note to the comparative politics workshop · aḥkām-ı̊ ʿadliyye, the civil code applied in the...
Post on 28-Mar-2019
212 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Note to the Comparative Politics Workshop:
This paper is under review at Law and History Review, the leading journal in the history
of law, and as such presents a reading of archival material gathered from UK and
Ottoman sources in the course of recent research. My aim in presenting it for discussion
at the Workshop is to discuss its main theoretical and comparative underpinnings as a
basis for my second project on how law travels; as the paper will be further revised for
publication, any comments will be very much appreciated.
Draft not for circulation or citation
2
Circulations of Law:
Cosmopolitan Elites, Global Repertoires, Local Vernaculars
Iza Hussin∗
University of Chicago
Introduction
Bernard Cohn once called the imperial point of view the “view from the boat”.
There were other boats as well. (Ho 2004, 213)
In 1893, the sovereign state of Johor adopted the Ottoman Medjelle (Med̲j̲elle-yi
Aḥkām-ı̊ ʿAdliyye, the civil code applied in the Ottoman Empire since 1877), the only
state amongst the Muslim sultanates of the Malay Peninsula to do so.1 In 1895, Johor
promulgated a Constitution (Undang-Undang Tubuh Kerajaan Johor), the first state in
Southeast Asia to do so.2 This article takes this moment, of the intersection of two types
of law from quite disparate sources, as a point of departure for tracing the pathways by
which law made its way from one corner of the globe to another. Taking nineteenth
century Johor as our vantage point provides a new optic for mapping law’s geography
and temporality and for exploring the logics of law’s itinerancy and its locality. The
travels of law were always material, and often embodied: on ships sailing the Indian
Ocean between Johor and Cairo were diplomats, merchants, pilgrims and lawyers faced
∗ This paper benefitted from discussions at the Centre for History and Economics at the University of Cambridge and at the workshop ‘Travels of Law: Networks, Trajectories, Transformations,’ held at the University of Chicago (supported by the Social Science Research Council and the Committee on Southern Asian Studies at the University of Chicago), both in April 2013. I am grateful to participants at both these events, and wish in particular to thank Joya Chatterji, John Comaroff, Michael Gilsenan, Tim Harper, Renisa Mawani, William O’Reilly, Justin Richland and Emma Rothschild for their comments. The research in this paper was supported by Clare Hall (University of Cambridge), the Social Science Research Council (Transregional Research Fellowship), and the University of Chicago (Social Science Divisional Research Grant). 1 Findley, C.V. "Med̲j̲elle." Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition. Brill Online, 2013. Reference. University of Cambridge - Cambridge University Library (UK). 09 May 2013 <http://www.encquran.brill.nl/entries/encyclopaedia-of-islam-2/medjelle-SIM_5107> 2 The first modern Constitution in Asia was promulgated in the Meiji empire in 1890; after Johor, the Malolos Congress of the Philippines enacted their Constitution in 1899.
Draft not for circulation or citation
3
with new pressures and new possibilities; in the growing traffic in letters and newspaper
reports between London and New York, Tokyo and Constantinople, were debates about
empire and culture, power and authenticity; in personal relationships made possible by
the technologies of nineteenth century cosmopolitanism, were similarly worldly dramas
of deception and demands for justice. In the two short years between the adoption of the
Medjelle and the Constitution in Johor, the Sultan of Johor, Abu Bakar (1833-1895),
typified this mobility and interconnection. In his travels across the Indian Ocean to the
Near East and Europe, in his appearance in diplomatic communiques in London,
Constantinople and Washington D.C., in his prominence as a figure of exoticism and
intrigue in the newspapers and the courts of the English-speaking world, the Sultan not
only embodied law’s movements figuratively, he was himself a key carrier of the law and
one of its signal articulators.
As a sovereign whose position was dependent upon his ability to balance Malay
politics and British imperial interests, Abu Bakar showed in his legislation and his
politics a keen awareness of multiple constituencies and audiences. Within the context of
his position as a participant in a new kind of cosmopolitan world, his legislative actions
were part of a wide-ranging repertoire of symbols and languages, that included his
portraiture, his court, his marriages and his travel. Therefore, while we begin with the
intersection of Medjelle and Constitution in Johor to discuss law as part of an
improvisatory political repertoire, this article broadens its focus to discuss the circulation
of legal ideas, institutions and actors made visible by Abu Bakar’s travels. Our analytic
project, therefore, is not simply that law travels, but with whom; not just that it is carried,
but alongside what other commodities and baggage; not just that it moves, but that it is
transformed by its passage across borders and among localities. The arrival of law in
Johor did not spell the end of its journeys – we return at the end of the article to how
travelling law finds its vernacular accents in a local context, where complex processes of
translation and localisation were conditioned by nascent logics of state-building and
imperialism.3
3 The phrase “law’s vernacular accents” is borrowed, with gratitude, from William O’Reilly’s comments on this paper, delivered at the University of Cambridge Centre for History and Economics Seminar on April 30 2013.
