.
Da’ud ‘Abbada closes his response by saying that, once the case against him is
examined in Damascus, he will reveal more, the acts of sedition and aggression
of some of the people of the nahiye being known in the vilayet. 34
The remainder of the investigation concerns witnesses proposed by Ibrahim
Sa‘d al-Din to the payment of the 64 liras; Ibrahim Sa‘d al-Din states that he
had prepared a complaint (şikayet) with Muflih Abu Ra’s to submit to Salim Bey.
‘Abbada responds that there are internal contradictions in the testimony and that
if the document mentioned were found, it would not correspond to the dates of
the events alleged. 35
The last document in the series of investigative reports concerns two figures,
‘Ali al-Mindil of Suf and Mahmud al-As‘ad of Kufr Yuba village. 36 Both claim
that they paid money for appointment to posts of director, the first 3,500 guruş
for al-Mi‘rad and the second 50 gold liras for Bani Juhma. When ‘Ali al-Mindil
was asked what forced (mecburiyet) him to pay the money, given that he had been
elected to the post, he responds that he feared the mistreatment and threats to
which some of his friends had been subjected. He had been told to pay the money
to Jurji Qabawat. Qabawat denies the claim as fabrication but notes that ‘Ali
Mindil came asking for 3,500 guruş. He responded that it was tax money but
‘Ali Mindil had said to him: ‘No, that is Da’ud ‘Abbada’s money.’ ‘Ali al-Mindil
left with the money but Qabawat does not know why. Antun Siyur is questioned:
he notes that the governor appointed ‘Ali Mindil director of Mi‘rad nahiye
by correspondence number 292 on 13.Za.1296/29 November 1879 and that the
confirmation came back from the mutasarrıfiye on the 15th of the month.
Mahmud al-Hamud testifies that when Salim Bey came to appoint members to
the council, Da’ud ‘Abbada had asked him for 50 gold liras. Mahmud al-Hamud
had responded that he was not willing to abandon cultivation and sell his livestock
to cover such a sum; this would ruin his house. Da’ud responded that Muhammad
al-Mutlaq had paid 70 liras and that Mahmud al-Hamud should seek help
from the people of the nahiye. There follow interrogations of Jurji Qabawat,
Antun Siyur and a headman of Irbid, Qasim al-Hijazi. From these it appears
that Mahmud al-Hamud had obtained the largest number of votes for the seat
87
Regional leadership