“Egypt and the age of the triumphant prison: Legal punishment in nineteenth century Egypt,” Annales Islamologiques, 36 (2002), pp. 253-285

Rudolph PETERS

Egypt and the Age of the TriurnphanrPrison: Legal Punishment in NineteenthCentury Egypt

f N rHe NINETEENTH a legal system emerged in Egypt, that cornplenrented the shari'a. It

I was enforced by adrninistrators and not by shari'a collrts. Crinrinal law was a prorninent

I part of this system. As Í iom lB29 cr iminal codes were enactedl ancl f rom lB42 judicialcouncils were created to enÍbrce thern. An important element in this systetn was the notionof legality: the judicial ar-rthorities could only impose penirlties by virtr-re of enactecl crinrinallaws definin-e the oÍ'fences and their punishments. Moreover. sentences should exactly speciÍythe amount of punishment, which shoLrld be commensurate with the gravi ty of the cr ime.Thtts a well-ordered and regulated s)/stem of legal punishnrent came into beins. with capitalpenalty. colporal punishment and imprisonment with fnrced labour as its nrost inrportanLelements. l

One of the tnost striking developn-rents of the Egyptian penal systern in the nineteenthcentury is the shift tor.l 'ards imprisonment as the main Íbrm of punishment at the expenseof'corporal and capital punishment. This is very similar to what happened in Western Europeand other regions during roughly the same period. which for that reason has been dubbecl"the age of the triumphant prison".3 In the following I will stucly the emergence ancldeveloplnent of the Egyptian system of .jLrdicial punishrnents between Iti29. when the Íirstpenal code was enacted, and 1882, the yenr the British occupied Egypt. I will comparethese developments with those in the West ancl exantine whether the thedfies advanced toexplain the changes in the European penal systenr can help us understancl what happenedin Egypt.

In his study,San'ci l ler ct ptmir: nct issrtnr:e t le la pr i .sorra Foucault argLles that thereoccurred in France around I800 a marked chan-ue in the charactcr of punishment. Corporaland capital punishment. i .e. punishnlent directecl at the culpr i t 's bocly. enacted as a publ ic

I For a succinct survev oÍ the cr iminal codes entctcd benvet 'n1829 and Ihe Br i t ish occupàt i ( . rn, ste Appendix 2.

I For tht ' deve' lopment of cr iminal lau, in n inet tenth ccnturvEgypt, sce Peters (1q90), Peters ( t991), peters 0gs7), perers( I 9s9a) and Poters ( I 9s9b).

'r The tt'rm uras coinctl bv Pcnot

thc pcr iod bcnvcen l8 l - i . . tnd

pf ison t r iomphante".I Fouc.rr Í l t ( i97- i ) .

( i975i , p. El , r r rho charactcr ises

1848 in France as " i ' t : re t ie la

2 5.i

Ánrrnles l.s/ruroiogi{íd.i -ló - :00.2

r

spectacle on the scaffolc l . was replaccd hy punishnrent directed at the culpr i t 's mincl andhidden from the publ ic eye. The crucl spectacles of sr-r Í Íèr in_g, ureant to serve as strongdcterrents, werc necessirry in an age whcn lew cr iminals were caught, owing to the lackof wel l organised pol ice forces. Their rcplacenrent hy i rnpr isonrncnt i rs the main formof punishment was, according to Foucault , the rcsult of the emergcnce of a central isedstate, capablc r t f ensuring law and order by meitns of an efÍrc ient pol ice apparatus. Thenear ccrtainty of bcinr caught replace-cl the deterrcnce inst i l led by spectacles of cruelexecut iorts and torture. The new Íbrm of punishment, Foucnult argues, was aimed atdiscipl in ing the oÍfbnder by sLrbject ing hirn to n r i*r . t rors lcgime, to u,hich encl a central isedand hierarchical syster l of pr isons was creatcd. Pr isons. along with sclrools, the armyand mental asylums became discipl in ing inst i tut i t rns rreant to crcate obedient subjects ofthe statc.

In his study I / re SpetÍut: la ol Sulf 'er i t rq.s Spiclenburg cr i t ic ises Foucault 's ideas. HeconcLlrs with Foucar-rlt in that thc ninetecnth ccntury saw thc emergence of irnprisonmenl. asthe orclinar,rr mode of purtishment and lhe decrease of capital ancl corporirl punishnrent andthat punishrnent ceased to be a publ ic spectacle. Howevcr, his nrairr object ion to Foucault 'sstudy is that the changes described by Foucault as having occurrcd in a rather short periodof t ime, were in fact part of a process that lasted for r lore than a ccutury. ancl that inntany Western European colurtries inrprisonment in houses of correction existed already inthe seventeenth century. Other points of cr i t ic lue are that Foucault tbcused c-xclusively onFratrce and t l rat somc of his exarrples used to show thc prevalence of brutal publ icpunishtnent, such as the execut ion of the French rcgicidc Damicns in l l51 , were except ionaland c:lttnot be regarded as ordinary Íbrms of punishing crinrinal ofJ'cnders.

Spierenbulg asserts that torture, corporal punishment and pLrbl ic execut ions disirppearin Western Europe betwecn 1770 and 1870. Unt i l that per iod the standard punishmentcons is ted in the i r t Í l i c t ion o f pa in . rd rn in is te red in pub l i c . Th is inc luded the sLr t fe r ings o fthe "chaines", the transport of gal ley convicts on their $,ay to Marsei l les and. aÍ ier theabol i t ion of the gal leys, to the nuval arsenals ( .bugttes).6 An impclr tant Í 'unct ion of publ ic lyadnt inistered pult ishment. i rccorcl ing to Spiclenburg. was to cnrphasise tht- . authol i ty andpowcr of the state. For the changcs in the modes of punishrneït that occurrcd dLrr ingthe late eighteenth and nrost of the ninetecnth ccntur ies Spicrenburg otters two expla-nat ions: El ias' "c iv i l is ing process" ( t lar I ' ro:es.s der Ziyi l i .suÍ iotr) and t l re strengtheningand better intcsrat ion of the Wcstern Europcan States. As a result of thc "civ i l is ing

process". the scnsibi l i t ies to ofÍ ic ial ly inf l icted pain increase. In the f i rst phase. a growingaversion to the sight of physical sr-r Í Í t l ing promptcd groups among the el i te to becomeadvocatcs of penal reÍbrm. Thcse endeavours were successful and muti lat ing penalt ies.the exposure of bcldies after capital punishrnent ancl torture were abol ishecl in nrost WcsternEuropean countr ies dr-r l ing thc second half oi the'eighteenth century. Dul ing the secondphase. roughly the Í l rst hal f of thc nineteenth century. the var ious social groups bccame

" Sp i c r cnbL i r g ( l 9q l ) , p . 278 ; Zvsbe rg ( l t ) 8 ,+ ) , p . 8ó -9 l . Fc r r

Sl .a i r ' t , sc ' r ' t ) ikc ( l , l8 . l ) , p. 7ó-t ) .254Spierc 'nLrufg (1q8.1)

I ' , C Y P T A N L ) T H E A ( , E O I T H E T l { l L l N l P } 1 , \ N l - P R I S L ) N : L I : C , \ l - P L l N l S l l N l I N T I N N I N E T I ] E N T H C F . N T L I R Y F . C Y P T

better integrated in the nat ion Statc and began to ident i fy with clne another. ' fhe

sensibi l i t ies to spectacles of sr-r Í fer ing began to extend to the suÍfer ings of other classes.This resulted in ncw attenrpts to refornr he system of le-ual punishrnent. These attentptscoulcl succeecl s ince States l rad beconrc hctter integratecl i ind therefore r torc stable.ThereÍore. the pol i t ical authori t ies wcrc l ' l ( ) t unym()re in need of the cleterrence proclucedby publ ic execut ions and could rcspond to the new sensibi l i t ies by conceal ing punishnrentlrom the publ ic eye. Imprisonment became the cclnrmon penalty. capital sentences \^,ereincreasingly executed behind pr ison wal ls and corporal pulr ishments such as f logging andbrancling clc-creased in importance ancl u,ere Íinal11, abolished in r.r.rost courrtrics. In orderto explain why thcse chrnges in the penal systems of the var ious Western Eurclpeancountr ies occurred roughly in the same t ime and order, whcreas central ised nat ion statesdid not emcrge sintul taneously. Spierenburg has recourse to the not ion of a "European

network of states". In othel words. hc r-r--uards these developments not as related to theformation of separatc statcs. but as l t con. lnotr European I l roccss.

The common element in these explanat ions is thc enrergence oÍ- central ised States.However, whereas Foucault sees thc changes in the penal system as a direct conseqllenceof the r ise of a central iscd. intrusive. and disciphning State, Spierenburg argues that theemergence of powerÍul and central ised States was a necessary condit ion for these changesto bc successful but at tr ib lr tes thern to changcs in the mental i ty of the el i tes. In this essayI will argue, following Foucault, that penal relbrm in E_qypt was in first instance a directresult of thc ccntralisation of state power and the creation of an eÍficient apparatus of controlof the population, of which the policeT was a part. However, contrary to Western Europe.the Egypt ian pr isons were not transf i rrmcd into instruments of discipl ine. Imprisonment.l ike corporal punishment, wlrs a modc of repression ainred at subject i rrs. not at discipl in ingthe popul i t t ion. Discipl in ing act iv i t ies of the State. especial ly dul ing the Í l rst hal f of thenineteenth century, were directed at the State servants, both civil and ntilitary,8 and not atthe populat ion at large. That f logging and beat ing were abol ished irr lB6l cannot beexp la ined. there lo re , by the need fu r n rore e f fec t i ve c l i sc ip l inary exped ien ts , such i rsimprisott t t tent. But i t cart nei ther be crplained, as I wi l l argue. by growing sensibi l i t ies topubl ic sufÍèr ing. Decisive were, in mv vicw. the wish to modprnise among importuntsegments of the elite in combination with economic làctors.

These aspects of ninetecnth century Egypt inn hrstory. have hardly be-en the subject ofscholar l l , re-sear-ch." This is part ly the result of the nature of the avai lable sources, whichimposes serious l imitat ions on the research of the penal systent. To the best of myknowledge Egypt, unfortunatcly. lacks the r ichness ol ' sources on the subject for-rnd inmost Weste-rn European countr ics and consist ing in ofí ic ial and press reports, diar ies, i indl i terary texts that may add l ivel iness and cletai l to inst i tLrt ional history. The only avai lat ' r lesources are otïc ial c locunrents with inlornrat ion on the inst i tut ional aspects, and only r i t rel \ /

r For thc níne' t t r .nthE Fo r t hc d i sc i p l i n i ne

centurv pol ice, sc ' i ' Fahmv (1999b)

o f t h t ' n i l i t an , . s ce Fahmv (1997 )" Thc onlr r s tLtd i t 's knou'n to me . t re Fahmv's ar t ic l r ' on thc

mcd rca l cond i ï i ons i n n i n r . t r . cn l h cen tu r y hgvp t i Jn p r j sons

Fahmlr (20t l t l ) ind Pr ' t r ' rs ( for thconr ins h) . I5-s

on the experience oÍ ' thosc who suffered punishment. These sources, regrettably, do not

al low us "to construct t l re history of pr isons from the inside out", as a number of Wes-

l c r n h i s t o r i a n s h r v e d o n e . l "

My main sources, apart Íiom published law codes and statutes, are ofÍicial documents

located in the Egypt ian Nat ional Archives (Dàr al-Wathir ' iq al-Qawmiyya, DWQ). Since at

this moment only a very smal l part of al l docr-rments in the DWQ is accessible. i t is l ikelv

that in the future other sources will be tbLrnd that will hopefully fil l in the gaps in our

krrowledge of the penal svstem. The sources I have used consist of unpublishecl decrees

and Khedival ordels. of corresponclence between state authoritics, and of sentences of the

various iudicial counci ls. In addit ion I went through some years of Al-Waqá' i ' a l-Misr iyya,

which sunrmari ly recorded the t l ia ls in the Divàn-i Hidivr. Al l this is supplemented by the

scarce informal. ion that can be cul led from the nubl icat ions of contenrDorarv Western

travellers.

To the best of rr-ry knowledge there was no public debate in nineteenth century Egypt

about penal pol ic ies. nor have I found express off ic ial statements laying down e.g. arphilosophy of legal punishnrent or the principles of penal reÍorm. What the rulers regarcled

as the objectives of ancl grounds fbr punishrnent can only be inferred lrom the preambles

and texts of penal codes and decrees and Íiorl the wording of criminal sentences. Here

we find brief references to sorne aims and justifications. The twt-r mentioned most frequently

are rehabi l i tat ion and deterrence. In the l86l decree abol ishing corporal punishment (see

below) this is Íbrmulated as tbllows: "The ainr of punishment is to teach manners (tu'dib.

tarbi"-a) to those who have cornmitted crimes, to prevent them from returning to crirninal

behaviour and to deter others." In most sentences we tind fbrmulas like : "Íbr his correctitln

/ for making him repent and as a deterrent exarnple to others (utlalt"" lahu I ndtlcTntcrf"'

lsltu wcr-'ibrof"'l i-g,hut,rihi). That by "teaching nranners" to the oÍ'fender or "making hinr

repent" sonre fonn of rehabilitaLion of the convict is rneant, is conoborated by some ailicles

in the penal codes that lay down that in certain cases repcntance and inpmvement of conduct(ni lA tosluh hr i luhu I hcl luha') are condit ions for releasing a pr isoner.rr The causal

relationship between sen,ing a plison sentence and repentance or improvement of conduct

is somehow assumed and not made explicit. The same is true Íbr deterrence. I have not

seen any theoretical reflections on the mltter. Protectiori of society is rarely rnentioned,

and then only:rs a just i Í icat ion Íor incapacitat ing penalt ies i .e. physical el iminat ior) or

exclusion of the criminal through cleath or lifè sentences. Thirt retribution, although not

explicitly nrentioned, was also inrportant. is shown by the simple fact that the law codes

lay down that more serious oÍÍences entail more severe penalties. That it is not reÍèrred to

could indicate that it was so selt'-evident that nobody thought of mentioning it.

We are not well inÍbrrned about the penal system beÍbre and during the early years of

Mehmed (Ali's reign. There are reports that in the eighteenth century there were private

prisons, due to the existence of various centres of power connected with Mamhlk households.

r" See t - .g. O'L\r ien (1s82), t i ,ho ust 'd the phrase "historv Í rom

the inside oLrt" (p. s) .

r S e c . e . g . a r t . . + P C 1 8 2 9 a n d c h . I , a r t . l 5 a n d c h . 2 , a r t . 5 ,

ch .3 , a r t . l 3 QS .t ) o

PT

I t is not c lear, however. whether these can be regarded as part of a system of law

enfolcement or rather as tools in thc struggle for power between these householtls. There

were also state prisons. rlln by prison wardens i.rs concessions.ll We do know, however,

that by 1829. a penal syste'm was functioning based on death penalty, corporal punishnrent(essent ial ly f logging and caning) and inrpr isonment, usual ly with hard Iabour. [n that same

year a central prison was created for convicts fiom all over Egypt. This was the notorious

Itmtut (or lfinrun) l.;keutdurivya, nanred after-the Tulkish word for harbour (liman Ír'om Greek

limèn). It was part of the Alexandria Arsenal (tetrsana') and its establishment was pronrpted

by the large scale construction works connected with the Alexanclria harbour that had begun

rn the same year. l3 I t resembled very rnuch the kind of hard labour-pr isons connected

with naval arsenals existing in other Mediterraneau ports. e.g. in France (bagnes') and Spain,

that came into existence during the eighteenth century to replace galley service tbr convicts.r+

During the 1840s transportat ion to the Sudan was introduced as a penalty for sel ious

ofÍènders.

