Governing property, making the modern state - PSI424

Part two | 7
right, be it by hakk-ı karar or bedel-i misl. In Bait Ra’s, Da’ud ‘Abbada appears
to have required that right be given only to residents of the village who could
prove hakk-ı karar and not to cultivators living in neighbouring villages.
Identification of the object of right was itself dependent on local knowledge,
the tapu official generally accepting the description of the object to which the
shares of right-holders applied. The registers so produced were also checked by
inspection teams from the tapu administration and signed off by the kaimakam
and administrative council of the district. Lastly, given a shortage of trained officials
during these years, officials were sent down from the sanjak or even the vilayet
and called back to other jobs judged more pressing by the administration.
To return to the wider structure of the depositions against Da’ud ‘Abbada,
these offer a map of relations extending throughout the district with the notable
exception of the Barakat Fraihat of Kufrinja in the Jabal ‘Ajlun. 21 The figures who
testify next had all given recorded depositions presented to Da’ud ‘Abbada for
response: Muhammad al-Hamud of Aidun village elected as director of the Bani
‘Ubayd nahiye claims that Da’ud ‘Abbada demanded 65 liras for his appointment; 22
Jabr al-‘Abd al-Rahman from al-Husn village elected to the administrative council
claims that he paid ten gold liras and wrote a pledge for another 32 liras for
his post on the council; 23 and Muhammad Mutlaq Efendi of al-Bariha village
claims that ‘Abbada threatened to appoint Mahmud al-‘Ali in his stead on the
administrative council if he didn’t pay fifty liras. 24 We have already met Jabr ‘Abd
al-Rahman and Muhammad al-Hamud accompanying the tapu scribe ‘Ajaj Bey on
his tours of villages. The government officials, Antun Siyur, Musa Shalhub and
Mustafa Shamdin Agha, head of the police, as well as Da’ud ‘Abbada and Jurji
Qabawat, are all questioned about the payment of money for posts. So too were
other headmen from the area who happened to be in the government buildings
on business at the time that, the investigators charge, money was being paid to
Da’ud ‘Abbada and Salim Bey: ‘Abd al-Rahman Taha headman of al-Nu‘aima who
stated that he went to the treasury office for official notices (ilmühaber); Muhammad
al-Muflih headman of al-Mughaiyir who went to the Hauran headquarters
in order to complain of the Bani Sakhr nomads (urban); and ‘Ali Muhammad
headman of al-Taiba village who went to the house of Jurji Qabawat to pay
what was due in lieu of military service. All the depositions confirm that money
was paid for posts during the time that Salim Bey – who had the authority to
make appointments – was present in the district. The sums were substantial and
all the leaders had to borrow to raise them, primarily from a trader named Ilyas
Abu Sha‘r. The treasurer Jurji Qabawat, who lodged in Abu Sha‘r’s house, on
occasion drew up the promissory notes for the balance of the payment to be
borrowed from his landlord. Towards the end of the recorded interrogations,
in the 22nd session, 2 Şubat 1295/14 February 1880, Mazid al-‘Azzam who was
appointed to the court of first instance is questioned. 25 He denies having given
any money for his post. Likewise Funaish ‘Abd al-Rahman al-Kayid, brother of
Jabr and headman of al-Husn, is pressed as to whether he paid money to secure
his post. He too denies having paid anything.
84