Draft not for circulation or citation
4
The aim of this article is to present a view of laws as varied repertoires for state-
building and consolidation, of law’s networks as intersecting circulations of legal agents,
cosmopolitan elites and imperial officials, and of law’s multiple meanings as opening up
possibilities for interpretation, localisation and onward progression. To argue that rulers
such as Abu Bakar used law in the late nineteenth century as part of a repertoire is to see
a particular moment in the history of the modern state – in the Ottoman Empire, the Meiji
Empire, Siam, Hawaii and Malaya – as contingent and experimental, rather than
teleological. To see law in circulation across these domains is to pay attention not only to
its movement, but to trace through time and space the work of many agents in the
translation, repetition, reiteration and transformation of law, its ideas and its institutions.
Together, the concepts of repertoire, circulation and travel sketch out the global theatre in
which rulers facing European imperial pressure in the nineteenth century acted to
preserve their power and articulate their jurisdiction and authority, drawing from
particular local scripts as well as increasingly ubiquitous sources of law and
institutionalisation.
Law in Circulation: Regional and Global Cosmopolitanisms, 1862-1895
In the late nineteenth century, law moved across the Indian Ocean as books and
letters on ships, was embodied in lawyers, merchants and colonial officials, was carried
alongside ways of doing business, of thinking about politics, of being family. This view
of law takes on board the mobility encapsulated in concepts of legal transmission,
diffusion and transplant (and acknowledges its debates: Watson 1993; Legrand 2003;
Kennedy 2003; Twining 2004; Westbrook 2006) but places critical emphasis on
discovering the ways in which law was transformed by its movement. (Hussin 2013a) In
this, the language of circulation, which emphasises reciprocity, reiteration and
reproduction, provides analytic traction and returns to the fore the role of law’s agents
and agency.
Circulation is different from simple mobility, inasmuch as it implies a double
movement of going forth and coming back, which can be repeated indefinitely. In
circulating, things, men and notions often transform themselves. Circulation . . .
Draft not for circulation or citation
5
therefore . . . implies an incremental aspect and not the simple reproduction across
space of already formed structures and notions. (Markovits et al 2003, 2-3)
Applied to law, this concept of circulation sees the movement of law through the world
not as seamless and uniform, but as critically intertwined with the movement of people,
goods and ideas, and therefore as deeply implicated in networks of economy, politics and
society and their attendant inequalities.4 As such, law in circulation is a global
phenomenon, but can only be made legible through its localities – its nodes and contact
zones, its ports of call. The Medjelle and Constitution were carried to Johor as part of
ongoing strategies to bolster the authority and legitimacy of its ruler, and their arrival was
conditioned by regional and local politics. As Renisa Mawani has argued (Introduction),
attention to law’s spatiality requires awareness of its temporality as well, and as this
section will elaborate, the chronology of law is not uniform either: the localisation of
Ottoman Medjelle and ‘western-style’ Constitution proceeded along different timelines
and took different forms.
The analytic contribution of the concept of law in circulation is also to highlight
the particularity of law’s movements, and the need for further investigation of the ways in
which these particulars may have been patterned. Different types of law, because they are
carried at different times, by different networks, for diverse and often divergent purposes,
do not circulate at the same rate, to the same extent, or in the same directions. In this
section, therefore, we begin by tracing circulations of law through Johor’s local political
context – the Malay world and the problem of British imperialism – and show how law
became part of a repertoire for state consolidation. We then look to wider circulations
that intersected over Johor in the late nineteenth century, in which Johor and its ruler
themselves would play transformative roles for law in far-flung places.
4 “It is in the asymmetry in negotiation processes that the power relationship resides, and it can be brought to light in its specificity only through a rigorous analysis of these processes, instead of being raised to the status of an explanatory category.” Raj 2013, 8.
Draft not for circulation or citation
6
Regional networks: Malay world, Hadhrami diaspora, British imperial
hierarchies
The state of Johor, at the tip of the Malay peninsula between Singapore and
Malacca (part of the Straits Settlements, a Crown Colony) and the Malay sultanates under
British residency rule, was one of the most diversely-constituted of the Malay states.