In this essay I wi l l fbcus on the three main elements of the penal system: capital and

corporal punishment and inrpr isonment. I wi l l not go rnto the Í ïnct ion of the poorhouses.

such as the Takiyyat TulLrn in Cairo, although these sornetirnes served as places of detention

as mentioned in the Penal Code of 184-5 (Al-Qánhn al-Muntakhab, henceforth QM).r5 Their

pLrni t ive lunct ion. hou,ever, was only marginal. l í ' There l r . 'ere also other penalt ies of minor

importance. some of them expressly meant as supplementary punishments. I wi l l merrt ion

them here for completeness' sake. but wi l l not elaborate. The QM intr-oduced Í ining, the

revenues of which were to be spent on the Civi l Hospital (Al- isbi tul i t 'yu al-nulki t ' t ' t t l . t j

La ter codes , however , do no t ment ion th is pun ishment . The QM a lso in t roduced

sr-rpplementary penalties adoptecl fr-om French crirlinal law : those sentenced to long tenns

of forced labour had to bc paraded in their regions carrying a sign on which the offences

were written for which they had been convicted.ls Moreover. crirninal sentences Íbr seritrus

crirnes had to be publicised by posting placards in tlie main centres of the province.re

Other supplementary punishments were conscription after the conrpletion of the prisorr term

ancl, fbr non-Egypt ians, expulsion to one's colrntry of or igin. The lat ter lneasurc was

routinely applied. also in the case of non-Egyptian Ottoman subjects.20 Finally, some forms

of punishment were reserved Íor of f ic ials : discharge and demotion. and dete nt ion rn the

off ice. with or without wases.

r r Hanna (199 -5 ) , p . l 2 -3 .r r N , , 1ubà r . . l k ( 130ó H . ) , V l l , p , 51 .L1 See r ' . g . P i ke (1981 ) ; Z , vsbc rg ( 198+ ) .r : Ar t . l9 l Qlv.r í ' See Ener ( Íor thcoming).r i

QN i a r t . t 78 .E Q\ ' l . r r t . 121, 125 (corresponding wi th aÍ t ic les 22 and 25 of

the Í : rench Code Pónal oí lBl l ) . Al though the rvorc l ing oÍ

thr' French codr' u,as adopted jn the QÀ'i, the pr.rctice itselÍ,

callt'd Inshhir ri,as alread,v common in the Ottoman Empirt' and

Eg.vpt . OÍÍ t -nde'rs n,crc paradt 'd about publ ic p laccs on

clonkeys r i r r th their faces turncd to the ta i l and a cr i r ' r precedc

them shout ing: "Be\r /are, o good peoplc, of imi tat inÈ their

o f f ences . " Sce S t . l ohn (1852 ) , Í 1 , p . 72 -3 .r" r \ r t . 130 QJ\ l .I ' r l t is mcnt ioned in a few art ic lL 's in thc CP 1849 (ar t . 30,

8ó-E6,90), Lrui not in the QS. The sentenc( 's oÍ thc À. l . r i l is

. r l -Ahkám shour that i t was stJnJJrd practrcc th.r t Íor t ' igners(also Ottoman subjects Í rom othcr regrons than F.g,vpt) rvere

depol lecJ to thcj r countr i t 's oÍ or ie in aÍ ter conrplct Íon of their

pr ison t r ' rn. See also l \ ' la j l is a l - i \hkám, Q.rvd al -qaráràt , Sin

1 , ' 2 / t \ t 273 -1276 ) , p . I l . L )

-

R U D L ) L P H P E T T R S

Capital and Corporal Punishment

Capital punishment

During the first decades of Mehmed (Alr's reign, capital pr,rnishment was Íiequently applied,

not unly Íbr rnurder and robbery. but also Íirr rebellion, ofÍlcial negligencelr and recidivism.22

It was r-rsual ly carr ied out by hanging (.rc1b) or ' , in case of mi l i tary personnel. by the f i r ing-

squad.l'r In accor-dance with Ottoman custom. those of high rank were beheaded or stlangled

with a bowstring.2a Women who deserved capital punishment were strangled2s or drowned

in the Nile.16 During the first half of the 1830s execution by impaling or "by other barbarous

means" were abol ishecl ("except ing in extrerne cases". ; . : l The deterrent ef fèct of execut ions

was regarded as an essential aspect of the punishment. A decree issued by the Diwán-i

Hidiwi in November 1U34 laid down that those brought to death were to be left one day

hanging fiom thc gallows and that placards stating the name and the crime of the culprit had

to be shown at the pl lce of execut ion and al l over the country in places frequented by

people.rs Executions did not clraw large crowds as they did in Western Europe. Even if

they were carried out in market places, which was custornary, those present there would

continue with their business of selling and buying without paying attention to the spectircle.le

Public executions were not only meant Íbr deterrence, but also had a highly synrbolic

function as expressions of State power. As soon as he had established full control over all

regions of the country, Mehmed (Ali wanted to leave no doubt that State authority and the

monopoly of violence were vested in his person. ThereÍbre" Mehmed (Ali enforced the rule

in the early 1[330s that executiuns needed his approval, barring emergencies such as clpen

rebe-l l ion. '10 Previorrsly, the local governors could execnte cr iminals on their own accord.

Travellcrs report that the number of executions decreased during Mehmed (Ali's reign because

of greater public security brought about by a more efficient police torce.rl This trend

continueci until the llritish occupaticln. Executions had become relatively rare by the middle

of the century.r l The nunber of capital of Í-ences was srnal l : the QM of I 845 urent ioned

only tlrree capital oÍ'Íences : certain types of aggravated theÍi, arson resulting in loss of lifè

and hicling runaway peasants. Manslaughter (qcttl 'umtl) would only be punished with death

if the qadi pronounced a sentence of retaliation (qisr7.r). Robbery ceased to be a capital

r r l \ l a ' i v , v , r SJn i vva t o i \ hm ; rd Pasha Yegen , I 2 Sa Ía r 12 ,+8

l l l JLr l ,v lSl l l referr ing to Nlehmed 'Alr 's orc lcrs to the ma'mÍr

oí Tanta tLr exr .cutc shcikhs n,ho had not c lc l ivered the hanrcst

to tht storehouscs. J\ ' {a ' i1,1,a Sanivya Turki . 44 (o ld) , doc. 91.rr Al- \ \ /aqj ' i ' . t l^Nl is f i ,v) , r . I Sh.r 'b. in. ' ,ot ,a-1- t .s-111.r ' r S t - r . t . e . Kh r ' d i va l o rde r , - r Rab i ' l l 1272 l l - l - l : - 18551 j s sucd

to tht governor oÍ thc Qr l ' . r Sa'd iyya to cxr .cute a sold icr by

shoot ing him. l \ ' {a ' i r iva Sani t ,va, gádir a l -arvàmir a l - 'à l iya, Sin

I / | r i 5, p. l -1 '1, c1oc. | 5.r ' + Bo \ v r i ng (18+01 . p . I 23 .r : Lane { l o f ' o ) , p . I I l .r r ' see ' c . g . Sám i ( 1q28 -1930 ) , I l , p . 3ó5 , l 3 Dh Í a l -Q ! ' da I 245

[6-s- r 8301.

i ; Sco t t ( 1817 ) , l l , p . l l 5 . The l as l i n s tances o Í imp . r l cd t ' e re

reco rded i n l 8 l 7 o r 1839 . Sec C i sque t ( n .d . ) , t t , p . t : : :

Schoe l chc r ( I 84ó ) , p . 24 ; Cuémard ( I 93ó ) , p . 26 r .' rs L)r \ \ 'àn Khidi t , i , NlLr l . lkhkhasat d.r Í ; r t i r , l \ ' ÍahÍaza ó1, Nrr . 5

{L )a l t a r 806 o l d } , doc .71 , l q Ra j . r b l : 50 12 l - 11 - lE : l 4 l : l v l a j Í i s

al ihkám, mndbata I9 Dhir a l -Qr 'da I266 [26-9- IE50], l l la i l is

al -Àhkàm, i \ , {ahí . :za 2, doc. 2r l I .:e CIot l lc ,v (18,+0), l l , p. 107.r " Sco t t ( 1837 ) , I t . p . I 15 .I ! iLr \ \ / r ing ( lSa0), p. I l i : St . lohn (18-]+) , l l , p. ,174; st ' r ' a lscr

GLrémard ( lq3o), p. 257. On tht ' Eg.vpt ian pol icc, ser. Fahmy( r 9e9b ) .

r r Couv i c l ou (1871 ) , p . 3cU .2 5 8

-

E C I Y I ) T A N D T H E A C I E O F T t l E T R I U N ' I P H A N T t ) R I S O N : l - E C A L P U N I S H N ' I E N T l N N I N E T E E N T H C E N T L I R Y t - C l Y

offence in lBr l4.rr AÍ ier- the introduct ion of the Penal Codc of 18.19. which does not nrent iotr

capital pr.rnishment at all. and the Irnperial Penal Code (Al-Qrintlrunme ql-Sultctní, henceforth

QS) aroLntcl 1853. death sentences other tlritr.r fbr nranslaughter becante extt'entely rare.rl Other'

incapacitating punishments, such as liÍèlong btrnishment to Ethiopia and transportation to the

Sr-rdan, both introduced in the 1840s took the place of capital punishr lent.

An addit ional Íactor that may have kept the nunrber of execut ions low was the conf l ict

hetween the Khedive and the Sultan about the right to ratify capital sentences, that arose

clur ing the negot iat ions about the introduct ion of t l te Ottonran Pertal Code of 1850. The

Sultan insisted that this was his prerogat ive, inextr icably bound up with his sovercignt l ' .

whereas the Khcdive wanted to retain a privilege that he and his predecessors hacl always

exercisecl . l - i Al though t l rere is no docuntentary evidence. i t rs possible that the Khedive, in

order not to give ncw Íïel to the conflict. instructed the judicial councils that hc would not

trpprovc capital sentences cxcept those sanctioned try qadis.

Corpornl punishment

During tl-re early years of Mehrned (Ali's reign, various types of corporal putrishments

rvere applied. of which flogging wrs the lnost common. Other lorrns existcd too bttt were

unusual. Frorn the carly years of Mehmed (Ali's rei-en we have tu'o pertittent reports by the

contemporary chronicler Al-Jabartr . That he included these reports in his history is an

indicat ion of the cxcept iorral chirractcr of the penalt ies mcnt iotrecl in t l tem. The Í i rst t 'eport is

that in l8l2 the governor of Cairo sentenced three robbers to thc punishrne nt of atnputrt t iot t

of their r ight hands.36 This must have been an Lrnusuit l penalty as is corroborated by

Al-Jabami's rentark that the execut ioner was not prof ic ient in this operat ion, as a result of

which one of the robbers died. The executioner's lack of proficiency was no dclubt it

consequence of thc infrequent occLrrrence clf this type of puttishmettt. The second lc-port is

irbout a rnarket inspector (nruhtasih), a certain Mu,stafá Kirshif Kurd, who went around and

punished those violat ing the market regulat ions by nai l ing them to the doot 's of their shops.

piercin-u thcir noses ancl hanging pieces of meat from thenr. c l ipping their cars, s i t t ing thett t

on hot baking trays and so fbrth.37 These stories are oÍten quoteq as an indication of the

cruelty ancl arbitrariness of -justice in Mehmecl (Ali's time. Although tltese typcs of purlishment

ref lec1 older Ottoman pr i tct ices. thcy must have been exccpt ional in early nineteenth century

Egypt. for otherwise Al-Jabarti would not have nrentioned it. This is the more plausible

since Mustafá Kirshif Kurd was appointcd by Mehnred 'Ali for his luthlessttess irfier hc hacl

heard that thc lower orders of Cairo could not be rnade to obey Mr"rstafá's predecessor.

As frorn the 1830 Mehmecl (Al i Íbl lowed a pol icy of putt ing an end to t t tut i lat in-u

corporal punishutcnts. When, in l t l i5. he learned that the -governor of the Buhayra

r : See Bae r ( l gÓ t r l 'r r ' I aba r t i ( 1879 - 1880 ) , IV ,rr jabart i ( I 879- I 380), IV,

s c c r l s o L a n c ( 1 9 ó ó ) ,

p . : ó2 , s ' 12 .

r r À r t . l s 7 q N l .' r i Af ter l85Ll I havt ' comt ' across onlV one

\v.rs pronounccd against a sold ier t t 'hcr

h . r r i ne u i l i L r l l v l c t e : c r1 ' e J l . r ' i s c r t r ' t .r ! ' Ícrrcd [Lr in note 25.

capihl scntcncr ' . I l

t tas contr ic t t -c i fot

S c c l h r ' d o c u n r e n l

p. l+4 .p . 278 (Ramac lán , 12 .12 [ lL r l v . I8 l7 ] ) ;p . l ? 6 , l l 7 ; S a m i { l q l . q - l s 3 ó ) , l l ,

2 5 r

I T L I D O L P H P E T E R S

Province had cut olf the nose ancl ears of a peasant who had uprooted cotton plants before

Í inal ly ki l l ing him. he censured the lat ter and instructed him that f logging. imprisonment

and death were the only punishnrents that he was al lowed tcl impose for such acts, which

was in accor-dance with the Penal Code of l829.rx There is no evidence that muti lat ing

hoclcl penalties or' 4i,rr7.r punishment Íbr wounding were enforced. In the rare cases that

Iow 'c r cour ts p ror rounced such sentences . they were invar - iab ly commuted by h igher

authori t ies. l ' )

Thc only fbrms of corpclral punishrnent urent ioned in the laws issued in Mehmed 'Al i 's

tirne were flogging with the kurbd.j (with a maximum of 600 stripesa0) on the buttocks or

the bast inado on the soles ol ' the t 'eet.+l Unl ike the older Ottoman penal codes that would

dcÍlne ofÍèncr-s but not their punishment. the Egyptian codes from 1829 specify the number

of strokes.al Beating with a wooden stick (nobbrTr;, althougli not listed in the codes, was

also pract ised.a3 Flogging was the usual punishment in the count lysicle and the Code of

AgricLr l ture (Qchtt ln al-Fi laha, henceforth: QF) of 1830 rnent ions i t as a punishment in 3l

out of i ts -5-5 art ic les. I t was the preferred penalty to punish cul t ivat.ors, s ince inrpr isonment

would result in a dccline in prodr-rctivity.11 With regard to some offences, the application

of the punishment of flogging depended on the social clarss of the oÍfender: thuse belonging

to the lowel classes wL're to be flogged. whereas those of the higher classes were to bepunished with inrprist)nmc-r-rt.r5 This must reflect an explicit penal policy. The relevant

prol'isions arc paft of a group of articles that are direct borrorvings fronr the French Cocle

Pénal of lBl0. which cloes not l ist f logging as a punishment.

Under the influence of Ottonran crirninal law, canins was intrc'rducecl by the QS. The

first three chapters of this Code. for the greater part identical with the Ottoman Criminal

Code of l8-50, nreticulously followed the shari'a provisions ït'tr tu'a.ír, in that the rtraxu-nLtm

ntrmbel ol strokes was not to exceed 79, one less than the minimun hodd punishment.

Howcver. in the chapters summlr is ing previous Egypt ian legislat ion (chapters 4 and -5), the

traditiorral Egy'ptian svstem u'as nuintrtined. except that the Íern kurbàj (whip) was no\ /

replaced by juldu (lash), a term used in the standard works of Islamic jurisprudence. The

rnaxirnum number of str ipes mentioned in the code was 250. Flogging or caning by way

of ta':lr or as a hutld punishmcnt could also be adrninistered in a qadi's court. From the

archival mater ial i t is c lear that i f the cladi imposed sr-rch punishnrent. i t was immediately

cu l r ie t l t ru t t lu r ing the sess ion .

r s ( ) r de rs o f I ane l 22 Ramadán . 1251 . SámÍ ( 1928 -19 .1ó ) , l l ,

I r . 156 , 158 .r ' ' Scc Pe t c r s ( 19q7 ) .l ' '

Q\ i ar l . l l l mcnl ions thís nunr l rcr as a punishmcnt Íor of f ic ia ls

commit t ing ior thc fh i l i i t ime thc of íencc ol ' rc turning latc i rorrr

an of f ic ia l journcv.r ; [ I - a r t . : 5 s t j pu l . ] t es t hc l i ab i l j t t , . r c co r r i i ng t o t hc sha r i . r o Í

rn of f ic ia l rvho causes thc death oÍ a pt ' rson bv hi t t ing him

Lrn spols otht ' r thrn the l rut tocks or the solcs of thc fe 'c ' t . The

technical term / i r / r iqn for Lrast inar lo, hou'ever, is not mcnt iont 'd

i n t h r ' pena l codes .

1 r Scc Pe t c r s ( l 999L r ) , l r r . r Í t - r i ' a r t i c l c s r hc numbc r r s no t

spcci Íed, probabl l i dLre to r ' r i i tor ia l overs ight . Sec e.e. PC lE+9,

art . l : "an dppropr i . r te (corporal) purr ishment \ t t l - ta 'z í r l t t -nà

valiq)" .' ' Scc t - .g. Khct i ival or i ier oí lo Àlcrh;rranr l l -52 I l - -5- ls ló l ; SJnr i

( I 928- I 9-16), l l , p. +ó6.11 This is mt 'nt iont 'd cxpl ic i t lv in var i t rus pcnal lau,s. Scr ' PC

lE l9 , a r t . q ; QS , ch . 3 , a r t . 19 .r : Àrt . 164 ant l 166 ( l l \ i , cor f i .sponding r t r i th . r r ts . 3 i0 and . :09

of tht ' Frr 'nch Cot le Pt inal of lBl l .

-

E C Y P T A N D T H E A G E L ] F T H E T R I U ] \ , I P H A N T P R I S L ] N : L E G A L P L I N l S H ] V I E N T I N N I N E T E E N T H C E N T U R Y E G Y P T

Flogging and caning as judicíal punishments were abolished in 1861. In order to put

this in its proper perspective, it is necessary to discuss it in the context of oÍÍicial violence.

During the nineteenth century acts of violence committed by officials against the population

were fiequent and common. We can distinguish the fbllowing Íbrms:- generic oÍÍicial violence in situations where officials needed to assert tlieir authorityand Íbrce persons to carry out their orders (army, civil servants supervising corvée,collecting taxes etc.) ;- physical pressure during cr iminal invest igat ions;- judicial corporal pr"rnishment based on sentences pronounced by qadis. councils, oroÍïcials with judicial powers.

From the middle of the nineteenth century the Egyptian government made attempts at

controllins and limiting generic oÍïcial violence. The rlotives behind these measures were

diverse and I will discuss them in the conclusions. The Ílrst steps in limiting official violencewere taken by Mehrnecl (Al i who enacted legrslat ion making ofÍ ic ials frnancial ly and

criminally responsible for excessive violence resulting in loss of life+6 and tbr unlawfuldetent ion.aT This was part of his pol icy of curbing the i rrbi t rary behaviour of his

adrninistrators and soldiels and to inculcate discipline into them. However, these measures

were not intended to put an end to generic official violence and it remained a commonphenomenon: tax collection in the countryside was usually accompanied by the whippingof those unwilling or unable top pay until at least the end of the 1870s.48

Until the early 1850s. torture Qtl-tach,íq'alc7 etl-nruíhr7n) during investigation was standardprocedure, sanctioned by state lawae although not by the shari'a.50 It consisted as a rule inflogging and beating, often on the soles of the Íèet. Other fbrrns of torture were forcingpeople to stand Íbr 48 hours until their fèet were swollen, depriving people frorn food, drink

and sleep, confinement in too small a cell, hanging a person from his fingers and the use

of shackles.5r When the QS was introduced in the early 1850s, one of the organic decreesissued in connection with the QS banned the use of physical pressure during criminal

ib For l iabi l i tv oÍ oÍ Í ic ia ls Íor death caused t , r , í logging. sr .e

Kher i ival ordcr, 28 RabÍ ' l l 1245 127-9-18451, i .e. beÍore thc

c 'nactment oÍ lVlehmed'Al i 's f i rs t cr iminai codel to the ef Í r 'c t

that oíficials u,ho wou{d c.rusc the de;rth of persons by L'e;ting

l vou ld bc l i ab l e acco rd i ng t o t he sha r i ' a and a l so Í ; r ce

banishmcnt; the order rvas occasiont 'd by a report that a

ma'mir jn the Charbiwa province had beatcn t r r t leath some

persons. Sàmi ( | 928- I 936), 11, p. 35ó ; see fur tht ' r : QF art . l5 :

Q lV l a r t . 60 ; PC 1849 a r t . 46 ; QS ch . l , a r t . l .47 OÍf ic i . r ls rvho unlarvfu l ly impr ison pcfsons must pay a com-

pens,r t ion oÍ 5 to l0 p iasler per da1, : Qy ar t . I79; PC I8,19,

ar t . 14. Thc' provis ions were not adopted by the QS.i E C o l e ( 1 e 9 3 ) , p . 3 7 .r t

QF. .1r t . 26; Dir ,án- i Hid i r r i Làyihesi (RrgLr lat ions of the Khcdival

Bure. lu) , issued l3 Muharram 1254 [8-4-1838], ar t . 13. Text

in l \ , lahÍazat a l -Nl ih i , doc. 2Ll . See also Lane (1966), p. | 14.

