Governing property, making the modern state - PSI424

Part three | 9
relative, he was a member of the same group (aşiret) as Hasan al-Sabbah, which
was known as Bani Ta‘an. 6 The second witness Ahmad al-‘Ali, however, said that
he was neither a relative nor a member of Hasan’s aşiret, being originally from
the village of Nawa and having moved to Bait Ra’s two years previously. 7 The
use of the term aşiret for a group of people explicitly not related by kinship is
noteworthy. Both ‘Ali al-Musa and Ahmad al-‘Ali were listed in the tapu register
of 1880 for Bait Ra’s as householders, shareholders in the common plough land,
and holders of small private plots adjoining the village site. We shall consider
their relations with other members of the village below.
Da’ud ‘Abbada’s response to Hasan al-Sabbah’s complaint was dismissive. First
he said that the testimony of someone called Salim Abu Qasim should be taken. 8
This person was said by ‘Ali al-Musa, Hasan al-Sabbah’s first witness, to be the
man Da’ud ‘Abbada wanted to appoint as a headman of Bait Ra’s in place of
Hasan al-Sabbah. 9 Salim Abu Qasim was not, however, called to testify. He can be
identified as the man listed last (number 33) in the 1895 tax list of Bait Ra’s, not
a householder in that list but holder of the equivalent of two shares of plough
land out of 36. His descendants held 2⅜ shares out of 36 in five holdings according
to the 1921 resettlement register where the family was said to belong to the
neighbouring village of Hakama. In the tapu register of 1880 every shareholding
in plough land was also a householding, although not every householding had
land. But an unusual feature of the 1880 list of shareholdings was a joint holding
of all the individual shareholdings amounting to six shares out of 30 (not 36).
Residence apparently being a condition for being listed as a shareholder in the
1880 tapu registration of Bait Ra’s it would seem likely that Salim Abu Qasim
was one of the invisible cultivators on that part of the village land.
Da’ud ‘Abbada suggested, moreover, that the cause of Hasan al-Sabbah’s
complaint against him related to tapu registration in the village on the basis of
hakk-ı karar, over which he had opposed the man. 10 He said that the villagers
should be consulted regarding the witnesses, adding the name of Jum‘a al-Hamuri
as someone who knew the truth about them. The Hamuris were indeed the
dominant group in the village whose main families were registered in 1880. But
no one called Jum‘a al-Hamuri was registered. Jum‘a is not a common name.
One of the Bani Ta‘an family heads who was registered as a tax-payer in 1895
on three shares out of 36, however, was named Muhammad ‘Abdullah al-Jum‘a,
Jum‘a being here a family identity. Could Da’ud ‘Abbada have confused names?
In any case Da’ud ‘Abbada went on to say that Hasan al-Sabbah was not
entitled to rights of hakk-ı karar because he was an ‘outsider’ to the village,
as was his group, and that a proclamation to that effect had been issued to the
farmers of the village. 11
Hasan al-Sabbah’s complaint did not form part of the investigating committee’s
final evidence against Da’ud ‘Abbada. The committee told Hasan al-Sabbah
that his claim that the governor of the Hauran, Shihabizade Salim Bey Efendi,
had been in Irbid when he had given money to Da’ud ‘Abbada was false; and he
was not called to give further testimony. Instead the investigation turned to the
110