Desktop versionMobile version

Geographies of Contact

 | 
Caroline Lehni
, 
Fanny Moghaddassi
, 
Hélène Ibata
, 
et al.

IV. Transposing Legal and Political Principles

The Murder of Bibi Asilah: A failed early mixed-court case in Qajar Iran

Willem Floor

Full text

  • 1 See, for example, Mansureh Ettehadiyeh and Sa`id Ruhi (eds.), Dar Mahzar-e Sheykh Fazl Allâh Nuri: (...)

1Discussion of judicial cases that came before the religious courts in Qajar Iran are rare;1 even rarer is the discussion of those cases where a foreign consul had legal standing in those courts, in fact, I do not know of any other in Iran than the one presented here. In this study I discuss a case of retribution for homicide or qisâs that was submitted to the religious court in Bushehr and had to be heard in the presence of the British consul, because the victim was a British pensioner. This case shows that when more than one judicial authority is involved, who apply different legal and social parameters, it constitutes a major obstacle for resolving the legal problems concerned, the more so when other than legal principles play a role such as when one side is perceived as being less than interested to prosecute the matter, an aspect ignored by Vanessa Martin who also analyzed this case.

Introduction

  • 2 See for further details, Willem Floor, “Changes and Developments in the Judicial System of Qajar Ir (...)

2There were no regular courts in nineteenth century Iran; in actual practice there was a dual judicial system of ad-hoc religious or shari‘a courts presided over by qâzis and of ad-hoc secular or orf courts administered by secular government officials. The adhoc religious courts were basically the homes of a number of Islamic scholars who acted as qâzi, often the leading person among them was recognized as the chief qâzi. Likewise, the ad-hoc secular court was the home or office of the secular official who dealt with the case.2 This was also the situation in the town of Bushehr, where the case discussed occurred.

  • 3 Samuel Hennell was acting Resident from March 1831-January 1832, and again from June 1834 to July 1 (...)
  • 4 Lieutenant-Colonel Sir Justin Sheil, Secretary of the Legation at Tehran as of February 1836; Head (...)

3On 9 September 1844, Captain Samuel Hennell, the British Resident in the Persian Gulf, based in Bushehr,3 wrote to Lieutenant-Colonel Justin Sheil,4 the British Envoy in Tehran:

  • 5 NA, FO 248/263, Captain Hennell, Resident in the Persian Gulf to Col. J. Sheil, Her Majesty’s Charg (...)

It is with much concern I have to report for your information the violent death of Babee Asselaa [sic; Asilah, اصيله], the widow of Mirza Juwad [sic; Javâd], the late Persian Writer to this Residency, and a Pensioner of the British Government, who was cruelly murdered by her relatives on the night of the 29th ultimo.5

4Thus began the British demand for justice for this woman, which provides an interesting insight into: (i) how the judiciary operated in Qajar Iran and (ii) how foreign, in this case British, sense of justice, influenced the course of the judicial process.

What happened?

  • 6 Sheikh ‘Abdollâh was acting governor in 1844. He was the uncle of Sheik Nâser Al Mazkur, the local (...)
  • 7 No further particulars are known about these persons.
  • 8 NA, FO 248/263, Translation of a Note from Sheikh Abdoollah Governor of Bushire to Captain Hennell (...)

5On the night of 29 August 1844, Sheikh ‘ Abdollâh, the acting governor of Bushehr,6 was sitting in his house with Mashhadi Ahmad Shirâzi and two other friends when he heard two shots fired. As this was prohibited he sent a man to investigate, who on his return told him that two persons, Soltân and Homâd (حماد)7 had killed a woman.8 Although Sheikh ‘Abdollâh did not investigate the matter any further, later statements, respectively made by the victim’s son Mirzâ Hâdi and her brother Soltân provide a description of the events that took place on that night.

  • 9 NA, FO 248/263, Statement of Mirza Hadee the Son the late Mirza Juwad regarding the murder of his m (...)

6According to Mirzâ Hâdi, the victim’s 9-year old son, he and his mother were about to retire for the night when her brother Soltân and her father-in-law Homâd entered the house. The latter grabbed his mother’s hands, while Soltân fired his pistol. However, he purposely missed his sister so as to frighten her and make her run away. When she was able to free herself from Homâd, Soltân cried that “he would not stand by and see his sister killed and then ran away.” When Bibi Asilah attempted to flee Homâd shot her and then stabbed her with his dagger with such force that it broke inside her body. Mirzâ Hâdi tried to stop Homâd and, as a result, had scars on his hands made by the dagger’s blade. Homâd then told his slave Mahbub to dig a grave. The boy further stated that “His mother seeing these preparations called out that she was still alive upon which Homâd took up a huge stone and crushed her head.” At that time, the victim’s former husband, Abbas with a few men was standing near a prayer-house (barahah) to foil his mother’s eventual flight in the event that she might escape.9

  • 10 NA, FO 248/263, Declaration made by Sultan Son of Hajee Jassem regarding the Murder of his Sister A (...)

7The statement by Sultan, son of Haji Jassem [sic; Hâjji Jasim; جاسم حاجى], the victim’s brother, confirms his nephew’s account although there are some differences in detail. Undoubtedly, these were due to their difference in age, their different points of observation, some confabulation by Sultan concerning his role, and the fact that witnesses never see exactly the same thing. According to Soltân, on the night of the murder he and Homâd went to his sister’s house. When they entered she was there with her son Mirzâ Hâdi. “I was overcome with brotherly love and shame and went into the balakhaneh (upper gallery or chamber) without speaking a word to her.” Hâjji Homâd had two pistols with him which he fired at her, but missed. He then drew his dagger and stabbed her two or three times till she fell on the ground. Then Hoseyn Nâser Musâ, an acquaintance of Homâd, entered and beat her on the head with a large stone. When they were sure she was dead they left the house. Meanwhile, all this time ‘ Abbâs was standing armed at the prayer-house (buraha).10

8Thus, the alleged perpetrators of the murder were Hâjji Homâd, the father-in-law of the murdered woman and Hoseyn Nâser Musâ, an acquaintance, while Soltân her brother and Hâjji ‘Abbâs, her first husband had aided and abetted the crime.

What was the motive for the murder?

  • 11 NA, FO 248/263, Captain Hennell Resident in the Persian Gulf to Col. J. Sheil, Her Majesty’s Charge (...)
  • 12 Vanessa Martin, “Murder in Bushehr in 1844: the case of Bibi Asilu,” IRAN, 2008, vol. 46, p. 285.
  • 13 NA, FO 248/263, Declaration made by Sultan Son of Hajee Jassem regarding the Murder of his Sister A (...)