, t

: t 'Dur ing thc jnvest igat ion of case of manslaughtcr the sLrspccts

had been beaten sevcrely and f inal ly conÍcssed consider ing that

bcing sent to the Alexandr ia gaol r i ,as bct ter than cont inuously

bcing rvhipped. The Grand Nlui t i s tated: "Thc t leÍendants

cannot bc convicted for manslaughter because thejr coníe 'ss ions

have bcen ob ta j ned bv r vha t acco rd i ng t o t he sha r i ' a i s

regarded .rs cor'rcion (ikrálr slrcr'i)." Fatw.r. 5 Jumàdá ll 1268

lr7-3- I 8s21. AI- t \ , lahdi ( r i0 r H.) v, 435-6.s l ggrmc oÍ these forms of tor ture N'ere rout inr ' iy ment ioned in

of f ic i . r l correspondence ;bout cr iminal invest iq, ] t ions. See e.g.

/ \ ludi r i ) ,vat lUint Í iyya to r i ,akÍ l Qism Samàdun, o DhI a l -QJ'da

l2ó0 . N ' l ud i r i v ya t , \ ' í i n Í f i y ya , Sád i r , Lám ó / l / 1 , p . 209 ;

N' ludir iyyat l \ l inuf iyya ro a l - iam' iyya al -Haqqániyya, -5 DhÍ

al-Qa'da l lo0, ib id. , p.254. Lr thr ' rs are l isk 'd in the l8ól

de'crec abol ishing corporal punishmcnt and tor ture (se 'e below).26

-

invest igat ion. The prohibi t ion was repeated in 18585r and in 1861, when, in the decree

abolishing flogging as a penalty (see below), instructions were issued regarding the extent

of pressure to be applied on suspects cluring the investigation. It prohibited certain methods

of tor-ture ancl stipulated that Íhe nurclír t-tÍ rrtcr'ntir of the department where the investigation

was carr ied out was to supervise the interrosat ion.5'r Beat ing durin-9 invest igat ion was

henceforth al lowed only in except ional s i tuut ions as a rnearns to induce a suspect to contèss

if there was already some eviclence firr his crime. In such a case he could be beaten but

only if after some days of trying. it proved to be impossible to rnake him confess by

psychological pressure. such as verbal abuse (;air). threats (tultdid, takhwlf), and showing

the whip.5a It is of collrse not clear to whart extent these instructions were obeyed in practice.

There are records of complaints of suspects who claimed that their conÍ'essiclns were obtained

under physical pressure. These were taken seriously and resulted in otficial investigations.55

Whereas the banning, or rather. the restricting of violence durin-u investigation was a

gradual process that lasted nearly ten years. the abol i t ion of f logging as a punishment was

brou-uht about at once. althoueh previously ceftain measLlres had already be taken to restrict

exccsses: In l85U i t was clecreed that i f a punishment of nrore than two hundred lashes

wirs to be carried out. the victinr should first undergo a medical examination.5í' The penalty

of l logging or caning was f inal ly abol ished on 9 July 1861. T'he decree is si lent on the

corrsiderations Íbr this step. Flogging was henceforth replaced by detention (habs), which

could be aggravated, for serious oÍÍenders, by providing only water and bread for Íbod (Àaá.r

al-rivlcla), by putting them in shackles, or by isolating them Íiom the other inmates and

denying them the right to receive visitors.sT The decree was enÍbrced by the courts, although

in the years immediately following the decree, I have seen a Íèw sentences imposing flogging,

most of the'nr pronor-rnced by shari'a courts by way of /a':1r.58

2 6 2

i r See ar t . l4 Dhikr rvaza' i Í mutaÍarr i 'a b i - l -m;r j l is (L ist oÍ fur the' r

du t i r . s o Í t h r ' r t ' g i ona l counc i l s ) , an o rg rn i c Jcc r cc cnac ted

n'ht 'n thc QS \vas introduced, Íorbidding t r r r t r r re ( tur 'd l r ib) ,

sLrÍit'ring (adliwa) and phvsical prt'ssurc {tnd.vir7) ,,1uring inves-

t i qa t i ons , l a l i àd ( 1890 -1892 ) , l l , p . l t l 5 -1 t16 ; Khcd i va l c l ec ree o Í

9 Ramadán I 274 (21-.1- I 858). Nla j l is ; r l -Ahkám, L)aÍLrr l \1a jmt '

UmI f l i ná ' iwa , p . 90 .: r Khedival r iccrct oÍ I9 jumàdá I I 1278, and summ;r iscd in I .ám

l / 20 8 , i \ l uh ; f aza t i \ " l i s r , p . 7 l , doc . l , I I Sh ; r ' b . r n 1278 .

Precisc dcr . . l j ls on commuting sentencr 's of f logging to sr 'ntences

o f d r ' t cn t j on . l r r ' q i ven i n t he Là ) , i ha t t abd i l a l - d . r r b b i - l - nans(Llr t l inrnct ' r t 'garding tht ' repl . rcement cr i bert ing b1, dctcnt ion),

. rn ( r rder issucd b1r 1\" luháÍ"rzat l \ l isr on I I Sha' t r . in 1278

I l l - 2 t 8 6 2 1 , i m p l e m e n t i n g t h c K h c d í v . r l d e c r t e o Í l 6 D h Í

r l f l i j j a 1277 [ 5 -7 -18ó l ] no .120 r i . p l ac i ng t hc pcna l r y o Í bea t i ng

b1, dctentron. N' luhàÍazat J\ '1 isr , Qa,vd al -q.r r . i r . i t a l -sádira

bi- l \ la j l is l \ iuháf . rzat N, l isr , Lám l /20/8, p. 71, doc. 3.5a Sct 'ar ts. 8 and l l l of the order implcmcnl l r t t r rder issued b,v

i\'luh.iÍazat l\1rsr mentioned in notc -56.: : Set ' r ' .g. dccis ion oÍ the Nla ' i ,vya Saniy,va, 24 junr. rc lá I l2ó8

l ló--r - I85l l . N' la ' i , \ rya Sanivya, Qayd al -khulàsàt ; r l - r r ,ár ida min

ma j ; l is da'án, i a l -aqál im, Sin I /2,+ s i j i l l l . p. l . lnvesl igat ion

by the I ' la j l is . r l -Áhk. inr at the request oÍ t rvo pcrsons u 'ho

had bcen convictcd Íor thef t oÍ cat t le and c la imcd that their

conÍr 'ss ions had br 'en ol r ta ined b.v rvhipping thcm.só Kh r ' d i va l dcc re ' e o Í , l Ramadán 1274 [ 2 .1 -4 - 1858 ] . N ia i l i s

al Ahkám, DaÍtar Niajmu' Umur l iná ' i ,vya, p.90.s i Khed i va l o rdc r o f 26 Dh t a l -H i j j a 1277 [ 6 -7 - l 8ó ] 1 . l \ l a i l i s

a l - , q h k á m , D a Í t a r l \ 1 a j n r L l ' U m u r J i n à ' i , v y a , p . 1 5 5 ; S á m r(1928 -1916 ) , l l l : ' 1 . p . 37 -5 . A , vea r I a t e r , i n an i ns t r uc t i on t o

nel l , ly ÍoLrndtd r t 'gronal coLtr ts, the interdict ion oÍ Í logging rvas

repeatcd. l ráda Sanin, . r of l2 Dhn Qa'da 1278 [2 I -5- I8ó2] .

Sám i ( 1S28 -1936 ) , 3 / l p . - l i r - r .:d See e.s. t \ l r j l is a l -Àhk. inr , . r l -Ni . rdabi t a l -Sádjra, -Sin 7/10/ l -1.

p. 183, doc. q+-5, I Dhr l a l - l - { i j j r , 1280, commuting . . r sr '11tr 'ncc

o Í f l ogg ing p ronounced b , v l \ ' { a l l i s a l - i \ , i ansu ra i n t o

impr isonment; f r r r ex.rmples of shar i 'a scntcncL's, see sentence

o Í Ca i r o Sha r i ' a C r ru r t o Í F i r s t I ns tancc , I 7 Rab t ' I 128ó

I17 ,7 -18691 , Da r a l -N lah f I zà t , N4ahkama t , \ , l i s r a l - i b t i dà ' i y , va

al-shar ' i1_va, Dabt iyyat a l -muráÍa 'àt , i \ ' lakhzan 4ó, 'ayn 22, s i i i l l

1 2 3 8 , P . 8 ' 1 ; D i N ' á n , \ l a j l i s a l - A h k á m , Q a y i a l - l ' l à m á t

a l sha Í i 11 ra , S tn 7 /31 i3 , no .85 , 28 Dhu a l -H i j j a , 1278 , n0 .253 ,

r7 Ra j ab 1279 [ 3 - r - 186 . ] 1 .

tf'-l\i

lmprisonment

" In l t i -5-5 a cer ta in Muhamrnad'Al i was ar lested c ln a charge of the ' l t . In h is home goods wert '

irnpounded tl.rat he was accused of havin,u stolen. Their owner, Muharnrnatl Rif 'at Elèndi. l iving

in the Cairo Báb al-Khalq quarter. accused hir.n clf having stolen money and goods Í}onr lr is

horne wi th a tota l va lue of abclut 18.000 p iasters. Muharnnrad (Al i declared that the v ic t i rn 's

wiÍè, with whom. he claimed, he had spent a day and a night. had given him out of her own

tiee wil l a surn of monev. part clf which he had spent on the goods that were inrpounded in his

quarters. The pol ice recoveled the pr ice of the goods f rom the sel ler- and returned i t tcr

Muhammad Rif 'at EÍèncli. together with the rest of the money that in the meantime had been

found in Muhanrnrad (Al r 's loc l -s l ings. At th is point the suspect had admit ted that he had sto len

the money. When his criminal records were examined, it appeared that he had been arrested

twice before, once on a charge of theft of a canrel -of n,hich he later was proven innocent-.

and once firr pretending to be a police spy (àrr.r, iz7.r/. Both times he had managetl to escape

Íiom custody. Taking this into consideration, he rvas sentenced to l i lèlong fbrced labour in the

lor f i t icat ions o l ' A l -Qanát i r n l -Khayr i l ' ) ' i r (a lso cal led Al -Qal 'a a l -Sa' ic l i1 'ya) . Later he was

tt"nnsÍ'erred to the Alexandria Arsenal Prison (Lítnrht Lskundarit ' t,u). In l8-58 he was selected tcr

serve the rernuinder of his term in the arrny. There. howevcr, he comnritted another theÍi ancl

was sent back to the Alexandl ia Arscnal . When thc general l lnnesty of March l86l was

announced. he was not released. but, being regarcled as incorrigible (.shuqi). transferred to the

Departrtrent oÍ'Industrv (Dírvc1n tl- lVultirót v'u-l- 'Atrmli:r 'dr) tbr f irrced labour in factolies. Fronr

there he cscaped again. Upon being Íbund out by a police spy, hc tried unsuccessfully to prevent

his arrest by thleatening the police spy w,ith a knifè and u'clunding a persoÍl who came to the

pol icenran's rescue. On l6 Septenrbel I861. the Cai lo Pol ice Departnrent sent h im to the

Alexandria Arsenal in order to complete his l i Í 'e sentence. However, when Khedive lsrná'i l

succeedecl Sa'icl. he instructed the Matlis al-Ahkarn (the highest juclicial council in Egypt) to revier."

the cases of inmates of the Alexanclria Arsenal u'ith l i le sentenccs or unspeciÍied terms. As a

consequence, his sentencc was co[rmuted on 19 Novembcr 1866 to Íive yeafs lbrced labour in

the Alexandria Prison. However. since he was classiÍied as belonging to the "group of evildoers"

(:,urtrruÍ ul-ct,sltràr) mentioned in ch.3. art. l3 of the QS. he was qgt to be releasecl aÍier this

period r-rnless it had becc'rrnc clear that he had bec<lme honest ancl of goocl behaviour and he

could Í ind a re lat ive wi l l ing to be h is guar lnt ( ) r l t l i t r r i t t ) . "5"

My first reaction upon reading this account was one ol rcglet that this gaolbird did not

write his memoirs. He was familiar with most larger prisons in Egypt and the story of his

l i tè behind bars would be invaluable Íbr thc penal history of Egypt. The account as we

i " Sin 7/10/ t , ) . J \ .1aj l is a l -Ahkám, al -Nt . idabir a l -s id i ra, p. 135-r-16,

n radba t ; r 13 .3 . I I Ra jab 1282 [ 30 - l I - 1865 ] ; Khcd i va l o rdc r t o

t h r ' l \ ' l i n i s t r v o f t he N " r \ / ) / ( unc l c r r vhose ' j u r i sd i c t i on t he

A I t ' r and r i . r A r s r ' n ; l camc ) ,21 Ra ia l r l l S l l l 0 - l l - 18641 , S in

l , / l r '30, r \ la ' iv1 'a Sanirrv; , a l -At l rámir a l -sádira, P. 90 and l : I ;

C.r i ro PoIcc to ] \ luhafaz.r t Iskanchr iYva, I2 R.rb i ' I 1278 l l7-q-

l 8ó l l , l c t t r ' r b r r u rh i ch N luhammad 'A l i r i r . r s scn t t o t hc

Alerandr ja Arsenal) , D;rbt i \ t ,at l \ { isr , S. id i r a l -aqJl inr , Lám 2. /2 5(old s i i l ) , p. l+, no. 7.

2 6

-

R U D O L P H P E T I . - R S

have it is representative o1' the type of available sources. They are factual and written

from an official point of view. Their value lies in the information they impart regarding

the Íunctioning of the penal institutions, and they tell us little about the experiences of the

inmates.Óo

The story of Muhammad 'Ali i l lustrates several characteristic traits of the Egyptian prison

system in the nineteenth centllry. In the first place it is evident from the account that there

were a var ie ty o l 'pen i ten t iu ry ins t i tu t ions and tha t . in add i t ion . conv ic ts were somet imes

sent to the army instead of conrpleting their sentences in prison. Secondly, the account

shows that the term specified in a sentence could be subject to all kinds of changes. The

period one actually spent in prison was otien shorter than the term of the sentence, usually

as a consequence uf general alunesties. but alsc'l as a result of escapes. Prison security was

not very tight and escapes werc freqllent in spite of the severe punishments to which guards

were sentenced if they let prisoners escape. Finally. it demonstrates that attempts were

made, al though not very consistent ly. to single out habitual of fenders and keep them

permanently imprisoned. [n the tbllowing I will discuss these and other aspects of the

Egypt ian pr ison system.( ' r

The functions oÍ prisons

Prisons had various functions : In the Íirst place they served as penitentiaries. i.e. places

of confinement for those sentenccd to inrprisonment. In addition. the police prisons and in

the pr isons of the provincial capitals held arrested suspects in custody pending the invest i -

gat ion of their cases. ln except ional cases. this ur ight take a long t ime. I Íbund a pet i t ron

submitted by ir rlurcler suspect. who had been in custody for over seven years, because the

r, ict inr 's heirs could not be traced with the result that the shari 'a proceedings could not be

initiated.6i Most prisons also servecl as debt prisons.63 Debtors unable to pay their debts

were nonrrerlly held in the local prisons.í'a During Mehrned (Ali's reign they were sent to

the Alexandria Arsenal Pr ison i f they proved to be insolvent.6s In Cairo and possibly in

other ['ri-v cities there was a special debt prison. It seems that it was not too difficult to

have a person imprisonecl on this ground, Íbr in Februagy 1869 a decree was issued to

remedy the Íiivolous an'est of debtors. It strpulated that persons could only be imprisoned

Íbr debts if these were duly substantiated and the creditor was willing and capable of paying

lbr lhe pr istrrrer 's r t rr i r t tet tance.hh

{ '0 For a descr ipt ion of pr ison cr . - r rd i t iorrs in nrneteenth-century

Egvpt, see t 'eters t íor thconrrng ht .ór For a d iscussion oÍ pr ison condrt ions. see Peters ( íor thccrminB h).6r Pet i t ion, I I Jumádà l l I 29 I . Dákhi l i11,a 'Ar . rb i . l \ l . rhfaza l4

(1291 ) , doc . 6 -56 . Fo r t he re l a t i onsh ip bcnvccn sh r r i ' a and

secular ;ust icc in homicidc cascs, scc Pctcrs ( lqq7).í r ln c lassrcal ls lam, th is was thc most impol tnnt íunct ion of

p r i sons . See Schne ide r ( 1995 ) .

r ' r Sin 2/29/2, Dirván Khidiu ' i , Sádir a l -aqál Ím, p. 4-1, doc. 14, 2 |

DQ r243 .i ' i Khed i va i o rde r , 2 I Dhu a i -Qa 'da 1243 14 -6 - I 8281 , D iwán

Khidiwl , Sàdir a l -aqàl im, Sin 2129/2, p.43, doc. l4; Khedival

order, 28 Dh0 al-Hi j ja 1258 [30- l -1813], Shurà N4u'ár .vana Turki

l 58 ( o l d ) , p . 219 , doc . 10 ,53 .bó Orde r , 5 Dh I a l -Q r ' da 1285 [ ] 7 -2 -18691 , N ' { a j l i s a l -Khusus Í ,

a l Qarárát wa- i -Larr iá ' ih a l -Sádlra, Sin I l /8/13, no. 32.2 6 4

-

] . H E T R I U l V I P H A N T P R I S O N : L E G À L P U N I S H I \ ] E N T I N N I N E T E E N T H C E N T U I i Y E C Y P T

Other groups of non-cr iminal inmates were persons punished vicar iously for actscommitted t'ry their relatives and persons, ofien Bedoujn, held in hostage by the government

as a ÍIeiins to coerce their relatives or tribe into obedience.bT Vicarious punishment seensthe have disappeared after the 1850s. With regard to the imprisoned Bedouin,ós it issometimes difficult to distinguish between those who were imprisoned for robbery or rebellionand those who had been taken hostage as a guarantee for the good behaviour of their tribes.I regularly came across Khedival orders instructing prison commanders to submit lists ofthe Bedouin inmates ancl to specify whether tliey had been inrprisoned Íbr a certain perrod

or without a term.6e During certain periods, e.g. in the 1860s, the Alexandria Arsenal alsoserved as a place of imprisonment for Íbreigners who had been sentenced to imprisonmentby their consular courts. They as a rule served short sentences, of a few weeks only.7O

Almost all prisoners had to work. Many of them were attached to factories or quarrie's

to supplenrent the numbels of the "free" workers, many of whom could hardly bedistinguished from the convicts, having been brought by force to the industrial establish-ments. Moreover, as is clear from the aforementioned account of Mullarnmad (Ali, yollng

convicts who were physically fit, often served their terms as soldiers in the army, or weredrafted immediately after the termination of their terms.Tl Prison labour had essentially aneconomic function as a ureilns to provide nranpower for necessary but arduous, dirty orunhealthy work. Since especially in the early half of the nineteenth century there was achronic factory workers and soldiers, prisoners were matter-of-factly sent to industrialestablishments and the niil itary. I have íbund no indications that prison labour was seen asa means to rehabilitate the inmates, whicli occupied such a prominent place in nineteenth-

century Western European debates on crime and punishment. Within the framework of penalpolicy. liard labour was regarded as a form of retribution. In addition it functionecl irs adeterent since the inr.r.rates were not isolated from the public space and could be seen inshackles during transport or when carrying out work outside the prison.

67 i \ , la j l is l \ lLr lk i to the N,Ía 'mÍru al -Uar i rárvrn, 26 Rabr ' l l 1246

l l l -9 18301, order ing that local oÍ f ic ia ls must take the sons oÍ

peasants rvho are unable to pay their taxes and send them to

the army i í they are strong, or to the Alexandr ia Arsenal or

the Tur'at al-l\la'sara in ordcr to c.rrrv earth if thev are rirc..lk.

Diwán Khidi rv i Turk i , 750 (o ld) , p. I0: , doc. no. l l - )9. KherJjyt

to Ahmad f 'asha al -Yegen, l l Safar 1248, iVa' iyya Sanivya

Tu rk i 44 (o l d ) , doc . 91 .ó8 See e.g. missivc Í rom Wakr l NàzÍr a l - i ihàdi1ya to N'{a( i ) ,ya, I

l \ ' Íuhanam I272 [20-9- 1855] ment ioning that apart Í rom the

ordinar l , pr isoners, there rvere 6r lq Bedouin in the Qal 'aSa'idi1'rya, l\l.r'in,.: Turkr, N,{ahíaza 8, u'araqa I I, doc. 58 (Írcrrn

Siyq c.lrd index. s,v. srrlr?rr) ; Khedival order to rhc Dirvan'UmÍm B. lhr i lnva Iskandar i lya, - l lqmàdá I I , I272, o ldcr inq lhr '

r e l ease o i 7 l Bedou in Í r om the À lexand r i a A rsena i a t t hc

request oÍ their sheikh, Ma' i1va Saniyya, Awàmrr, Daf tar 1884(old) , p. a9, doc. 28 ( f rom DWQ card index, s.v. srrpr) ; Entry

t o A lexand r i a P r i son o r y l 9 Ra jab I 279 [ 3 - l - 1863 ] c r i 82

Bedouins f rom Upper Egypt , cal led 'urban ashqiy,à ' (cr iminal

Bedouin) , aged betrveen I0 and 70, wi thout speci f icat ion of

pr ison term, Dirván al - tarsàna, s i l i l l 954 (register of pr isoners

i n t he À lexand r i a A rsena l ) , p . l 3 l .bo Scr ' e.g. Khedjr , . r l order to thc conrnt . rnder of the Qal 'a

Sa' id iyva, -5 lumádá l l I 272 I I l -2- I S56J, Ma' \ rya Sani1,r , . r . s . id i r

a l -arrámir a l - 'á l iya, Sin I / I /5, p. 144, no. 20; samc order to

Alexandr ia i \ rsenal , 25 Jumádà l l 1272 [3-3- 1856], l \ , la ' iyya

Saniyv.r , Sádir a l -arvámir a l - (à l iya, Sin I / l /5, p. 70, no. 29.i0 See e.g. Diwán al- taÍsàna, 95ó (o ld) (Register of pr isoners oÍ

the Alexandr ia Arsenal) , p. 14.; r That oÍ Íendt ' rs could be'sent to thÈ.?rnr) ,as a pLrn)shment is

men t i oned i n t hc o l dcs t c r im Ína l I eg i s l a r i on : e . g . PC 1829

arts. I8-2r ] . QF aÍ ts. 15, 7 and 21, PC 1849, ar ts. 8 and I l .

Al though j t is not ment ioned in the QS, the pract ice oÍ sending

convicts to the army cont inued.

-

R L I f i C I L P H P E T h l i S

Types of prisons

Irr order to get an insight in the type of prisons that were operative in Egypt cluring our

periocl . we have to rclv on archival sources and on thc earl iest Egypt ian legislat ion ( i .e. the

Penal Code ol 1829, the Code of Agricul ture of 1830, and parts of the Penal Code of

l8-1-5t. Thc texts of the other penal codes are otien misleading since their terminology was

copied from thc Íbreign models that had inspired these codesTl and did not necessarily reflect

thc Egypt ian systenr. This is espccial ly t rue with regard to arts. 123 to 194 of the QM,that u'erc translated fnrrn the French Penir,l Code of lÍl l l and ol' the first three chapters of

tlrc QS that corrcstr-ronded with thc'Ottoman Penal Code of 1850. Moreover, the terminology

uscd in the various codes was not uniÍbrm : sometimes the same term is used lbr different

modalitics of imprisonment, whereas in other instanccs the same modality is reÍèrred to by

dil'ferent tern.ls.

Although the narles and locat ions var ied, thc essent ial t rai ts of the system har-dly changed

dLrring our period. Serious oftenclers were sent to national labour prisons or, from the early

l84t)s. deported to labour prisons in Sudan. For those whose oÍÍbnces were not as serious,

thcrc was the possibility to serve prison terms at Íblced labour locally in factories, cln building

si tcs or in rnenial . jobs in government oÍf ices. Since the convicts were closer to their homes,

tlris was consiclered to be a lighter Íirrm of punishment. Tlrose sentenced to short terms

we-re held local ly, in pol ice gaols in the big ci t ics or in gaols in the provincial capitals.

At the national level there were at various times thrce prisons. The one that remained

operat ive during our ent i re periocl was the one connected with the Alexandria Arsenal(TttrsdttcrÍ Isknrulurit'.t 'rr).71 culled lrrnrltt (r'tr l inan\ Iskandariyl'a. where thc convicts were

original ly employed in spadework and transport inu earth and later also in the workshops.Tr

In thc lB30s the inmates were paid wages f i rr their labour.Ts This pr ison fel l under thejurisdiction of the Department of the Navy (Diwán al-Donanma or Diwán al-Bahriyya). The

overal l responsibi l i tv. according to art . 197 QM. was with the Inspector of the Navy(mu.ftrÍÍislt ol-Donuntrru) and the Directc'rr of thc Arsenal (Na:jr al-Tctrsona). For its daily

funct ioning, the pr ison warden (utu'nr i l r ol-mtul l rr t íbi ,?) was resporrsible. The number of the

innrates of the Alerandria prison fluctuated betwecn 200 and fr-50. In the early 1830 Bowring

counts about 200 pr isoners (among several thousands of non-convict workers) in the

Alexartdr ia Arsenal. This number mLlst have been nract ical lv constant unt i l 184-5. when a

1r Scc Pcters ( I 9q I ) , p. 2 | 6.; ' r For a m.rp of thc Alcxandr ia Arsenal as i t r .x is tet l in 1829,

scc l l b r ' r t { 1996 ) , I I , p . 76ó .r+ l n t hc s r ' n t r ' n ces p ronounc r . d dL r r i ng t hc f i r s t ha l Í o i t he

njnct t 'cnth ct 'ntur) ' , tht ' ío l lon ' ing tvords ar t ' uscd: r raql n/- l i l rab(tf.rnsporting earth), lrnnrl n/-trilnó (carrving carth), toprok hizneti(carth rvorks) . l -atcr tht ,v a lso rvorked in thc l i 'orkshops. Sct '

t . g . Bo r i r r i ng ( lB4 t l ) and Puck l c r - l \ { uskau (1985 ) , p . ó9 .; i Á / - \ \ i í r ( / r i ' i l n l - i v l i s r i v vs , 5 l um ;dá I l 1247 l l l - I l - l 8 l l l : A

C1,ps.v (Niu,ar i ) is sent to lhc DÍ\ \ 'án; l -Abnrva to u,r r rk thcrc

against r i rages (ufra) . ln the I2,17 issues oÍ the lVnqo' l '

n l - l l isr iyvo onc oÍ tcn f inds the Íormula " l {c \ \ , . rs sent to thc '

Dirr 'àn.r l -Àbni ,va to u,ork there Íor r r rages bul crnder detent ion(nnl tb is) ts punish him. Bcr\ \ , r ing, \ \ ' r i t ing abLrut the l . r te

I 8 i 0s , r epo r t s t ha t t hc "ga l l e r i s l aves emp lo l , ed i n t he

d i Í Í r - r en t n ' o r ks " I o ï t hc A lexand r i a A rscn . r l l a re pa rd ,1

piasters a da,v, inc luding prorr is ions and c loth ing, n 'h ich is

o n l y o n e p i a s t e r I e s s t h a n t h e ' o t h c r r v o r k e r s r e ' c c i v e d .

l lon ' r ing ( | 840), p. 59.266

-

E G Y P T A N D T I I E À C ] E C ] Í . T H E T R I L I N 4 P H A N T P R I S L - ) N : L E G i \ I - P L I N I S H N I E N T I N N I N I - - . T E E N T H C E N T U R \ , I T ] \ , P . I

French traveller estimated the total number of prisoners in Cairo and Alexandria together at300 inmates.TÓ A fèw years later, however. in lB.t7, therc were already about zl-50 prisoners

in Alexandila. In the eiirly l860s the number oï inmates varied between 2-50 and 65t)convicts.TT The fluctuations can be explained by changes in penitentiary policies, i.e. varia-tions in the categories of prisoners that were sent to Alexandria and by generirl pardons,

ordered especially when thc- prisons beciune overcrowded.

Apart Íiom the Alexandna gaol there was a fbrced labour prison near the firrtification atal-Qanát ir al-Khayriyya (cal led al-Qal 'a al-Sa' idiyya or al- Ist ihkánrat al-Sa' idiyya) that wasoperative fiom about 1853 until at least 186-5.7tr lts inmates worked in constructing theÍirrtress. As a prison it was much bigger than the Alexandria Arsenal. In October-Nclvember1855, i t housed some l . l (X) to 1,200 pr isoners, hal f of thenr Bedouin, anc' l the wardensrepeatedly cornplained that they did not have sufhcient personnel at their disposal lbr guard

duties.Te Initially it fell under the authority of the War OÍïce (Jíhodiy'1,a), but in 1857 itwas transÍ'emecl to the Department of Industry.s0 Finally there seems to have been a nationalprison in Sudan (apart from the deportation camps). In the beginning it held only Sudaneseconvicts until. in 1857, it was decided that, in order to make the punishnrent ntore deterrent.

serious ofÍbnders Íiom the Sudan would serve their tenns in Alexandria. whereas those ÍiomEgypt would be sent to the Sudan.sl

The provincia.l prisons itnd various indr"rstrial establishrnents held less serious oftenders

sentenced to hard labour. Hard labour in Íàctories and on constnrction sites gtrcs back tothe late 1820s, when convicts were sent to the iron foundry (Turkish'. deniirkhonc; in Bulaq

or to building sites in Alexandria (Turkish : Iskentleriye ebniyesí). Apparently there was atthat time no diftèrentiation in the various forms of hard labour. In the 1830s ancl 1840sprisoners were either pr"rt at the disposal of the Departnrent of Constnrction (Dir,r'r7rr ul-Ahniw)

or sent to the Alexandria Arsenal. Later- the Alexandr-ia Arsenal became the prison Íbr themore ser ious cr iminals. In the early 1850s convicts were sent to var ious industr ial

establishments (tar.sanct), such as the ones in Bulaqs2 and Khartoum. (Lrntil the latter. as we

; ( ' Schor ' lcher (1836). p.-10.; ' This br t 'aks drru,n . ls Ío l lorvs: 1E47: - l5t l inmates; l8c ' r l : bOD

jnma tes ; l 8ó5 : 4 t l t ) j nma tcs ; 186ó : o -50 Í nma tes ; l 868 : l 5 t )

inmatcs. I have Íound these f igures \v i th the help oÍ the f ive

si j i l ls concerning thc Alexandr ia Arsenal (see Appcndix 3) , bv

crrunt ing the numbcr o i pr isoncrs that entered in a g iven,vear

and nrul t ip ly, ing i t wi th the average per iod spi 'nt in the pr isLrn.

These f igure 's ar t 'conf i rmed by a source stat ing that on 4

December 1862 thc number oÍ jnmates was 443. See J\ la j l is

al -Ahkám, al - i \ , ladábi ! a l -Sádira, Sin 7/10/23, n0.89-1, 28 Dhu

a l -Qa 'da 1280 , p . l 3 : ,i 8 See no te 71 .;' qal'.r Sa'Ídiyva tcr the Katib al-O'irvàn ;l-Khitllvi, i Saf.rr lli l,

i \ la ' iB/a Turki N, la l r f , rza 8, leaÍ I l , doc. 58: Qal 'a Sa' id iv) ,n to

rhc Kházin a l -Dirván al -Khidrrvr , 29 Saf; r r l )72, ib id. , leaÍ 12,

c ioc. +74; in 1855 there 609 Bct louins in thc Qal 'a S.r ' id iwa,

Waki l Názir a l -J ihádiyya t r" r . r l - l \14 ' iyya al -San jn, ; r , I lv luharr . l l t

1272 [ ]0-9-18551, I \1a ' i1,ya Turkr , Mahírza 8. doc. 5E.5 r 'O rd t r o Í l 6 Dh I a l -H i j j a l : 73 [ 7 -8 -1857 ] , DWQ Carc l i ndcx

s.v. suf i l r , N{ahÍaza I4 Turk i , ieaÍ 132, doc. l98; bv thc tncl

of 1862 thc Qal 'a Sa'rd i1ry. l r i ras st i l l in usc as.1 pr ison, see

o r t l e r o Í l 7 l L rmàdá I I t 27q [ 2 r ] - r l - 18621 , D \Vq Ca rd rndex

s.r,. .sirlii i, i\,l"r'i.yya Sani\\tr, Daftar 190-5, p. -1ó. doc. 23.3 Khed i va l o rdc r t o N lud r r Tákn ,29 l umadá I i : 73 124 -2 -18571 .

I \ '1a j l is a l -Àhkám, DaÍtar l \ ' Ía jnru ' LImtr J lná' iyva, p. 133.8: Khedival ordcr, 29 Ramadàn t252 [7- l - ]8371, D\VQ Card index

s.v. -sr f r Í , t \ lu lk i ,wa Turki 5 (cr ld) , p. 174, doc. 171: RcÍerence

to pr isoners in b ig Í ; rcïorv in t \u laq. See . r lso c.g. lVla j l is

a l A h k á n r , M a h Í a z a 2 , d o c , 2 i ó 3 , l 6 D h U . 1 1 - H i i i a l 2 ó ó

[2 -1 r 0 - r6 -50 ] and doc .2 /82 , 24 Dh Í a l -H i i j a l 2óó 13 r - r 0 - t 8501 . 26

2 6 8

I I , P H P E T E R S

have seen, becarne a national prison in 1857).8r Finally, from the mid 1850s Lrntil late

1864. convicts were put at the disposal of the Department of Industry (Diwàn al-WábLrrát

wa-l-'Amaliyyát, also called Diwàn al-Fàbriqát wa-l-(Amaliyyàt) to be used as a labour pool

Íbr work in factories and quamies.sa

Hard labour in provincial gaols existed already in 1830. It is defined in the Law of

Agriculture enacted in that year. as "to be employe'd, with his feet in chains, on the

government building site (al-abni1'a al-mÍri1,1,a) in the district (ma'muriyta) where he comes

from" (at.17). The Penal Code of 1845 mentions expressly tliat these building sites are

located both in Cairo and in the provincial centres (art. 192), Since this type of hard labour

was served not too far from home, it was considered to be lighter than terms served in the

national prisons. The QS referred to it with the term "lowly jobs (klidamat tlcui'a or

ashghal sufliyya). Convicts serving time in the provincial prisons were employed in

sweeping, cleaning and light construction labour. This type of punishment was less strenuous

than hard labour in I 'actor ies.85

Places for simple detention (lnbs) were the police prisons in the big cities. the prison in

the Cairo Citadel, and prisons in the various provincial capitals. These prisons fell under

the authority of the local police departments or the provincial adrninistrations (ntueliri,*yat,

muhafazaÍ'). They were relatively small:In August 1859. about 100 prisoners were detained

the Cairo police gaol, among them thosc' held lbr debt.86 The provincial prison of the

Mudiriyya Beni Suweif and Fayoum housed 74 inmates in 1854.s7 For higher officials and

military officersSS there was detention in the fortress of Ab[ Qir, which was in use until at

least 1855.8e I have not been able to establish whether or not the detainees were forced to

work. For some time after 1849 it was replaced by imprisonment in Aswan, with a reduction

of half of the prison term because of the heat.eO

As we have seen, prisons fell under various departments : Ministry of War, of the Navy.

and of Construction, the various police departments (dabtiyl,a1 and under the authority of

the ci ty administrat ions (muhafazat) and the provincial administrat ions (mudír iyyat) .