9Although the British Resident was actively involved in trying to resolve this crime even he never learned, or at least never provided, the real reason for the murder. On 9 September 1844, he informed Tehran that the alleged cause for the murder was “the suspicion of her having degraded her connexions [sic] by her intrigues, but no attempt whatever was made to ascertain or establish the truth of this suspicion before the perpetration of the murder.”11 Vanessa Martin, who also studied this case, concluded from this formulation that Bibi Asilah’s murder was a case of honor killing. This is indeed a possible explanation, for the above formulation seems to suggest that Bibi Asilah had become too independent and too uppity a woman to the liking of some of her male relatives and their acquaintances. As a widow of a British pensioner she had her own income, and thus, was financially independent of her family. However, there is no shred of evidence whatsoever that “she had too close and too long a connection with the servants of the British,” as Martin interprets and maintains.12 Also, other information about the cause of the killing suggests a possible different reason. Sultan, the victim’s brother stated that the instigators of the crime were not family members, which seems to suggest that other reasons may have been the cause for the murder. According to Sultan, it was two servants of the governing Al Mazkur family, viz. Hâjji Ebrâhim ‘Ali Eedan [sic] and Hâjji ‘Abbâs, who “were continually reproaching, tempting and exciting us to her murder.”13 Moreover, apart from her brother Soltân, who does not seem to have played a very active role, the killers were no family members. Unfortunately, the documents do not offer more particulars on this matter. I return to this issue later in the discussion.

The British Resident asks the qâzi to judge the crime

  • 14 NA, FO 248/263, Translation of a letter from Capt. Hennell Resident in the Persian Gulf to Shaikh A (...)

10On receiving the news of the murder, Captain Hennell, the British Resident in the Persian Gulf contacted Sheikh ‘Abdollâh on 2 September, when he wrote, “I have the honour to request that you as Governor of this Town will cause a strict investigation to be made by the proper functionaries into the cause and circumstances of her violent death, and take care that such punishment be inflicted on the perpetrators as the Mohamedan Law may lay down.” He further informed the governor that ‘Azeez, the brother-in-law of Ally Hossin [sic; ‘Ali Hoseyn] the Pilot, alarmed at the sounds of the pistol shots ran into the room where the murder was committed, and as I understand he saw the guilty parties in the very act of completing this wicked deed, he can give evidence regarding [it], as also [can] the son of the deceased.” For unknown reasons Hennell did not refer in later correspondence to this alleged witness. He ended his letter as follows: “Whatever decision you may come to or whatever Futweh His Holiness the Moojtahed may issue after a thorough inquiry into the case in question I request may be communicated to me in writing.”14

  • 15 Sheikh Hasan Bushehri was a member of a well-known Shi`ite family of Bahraini olama, the Al ‘Osfur. (...)
  • 16 NA, FO 248/263, Captain Hennell Resident in the Persian Gulf to Col. J. Sheil, Her Majesty’s Charge (...)

11However, Sheikh ‘Abdollâh did not reply to Hennell’s letter, but in person assured the Resident that Hâjji Homâd and Hâjji ‘Abbâs had been arrested, and not reluctantly as Martin has it, but that Sultan had taken refuge in the house of Sheikh Hasan, the mojtahed and qâzi of Bushehr.15 Probably because the alleged third culprit, Soltân, had sought refuge with the mojtahed, Sheikh ‘Abdollâh had forwarded Hennell’s letter to him, requesting the mojtahed to return to town “for the purpose of entering upon the investigation applied for.” Martin, mistakenly, stated that Hennell asked for the mojtahed’s involvement, however, from his letter it is clear that not Hennell, but Sheikh ‘ Abdollâh asked for the religious court to take up this matter. It was Sheikh ‘Abdollâh who washed his hands of the case and foisted it upon the mojtahed. He probably did so, because he was not in a strong position locally, either with the population and the notables or the British, and preferred to have this sensitive case to be dealt with by Sheikh Hoseyn, who had great authority and had stood up to the British before. It was only on 4 September 1844 that Sheikh ‘Abdollâh contacted Hennell again, writing that he had gone to see the mojtahed, but had been unable to speak to him as he was unwell. He had spoken to Sheikh Salmin [sic; Salmân], the mojtahed’s nephew, who suggested that the Resident make his wishes known in the matter by writing a note to his uncle, which he did. Hennell complied with this request, but he also asked Sheikh ‘Abdollâh, whether as governor of the town he had “traced the murderers and if so whether he could produce Evidence to convict them.” Thus, as far as Hennell was concerned the governor was not off the hook by having referred the case to the mojtahed.16 In fact, he left it to the proper Persian authorities to decide who would deal with the case.

  • 17 Lt. Arnold B. Kemball was acting Resident from April-December 1843, and Resident from March 1852-Ju (...)
  • 18 NA, FO 248/263, Translation of a note sent to H. H. Sheik Hassan the Mujtihid of Bushire from Capt. (...)
  • 19 Martin, “Murder in Bushehr in 1844”, p. 286.

12On 4 September 1844, Hennell sent, as requested, a note to Sheikh Hasan, the mojtahed, asking him to convene a court “in the place of justice” (عى الشر محکمه) and, after having established the guilt of the parties concerned, to give a verdict. He further brought to the mojtahed’s attention that since a British pensioner was the victim that, in accordance with Treaty rights, a member of the Residency, in this case Lt. Arnold Burrowes Kemball, s17 hould be present at the investigation.18 The above clearly shows that Hennell did not aim to change Islamic and local customary law, as Martin submits,19 but rather that he insisted that the mojtahed should also take into account British legal concerns, while still adhering to Moslem legal principles.

The qâzi states there is no case

  • 20 Joseph Schacht, “Kisas,” EI1 (2nd ed.) 1987, IV, pp. 1038-40.
  • 21 Émile Tyan, “Diya,” EI2, 1965, II, pp. 340-3.
  • 22 NA, FO 248/263, Translation of a letter from Sheik Hassan Cazee or Mujtehid of Bushire to Capt. Hen (...)
  • 23 Schacht, “Kisas.”
  • 24 William Francklin, Observations made on a Tour from Bengal to Persia in the Years 1786-7, London, F (...)

13Sheikh Hasan, the qâzi and mojtahed of Bushehr, replied the next day, on 5 September 1844. He wrote that he had no problem doing as Hennell had asked. However, as he was ill and unable to come to the court he could not settle the case. Also, as there was no guilty plea by the alleged perpetrators and no witnesses it was difficult to go ahead with judicial proceedings. The more so, since, according to Islamic Law, in case of qisâs,20 the nearest blood relative had to conduct the case, who was but a boy of about nine years and thus “not competent to understand these matters or know the wrong from the right, and difficulties and injuries might accrue to him in complying with religious commands before he has reached the years of puberty and discretion.” However, the mojtahed proposed a compromise, i. e. if it was possible that an agreement might be reached between the opposing parties “at least by receiving from her murderers the Deeah [sic: diya]21 or Price of Blood.” If this would be agreed, it would result “in peace in the world and in religion, and in the stopping of blood then there is indescribable merit and virtue.”22 Islamic law indeed stipulates that the accuser “is permitted to remit the qisâs and he is even urgently recommended to do so, either in return for the payment of compensation or for another equivalent or for nothing.”23 William Francklin, for example, being present in Shiraz in 1786, noted this conciliatory attitude in case of the occurrence of qisâs, despite strict application of the Lex Talionis or the law of retaliation for specific crimes. Apart from handing over the murderer to nearest relative of the victim for execution, he observed that there were two other alternatives to avoid killing, to wit: payment of the blood money and “the relations of the murderer giving in marriage a daughter, or niece, to the son of the deceased, as the price of blood, and when this is the case, the two families becoming one, the reconciliation is always complete,” an occurrence that he witnessed himself.24

  • 25 This shows that Hennell was not familiar with the legal status of slaves in an Islamic court, i.e. (...)
  • 26 NA, FO 248/263, Translation of a note from Captain Hennell Resident in the Persian Gulf to the Mujt (...)