Therefore, the organisat ion of the pr ison system was diverse. A smal l rneasure of

d r K h e d i v a l o r d e r t o H u k u m d à r a l - S Í d á n , l l S a f a r 1 2 7 2

[2 - l l - 1855 ] men t i on ing t ha t a pe rson was sen tenced t o l i f e

inrprisonment in the falsínat al-KhartOm, Ma'i1ya Saniy,va, Sàdir

a l -arvámir a l - 'á l iya, Sin l . / I /5, p. 79. no. 5.84 N Ía j l i s a l -Ahkám to N la l l i s I s t i ' ná f Q ib l i , 24 Jumádà I l 28 l

[ 2 5 - l 0 - 1 8 6 - 1 ] , i n Í o r m i n g t h i s c o u n c i l t h a t A l - W á b r r à t

wa- l - 'Am.1l iyyát had been abol ished, Maj l is a l -Ahkàm, Sàdir

a l aqál im al-q ib l iy_va, Sin 7/4/33. p.83. doc. 21.s5 Nlai l is a l -Ahkám to al -Mu'àrvana, 6 Ramadán 1280: t ransÍer

oÍ .r sick sevenïy year old convict, with bad eyesight to thc

lorvly iobs in the mudlriyva because the rvork in thc factory

was t oo s t Í enuous Í o rm h i r n . r \ , l a i l i s a l -Ahkàm, Sád i r

a l -Dalàrv ln, Làm 7/3/46, p.5.86 f , ' i a ' j y ya San i ) ' ya t o Dab t i y ya t M i s r , 4 Muha r ram i 27ó

13 -8 - r 8591 , Ma j l i s a l -Ahkám, Da f ra r I r , { a jm0 ' umur i dá ra

wa - i j r á ' a t , S i n 7 /33 /1 , p .233 .

!sr Khedival order to lvludir Bani SurvayÍ and Favum, 9 Dhu

al-Qa'da 1270 l3-B-18-q41. , \4a' i) ,ya Sani)va 1879 (old), Arv.rmjr.p.4, doc. 4 (Írom DWQ card indcx).

s8 Art. 62 oÍ the t'enal Code oi 1849 lays dorvn that here ofÍicialsrvith fhe rank oÍ qo'imma?ri,? (lir'utcnant-colonel in the armyand a government off icial at the vi l lagc level in the civi l ranks)or higher r.r'ert held.

3e Khed iva l o rdcr to the Muháíaza o f Ca i ro , 23 Safar I272

[4-l l-1855] to scnd a certain vi l lage sheikh to the AbÍ Qjrprison. Sin l , / l is, p.7.1. The QS does not mention Abu Q.lranymore.

o0 Decree o f thc I \ la j l i s a l -Ahkám, I Ra jab l2ó5 130-5- t8491.Majl is al-Àhkám, Daftar MajmD' Umtr Jinà' i lya, p. 133.

-

t G Y f T . \ N D T l l t - . \ G l . L ) l - T l l l . ï R l U \ l t l l . \ N T I ' R I S O N : l t C . \ l P U N l S l l \ l t N T I N N I N F T T F N T I I a t N T L I R Y t C Y I T

uniformity was introduced by the appointment of a special inspector of prisons in February

1865, with the task of checking thc condit ions of the pr isons ancl ensuring the punctual

release of the pr isoners.el

Transportation

Transportation to the Sudan was regarded as the most serious form of imprisonment.

We do not have any dettii ls of prison lilè there, but the climate, the distance Íiom home

and the working conditions must have made liÍ 'e very hard Íbr the inmates. Transportation

was introduced as a means of incapacitation of serious criminals by means of total exclusion

Ír"om society, and thus as an alternative for capital punishment. Economic considerations

played a role in its introduction. Prisoners had to work in those areas where fiee workers

were not available : in the gold mines and quarries in Eastern Sudan and. later, in the

reclamation projects in Central Sudan. In the end, however, the authorities realised that

prison inmates were not very efficient and prodr-rctive workers. By then it was decreed

that those deported to the Sudan could work in agriculture as free labourers and had to

support themselves by their own labour. The only restriction to which they were sLrbjected

was that they were forbidden to return to Egypt.

During Mehmed (Ali's reign, there were three modalities of transportation. The Íirst

one was perpetual banishrnent Íiom Egyptian territory. This was introduced in 1846, Íbr

those with life sentences. They were to be sent via the Sudan to Ethiopia. out of reach of

the Egyptian government ("jihut al-Habush allatí hi1'u khoriju 'urt slrruÍ ul-hLtktlnru bi-turiqot

al-Sudan").el This order. which was indeed enÍorced.e3 was revoked in March lB-52, when

the Majlis al-Ahkarn decreed that henceforth convicts with liÍ 'e sentences werc to be sent tcr

Jabal Qrsán.'r* The other modalities wcrc deportation with torced labour in mines trnd

quarries, and deportation to reclamation areas.

When deportation was first introduced as a punishment, the convicts were sent to a

mountainous area in the Sennár Province on the upper Blue Nile near the Ethiopian border.

where they had to work in gold mines and stone quarries. The most notorious labour camp was

located in Fayzoghli, but there were other camps as well. notably in,,Jabal Qisán and, more to

the East, Jabal D[], which was located on Ethiopian tcrritory. Fayzoghli is mentioned fbr the

Íirst timc in thc version of the QM printed in 1845."5 By then it had become the normal

destination fbr those convicted for embezzlement. theft, manslaughter, robbery, false testimony

and Íorgery, even Íor relatively short terms of six months.q" Before that time it was already in

e r A p p o i n t m e n t o Í S . r l r m P a s h a a l - J a z á ' i r l i 9 R n m l 2 8 l

15-2- I 8ó51. Sámr ( I 928- I 936) - j / i 2, p. 597.ul See note 98.or 1\ , la i l is a l -nhk;m, N, ' lahÍ . rzat 2, doc. 2 i 70, l \4adb.r t . l 2 l Dhir

a l -Hi j ja I 266 128- I t l - I 8,501 i doc. 2-2i 42, , \ ladbata I Dhu al-Hi j j . i

l 2 ó 6 ; d o c . 2 3 7 , 2 3 D h n a l - Q a ' d a l 2 ó 6 .

"+ Dt 'crcc of thc N{ai l Ís a i -Ahkám, 26 Jumádà I I 268 [ l I N4arch

l8-521, DaÍtar N, la jm[ ' L lmur J iná' i . \ /a, p. 133.

's Thc QNI incorporatcd prcvioLrs lcgis lat ion such as thc QJnuna l -F i l r h r o t 18 -10 rn r l t hc Qánun a l -S i yása tnáma 0 Í 1837 .

St-vt- ra l ar t ic lcs oÍ tht-st ' larvs as inclucl t 'd in thc QN{ imposc

dep0rtat ion to Favzoshl i as a punsihmcnt, r r rhcrcas thc or ig inal

ve r s i ons o Í t hese l an ' s t l o no t men t ron i t . Thc rc Ío r c ,

deportat ion to I -ayzoghl i must have been introduced betn 'een

18 .17 and 18 ,15 .o('

Qi\,] art. 20L

-

use as a place of exi le Íbr pol i t ical opponents. ' )7 On 9 February 1846 (12 Safar 1262) Mehmed(Ali decrccd that those sentenced to two years or rnore of hard labour. were to be deported tothe gold mines ( i .c. Fayzoghl i ancl environment).e8 This order was not consistent ly enfbrcedunt i l 1848, when, at the inst igat ion of the Jam'iyya Haqqániyya (the higl iest jLrdicial counci land prcdecessor of the Majlis al-Ahkárn). serious oÍÍbnders were indeed sent to the Jabal Duland Jabal Qisán labour cur.r . lpr." ' ' Betu'een 1863 and l86-5 Fayzoghl i and the other labourpr isons on the Blue Ni le were closecl. l (x) As t iom 1865 pr isoners with sentences lon-eer thantcn years were to be deported to the White Ni lc area in the Sudan. l() l

The thirc l moclal i t ,v of c lepoi lat ion to the Sudan was hald labour in a.ur- icul ture. This wasintroduced in l t i -14 as a special punishmcnt Íbr of l ic ials gr-r i l ty of enrbezzlenrent. l02 As Í iom| 857, peasants and rr"rral sheikhs scntcnced to Ílve years or more Ítrr ntanslaughter weredeported to land reclalnation areas in the Khartoum Province and could be accornpanied. on avoluntary basis. by their fanr i l ies. l {)3 They werc not to be detained, but had to work as f ieelabourers. Onc year later. this was extended to persons convicted for theÍi lor the fourtht ime.l0 '+ When thesc convicts and there famil ies began to arr ive in 1858, the Sudaneseofficials were at a loss. To bc on the sale side, thcy irnprisoned everybody and wrote to theMinistry of Intcrior Íbr instructions. The query was refèrred to the Mailis al-Ahkarn, who hadoriginally draÍied the decree. The Mujlis al-Ahkám explained that those sentenced to hanishmentaccording to this decree were free to -eio anywhcre in the Sudan and seek their livelihood inwhatever way they wanted and that their tamilies had accompanied them voluntarily. Theretore.

they al l had to be rclcased and the gol,ernnrcnt was not obl iged to support thern. l ()5

Dif fcrctr t ínt i t t t r

As to gertder untl u?e

Mnle and 1èmale innrates u,ere houscd in separate pr isons.106 In Mehnred'Al i 's t i rne.women in Cairo were hclcl in a special pr ison cal led Bayt ol-Wà1i and in a wornen's pr ison

connccted with the shari 'a court in the capital . l0T Around the same t ime, in the early l t330s.

" i Shuqa ,v r { 1972 ) , p . I l 3 -4 .' 's Hand-\vr i t tcn not t - in the pr inte.d copv of thc Pcnal Code ot

18.19, found in th i ' Eg,vpt ian N.r t ron.r l i \ rchivc. Tht ' ordtr u 'as

giVe'n oral l r r . ts appr.ars Í rom a l . r ter c locLrmr, .nt crrnt i in ing J

r c . so l u t i on o f t hc N l ; r j l i s a l -Ahkám, 27 l um . i da I l l óS (17 Ap r i l

l8-52), s t ipul . r t ing that conrr ic ts \v i th I i fc scntcncr-s \vr ' rc ' t r r l rc

scnt to labal QJsàn. l \ lahfazat r l -Nl ih i , doc. t ( r -1. Th.r t th is

ordcr r i 'as enforceci appcars f rom thc s i i i l l l is t ing th( ' n. rnrcs Lr t

tht ' convicts in thr ' Alc.xandrÍ ; , \ rscnl l pr ison ior th i ' yc. t rs

l :ó i I ló8. Dirvàn al -Tarsánc. s i j i l l 95- i , ivhcrt there . r rc ' Í recl r t 'n t

r'lttrics s.tving the prisc.ncr \\,.1s lfiti,sfrirrtr.d iir Ihe SLrrlrn.ou For tht ' ordt ' r oÍ thc I ;nr ' jvv;r H;qqrnivva, s i - i ' , \ l \ \ taqá' i '

r l , \ l isr iwa, 21 RaiaLr l2o- l l l t r -ó- l8. lSl : for dcport , : t ions to

lnb.r l DI l and labal Qisán, ser. Àl- \ \aqa' i ' . r l ] \ l isr ivv i , l8+8,

pn-s.s inr , and Hi l l (195s), p. 8-1, E7.r ' r " H i l l ( t 959 ) , p . l ó3 .

! ,

L( ' r \ la j l is a l -Àhkàm, Sádir a l -aqàl im al-q ib l ip,a, Sin 7r ' .1r '3.1, p. 1.1,1,

c l oc . . +8 , q Sha 'ban I 281 U - l - | 8ó51 . The o r t l e r $ ' as r epea te .d

l . r t r ' r t ha t yc r r on . 1 l umádá l , I 28 : . Sám i { l q l 8 - l q l ó1 , I I 1 , 2 ,

p . 6 2 5 .rr ' r

QI \ l Jr t . l96.r t r t Dcc rc r . o Í - l Dh t a l -H i j j . r , 1271 . S . rn r i I q l 8 - t 0 l ó ) , Í Í l / l ,

P , 2 3 0 .' '+ Art . I , decre 'e oí thc , \ ' la i l is r l -Áhkàrn, l5 l \ luh.rr r . rm l lT l

[+ . ] | 8t r81 ; text in Sámi ( I 918- I 916), l l l ; ' l , p. lq l - lqs.

" : l \ l . r l l i s . r l - , l h k ;m , À l - i \ , l adab i t a l -SJd i r a , S in 7 t r r . 1 . p . I I 5 ,

mrdba ra no . . + l l , o lUmard i I l t 7 -5 l l - l t - lE5E l .Itrf I hive Ícruntl no t'viclt'nct' Íor TLrcker's .rss('rtirrn that tvomt'n

11,91g. kc.pr t in tht 'samc pr isrrn as nt ! ' l r ;s ! t íorrn oÍ addi t ional

punishmcnt spr 'c ia l to r i romen. Scf Tuckcr ( lq8ó).

" ; Dr\ \ 'àn Khic l i rv i , DaÍ tar qavd al -khul , rs. r t (Turk i ) , S,r2 l '+0. s i j i l l

I8 112.+6). p. I80. doc. -129, r5 Sha\ i l \ , . i1 [+o I29-] - r8321.27 L)

-

E C Y P T A N D T H E À t l E L I F T l l l - - T R I L I I V I P H À N T t - R I S O N : L E C A L l ) L l N I S l l N l l - . N T I N N I N I I T E L N T I I C E N T U I T Y E ( , \ ' P T

a women's pr ison was created in Alexandria. Befbre that t ime, wonlen in Alexanct ' i i r were

not imprisoned but were given corporal punishurent instcad. los Local pol ice pÍ isons also

had sect ions fbr women. The one in Cairo was moved to a newlv rented house in 1860,

because i t was too close to the men's pr ison. lOe Where wornen were detained in the

provincial centres is not clear. In view of the strict scparation between rlen and women

elsewhere, there is no doubt that they were conÍinecl in cliÍterent localitics.

Women were also sentcnced to forced labour uncJer the supervision of the Dcpartment

of ConstrucÍicln (tliwan ul-ttbnivn').tt0 Here the conditions lefi much to be desired. In lB-50

it was discovered that at some places men and women not only worked together, but alsir

hac' l to spend the night in the same wards. When this became kttown. the authori t ies

immediately ordered this to be remecl iecl . l l l In special cases, Í i r r instance i f they had to

take care of small children or were pregnant, women were not sent to Íactories or- building

si tes, but were al lowed to serve their terrns in the civ i l hospital . l l l Women convicts were

never sent to the Alexandria Arsenal or thc Sudanese labour camps. In 18-56. a national

pr ison for wor"nen sentenced to forcecl labour was establ ished in a spinning nr i l l (TLrrkish:

ipl íkhane, Arabic: ntaghz.ul) in Bulaq. l l ' r This must have been the result of the iutroduct ion

of the QS. which, lollowing the Ottoman Penal Code of l8-50. lays down that women are

to be detained in a women's pr ison (ch. 2. xrÍ .22).