14Hennell immediately reacted that same day and wrote that, if an effort would be made, hard damning evidence could be found as it was available. He pointed out that for example, the victim’s son and her slaves could give evidence as witnesses of the crime.25 Moreover, her brother Sultan, who had not really participated in the crime and was abhorred by it, would be willing to testify against the other two alleged perpetrators, if he were given the assurance of immunity from prosecution. He further made it clear that payment of blood money was “wholly unknown and unencouraged [sic] by the British government.” The latter preferred that the evidence shows who were guilty and then to pass sentence in accordance with the requirements of Islamic Law in the case of murder. Hennell finally asked the mojtahed, since he was indisposed himself, to have his deputies, his nephews, Sheikh Sulman (sic; Salmân) and Sheikh Khulif (sic; Khalaf) take care of the case.26

The qâzi clarifies his position

15Sheikh Hasan wrote back on 8 September 1844 and stated concerning Hennell’s proposal that “there is no objection to nor harm in,” one of his sons [sic!] presiding over the court, except that, as he had written before and repeated now as well, according to Islamic law “that all charges be established and individual disputes settled on legal not circumstantial appearances or public report, and if legal witnesses be forthcoming upon whose testimony dependence can be placed, as being imbued with sense and uprightness, what can be better or more satisfactory?” However, as to Hennell’s statement that apart from the victim’s son, two slaves had been present who could testify, the mojtahed submitted that slaves have no legal standing in court, because they cannot not be legal witnesses. He continued to explain his legal point of view by stating:

With reference to your remark that with you proof is not necessary upon such a charge, the circumstances being manifest and evident, this is opposed to the forms of Moh[ammadan] law and to the precepts of the Prophet. My advice to the boy, and it is incumbent upon me to counsel him, is, that he consent to the deeah [diya] as being in my opinion, to his advantage and this on the establishment, the charge and the conviction without a doubt of the murderer, for in the absence of respectable witnesses he has no right to deeah or retribution from any one, nor can he be the owner of property whether hereditary or newly acquired [deeah] for an oath cannot be administered to him.

16The qâzi took offense at the British rejection of payment of blood money. He wrote:

  • 27 NA, NA, FO 248/263, Translated substance of a letter from Sheikh Hassan Cazee of Bushire to Captain (...)

Touching upon your observation that the British Government would never approve of nor sanction this [deeah]. This is extraordinary from you, for you questioned me relative to the Moh[ammadan] law and I informed you of its plain and self-evident injunctions, but of the regulations of the sarkar [British Residency] I have no knowledge, what it has ordered or what it will order - you are acquainted with its commands and aware of its rules.27

The British Resident investigates the crime, after the governor declines to do so

  • 28 NA, FO 248/263, Translation of a note from Captain Hennell Resident in the Persian Gulf to Sheik Ab (...)
  • 29 NA, FO 248/263, Translation of a Note from Sheikh Abdoollah Governor of Bushire to Captain Hennell (...)

17On receiving the mojtahed’s letter Hennell immediately wrote to Sheikh ‘ Abdollâh informing him of the mojtahed’s position as well as of the British government’s position that the payment of blood-money was not acceptable. Therefore, he asked the governor whether he had already identified the guilty parties and what evidence he had gathered so far.28 Sheikh ‘Abdollâh immediately replied, writing that although it had been reported to him that Homâd and Soltân were the perpetrators, “I do not know more nor am I aware by whose blow she fell, neither have I made any enquiries of the people of the house. As the woman was a dependent of your Government undoubtedly the affair has been represented to and enquired into by you.”29

  • 30 NA, FO 248/263, Statement of Mirza Hadee (not foliated) and NA, FO 248/263, Declaration made by Sul (...)
  • 31 NA, FO 248/263, Captain Hennell Resident in the Persian Gulf to Col. J. Sheil, Her Majesty’s Charge (...)

18It was clear to Hennell that neither the civil nor religious judicial authorities were going to pursue the alleged perpetrators of the crime, because (i) according to the mojtahed there was no case, due to lack of legally admissible evidence and competent legal witnesses, while (ii) the governor did not even want to gather evidence, despite an official British request. Therefore, Hennell on 9 September 1844, started to take witness statements himself.30 The Resident and his assistant Lt. Kemball took statements from various persons, amongst whom Mirzâ Hâdi, the 9 year old son of the victim, whose account of the crime is detailed above. Hennell and Kemball found Mirzâ Hâdi to be an intelligent youngster. He had scars on his hands that proved that he had tried to get hold of the dagger, the murder weapon. They also questioned Mahbub, the victim’s slave, whom they found to have been “tempered with,” i.e. having been influenced by the family what to say. Mahbub stated that he only heard the pistol shots and then had run home, where he found his mistress “apparently dead, but still breathing.” A short while thereafter two slaves and two sailors belonging to Hajji ‘ Abbas had come and dug a grave in which they buried the woman. Mahbub remained silent when asked to explain how he had allowed his mistress to be buried while she was still alive, as she was breathing. According to Mirzâ Hâdi, Mahbub was one of the men who had dug the grave and who, with Hâjji ‘Abbâs, had buried his mother. Mahbub stated that the boy had not been present, having run away when the shots were fired, which was contradicted by the boy’s wounds.31

The British Resident asks the Tehran government to intervene

  • 32 NA, FO 248/263, Translation of a note from Captain Hennell Resident in the Persian Gulf to Sheik Ab (...)

19Meanwhile, the authorities in Bushehr showed no intention to investigate the matter and get evidence against the alleged perpetrators, who were all known to them, but in fact, exerted themselves to suppress all evidence. The British Resident, therefore, decided that it was no use to insist on a trial that, in his opinion, would be only a mockery of justice and asked the British Minister in Tehran whether he might be able to do something from his side. Hennell argued that it was not acceptable that the murder of a British dependent in Bushehr should remain unpunished. In a letter to Sheikh ‘Abdollâh, he formulated this sentiment as follows: “A dependent of the British government having been violently and barbarously put to death in this Town, is notorious as the sun at noonday.”32 Hennell intimated to Sheil that if the perpetrators would be ordered to go to Tehran the crime would get the attention it deserved, he hoped.