There is no evidence that there were special refirrnratclt' ies for iuvenile delinquents. This

in spi te of art . 133 QM (corresponding with art . 6Ér of the French Penal Code of 1811).

stipulating that boys of twelve years and older, not possessed of discretion (ghavr munruyy-iz,),

shall not be pLrnished as adults. br-rt be detained in a reÍormaÍory Qnuhull ul-torbiyrt) Íbr a

period to be cletermined by the governnrent or be handed over to their parents. Most

pr isoners in the Alexandria Arsenal werc at least seventcen years old, but I car le across

some instances of younger boys, l la even younger than twelve years, the statutory rninirnum

r rs Khcdival orc ler lo the N.rz i r l \ la i l is lskandar iv,v; , l l Iumàdl I

I 24s ló- 10- I 8lll, instructing him to find .r prlacr' ri 'hr'rc r|trmr'n

can bc impr isonnr.nt in thc same $' . rv as in Cairo and to

providc Íor their maintcnanct ' . Sin l /55,12 (1248-1249), p. I t r8.

drrc. 496.ou Kh( 'd ival order to thc l \ ' iuháÍazat r \ ,1 isr , l - .1 Sha\$vál 1277

l1 -5 - l 8ó l l t o i en t . r hous r Í o r 5 t r - 7 i p ras tÈ Í s t o s r ' r \ r r ' . r s . , 1

\vomr'n 's pr ison and appoint a guarr i rv i th a monthly u ' . rees

of l -s0 piasters, because the c. \ is t ing \vomen's pr ison in Ihe

Pol ice Department (Dabt i ,wa) is too c lost ' to tht ' men's pr ison.

l \ la ' iy ,va Saniyva, DaÍtnr 189.+ (o ld) , Arvamir , p. 125, d0c. ó5(ironr DWQ card inder s.v. ,vrlu,r).

r r t ' Sr 'e e.8. aJ- \ l t r lgrr ' / ' n / -Àl jsr i4rrr , l+ R; j rb l2ó4: a \ \ r r rm.tn is

sentenced to forccd labour in the Di \ \ ' . rn a l -Abni ,v. r .I Order oÍ r \ ' la j l is a l -Ahkám, I Rabi ' I l2bó [26- l - 1850]. Nla i l is

al - , thkàm, DaÍtar N' la jm[ ' UmIr J iná' r rva, p.89.r r r A l - l am ' i v va a l -Haqqán i , vva , Qayd a l - khL r l ásà r a l -Sàd i r a i l . r

a l - aq . r l im wa - l - daN , i \ \ , r n , S i n ó / I l r ' 9 , + l L rmàdá l l l ] ( r - +

[8 5 1848], p. lE0: . r tvoman is senlenct 'c l [o sr ' rvc [ \ \ r r ] ye.rrs

in the civil hospjt,rl {i.sbllíi/r.r,.yn nulliit '.r't) assisting the sick,

b t ' c . r us t ' s l i c i s p Íegnan i ; n t1 has a b r t , l , t ha t shc i s s t i l l

b r t ' a s t f c cd Íng . N4a j l i s N l i s r , 3 Sa fa r I 272 I I 5 - I 0 - | S551 ,

N' luhàÍnzat i l l isr , l .ám l i :0/ l , p. 2, no. 5: rvonran condt 'mned

to scrvc in the c iv i l hospigl .I Scc c.g. ( . r l l taken Í rom LIWQ c.rrd index s.v. s i r l rTrr) : Kht-d ival

orc lcr of B i \ luh.rr r . :m 1272 l2rr-q- l85r l , to 1\ ' iudi r i \T.r r \ l in0Í iy_va,

lv ' la ' i r r , . r S.rn i .vva, Daítar 188.1 {o ld) , Àu,ámir , p. 12. doc. 2: a

\\'oman is sr'ntr.nced to si\ \,r'ars oÍ hard iatrr.Lrr to bc spcnt

in a cr ' r ta in prr ison unt i l the +)/ l l r l ld lc is openecl ; Khccl j ta l ordcr

of 23 Sha'bàn 1272 [ :9,+- ]8561, to N4uhaÍazat l \ { isr , r \ Ía ' ivva

Sani .vva, DaÍhr 1884 (old) . A$'ánr i r , p. 129, doc. I2 l : approval

oÍ a lift' sentenc(' ipliftlrrïrrc for theÍt.Lr Di \vàD al- tarsana, s i j i l l 9-5+, p.127. fourtc 'e 'n 1,r ' . l r o ld p ickpocket

\\jith five previous oÍÍt'ncr's, in first instance scntencr'd to life,

b u t a Í t e r r e v i s i o n t o t h r c t ' 1 , r ' a r s . S i i i l l 9 5 5 ( 1 2 8 1 - l 2 E l ) :

inmates )rorrnger than l7 ,vears are e 'xcept ional . Amone thc

l15 convicts that cntered the l imin bct lvcen 5 Dhu al-Qa'd.r

l 28 l anc l 7 Dhu a l -H i i j a l 2E l . I í oL rnd one bo1 ,o Ï t : t t hc f t )

and rrne rr Í l4 (desert ion) r , t ' . r rs o ld.27 1

-

I T U D O L P H P E T E R S

age lor cr iminal responsibi l i ty. l l5 Such boys were usual ly put under the care of one of the

fbrerlen of a workshop for leanring a trade. and special arrangements were made fnr their

loclgings.rl6 Occasionally I have fbund petitions of parents requesting the release of their

minor ch i ld ren . l l7

Arts. 134 and 135 of the QM, fol lowing French law, lay down that persons of seventyyears and older shall not be sentenced to a tcrm of hard labour or to deportation for life

and that the punishmcnt of persons who reach that age while serving a sentence of Íbrced

labour shal l be cornrnuted to incarcerat ion (rr l - rrbt bi- l -qul 'a) with the possibi l i ty of a

reduction of ther term. The QS is silent on this point. That there were inmates of seventyyears and older is conf irmed by thc records. l ls

A.y ío the ty'pe 0J off?ntler

The Egyptian prison system was not based on the idea that c1iÍferent types of ofÍènders

needed different "treatment", but rather on the principle of retribution requiring that serious

or lepeated off-enders be punished more severely. The prisorr systenr was organised according

to harshness, which was conceptualised as a function of living and work cronditions, distance

fionr honre ancl length of tlre period of imprisonrnent. Those colrvicted for serious crimes

were usually either transported to Sudan or sent to the Alexandria Arsenal. The dividingl ines between both shi f ted cont inuously (see Appendix 1). Short terms were served ei ther

in the police gaols (simple detention) or in the provincial prisons (simple detention, lowlyjobs), or in industrial establishments (hard labour). The boundaries between these forms of

conÍinement were not alwavs clear.

5 As f ixcd in rhc Ll rdonnance concerninq the prohib i t ion for

chi ldre 'n and toddlers to roam in the strccts (Láviha Í i rn.rn '

mLrr i r ; r l - lv lád rva- l -at fJI Í i . r l - turuq) l8 Dht i a l -1.{ i11;r I1oi

[28- l2- 1815] : tcxt in i \ , {a j l is a l -Ahkám, DaÍtar Nla jmÍ ' urntr

i dà ra r va - i j r à ' . i t , S i n 7 i 33 /1 , p . 177 .r r " D i \ \ , án . r l -Ta rs i na , 954 (o l d ) , p . l 3 l and 9 -5ó (o l d ) p .7 : e l cvcn

year o ld Say,v id Ahmad Buhayr i n 'as sent to thr 'Alexandr ia

Arsenal on l -5 Sharvrv. i l t28t I t ] - l -18ó51 for pet tv theÍ t . f lc

is entrusted to the regimr 'nta l ta i lor and is a l lo$ ' r 'd to spcnd

the night at thc ship Àl-Zarkh. /b ld. , s i j i l l 954 ( t r ld) , p. l . l2 :

three r lays l . i ter , on I8 Sl ta l rv. r l l l8 l , l t r v t 'ars o lC NÍr . r l -L l in

Ibráhim l \4uh.rmmad t 'nters tht ' AlexandrÍa Àrscn;1. lJecaLtse

his L l ther is l r r i l l ing to vouch Íor h im, he is a l lorved to spend

thc night oLrts ide the pr ison, bur had to u 'ork jn thc | : rgr '

dur ing thc day.rr ; l \ ' la ' ivv.r Sani) , ) ,a to the Qal ' ; S; ' id i ,vya. l6 Rabt ' { l I27l

[2b, ]2- 18551, Srn l , /B/ +0. Nia ' iy ] , . r Sani ,v) ,a, Sádir a l - , \ la ' iv ,va i là

a l -Da rvá r i r i n r v . r - l -Aqá l im n ' a - l -N luhá fazà t . p . 1 . 12 , doc . 17 ,

order ing the rc 'k 'asc of . r minor bo_v in response to a Fet i t ionsubnrt t t t 'd bv his motht ' r .

I s r \ ' la j l is a l -Ahkàm to i \ l - l \ {u 'àwan;, ó Ramadán 1280, ordcr ing

th( ' ï f , rnsÍer oí a s ick ;nd near lv b l ind pr isoner t r f over sevr 'nt .v

years frr.rm Íorced Iabour jn Íactorics (Al-wabínlt wa I 'nnaliyvafl

to Íorced labour ín the rc'gion of residence (AI-oshghal al-dtttl 'a

bi-llrhtdit i1,ya\, Sin 7i 1ií6, ir'la jlis .rl-Ahkàm, Sádir al-Datr,árvin,

f r . 5 ; I \ l ud i r ' um Im Asvu t N ,a - J i Í i á t o t hc kà t i b a l -D i r van

a i -Kh id i \ \ ' i , l 8 Sa ia r 1272 [ ] l - 10 - t 8551 , r eques t i ng t he re l easc

of an cightv 1,t'.rr old m.:n u,ho had been sentenc('d to onr'

1,ear of forced laÍ íoLrr bv the r \ la j l is Qbl i , wi thout having see'n

him, I \1a ' i .vva Turki . r \ ' Íahí . rz. r E, lcnf 20. LÍoc. 376: i \ ia j l is

a l Àhkán r r o N ra j l i s I s r i ' ná f Q ib l l , r l umàdà l l r 28 r l r - t - r 86 .11 ,

inÍorminq th is r \ , la j l is oÍ a Khedival order to t ransÍer tht ' Íormer

tax col lcctor 'Àf 'd Ál làh Sál i l r Í rom the Firqa ls lahivya tscc

belou,) to the Alexandr ia Arse'nal , on thc ground that hc is

about e ighty ,vears o ld and cannot he corrected by the Firqa

Is láhi1r1, . r , I \ la j l is a l -Ahkàn, Sádir a l -aqál inr a l -q ib l iv .va, Sin

1 /4 /33 , p .86 , doc . 25 ; see a l so co r respondencc rega rd i ng t he

relt'ase Írom Al-Wabarràt lva-Í-'AmaÍirl,át oÍ four prisoners three

o f r vhon r a re ovL ' r 70 . : nd one nea r l y b l i nd , A l - l l 1a ' i , v va

. r l -San iw . r , i \ l -A r ràm i r a l - ' à l i ya , S in 1 / l / 27 , p . 17 , doc . 4 , l 7

i umádá I l 28 l ; nd p .25 doc .7 , l 4 I umád ; I l 28 l ; À l - Í : áb r i qà t

l va - l - ' an ra l i y yà t u ,a - l - nabu rà t , N , Í ah Íaza t 3 l l , doc . I 12 , I 0

l u m à d à I l 1 2 7 4 [ 2 s - l - l B - 5 8 1 .2 7 2

I - E G A L P U N I S I I i \ 4 E N T I N N I N E T E E N T H C E N T L I R Y E G Y P T

From the early ltl5Os the separation of the diÍÍerent types of inmates became a specialconcern for the authorities. They proposed that separate wards or prisons be used for thoseheld for debts, those kept in custody pending investigation and those convicted Íbr lightand Íb r ser ious o f Íences . l le The sources do no t g ive in fo lmat ion on whet l ie r th isdifferentiation was ever implemented. In 1863 a general instruction was issued to the efÍèctthat gaols (i.e. police gaols and the gaols in the provincial centres) were to keep apart thefollowing three categories of inrnates : serious crimiuals like nrLrrderers and thieves. lightoffenders together with drunks. and debtors.l20

The first, and to the best of my knowledge only, time that the authorities showedinterest in the rehabilitation of prisoners was in 1863. when a special program was initiatedÍor convicts with sentences of three yearrs or less, and fbr vagrants. The program wasprompted by a concern about soaring crime rates. especially theÍï of cattle and cotton.Since the authori t ies bel ieved that imprisonment had lost i ts deterrence. they ordered thatthe offenders be trained in crafts so that they could support themselves after their release.For the duration of their prison term they were enlisted in a special rnilitary unit. calledct l - . f i rqa al- ís lahíyya. reformatory unit . (also known as J ' i rqat al-rnudhniáin unit of

del inquents, and oríu al-mutl l tn ibirr , battal ion of del inquents). After the cornplet iun of

t l reir terms they would be trained in special t rades and crafts companies (bulukat

al-sunuyi ' ) . t ) t I have not Íound any inÍbrrnat ion about the set up of this unit . For reasons

that are not clear. this unit was operat ive fbr only a short t ime. Early 186-5 i t was

disbanded and the pr isoners who had not completed their sentences were sent to the

Alexandria Arsenal. Those serving in the trades and crafts companies, having completedtheir pr ison sentences, were released. l2l

Relense

During the early years of Mehmed'Ali's reign. offenders were as a rule sentenced tc')

irnprisonment of unspeciÍied dLrration and would not be released until they had repented

and mended their ways. This was customary in the Ottoman Empire and Tunis treÍbre the

nineteenth century.llr ln practice this meant that after some tinte they or their relatives

would send petitions requesting their release and that the Mehnred (Ali would decide whether

rLt St 'c e.g. Dhikr rvazà' i Í mutaÍarr i 'a b i - l -maj l is ( l - is t oÍ Íur ther

dut ies oÍ the rcejonal counci ls) , enacted in thc ear lv l85t . ls ,

a r t . 5 , Ja l l ád ( 1890 -1892 ) I l , F . I 05 -6 , l av i nq do rvn t ha t t hosc

held in custody, and those hcld Íor debt hacj to be separatcd

Í rom the conv i c t s , and t ha t t hese had t o be sepa ra ted

accLrrding to the scr iousness oí thci r crrmes.r" Ai-t\'la'i1nva .rl-S.rniyva, Qaltl al-arvámir ;l-karinra al-sárlir.t mrn

qalam al-majàl is b i - l -mu'árvana, Sin 1/19/2, p. l , doc. l , t r rder

ro r he r va j l i s a i ,Ahkàm, 28 Rab i ' r r 280 I r 2 -9 -18631 . Fo r a

s i m j l a r o r d e r i n s t r u c t i n g t h . r t s e r i o u s o f f e n d e r s s h o L r l d

hr 'nceior th be dctained in thc Ci tadel rathr ' r th. ln in the Cairo

po l i c c p r i son , see Khed rva l o rde r o Í 8 Dh I a l -H i j j a l 28 l

14-5- l80-51 (summarv in card rndex s.v. sul Ín) .r r Khedival order, l l lumàdá l Í 1280 [24- I l - l8o]1, Al- , \ la ' i r r r , . r

a l -S;nivya, Qayd al -a ' "vámir a l -kar ima al-sádira min qalanr

ma já l is b i - l -mu'àrvana, Sin I / I 9/2.r r : Tex t o Í t he o rde r , l 6 Ramadán l 28 l [ 22 -2 - 180 -sJ i n H ' t a l l i s

a l -Àhkán r r o [ 1a j ] i s l s r i ' ná í Q ib l i , I I Sha rv r va l l l E l , N {a j l i s

al {hkám, Sádir a l -aqal Ím al-q ib l i1rya, Sin 7/4/31, p. 6, doc. 83.

See n l so Sàm i ( 1928 -1936 ) l l l / 2 , p . 599 .r I See Hcvd (1973 ) , p . 302 , 306 i Hen ja ( 1983 ) .

2 7 .

R U D O L P H P E T I T R S

or not the term they had already served, had been sufficient.l2a The system came to an

end around 1830. The rnain purpose of the cdminal legislat ion of 1829-1830 was to

introduce a system in which law enforcers would pronounce speciÍied sentences on the

strength of legal provisions. This was successful. As from 1830, we can observe that

criminal sentences began to define the term of imprisonment, as required in the ctiminal

legislation of lB29-1830, and the previous practice of unspecified sentences began to be

abandoned. Ils

In the early years of Mehmed (Ali's reign, the local adrninistrators would send the

convicts aÍier sentencing directly to the prisons and labour camps. From the late 1820s,

we find continuc'rus missives to these local officials directing them to send lists of these

prisoners to the Civil Council (Majlis Mulki), so that the situation of these prisoners could

be monitored at the naticlnal level.llí ' Even after the central sovernment, dLrring the 1830s,

finally established its control over criminal justice, numerous missives were sent, until well

into the 1860s. to pr ison authori t ies to instruct them to send l ists of the inmates and their

cases, so that the central government could check whether convicts were released after the

completion of their term. Complaints on this account submitted by prisoners were seriously

investigated at the highest instance.i2T From tirne to tinrc', especially in the 1860s, the Majlis

al-Ahkám would be instructed to review the cases of those whose terms for some reason

were not speciÍied, or who had been given life sentences.l28

Completion of the prison term did not always imply fieedom: young convicts were usually

sent to the- army afier their release.l2e On the other hand, however, convicts would often

be released without having fully served their sentences due to the fiequent general amnesties :

between 1829 and 1869 I have Íbund eleven instances.l3O They were probably used to

ease the overcrowding of prisons. When prisoners were rcleased. they had to find a gLrarantor(dcimin), who would be personal responsible to produce him if the authorities requested his

presence. If he failed to do so, he himself would be cletained.

?.1.1.

r :a See e.g. Khet l ivc to a l -Haj j Ahm,rd Agha, Nazir a l -N, ÍabánÍ(Alexandr ia) , l6 Sharvrvál 1243 I l -5-18281, Sin 2/29l2, Dirvàn

Khidin ' i Turk i , S;di r a l -aqál im.rr5 See e.g. lv la j l is 'Al r l \4ulk i to the m. l 'mr i r oÍ tht 'Dirvàn Khidi rv i ,

l6 Rajab 124ó, instruct ine him to d i rect the Iocal of f ic ia ls to

speci fv terms of imprrsonment accordins to the ser iousness of

the of fence rvhen sentencing of t t -nders, and to rnÍorm the

Dirvàn KhidÍrvi of these sentences. Majlis (Áli j\ 'Íulki, DaÍtar

759 Tu rk i ( o l d ) . p . 14 ,1 , doc . 283 ( Í r om DWQ ca rd i ndex

s.v. sulÍir). Llnspecificd sentences. holvever, contjnued to bc

pronounccd, but only in except ional cases. See e.g. Governor

of al-Qal'a al-S.r'idi1rya to the Kházin Khidirvr, l9 Shawryál 1272

l l : - ó -18571 . l \ i a ' i y ya Tu rk í , Mah f . r za 12 , l ea f 24 , doc . 254 .

N, l i l i tary oÍ f t 'nders were, at Ieast in 1861, usual ly sentenced

without a tern, b idun ntudda. Às a ru le, desertcrs r i 'ere

relcased af ler s jx monlhs. Dlwàn al-Tarsána, 95+ {old l .r ró See c.g. Khedival order to Wakr l Nazir a l -1\4aj l is , l7 Ramddán

1243 [2- .1-1828], Dirván Khidi rv i Turk i , DaÍ tar 744 (o ld) , p.3t ,

doc .69 ; Khed i va l o rde r , 4 Sha 'ban 1252 Í 14 - l l - 183ó1 . N la ' i y ya

Saniyya Turki , , rBl (o ld) , doc.80 (both takcn Í rom DWQ card

ln0ex, s.v. .sr4 l i l?1.' r r See e.g. l \ la j l is a l -Ahkám, Qavd al- 'ardLrhalat a l -S.rd i r r , Sin

1 1 9 1 5 , p . 1 0 5 , n o . I , l 7 R a b i ' I l 1 2 7 5 : a c o m p l a r n t o Í a n

inmatc of the Wáburár wa- 'amal ivyát (see belorv) th.r t thc

per iod in rvhich he was detainr 'd beÍore rhc sentencc wds not

deducted Í rom the t imc oÍ h is impr isonment as l i ras indicated

in the sentence.rr t See e.g. BáshmÍ 'aN, in lanáb KhidÍrví to N, la i l is a l -Áhkám, 29

DhL r a l - l . l i j j a I 279 [ 16 -6 -18631 . i t l a l l i s a l - , qhkám, S rn 7 /10 /

I 8 , 2 9 R a i a b 1 2 8 0 , n 0 . 4 0 0 , p . 9 - r - 9 5 .rro St 'c e.g. Nlai l is a l -Ahkám, Qatd al -qadá1,á aJ-r i ,ár ida, Sin

7/32/4, case, 2 Sharvrvál 1280. p.30; ib i r i . case, 8 Sha'bán

1280, p.42. The pract ice was based on a decree of the Maj l is

al -Ahkám t i 'h ich l hate not bccn . rb le to t r . rce.-ro See Appendix 4 Íor a detai led l is t .