Tehran summons the perpetrators, but the governor delays implementation

20As a result, Col. Sheil, the British Minister, pressed the authorities in Tehran to take action. He wrote to Hennell on 13 October 1844 that a mohassel or bailiff had been sent to Bushehr to take the three suspects in the murder of Bibi Asilah to Tehran, with clear instructions not to let any pretexts raised by either the mojtahed or governor deter him from his task. The mohassel, named Mashadi Ali Nukki [sic; Mashhadi ‘Ali Naqi] arrived on 3 November 1844 in Bushehr, but the purpose of his visit was universally known well before that time. Sheikh ‘Abdollâh had already taken steps to secure the three suspects. However, he also delayed matters, because now he intimated that, before sending them off, he needed to gather evidence on the crime, which he had refused to do earlier.

21Also, the governor had made some changes and erasures in the royal order or farmân. Despite two visits of the British Residency clerk (monshi) the governor had as yet to give clarification of this matter. He finally informed the Resident that he had transferred the three suspects to the mohassel, who returned them to the governor stating that he did not know what to do with them, on the understanding that the governor, who would shortly leave for Shiraz, would take the three suspects with him and then deliver them there to the mohassel. The latter confirmed this to the Resident, saying that this solution saved him the trouble to find an adequate escort, which the governor could provide and, of course, he would accompany them.

  • 33 The Demukh or Domukh, an Arab tribe, originally from the Najd, a branch of the Dawasir of the Bani (...)
  • 34 The Bani Hajir of Rud Helleh, a district west of Bushehr, another tribal group that provided armed (...)
  • 35 Martin, “Murder in Bushehr in 1844”, p. 289.

22On 18 November 1844, after having waited a few days, the Resident asked the mohassel when he would leave. Hennell then learnt that the departure had been further delayed as Mashhadi ‘Ali Naqi was frightened by the news that Arab tribesmen of the Demukh33 or the Bani Hâjji34 intended to make a rescue effort en route. As these two tribes were supporters of the Âl-e Mazkur it is clear that the threatening moves were most likely made at Sheikh ‘Abdollah’s behest and were not the result of social forces, as Martin has it.35 Therefore, the mohassel decided to stay until the governor’s departure, which was planned for the end of the month. Hennell told the mohassel that this was not acceptable and contrary to his instructions. Hennell did not know whether the governor would leave and then take the suspects with him or not, or whether further delaying tactics would be employed. Therefore, he wondered whether a new order for the prompt dispatch of the suspects should not be sent. Hennell suspected that the governor wanted to take the three suspects to Shiraz and then settle the matter there himself. As the three men had money and influence Hennell feared the outcome of such a settlement. It was for that reason that they should be conveyed to Tehran.

  • 36 NA, FO 248/263, Captain Hennell Resident in the Persian Gulf to Col. J. Sheil, Her Majesty’s Charge (...)

23Meanwhile, some influential Arab merchants of Bushehr had prepared two esteshhâd-nâmehs or testimonies, one stating the legal innocence of the suspects and the other casting aspersions on the character of the victim, “for her long connexion [sic] with servants of the British Government. Her accompanying her Husband Hajee Ahmed, my Arabic Mirza, to Karrak [sic; Khark Island], on the removal of the Residency, is also I believe alleged against her.” The statement further stressed the fact that the victim’s relatives, her mother (wife of Homâd) and her brother were willing to forgive the crime and absolve the perpetrators, while the son was too young to have any say in the matter, and thus, no further case for justice or punishment existed. However, apparently, no respectable persons had signed the two documents. A respectable merchant told Hennell that if the three men were sent to Tehran that there would be no difficulty to acquire “attestations to the general belief of the crime having been instigated and committed by them.” However, powerful forces were at work to torpedo them being sent to Tehran.36

  • 37 NA, FO 248/263, Translation of a Note from Sheikh Abdoollah Governor of Bushire to Captain S. Henne (...)
  • 38 NA, FO 248/263, Draft of a note from Captain S. Hennell Resident in the Persian Gulf to Sheikh Abdo (...)
  • 39 Hoseyn Khan, chief (moqaddam) of Maragheh, was appointed governor-general of Fars on 21 March 1844 (...)
  • 40 NA, FO 248/263, Translation of a note from Sheikh Abdoollah Acting Governor of Bushire to Captain S (...)

24On 12 November 1844, Hennell received a note from Sheikh ‘Abdollâh admitting that words had been “scratched out and restored” in the royal farmân, but all this would not have any impact on its execution. He was not making excuses, but asked for some more time so that he might “come to a decision in this matter, which will not subject me to the reprehension of the Ministers of the ever enduring State and act in accordance with the enlightened Ecclesiastical Law agreeably to the Royal Orders.”37 Hennell immediately replied and took note of the governor’s intentions, but asked him, whether he was going to send the three suspects with Mashhadi ‘Ali Naqi to Tehran or not? He further asked what the purpose was of the erasures and changes in the royal farmân. To assist him in this matter Hennell sent the Residency’s mirzâ (clerk) with its copy of the same farmân.38 Sheikh ‘Abdollâh’s reply of that same day avoided responding to the issue of the erasures and only repeated his intention to carry out the royal orders. As to the departure of the three suspects he had no intention to delay this. However, as there was no governor of Fars at present, while the roads were unsafe, to hand them over to one single person might be risky, and if something untoward happened he ran the risk of royal displeasure. As the Sâheb Ekhtiyâr, the new governor,39 was about to arrive in Shiraz he was going there himself and take the three suspects with him, whom he would present to the Sâheb Ekhtiyâr and await his decision what would be in HM’s best interest, or to send them to Tehran.40

One alleged perpetrator too ill to be moved

  • 41 About Dr. Campbell no further particulars are known.
  • 42 NA, FO 248/263, Captain Hennell, Resident in the Persian Gulf to Col. J. Sheil, Her Majesty’s Charg (...)
  • 43 NA, FO 248/263, Captain Hennell. Resident in the Persian Gulf to Lieut. Col. J. Sheil, Her Majesty’ (...)

25On 25 November 1844, Hennell informed Sheil that Sheikh ‘Abdollâh had decided to postpone sending the three suspects to Tehran until his departure for Shiraz. The Sheikh had visited Hennell in person to express his regrets that this had caused some dissatisfaction, and if Hennell so desired he would immediately sent a proper escort so that the mohassel might leave with them. The mohassel was supposed to have left on 24 November, but on that morning Hennell received news that Homâd was very ill and could not be moved, and therefore, the departure had been postponed. Hennell sent Dr. Campbell,41 the Residency’s physician to verify the truth of this news, which he found to be true. As this was not Sheikh ‘Abdollah’s fault Hennell informed Sheil about this unavoidable delay.42 On 12 December 1844, Sheil sent a letter with enclosed peremptory orders by the shah and prime minister to Sheikh ‘Abdollâh to immediately send the three suspects to Tehran. These documents were at once delivered to Sheikh ‘ Abdollâh who promised to carry them out. Hennell repeated in his report to Tehran that the delay could not be blamed on the governor as he already had written earlier to Tehran about the valid reason for the delay. In mid-January 1845, Dr. Campbell found that Homâd was able to make the journey. Hennell had no doubt that Sheikh ‘Abdollâh would sent the accused men and provide an escort as far as Borâzjân.43

The victim’s brother is offered immunity in exchange for his testimony

  • 44 NA, FO 248/263, Major Hennell, Resident in the Persian Gulf to Lieut. Col. J. Sheil, Her Majesty’s (...)