-

E C Y P T A N D T H E A C E L I F T l l E T R I U i \ l P H A N T l - r l { I S O N : L E ( 1 , \ L P L l N l S l { M E N T l N N I N E T E E N T H C E N T U I t Y E C Y P T

Conclusions

In the introduct ion I br ief ly sumnrarised the theories cl f Foucault and Spierenburgexplaining the development of the penal systenrs in Western Europe. Both of them relate

the emergence of prisons as the main lbrm of punrshment to the rise of strong. centralised

states. Foucault emphasises that France emerged as a centralised and strong state, with anefficient police force that could catch and bring to justice many more criminals that underthe oncien régínte. ThereÍore. c'leterrence by gruesome spectacles of suÍfering was notnecessary anymore. It was replaced by deterrence based on the great risk for criminaloffenders of being apprehended. Instead of publ ic ly executed corporal punishment,

imprisonment became the main Íbnr oí' judicial punishment. Prisons became disciplininginstitutions aimed at creating obedient subjects of the state. For Spierenburg the relationship

with the rise of strong centralised states is more complicated. He situates the abolition ofpublicly executed corporal punishment in Elias' civilising proces,t. This process resulted inan aversion, among the elite, to the sight of corporal punishment and torture and the restraint

of aggressive impulses. First this was restricted to the members of the elite groups, but asthe nation state became better integrated the aversion extended towards all classes of society.Pol i t ical act ion motivated by these sensihi l i t ies could be successful because the newly

emerging centralised nation states were more stable and did not need anymore the spectaclesof public executions and torture to enhance their ar-rthority.

As for Egypt, the link between the changes in the penal system and the process ofpolitical centralisation initiated by Mehmecl (Ali is clbvious. The history of criminal law

during his reign shows, on the one hand. how he succeeded in br inging his off ic ials underhis control ancl . on the other. that enacfed cr iminal law was one of his instruments ofcentralisation. Officials were made to realise that they could only administer it accordingto Mehmed (Al i 's instruct ions and under his supervision. When once he reprimanded an

ofÍlcial for having tortured and nrutilated a peasant who had committed an offence, beforefinally kill ing him, l3l what was at stake were not humanitarian considerations but rather an

assertion of Mehmed (Ali's authority. since the official had violated his instructions. Oncehe had disciplined his oÍficials, his policy of centralisation could rsucceed. From then onpunishment could only be imposed by virtue of enacted criminal laws. Primer ÍLrc'ie thisresembles the rule of law and the principle oï nttlla poena sine lege in Western European

law. On closer inspection, however, both notions of legality were quite different. In Western

Europe its first and foremost function was to restrict the power of the state and to protect

the citizen against its encroachments. In Mehmed (Ali's realm, on the other hand, it was atool of state control and centralisation. Mehnred (Ali's criminal laws aimed at tighteninghis grip on the corps of officials by forbidding them to commit certain acts and penalising

them, and ordering them to behave in certain wirys. i.e. imposing specific punishments when

trying offences committed by their subjects. The crirninal laws addressed the officials rather

l rL See no te ,15 2 7 5

2 7 6

than the subjects. It is il lustrative that these penal laws were not officially publicised. If

they were printed. then this was only for official use. The penal provisions rnust be read.

not as guarantees for the citizens. but as instructions to olÍicials on how to proceed when

dealing with certain offènces. The principal diffèrence between the Egyptian and the Western

European ideal of legality. is that according to the latter, the ruler had to obey the law,

whereus the Pasha, regarding legislation as his personal commands. did not feel bound by

it. His legal system can better be labelled as an instance of "rule by law". as we Íind in

many contemporary clictatorial states. than as a fbrm of "rule of law".l3l

By the end of his reign Mehmecl (AI had established tight control over both his officials

and over the population. Instruments for the control of his subjects were a network of

village. neishbourhood and guild sheikhs. monitoring the doings and dealings of those undcr

their authority, and an efficient police torce, using classical methods such as police spies ls

w'ell as modern, scientific ones such as forensic medicine and chemical analysis.l3s As a

result of his greater gr ip on the country, publ ic securi ty increased and, as noted by

cotrtemporary European travellers, the number of executions decreased. Spectacles of brutal

suÍïèring such as death by impaling were not staged anymore after the 1830s. Banishment

or deportation to the Sudan became a substitute for capital punishment. The public character

of punishment, however, did not change. The execution of death sentences stil l took place

in public and the bodies of the executed were leÍi hanging on the gallows. And those

sentenced to imprisonment and hard labour were not totally locked away behind prison walls

but remained to some extent part of public lifè. They were transported in chains. like the

colunrns of prisoners (chuïnes) in eighteenth and early nineteenth century France and Spain.

and those sentenced to hard labour often worked side by side with other workers, in industrial

establishrnents as well as on construction sites. Moreover, public floggings were usual. This

persistence of the public character of punishment is not exceptional. Spierenburg and others

have criticised Foucuult for presenting the change in penal policy as a sudden and abrupt

one, and shown that i t was a rnore gradual process. In France. for erample, publ ic

executions (in some cases preceded by the amputation of the right hand) and other fbrms

of public penalties such as the pillory and public brantling were practised until the l830s,rrl

although less Ír-equently than beÍore. In other Western European countries public executions

and floggings continued until the second half of the nineteenth century.

The abol i t ion of f logging and caning in Egypt in l86l deserves separate discussion. I t

was part of a deliberate policy to reduce ofÍicial violence. which had become feasible due

to certain social and economic transformations of the country. An important factor. although

one for which we do not have direct docurnentary evidence. was the presence, among the

Egyptian ruling elite, of refbrmers, who began to consider corporal punishnent as backwirrd

and uncivilised and argued that it had to be replaced in order to modernise the country.

The importance of groups of Westernising reÍormers for the nineteenth century developntents

r : r S r ' l L r on t h i s d i s t i nc t i on t l r own (1q97 ) , p . 241 -2 .rr ' t on thr ' tJcvelopment of the pol ice, sec F,rhmv ( ls99b)

' r a Lóona rd ( l 98 l r ) , p . l 2

-

E C Y P T A N D T t l E A C E O F T t l E T I i l L l l \ 1 P l l , \ N T P R I S L ) N : t E C À L P L t N I S H I \ I E N T I N N I N E T E E N T I I C E N T L I R Y E G Y

of penal systems has been clocumentecl Íirr non-western countries like Russia,l-t5 early colonial

India (where the reÍirrmers, of course, were British iurcl not IrtcJian).116 and Peru.l37 In Egypt,

there were retrtrnters in the nineteenth centllry, but they have lett uo documents regarding

their ideas on legal punishnrent. Nevertheless, it is my contention that they influenced penal

policy, especially with regard to the abolition of torture and corporal punishment. They

must have followed the example clf the Ottoman Empire, where corporal punishment had

been abolished with the introduction of the Penal Code of 1858. It is doubtful, however,

whether the Egypt ian reformers were motivated by growing sensibi l i t ies against publ ic

punishment. The persistence of ofÍicial violence outside the judicial sphere is evidence to

the contrary. The ethnic gap between the Turkish speaking elite and the native Egyptian

peasants must have been an eÍÍbctive barrier to empathy.

In order to explain why they could successfully implement their program, we first have

to consider the function and meaning o1' official violence in nineteenth century Egypt. As

I outlined in the section on corporal punishment, ofÍicial violence was a mode of repression

practised in three contexts: (l) as a means of coercion, to make people obey official orders

(often in connection with tax collection. or drafting men for military service or corvée);

(2) as a means to obtain confessions durin-u criminal investigations, and, finally, (3) as a

form of judicial punishment. During MehnrecJ 'Ali 's reign the Turkish elite ruled by means

of violence. As the crops, money and the lranpower demanded by the State from the po-

pulation were often excessive and endangered its subsistence, they could only be collected

by using brutal force. Moreover, corporal punishnrent was, especially in the countryside,

economical ly more eff ic ient than imposin-u pr ison sentences, because after a period of

recovery, the peasant could go back to work. That the use of torture was regarded as

normal and as a useful and helpfirl method irr investigating crirle. stemmed from the fact

that the techniques of investigatins criutes were stil l very primitive : investigaticltl. t-tsually

conducted by administrative officials. Íbcused on extracting a conÍèssion from one or nlore

suspects. In addit ion. the use of v iolence, and especial ly the wielding of the kurbtt i .

symbolised authority, in the silure nranner as public executions did. For all these reasons.

the flogging of peasants by TLrrkish officials was common and widespread.

Mehmed (Ali's measures to restrict to some extent the use of violence were inspired by

two Í'actors : first, it had to be rnacle clear that wielding the kllrhil.j as a symbol of power

was ul t imately control led by the central government. Since the execut ion of capital

punishment was the Khedive's prerogative, an official who killed a subject by an excess of

beating or flogging, would intrude on the Khedive's rights. This rule was indeed enforced

and officials who killed subjects were brought to lustice. A second point was that violence

should not damage the productive capacity of his subjects by kill ing or incapacitating the

subjects. Within these restrictions, flo-e-uing continued to be practised as a way of repression

and enforcing obedience.

t : : See Adams (1996 )r ró See S ingha (1998 )

rr : Set ' Agurrre (199ó)

The first substantial steps in restricting official violence were taken in connection with

cr iminal invest i -qat ion. These steps were made possible by the extension ancl grow' iug

efficiency of the state apparatlrs. By the 1850s a fully--qrown, specialised police Íbrce had

conre into existence as wel l as an extensive publ ic health administrat ion which was also

involved in pol ice work. The increased prof 'essional ism of those involved in cr i rninal

investigations and the use of scientific methods,l18 showed that there were better ways of

Íinding the truth than trying to obtain a confession. This led to the realisation that torture

was not a very effèctive instrument of finding the truthlse and made it possible fbr reformers

as fiom the early l8-50s to enl'orce measures to restrict and finally. in 186 1, banning it.

I t is not ent i rely clear what immediately prompted the abol i t ion of f logging as a

punishment in 1861. because the decree i tsel f is s i lent on i ts considerat ions. At the pol i t ical

level, the reformers could point at the example of the Ottoman Empire where corporal

punishment had been abolished in 1858. But that this reÍbrm could be eÍfectively introduced

was because the need of ofÍicial violence irr the countryside hacl decreased due to econonric

developments. Before l8'12, Egypt was a command economy, dominated by Mehmed (Ali's

monopoly. Peasants produced Íirr the Pasha, who therefore hacl a direct interest in theirproductive capacity. Corporal punishment was thereÍbre economically more advantageous

than imprisonment. This changed aÍier the State monopoly was abrogated and the State's

extraction of the rural surplus became lirnited to tax cclllection. Mehrned cAli's successors

had therefore a more abstract and remote interest in the productive capacity of peasants.

They were not too much concerned about the iurprisonrrent of peasants. Connected with

this development is that fact that dur ing Mehmed (Al i 's reign demands on the ruralpopulat ion in procluce, corvée labour and men Íor conscript ion often jeopardised their

existence and could only be collected by fbrce. With the reduction of the army in the

1840s and the easing of r-nrvée in the l850s, la0 the need for v iolent coercion diminished.

A Íinal but crucial fàctor was that the dealth of rur:il labour in tlre countryside had come

to an end. If peasants fled Íiom their villages during Mehmed (Ali's time, they were forcibly

returned, because their labour was needed. This changed during the l8-50s with the rise of

large estates and the dispossession of many srnall holders. Peasants became expendableancl there was no need anymore to except them from irngrisonment of they committed an

offence. If sentenced to hard Iarbour, they could be proÍitably erlployed in the agriculturalprojects in the Sudan, as was decreed in 1857 (see Appendix l ) .

By the lB60s irlprisonrnent had prevailed in the E-eyptian penal system as the rnainpunishment. By that time prison conditions had improved and rnortality among the inmates

had dropped drastically. This meant that imprisonment did not anymore entail the risks ofgratui tous and unintended sufÍèr ing and death due to pernicious pr ison condit ions. lai

Imprisonment, therefore, became a viable substitute of flogging, as it could now also be

L rB Sec Fahmy ( l 9ooa ) . r 0 l - o l edano { l oo01 , t . l 8 t , 188i ie For thc re lat ionship betrvt 'cn ef Íect ivc pol ice mr ' thods ant l thc rJ lSee Peters ( for thcoming b) .

abo l i t i on o Í t o r t u r c i n EL r rope , see Asad (1996 ) , p . l r lEg ,

reÍerring to John Langbein, Torture and the Lan of Pr1of, l9l1.2 7 8

--

IN I ' -TF. I . ,NTH CENTURY EGY

quantifled precisely. Now, was this development linked to a change in penal policy'l Did

the rulers be-elin to regard imprisonment ils a means of retorm and rehahilitation of the

prisoner ' l And did they introduce changes in thc pr ison system to this end l) There is l i t t le

evidence that this was the case. There have been no attempts to set u; t perr i tent iar ies and

introcluce prison regimes that wc-re rntended to morally improve and rehabilitate the prisoners.

The only except ion is the short- l ived experiment of the mi l i tary trade and craÍt uni ts,

establislred in l863 because of a concern about the rise in rural crirne. However. these

units were dissolved a year and a hall later. It is not clear how they functioned, but the

Íact that the experiment was not continued shows, I believe, that there was no sufficient

support Íbr the idea. Rehabilitation of offenders seemed not to have been on the agenda

of the rulin-s elite. The reforming zeal had stopped at the banning of corporal punishment.

The main punitive functions of imprisonntent were not thc irnposition of discipline but rather

deterrence and retribution. In other words, inrprisonment was an instrurnent of repression

aimed at the subjection of the population. not at the disciplining or refbrrrting ol the oÍ'Íènder.

Appendix I Distribution oÍ Categories of Prisonersover the Penal Institutions

The articles of the various penal codes specify the type and duration of imprisonment to

be imposed on the perpetrator of the offènce defined in the article. However, fiom time to

time decrees were issued modilying this ancl laying down that certain types of oÍfenders or

persons sentenced to a certain prison tenlr. were to be transported to Sudan or serve their

time in specific prisons. Hereunder I will give a slrrvey of such decrees in order to make

clear the hierarchy and relations between the difÍèrent penitentiulies.

BunishmenÍ from Eg.t'lttian Territon

1846-1852:convicts wi th a l i f 'e sentence were to be sent v ia the Sudan to Eth iopia. ra:

Sudctrt

18411: Off ic ials gui l ty of embezzlement to be sent to the Sudaq to work in agricul ture(ar t . 196 QM)

t he go ld m ines . l 431846: prisoners lvith sentences of two years and rnore to be deported to

1848: ser ious cr i rninals to be deportecl to Jabat Dul. l+J

l8-52:convicts with l i Íè sentences to be deported to Jabal Qisán. l l51857: peasants and rural sheikhs sentenced to Í ive years or more of

manslaLrghter to be deported to land reclamation areas in the Khartourrr

accompanied, on a voluntary basis. by their famil ies). lao

forced labour for

Province (could be

{ r See note 98,t+3 Ibid.r l i Al - \MaqJ' i ' a l - l \ l isr i \ \ , . r , l -1 Raiab 1264 126-6- I8,181

p 8 l

r + 5 D c c r c c o f t h c i \ , Í a j l i s a i - A h k à m , l ó J L r m á d á I

I t8 Nlarch l8-521, Daftar / \ ' la jmr i ' Umur l in. i ' i \^ ,a, p. 133.

H i l l ( 19591 . r 10 D r .d fee o f I Dh I a l -H i j j a , 1273 . Sám l ( l s ] 3 - l 916 )

P. l-.itl.

1 2 6 8

2 7 ,

-

R U D O L P H P E T E R S

l8-58:r leasure extended to persons convictec' l tor theft for the fourth t ime. lJT

1863: convicts with sentences lonser that f ive years to be deported to Fayzoghl i . la81865: convicts with sentences of over ten vears to be sent to the White Ni le. l le

Alerundría Prisort

1860 : convicts with sentences of one year or more to be sent to the Alexandria Arsenal.

1862 : convicts with life sentences, murderers and repeated ofÍènders had to serve their time

in Alexandria. l50

1865: convicts with terms under ten years to be sent to the Alexandria Prison. ls l

1866: only convicts with sentences up t i l l three years served in the Alexandria Arsenal l52

as appeilrs from the registers of the Alexarrdria Arsenal.

Appendix 2 The Nineteenth Century Egyptian Criminal Laws

Penul Code of 1829 (PC 1829)

Turkish text and translat ion in Peters (1999b).

Lu** of Agricultttre (Qc1nun al-Filuha) of 1830 (QF)

Text publ ished as an appendix t t - t LcTf iha (1840-1841) and in lB4-5 included in the QM(art . 1-55).

Penerl Coele d 1845 (Al-Qanin ol-Muntakhaá) (QM)

Text in Zaghlnl (1900), app. 100-l-5-5 and Jal lád (1890-1892), I I I , 3-51-78.

Pertql Code of 1819 (PC 1849)

Printecl in a bi l ingual (Arabrc ancl Turkish) edit ion by Dár al-Trbá'a al- 'Àmira al-Mir iyya

in Bulaq on 8 Rajab I26-5.

The Imperial Penal Codc (Qdrtthurunte c1-,lu1tr7nl) (QS)

Text in Zaghlnl (1900), app. l -5(r-178; Jal lád (1890-1892), I I , 90-102. Jal làd also gives the

administrative regulations (Huruktir) issued together with the Code (p. 102-l l).