26On 3 March 1845, Hennell reported that he found it more difficult than he had thought to get an esteshhâd-nâmeh attesting to the guilt of the three Arabs. Therefore, he was “induced to accept the offer of Sultan [the victim’s brother], to make a full confession of the particulars of the murder, provided I would interest myself to prevent his being sent to Tehran with the other two Prisoners.” Hennell commented that he would not have consented to do so if he were not personally convinced that Sultan was innocent of the crime, “having been made a complete fool by his older and more crafty connexions [sic], who took advantage of his youth and his inexperience.” Sultan’s attestation was verified by him and read in public in the presence of the principal merchants of Bushehr and later in that of Hennell, Kemball and Dr. Campbell and it was attested by all. Although differing in minor aspects from the declaration of Mirzâ Hâdi, the victim’s son, it confirmed it in outline, as discussed above. Moreover, Sultan implicated two other persons, about whom Hennell had no previous knowledge, viz. Hâjji Ebrâhim ‘Ali Eedan [?] whom Sultan accused of having been the originator and instigator of the deed. At that time, he was in the Red Sea serving as captain (nâkhodâ) of Sheikh Nasr Al-Mazkur’s ship. The other person was Hoseyn Nâser Musâ, who had crushed the victim’s head with a large stone. He also was abroad having left to Bombay, in charge of the horses belonging to Sheikh Hoseyn, the uncle of Sheikh Nasr Al-Mazkur.44

Two alleged perpetrators leave for Tehran

  • 45 NA, FO 248/263, Major Hennell, Resident in the Persian Gulf to Lieut. Col. J. Sheil, Her Majesty’s (...)
  • 46 FO 60/114, Lieut. Col. J. Sheil, Her Majesty’s Minister Plenipotentiary and Envoy Extraordinary at (...)

27Mashhadi ‘Ali Naqi left for Tehran on 2 March 1845, with two of the three suspects. Hennell had asked Sheikh ‘Abdollâh to allow Sultan to remain in Bushehr, which he believed would be consented to. Hennell offered as his opinion that if one or both their lives were spared that they either at least would be confined or put under surveillance for some considerable time in Northern Iran, because an early return to Bushehr, unpunished, would neutralize the effect of what had been achieved so far.45 In Tehran, the two accused men were sentenced to two months incarceration. Furthermore, the most guilty one received 500 blows to his feet, while the other only was able to endure 250 such blows.46

Discussion

28The above shows that justice was not perceived in the same manner by Iranian officials as by the representatives of the British government in Qajar Iran. True, the local Iranian authorities did not show a great interest in seeing justice done, but nevertheless preferred an Islamic solution to the problem. This solution was payment of blood money, dismiss the case and forget about the murder. The British Resident wanted punishment of the crime, which he considered to be not only an act against an individual, i.e. of a British pensioner, but also against society at large. The Islamic legal point of view considered murder a matter that arose between individuals or families, as only a close family member could prosecute the case. If the persons involved were willing to accept blood money or even to forgive the deed that was seen as a laudable, even a desirable outcome of the criminal act. However, the British Resident as a representative of Western legal tradition considered punishment as the only solution for a heinous crime such as murder. Both parties tried to make their point of view clear, but they were talking not to, but past each other. As a result, to see justice done, as he saw it, the exasperated British Resident was able to convince the central government to have the suspects brought to Tehran for judgment.

  • 47 See Willem Floor, “Changes and Developments.”

29This case could easily have been presented as such, i.e. a clash of two different legal systems, as Martin did. However, in my view that is a too simplistic approach to understand what considerations in particular drove the British Resident. From his point of view this was a clear-cut legal case. A murder had been committed against a British pensioner by a number of known men. According to the acting governor of Bushehr, the culprits were Homâd and Sultan, but he refused to take any steps to gather evidence and resolve the murder and therefore, he referred the case to the mojtahed. In doing so, this case highlights and underlines the total absence of a clear normative and binding set of procedural rules in the Iranian judicial system, which was a constant source of frustration for all parties concerned. This case further underlines the vague jurisdictional demarcation between the religious and the governor’s court. This judicial vagueness and opaqueness created a situation that was characterized by a highly localized and case-by-case approach by all parties, which made the whole judicial system very inefficient, arbitrary, and costly.47

  • 48 See, e.g., Abu’l-Hasan Mohammadi (Translator), Qeṣâṣ: tarjomeh-ye ketâbi az Masâlik al-afham, ta’li (...)

30Given the absence of clear procedures and the governor’s lack of interest to pursue the case by passing it on to the mojtahed, Hennell then asked the latter to judge the case and apply Islamic law pertaining to unjust and intentional murder. The mojtahed declared that he was willing to judge the case if there was one. However, in the absence of (i) a close family member competent to pursue the case, (ii) two legal witnesses, and (iii) confessions, he could not pursue the matter. On the face of it, the mojtahed seems to be in the right. For although Islamic law explicitly allows the death penalty where killing is unjust and intentional, it stipulates that the charge of homicide must be brought by the nearest relative of the victim, or that there must either be two witnesses and/or a confession by the perpetrator[s]. Moreover, although the family may demand the death penalty it may also accept payment of blood money, or diya, for their loss instead of requiring punishment.48

31So far so good. However, the mojtahed undermined his own argumentation by first saying that there was no case of qisâs, for the above-mentioned reasons, but then stating that accommodation might be found as both parties might agree to payment of blood-money or diya. Thus, he implicitly admitted that there was a willingness to pay for the crime by the accused, which they claimed they had not committed! This means that the mojtahed was convinced that there was a case for the family of Asilah to demand blood-money, which is only allowed in the case of qisâs. Similarly, Hennell was told to drop the case, because the victim’s mother and other relatives were willing to forgive the murder, which further demonstrates that Bibi Asilah’s family knew that an unjust murder had been committed. From this follows that, for whatever reason (financial gain, thwarting the British, local social pressure, etc.), the mojtahed was not willing to judge the case, let alone to sentence the suspects to death, thus pre-judging the case. Also, his argument that the 9-year old son of the victim had no legal standing in court, and therefore, the alleged crime could not be prosecuted, is spurious, as the victim had other close adult relations (her mother and brother), who could have pursued the case either in their own right or as agent or vakil al-dam for the son. No wonder Captain Hennell was upset.

32I am quite sure that Hennell had a general notion about how Islamic law worked. By 1844, he had lived and worked for at least 18 years in the Persian Gulf area and had seen his share of judicial cases. After Sheikh ‘Abdollâh had referred the case to the mojtahed, Hennell saw no problem in asking the case to be judged in accordance with Islamic law, because he believed that this murder was an open-and-shut case of qisâs, i.e. of unjust and intentional killing of a fellow Moslem. Being thwarted by the local civil and religious authorities, why then did he still pursue the matter, which required much time and energy from him and his staff and why did he not take the easy way out and accept the mojtahed’s solution?

  • 49 “Whenever any lawsuits shall arise between Russian and Persian subjects, the said lawsuits or dispu (...)

33Hennell was convinced that the local civil and religious authorities did not want to pursue the matter for other than legal reasons and only wanted to have the perpetrators buy their way out of the problem. This was not an acceptable solution for Hennell. Apart from the fact that Hennell took his function seriously, he was motivated by two reasons. The first one, as he wrote to the mojtahed, was because he had legal standing in the court by virtue of the Anglo-Iranian treaty of 28 October 1841, which gave Great Britain the status and rights of a most favoured nation analogous to those given by Iran to Russia in article 7 of the 1828 Treaty of Turkomanchay.49 As a consequence, Great Britain’s views had to be taken into account in judging the matter, but they were not, because as the mojtahed wrote, this was something with which he was not familiar. Secondly, Hennell believed that the murder was one not only aimed at the victim, but through her at Great Britain. Why would he believe this?

  • 50 Although Sheikh Hasan, the qadi of Bushehr, had tried to harm the interests of both the staff and p (...)

34First, one of the esteshhâd-nâmehs drawn up by Arab merchants implied that the victim was a British tool. Secondly, this clearly was an indication of persistent anti-British resentment in Bushehr due to the British withdrawal to Khârk from 1838 until 1842 as well as refusing to hand over the island to Sheikh Naser, the local dynast and governor of Bushehr at that time. Thirdly, Sheikh Naser, felt thwarted in his designs and profits by the British authorities and it so happened that two of his servants were involved in the murder, and, in fact, were the alleged instigators of the crime. In my view, this is why Hennell wanted to see justice done so as to show that you could not harm British interests without having to pay a price for it.50

35Despite his zeal to see justice done, as he saw it, Hennell pursued the matter without animosity towards the Iranian religious and civil authorities. He sent copies of all their correspondence to Tehran, so that others might judge whether he was zealous or a zealot. Furthermore, he provided political cover for the non-cooperative Sheikh ‘Abdollâh when peremptory royal orders had arrived from Tehran for the transport of the perpetrators, when one of them was too sick to be moved. Moreover, in his letter to Sheil, announcing the departure of the alleged perpetrators, Hennell did not urge that the death penalty be given, but that imprisonment or arrest likewise would serve the purpose of sending the message that you harmed British interests at your own peril.

  • 51 See Abe Naofumi, “Who Acknowledges His Rights. Prelude to the “modernization” of the Judicial Syste (...)
  • 52 See Floor, “Changes and Developments”; Vanessa Martin, and Morteza Nouraei, “The Role of the Karguz (...)

36Finally, this case shows that there was as yet little experience in Iran with “mixed courts,” and none whatsoever in Bushehr. Although a beginning had been made putting such structures in place, this only happened as of 1843 in Tabriz and then only for commercial matters.51 As far as I know, despite this and other similar cases, the “mixed courts” or rather kârgozâr courts in Iran, also in the following decades, only dealt with commercial matters, and all other legal issues were dealt with in an ad-hoc manner.52 In this murder case, each side had its own practices, rules and philosophy how to go about dealing with this matter. There were neither procedures nor precedents that either side could have fallen back upon for guidance how to proceed with a mixed court. As a result, due to a non-responsive, if not dismissive, attitude by the local authorities, the murder case became politicized and matters were taken out of the hands of the local authorities. Whether this resulted in a better solution to the problem depends on one’s view, now as well as then.

Bibliography

Bibliography

Manuscripts

(Cited as FO) from the National Archives (Kew Gardens), Great Britain:

FO 60/114.

FO 248/263.

Books and articles

Afshâr Sistâni, I., Negâhi beh Bushehr, 2 vols, Tehran, 1369/1990.

Brunschvig, R., “`Abd,” EI2, 1960, I, p. 24.

Ettehadiyeh, M. and Ruhi, S. (eds.), Dar Mahzar-e Sheykh Fazl Allâh Nuri: Asnâd-e Hoquqi-ye “Ahd-e Nâseri, Tehran, Nashr-e Târikh-e Irân, 1385/2006.

Floor, W., “Changes and Developments in the Judicial System of Qajar Iran,” in Qajar Iran, ed. E. Bosworth & C. Hillenbrand, Edinburgh, Edinburgh UP, 1983, pp. 113-47.

Floor, W., The Rise of the Gulf Arabs. The Politics of Trade on the Persian Littoral 1747-1792. Washington DC, MAGE, 2007.

Floor, W., Bushehr: City, Society and Trade, Washington DC, MAGE, 2015.

Francklin, W., Observations made on a Tour from Bengal to Persia in the Years 1786-7, London, 1790.

Hoseyni, S. A.-H., ‘Olama-ye Al ‘Osfur az Bahreyn ta Bushehr, Tehran, Âyineh-ye Ketâb, 1391/2012.

Hurewitz, J. C. (ed.), Diplomacy in the Near and Middle East, 2 vols, New York, 1957.

Martin, V. “Murder in Bushehr in 1844: the case of Bibi Asilu,” IRAN, 2008, vol. 46, pp. 285-92.

Martin, V. and Nouraei, M., “The Role of the Karguzar in the Foreign Relations of State and Society of Iran from the mid-nineteenth century to 1921. Part I: Diplomatic Relations,” Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, 2005, XV/3, pp. 261-77.

Mohammadi, A.-H. (translator), Qiṣâṣ: tarjomeh-ye ketâbi az Masâlik al-afhâm, ta’lif-e Shahid-e Thâni, va Sharayi‘ al-ahkm, ta’līf-e Mohaqqeq Helli. Tehran, Nashr-e Dâneshgâhi, 1361/1982.

Naofumi, A., “Who Acknowledges His Rights. Prelude to the “modernization” of the Judicial System in Mid-Nineteenth Century Iran as Seen in Persian Legal Documents,” n. d. [http://utcp.c.u-tokyo.ac.jp/publications/pdf/UTCPBooklet17_03_Abe.pdf].

Ouseley, W., Travels in Various Countries in the East: more particularly Persia. 3 vols, London, 1819-23.

Rezâ’i, O. (ed.), Asnâd-e Mahkameh-ye Sayyed Sâdeq Tabâtabâ’i (Sangelaji), Tehran, 1387/2008.

Schacht, J., “Kisas,” EI1 (2nd ed.), 1987, IV, pp. 1038-40.

Schneider, I., “Muhammad Baqir Shafti (1180-1260/1766-1844) und die Isfahaner Gerichtsbarkeit,” Der Islam, 2002, no. 70, pp. 252-72.

Shiraz, Ibn ‘Abd el-Kerim ‘Ali Reza, Das Tarikh-i Zendije, ed. Ernst Beer, Leiden, Brill, von 1888.

Tyan, E., “Diya,” EI2, 1965, II, pp. 340-3.

Yusefi Eshkevari, H., “Al-e ‘Osfur,” Da’erat al-Ma‘ aref Bozorg Eslami, vol. 1, Tehran, 1369/1990.