The Supplement of 5 articles to the QS drafted by the Majlis al-Ahkám in 1275 [858].Tex t in Sámi (1928-1936) , f l f / l , p .294-7 .

r r ; Àr t , l , decree oÍ the / \ ' la j l is a l -Ahkám, l5 Nluharram 1275 r : " Nl iss ive Í rom the r \ la ' i r r r , . r 5. ,n i r , to 29 DH 1276 [18-7-1860].(4September 1858) ; text in Sàmi (1928- l i r - .16), l l l i 1 , ?.294-291 , NÍaj l is a l -Al1kám, DaÍtar l \ l . r jmu'Umur J iná' i ) rya, p. l3 l . N4issive

rat i f icat ion b1i the Khedive ul t imo SaÍar I 258, l l l l í1 . , p. 301 . Í rom HàÍ iz Pasha, comm.rncler of the ' Navy, I 2 Rabr ' I I 278I rd Decre'e. 28 Rabi' I I 280 ll 2-9- I 8631, i\'la'i,v),.1 Sani1,va, Sádir [7-9- I Bó21, lbÍí.

a l - a | ám i r a l - ka r ima , S in l / l / 25 , p .5 , doc . 1 . I : Khed i va l o rde r , 4 l umádá I I l l 82 [ 25 -10 -18ó5J , Ma l l i s a l -Ahkám,L+o Khcd i va l o rdc r t o t hc N ' { a i l i s a l -A f kàm, 4 Jumada l l l 2E2 mah Íaza 9 , doc .323 /3 .

2BO [25 l 0 - l só5 ] , Sàm i ( 1928 -1936 ) , l l l / 2 . p . 625 , s r D i r vàn a l - t a r sána , qss ( o l d ) .

--

E C Y P T A N D T H E A C E O F T H E T I I I U N , l P H A N T P R I S O N : I - E C À L P L I N I S H N { E N T I N N I N E T E E N T H C E N T L I I T Y E C Y P T

Appendix 3 A Description of the Five Sijil lsRegarding the Alexandria Prison

DWQ, Diwán al- tarsána, 953-951 (old), Qayd asmá' al-madhn[bin bi- l imán tarsÍni ] t

Iskandariyya [This is the title as given on the first leaf of the siji l l]. On the cover, us in

the index, this series is eroneously reÍ'erred to as : Qayd asmá' al-madyuniyya bayán tarsánatIskandariyya.

S i j i l l s :

953: 29 SaÍar 1263 t1ll 4 Dh[ al-Hijja 1268

954: 13 Rajab 1271 t l l l 5 Dh[ al-Qa'da 1281

955: 5 Dhu a l -Qa 'da 12Bl t i l l 24 Rab i ' I 1283

956: 24 Muharam 1278 t i l l 26 Rabi ' I l2B-5

951: 26 Rab i ' I 12 85 t i l l 10 SaÍar l2U6

There is a gap between no. I (29 SaÍar 1263 to 4 Dhu al-Hijja 1268) and no. 2 thatbegins in l3 Rajab 1277. The nos.2 to 5 are consecut ive. No. 4 seems to be an except ionas no. 3 ends on 24 Rabr' | 1283 and the first entries are dated 24 Muharram 1278. Thereason is that the first 20 pages of no. 4 are a recapitulation of the previous siji l ls, listingby their date of entry all prisoners present on I Jumádá I 1283, that is all prisoners convictedfor homicide who had not beneÍlted fiom the amnestv of 5 Rabi'I 1283.

The siji l ls give the following infbrmation:

name

beginning of detention spent before arrival

description and estimated age (is lacking in siji l l 953)

short description of oÍfence

length of sentence

date of arrival

number and date of covering letter

date of the end of the sentence

date of release or decease with date and number of pertinent correspondence

These siji l ls offer suitable material for statistical analysis that could deepen our knowledge

about nineteenth century Egyptian criminality and the judicial system.

2B

-

E G Y P T A N L r T t l E A C E O F T H E T R Í U N I P H A N T P R I S ( r N : L E C A L P L I N I S I I N I E N T l N N I N E T E E N T H C E N T L I I i Y E c Y P T

Sources Archival Sources

Almost all of the archival material that I used is located in the Egyptian National Archive(Dár al-Wathá' iq al-Qawrniyya, DWQ;. If the lcoation is not mentioned in the note. thedocument belongs to the collection of the DWQ.

Dár al-Wurhà' ir1 al-Quwmivtu

Series

Mr' iyya Saniyya, Sin I

Ma'iyya Turki. mahil f iz

Diwán Khidiwi. Sin 2

Diu'án Khidiwi, mahr-rf iz

A l -Jam' iyya a l -Haqqán iyya , S in 6

Majl is al-Altkàm. Sin 7

Majl is al-Ahklm, mahhfiz

A l -Ma j l i s a l -khusus i . S in I I

Muháfazat Misr, Lám I

Dabtiyyat Misr, Lám 2

Mudir iyyat Min[f iy1,a, Lám 6

Mahfazat al-Mihi

Diwnn al-Tarsàna

Al-Fàbnqàl wa-l- 'arnal iyyát wa-l-wáb[ràt. maháfiz

A l -Waqà ' i ' a l -Mis r iyva (xeroxec l )

Dar al-Mahfuzrlt

N{ahkamat Misr al- ibt iclá' iyya al-shar' i r '1,a. makhzrn

16. 'ayn 22

References

Adams, Bruce F . (199ó) C lo t Bey . A . -8 . (1840)

T h e P o l i t i t s o f P u n i s h n t e n t ; P r i s o n R e . f o n n i n A p e r g u . q é n e r u ! s t t r ! ' F . q t l t t e . 2 r o l s . P a r i s :Ru: ;s ia 1863- 1917. DeKalb : Nor thern I l l i no is For t in . Masson e t C ie .

Un ivers i ty Press . Co le . Juan R. I . (1993)

Agr.r irre, Carlos (199ó) Coloniul ism antl Reyoltt iort in the l t ' l iddle Ert. tr ;"The Lima Penitentiary and the Modernization of Social und Cultural Origirts o. l ' Eglpt ' .s 'Llruhi

Criminal Justice in Nineteenth-Century Peru", in Movem<'nt. Princeton NJ : Princeton UnivcrsityR.D. Salvatore, C. Aguirre (ecl.), I /re Birth of t l te Press.Pen i te r t r iu ry i r t Lu t in Aner ica ; E .ssu t ' s on Couv idou, H. (187- l )

Criminolog,r-, Prison Refonn, untl Socit t l Conlrol, ÉÍude tn, l 'Egt 'pte (t)t l temp(,r(r in(. Cairo.lB-10-1940. Austin: The Llniversit l ' of Texas Ener. Mine (forthcoming)

Press, p. 14-177. "Gett ing into the Shelter ol Takivat Tulr-rn". inAsad, Talal (1996) E. Rogan (ed.), Outside in: Margimli . .ut ion tmtl

"On T<r r tu re . o r Crue l , Inhuntan , and Degrac l ine Ex<: lus ion in th i M i t l c l le Ea.s t . Lonc lon :Treatnrent", Socíul Research 63/1. p 108l- l 109. I .B. Tauris.

Baer, Gabriel (19ó9) Fahmy, Khaled (1997)

"Tanzimat in Egypt: the Penal Code"" in G. Baer Al l the Pttshas's Men: Mt'hmed Ali , His Ann(ed.), Jtrrrlic.i in the Sociul HisÍory of Motlenr und tlte Making o.f Modern Egypt. Camblidge :Eg'pt. Chicago: The University of Chicago Cambridge University Press.Press , p . 109-133. Fahmy, Kha led (1999a)

Bowring, John (18-10) "The Anatomy of Justice: Forensic Medicine lndRaport on Eg,,-pt und Cantl ia Addres,setl to t lrc Criminal Law in Nineteenth-Century Egypt".Right Hott. Lord Viscount Palmerstrne. London: Islrurtíc Lan' und SocieÍy 612. p.221-)7 1.Comnrand Paper. Fahmy, Khaled (1999b)

Brown, Nathan J. (1991) "The Police and the People in Nineteenth Centurl'The Rule of Law irt the Antb World. Courís ir t Egypt". Die Welt t les Lslants 39. 3, p. 310-377.Egl*pt urtrl the Gulf. Camblidge: Canrbridge LTni-

versity Press. 28 :

Fahnry. Khaled (2000)

"Medical Condit ions in Egyptian Prisons in the

Nineteenth Centurv", in R. Ostle (ed.1, Murgirut l

Voit:e,s in L. i teruÍrrre ond So(iet\ ' . Strasbourg:

European Science Foundatiorr / Maison rnécl i ter-

r a n é e n n e d e s s c i e n c e s d e I ' h o m m e

d 'A ix -en-Provence. p . I l -5 - t 55 .

Foucau l t . M. (1975)

Sur t ,e i lLer e t pLur i r : t t t t i ssunce de

Paris: Gall i rnard.

Gisquet , M. (n .d . )

L'Égt 'pte, l ts Tuns et la.s Arubes. 2

Amy0t .

Guérnard . G. (1936)

Une rrLrvre .frar4aise: Ies rL:.fctrmes

d'Ali Bey El Kéhir it l\'léhénter-AIi.

Cairo.

Iu l t r isot t .

vo l s . , Pa r i s :

en t g\ptt"

I 760- I 848.

Hanna. Ne l ly (199-5)"Adnrinistrat ion irr Egypt fronr Ottornan Times 1o

the P lesenï : An hr t roduc t ion" . in N. Hanna (ed . ) .

7'he State und Its Senunt.s: Adntinittration .frontÍhe OÍromart Tiutt ,s to the Prt ' ,senl. Cairo: The

Amer ican Un ivers i ty in Ca i ro Press . p . l -16 .

H e n i a , A . ( 1 9 8 - 3 . t' ' P r i s o n s e t p r i s o n n i e r s à T u n i s v e r s 1 7 6 2 :

syslènre répressif et inégrl i tés sociales". RHMagltr

l0 /31 32 . p .223-252.

H e y d , U r i e l ( 1 9 7 3 )

Studie.:; in Okl Ottom.un Crim.innl Luw. Oxford:

OxÍirrd Unil'ersit_t' Press.

I lber t . R . (1996)

Alt ' .ratrdrie, 183()-1930. 2 r 'ols., Cai lo: IFAO.

Jabar t r . 'Abd a l -Rahrnán a l - , (1879-1880)'Ajd'ih ul-itldr .li ul-tarájim n'u-l-aklbdr. -l vols.,

Bu laq .

Ja l lud . F i l rb ( lE90- l t l92)

Qumfis ul- idaru v,u-L-quda'. 4 vols.. Alexandria.

Litihut <.iru'ur ul-ftlluh vu-Íalltir altkdm ul-.fulttlr

2nd ed . . Bu laq , 18 ,10- 184 | .

Lane. E .W. (1966)

Mttnners und Cuslom.s o.f the Modern Eg1'ptiun.s.

repr. ed.. London.

l-érrnard, Jacques (1980)

" L ' h i s t o r i e n c t l e p h i Í o s o p h e . A p l o p o s d e

surve i l le r e t pun i r : na issance de la p r ison" , rn

M. Pencrt @tl.). L' impossible l tr isotr. Paris: Seuil .

P. 9-2t).

Mahd i . Muhanrmad a l - (Abbàs i a l - . (1301 H. )

Al-Futau;d ul-Malrdityu f i ' l -14'aqd' i ' al-Mi.sr iyyu.

7 vo ls . , Ca i ro : A l -Matba 'a a l -Azhar iyya .

I J U D O L P H P E T E R S

Mubàr 'uk . 'A l í (1306 H. )

A l -Kh i ta t a l -To tvJ íq i , ' t ' a u l - jud í t lu I i -Mrsr

ul-Qahiru. Í6 parts in 4 r,ols.. Cairo.

O 'Br ien . Pat r i c ia ( 1982)

7 ' l te Pront isc o . f Pur t i . thmer t t : Pr iso t ts i r t

N i n e t e e r r Í h C e n l u r y F r a u c e . P r i n c e t o n . N J :

Princercn UnÍversit1, Press.

Per ro t . M iche l le (1975)"Délinquance et système pénitentiaire en France

au XIXC siècle". ful l name of the revíew Annales

E S C 3 0 . p . 6 7 - 9 1 .

Peters . Rudo lph (1990)"Murde l on the N i le : Homic ide Tr ia ls in l9 th

Century Egyptian Shari 'a Courts". Dic Welt des

/s/alrs .10. p. 9-5-1 l-5.

Peters . Rudo lph (199 l )

" T h e C o d i f i c a t i o n o f C r i m i n a l L a w i n l 9 t h

Century Egypt : Tradit ion or Modernization ?". i rr

J.M. Abun-Nasr (ed.). Lav', Sot: i t :"r ' , aud National

I t l e n t i t . t ' i n A . Í r i c u . a . o . H a m b u r g : B u s k e ,

p. 2.1 | -225 .

Peters . Rudo lph (1997)

" l s l a m i c a n d S e c u l a r C r i m i n a l L a w i n l 9 t h

Century Egypt: The Role and Function of the

Qad\", IsLnnic Lutt und Societv 4. p.70-90.

Peters . Rudo lph (1999a)

" A d m i n i s t r a t o r s a n d M a g i s t r a t e s : T h e

Deve lopr ren t o f a Secu lar Jud ic ia ry in Egypt ,

I t t42-187 1", Die WeLt des Islants 39, p. 378-397.

Peters, Ruclolph ( I 999b )"For His Correction and as a Deterrent Example

f o l O t h e r s " : M e h n r e t l ( A l l ' s F i r s t C r i n r i n a l

Legislat ion (1U29-1830)". Islamit ' Iavt und Socien'

ó . p . 16 .1- 193.

Peters, Rudolph {forthcoming a)" P r i s o n s a n d M a r g i n a l i s a t i o n i n N i n e t e e n t h

Century' 'Egypt". in E. Rogan (erJ.), Outside tn:

14ut'ginuli..ati<trt and E.rtlLtsiott in tlte Middle

Eust . London: I .B . Taur is .

Peters, Rrrckrlph (fbrthconring b)"Cont ro l led Suf fe r ing : Mor ta l i t y and L iv ing

C o n d i t i o n s i n N i n e t e e n t h - C e n t u r - v E g - r ' p t i a n

Prisons". I/MES

Pike . Ruth ( 1983 tPenu l Serv i rude in Ear ly Modern S l ra i , r .

Mad ison. WI : The Un ivers i t i t y o f Wiscons in

Pless.

S á n r i . A n i i n ( 1 9 2 8 - t 9 3 ó )

Taqwínt al-Ní1. 3 vols.. Cairo: Matba'at al-Ku1ub

a l -Mis r iyya .

2 8 4

F-

E C Y P T A N D T l l E A C I - - O F T H E T R I U M P t I A N T P R I S O N : L E C r \ l - P U N I S H I \ I E N T l N N I N E T I ' . E N T t l C E N T U t t Y E C Y P T

Schne ider . J rene (1995)

" In rpr isonnrent in Pre-C l : rss ica l and C lass icu l

Islamic Law". 1LS 212. p. 157-171.

Schoelcher. Victor ( l t i - l6)

L'É,qvpte en 1815. Plr is: Pagncrre.

Scot t . C . Rochfbr t (18 .17)

Rurnble.t in Egt'pt and Cundia: with Detoil.r oft l te l l í i l i tart Pov'er ancl Resources oj Tlto.st

CoLrrrtr ie,s, urrd Oh,senations on lhe Gorcrnntetr l ,Pol i<' t ' , untl Comntt 'r t iul Sv.stetrt of Mohatrtntcd

A1 i . I vo ls . . London : Co lbLr rn .

Shuqayr , Na ' [m (1972)

Jughri. l ' i r . t ot t tu-tt tr ikl t ul -Sttdurt. Rcpr. ed. Beirut.

S ingha. Radh ika (1998)

A De.tltoti.snt ol Lutr: Crirne and .ltr.stice in Earlt

Colort iul Indiu. Delhi. etc. : OxÍbrd Unrversit lPress.

Sp ierenburg . P ie te r (1984)

The Spectacle of Sttffèring: E.teL;ution:; untl theEt,olul ion o.f Repra.ssion: . l r()nt u Prairtdustr iul

MeÍ ropo l i . s to the Euro l ;eun Etper ience.

Carnbr idge: Camhr idge Un ivers i tv Press .

Spierenburg, Pieter ( l99l )The Prison E.rperiertce : Di.sci l t l intrrv Inst i tuÍ ir t t t .s

und'fheir lrunale.s in Eurlv fulodern Europe.New Brr.rnswick: RLltgers University Press.

St . John. Bay le ( l8 -52)

Vil lage Li le in Eurpt. 2 vols.. London : Chapnran

and Ha l l .

S t . John. Janrcs August 11834. )Egtpt nrtt l Mohantmed Ali , or Truvels in the

\tul let ' o.Í t l te Ni le. I vols.. London : Lon-rnran.

To ledano. Ehud (1990)

Stuíe und Societt in l \1 id-Nintteeutlr Ceníur\ '

E$'pt. Crurbridge: Canrbridge Univelsity Pless.

Tucker . JLrd i th ( 1986)

lïttnten irt NirteteetrÍh C:etttury E!\,PÍ. Cairo: The

American University in Cairo Prcss.

Zagh lL i l . A l . rn rad Fathr (1900)

Al-Muhdtntih. Cairo: Matba'at al-Ma'irr i f .

Zysherg. Anclré ( l9i t4)

"Ga l ley and Hard Labor Conv ic ts in France( l -550- I 850) : f ro rn the Ga l leys to H l rc l Labor

Canrps : Essay on a Long Las t ing Pena l Ins t i tu -

t ion". in P. Spierenburg (ed.), Tlre Erne'rgence of

Cur t e ra l ln . r l i tu t ion .s : Pr iso t t .s , Go l le t ' s undLunut i< ' As t ' lum. t , I 550- I 90( ) . Rot tc rdarn :

Centrulr vool Mairtschappi. jgcschiedenis. Elasnrus

Universiteir Rotterdam, p. 78-124.

2 8 5