Notes

1 See, for example, Mansureh Ettehadiyeh and Sa`id Ruhi (eds.), Dar Mahzar-e Sheykh Fazl Allâh Nuri: Asnâd-e Hoquqi-ye ‘Ahd-e Nâseri. Tehran, Nashr-e Târikh-e Irân, 1385/2006; Omid Rezâ’I (ed.), Asnâd-e Mahkameh-ye Sayyed Sâdeq Tabâtabâ’i (Sangelaji), Tehran, 1387/2008; Irene Schneider, “Muhammad Baqir Shafti (1180-1260/1766-1844) und die Isfahaner Gerichtsbarkeit,” Der Islam, 2002, no. 70, pp. 252-72.

2 See for further details, Willem Floor, “Changes and Developments in the Judicial System of Qajar Iran,” in Qajar Iran, ed. E. Bosworth & C. Hillenbrand, Edinburgh, Edinburgh UP, 1983, pp. 113-47; Schneider, “Muhammad Baqir Shafti.”

3 Samuel Hennell was acting Resident from March 1831-January 1832, and again from June 1834 to July 1835. He was Resident from May 1838-1842, and from December 1843-March 1852.

4 Lieutenant-Colonel Sir Justin Sheil, Secretary of the Legation at Tehran as of February 1836; Head of the Mission to Persia 1839-44; Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary 1844-1854.

5 NA, FO 248/263, Captain Hennell, Resident in the Persian Gulf to Col. J. Sheil, Her Majesty’s Charge d’Affaires at the Court of Persia, Bushire 09/09/1844 (not foliated). In some of the English documents the name of Bibi Asilah is written as Asselloo (Asilu), probably the vernacular pronunciation.

6 Sheikh ‘Abdollâh was acting governor in 1844. He was the uncle of Sheik Nâser Al Mazkur, the local dynast and governor who since August 1842 was in Tehran. On the rise and role of this family, see Willem Floor, The Rise of the Gulf Arabs. The Politics of Trade on the Persian Littoral 1747-1792, Washington DC, MAGE, 2007, pp. 239-313; Idem, Bushehr: City, Society and Trade, Washington DC, MAGE, 2015.

7 No further particulars are known about these persons.

8 NA, FO 248/263, Translation of a Note from Sheikh Abdoollah Governor of Bushire to Captain Hennell Resident in the Persian Gulf dated 09/09/1844 (not foliated).

9 NA, FO 248/263, Statement of Mirza Hadee the Son the late Mirza Juwad regarding the murder of his mother Aseeloo taken before Captain Hennell and Lieut. Kemball on 09/09/1844 (not foliated). The term barahha or buraha given in the English translation and translated as mosque, which is barely legible in the original Persian text, is a local term to denote a hoseyniyeh or barahah (حهابر), i.e. a building to hold prayer meetings commemorating the martyrdom of Imam Hoseyn.

10 NA, FO 248/263, Declaration made by Sultan Son of Hajee Jassem regarding the Murder of his Sister Aseelah on the night of 29/08/1844 (not foliated).

11 NA, FO 248/263, Captain Hennell Resident in the Persian Gulf to Col. J. Sheil, Her Majesty’s Charge d’Affaires at the Court of Persia, Bushire 09/09/1844 (not foliated).

12 Vanessa Martin, “Murder in Bushehr in 1844: the case of Bibi Asilu,” IRAN, 2008, vol. 46, p. 285.

13 NA, FO 248/263, Declaration made by Sultan Son of Hajee Jassem regarding the Murder of his Sister Aseelah on the night of 29/08/1844 (not foliated). Although the Al Mazkur family had a contentious relationship with the British there is no indication that, at that time, because of old grudges they tried to hurt local British prestige and standing.

14 NA, FO 248/263, Translation of a letter from Capt. Hennell Resident in the Persian Gulf to Shaikh Abdullah, Governor of Bushire dated 02/09/1844 (not foliated). For the Persian text.

15 Sheikh Hasan Bushehri was a member of a well-known Shi`ite family of Bahraini olama, the Al ‘Osfur. He was the second son of Sheikh Hoseyn B. Mohammad, who was qâzi and Imam Jom‘eh of Bahrain. After his father’s death, who was succeeded in his functions by his eldest son, Sheikh Hasan went to Bushehr in 1805, where he was active as qâzi and Imam Jom‘eh of that port city; he died there in 1845. Hasan Yusefi Eshkevari, “Âl-e ‘Osfur,” Da’eret al-Ma‘aref-e Bozorg Eslâmi, Tehran. 1369/1990, vol. 2, p. 73; Iraj Afshâr Sistâni, Negâhi be Bushehr, Tehran, 1369/1990, vol. 2, pp. 558-9; Sayyed Abu’l-Hasan Hoseyni, ‘Olamâ-ye Âl-e ‘Osfur az Bahreyn tâ Bushehr, Tehran, Âyineh-ye ketâb, 1391/2012, pp. 45-86.

16 NA, FO 248/263, Captain Hennell Resident in the Persian Gulf to Col. J. Sheil, Her Majesty’s Charge d’Affaires at the Court of Persia, Bushire 09/09/1844 (not foliated).

17 Lt. Arnold B. Kemball was acting Resident from April-December 1843, and Resident from March 1852-July 1855. He was promoted to Captain in February 1851.

18 NA, FO 248/263, Translation of a note sent to H. H. Sheik Hassan the Mujtihid of Bushire from Capt. Hennell Resident in the Persian Gulf dated 04/09/1844 (not foliated); NA, FO 248/263, Captain Hennell Resident in the Persian Gulf to Col. J. Sheil, Her Majesty’s Charge d’Affaires at the Court of Persia, Bushire 09/09/1844 (not foliated); Martin, p. 287.

19 Martin, “Murder in Bushehr in 1844”, p. 286.

20 Joseph Schacht, “Kisas,” EI1 (2nd ed.) 1987, IV, pp. 1038-40.

21 Émile Tyan, “Diya,” EI2, 1965, II, pp. 340-3.

22 NA, FO 248/263, Translation of a letter from Sheik Hassan Cazee or Mujtehid of Bushire to Capt. Hennell Resident in the Persian Gulf dated 21st Shaban (05/09/1844) (not foliated).

23 Schacht, “Kisas.”

24 William Francklin, Observations made on a Tour from Bengal to Persia in the Years 1786-7, London, Francklin, 1790, pp. 129-30.

25 This shows that Hennell was not familiar with the legal status of slaves in an Islamic court, i.e. that they could not bear witness in such a court. On the status of slaves in Islamic law, see Robert Brunschvig, “`Abd,” EI2, 1960, I, p. 24.

26 NA, FO 248/263, Translation of a note from Captain Hennell Resident in the Persian Gulf to the Mujtehid’s Communication of the 5th Instant dated 06/09/1844 (not foliated). On Sheikh Khalaf b. Ahmad, see Sayyed Abu’l-Hasan Hoseyni, ‘Olamâ-ye Âl-e ‘Osfur az Bahreyn tâ Bushehr, Tehran, Âyineh-ye ketâb, 1391/2012, pp. 93-4.

27 NA, NA, FO 248/263, Translated substance of a letter from Sheikh Hassan Cazee of Bushire to Captain S. Hennell Resident at Bushire dated 24th Shaban (08/09/1844) (not foliated). The term sarkâr refers to the British East India Company (EIC). The British Political Resident in Bushehr was seen as the successor of the EIC’s Resident.

28 NA, FO 248/263, Translation of a note from Captain Hennell Resident in the Persian Gulf to Sheik Abdoollah Acting Governor of Bushire dated 09/09/1844 (not foliated).

29 NA, FO 248/263, Translation of a Note from Sheikh Abdoollah Governor of Bushire to Captain Hennell Resident in the Persian Gulf dated 09/09/1844 (not foliated).

30 NA, FO 248/263, Statement of Mirza Hadee (not foliated) and NA, FO 248/263, Declaration made by Sultan Son of Hajee Jassem (not foliated).

31 NA, FO 248/263, Captain Hennell Resident in the Persian Gulf to Col. J. Sheil, Her Majesty’s Charge d’Affaires at the Court of Persia, Bushire 09/09/1844 (not foliated).

32 NA, FO 248/263, Translation of a note from Captain Hennell Resident in the Persian Gulf to Sheik Abdoollah Acting Governor of Bushire dated 09/09/1844 (not foliated).

33 The Demukh or Domukh, an Arab tribe, originally from the Najd, a branch of the Dawasir of the Bani Khalid tribe. At the end of the 17th century they migrated from al-Hasa and al-Qatif to Iran, where they settled in Chahkotah, a village near Bushehr. They served as militia for the Al Mazkur family, which had dominated Bushehr since the 1740s and held the local governorship since those days, be it with interruptions, see ‘Ali Rezâ Ibn ‘ Abd el-Kerim Shirâzi, Das Tarikh-i Zendije, ed. Ernst Beer, Leiden, Brill. von 1888, p. xvi; William Ouseley, Travels in Various Countries in the East: more particularly Persia, London, 1819, vol. 1, pp. 255-56.

34 The Bani Hajir of Rud Helleh, a district west of Bushehr, another tribal group that provided armed support for the Âl-e Mazkur.

35 Martin, “Murder in Bushehr in 1844”, p. 289.

36 NA, FO 248/263, Captain Hennell Resident in the Persian Gulf to Col. J. Sheil, Her Majesty’s Charge d’Affaires at the Court of Persia, Bushire 19/11/1844 (not foliated).

37 NA, FO 248/263, Translation of a Note from Sheikh Abdoollah Governor of Bushire to Captain S. Hennell Resident in the Persian Gulf (received 12 November) (not foliated).

38 NA, FO 248/263, Draft of a note from Captain S. Hennell Resident in the Persian Gulf to Sheikh Abdoollah Governor of Bushire in reply to his of 12/11/1844 (not foliated).

39 Hoseyn Khan, chief (moqaddam) of Maragheh, was appointed governor-general of Fars on 21 March 1844 and was granted the title of Sâheb Ekhtiyâr.

40 NA, FO 248/263, Translation of a note from Sheikh Abdoollah Acting Governor of Bushire to Captain S. Hennell Resident in the Persian Gulf (not dated; not foliated).

41 About Dr. Campbell no further particulars are known.

42 NA, FO 248/263, Captain Hennell, Resident in the Persian Gulf to Col. J. Sheil, Her Majesty’s Charge d’Affaires at the Court of Persia, Bushire 25/11/1844 (not foliated) and a follow-up letter from idem to idem of the same date (not foliated, but immediately following the previous letter).

43 NA, FO 248/263, Captain Hennell. Resident in the Persian Gulf to Lieut. Col. J. Sheil, Her Majesty’s Minister Plenipotentiary and Envoy Extraordinary at the Court of Persia, Bushire, 14/01/1845 (not foliated).

44 NA, FO 248/263, Major Hennell, Resident in the Persian Gulf to Lieut. Col. J. Sheil, Her Majesty’s Minister Plenipotentiary and Envoy Extraordinary at the Court of Persia, Bushire 03/03/1845 (not foliated).

45 NA, FO 248/263, Major Hennell, Resident in the Persian Gulf to Lieut. Col. J. Sheil, Her Majesty’s Minister Plenipotentiary and Envoy Extraordinary at the Court of Persia, Bushire 03/03/1845 (not foliated).

46 FO 60/114, Lieut. Col. J. Sheil, Her Majesty’s Minister Plenipotentiary and Envoy Extraordinary at the Court of Persia, Tehran to Lord Aberdeen, London 21/06/1845 (not foliated).

47 See Willem Floor, “Changes and Developments.”

48 See, e.g., Abu’l-Hasan Mohammadi (Translator), Qeṣâṣ: tarjomeh-ye ketâbi az Masâlik al-afham, ta’lif-e Shahid-e Thâni, va Sharayi‘ al-ahkâm, ta’līf-e Mohaqqeq Helli, Tehran, Nashr-e Dâneshgâhi, 1361/1982; Schacht, “Kisas.”

49 “Whenever any lawsuits shall arise between Russian and Persian subjects, the said lawsuits or disputes shall be brought before the Hakim of Governor, and shall not be investigated and decided except in the presence of the Dragoman of the Mission or of the Consulate.” For the English texts of these treaties, see J.C. Hurewitz (ed.), Diplomacy in the Near and Middle East, New York, 1957, vol. 1, pp. 96-102 and 123-24.

50 Although Sheikh Hasan, the qadi of Bushehr, had tried to harm the interests of both the staff and property of the British Residency in 1838, before and after the British Residency had withdrawn to the island of Khark, there is no mention of perceived anti-British bias or animosity on his part in the correspondence related to this case. On the relations between the Al-Mazkur and the British during this period, see Floor Bushehr.

51 See Abe Naofumi, “Who Acknowledges His Rights. Prelude to the “modernization” of the Judicial System in Mid-Nineteenth Century Iran as Seen in Persian Legal Documents,” n.d., [http://utcp.c.u-tokyo.ac.jp/publications/pdf/UTCPBooklet17_03_Abe.pdf].

52 See Floor, “Changes and Developments”; Vanessa Martin, and Morteza Nouraei, “The Role of the Karguzar in the Foreign Relations of State and Society of Iran from the mid-nineteenth century to 1921. Part I: Diplomatic Relations,” Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society 2005, XV/3, pp. 261-77.

Author

Willem Floor studied development economics and non-western sociology, as well as Persian, Arabic and Islamology from 1963 to 1967 at the University of Utrecht (the Netherlands). He received his doctoral degree from the University of Leiden in 1971. From 1983, Dr. Floor was employed by the World Bank as an energy specialist; however, after his retirement in 2002, he has dedicated his time to the study of the social and political history of Iran, and has published extensively throughout this time.

The text and other elements (illustrations, imported files) may be used under OpenEdition Books License, unless otherwise stated.

Search OpenEdition Search

You will be redirected to OpenEdition Search