Comprised of multiple fiefdoms on the Malay Peninsula as well as in the Riau and
Lingga islands, its polity combined elements from centres of power in Minangkabau,
Bugis and Malacca. Abu Bakar’s education by British missionaries, his upbringing in
Singapore, his early involvement in regional diplomacy and his close personal and
commercial relationships with the Arabs, Chinese and English, all contributed to his
regional cosmopolitanism. (Harper 2013) The adoption of Ottoman Medjelle and a
‘western’ Constitution was part of the Sultan’s symbolic and institutional repertoire; his
rise through the gradations of Malay sovereignty was dependent upon his ability to
project an image of authority and legitimacy in multiple languages, for the benefit of
many audiences.(Hussin 2013b) This ability to translate between languages of authority,
British, Malay and Islamic, was evident not only in his legislation, but in his public
persona. Portraits of Abu Bakar produced during the course of his life show a figure who
combined Malay, Ottoman, and British elements of dress, stance and symbols; news
reports portray a ruler adept at Malay politics despite a contested claim to sovereignty, a
global traveller comfortable amongst European and imperial aristocrats despite
nineteenth century European hierarchies of race and religion.
Abu Bakar’s career charted the progress of a ruler who went from strength to
strength by positioning himself within regional and imperial powers as a broker and
facilitator. He inherited rulership of the state as Temenggong of Johor upon the death of
his father in 1862, under the terms of a controversial arrangement with the British in
Singapore; he had his title changed to Maharaja in 1868 and then to Sultan in 1885.
These increments in status were made possible through his role as intermediary between
the British and other Malay elites in the region, his economic and political ties to
networks of Chinese commerce in the Straits, his marriage into multiple networks of
imperial power (Malay, Anglo-Dutch, Chinese and Ottoman), and extensive diplomacy
and travel.
Draft not for circulation or citation
7
Abu Bakar’s early career complicates his current image as an anglophile and
moderniser, and suggests a number of different sources for his cosmopolitan worldview.
Amongst his earliest advisors were Hadhrami Arabs, such as ‘Abd al-Rahman bin
Muhammad al-Zahir al-Saqqaf (1833 – 1896, hereafter ‘al-Zahir’) and later the scholar
and reformer Sayyid Abu Bakr b. Shihab al-Din (1846-1922). (Freitag 2003, 191)
Through these and other relationships with prominent Arab families, Abu Bakar drew
upon Hadhrami networks for religious, mercantile and social matters.5 Of these advisors,
al-Zahir was among the earliest and most prominent: al-Zahir served the new
Temenggong of Johor from 1862-1864 (Freitag 2003), before his world travels began in
1866, and served as one source of his knowledge of the wider world, in particular the
world of the Indian Ocean. Al-Zahir’s “masterful command of a whole diasporic
repertoire of constituting a persona—routes, relatives, and representations” (Ho 2004,
220-221) – would not have been lost to Abu Bakar.
Al-Zahir’s biography encapsulates Hadhrami mobility and networks at this time –
born in Hadhramaut, raised in Malabar, educated in the Islamic sciences in Egypt and
Mecca, he traded between India and Arabia and travelled widely in Europe. (Ho 2004) In
fact, as Freitag puts it, for a while, Al-Zahir “became supercargo on one of his father’s
ships,” (2003, 195) moving with traded goods from India to Ceylon and Arabia. He
served rulers in military and administrative capacities from Hyderabad to Calicut, leaving
Johor to play a pivotal role in Aceh. Here, al-Zahir was an early model for developing
state legal and administrative capacities in order to build state strength, and later took a
leading role in the Acehnese revolt against the Dutch. His leadership involved diplomacy
to the British in the Straits Settlements, the Ottoman Empire and critical notables in the
Muslim world, including the Sharif of Mecca; intermarriage with the ruling families of
several key ports and states and the deployment of their wealth; strategic use of the pan-
Islamic press and the symbols of both Islamic and Western power and authority.
Abu Bakar’s regional cosmopolitanism was conditioned always by his familiarity
with, and recognition by, British imperial power. After a state visit to the United
5 The Sultan’s networks of relationship with Hadhramis served multiple purposes; his close affiliation with the mercantile Arab families of Singapore, for example, served his business and social interests. Nurfadzilah Yahaya, personal communication March 15 2013.
Draft not for circulation or citation
8
Kingdom in 1866 during which he was often referred to as ‘Maharaja’, the Temenggong
requested that his title be changed to Maharaja. Prior to this, he worked to establish his
own genealogical claims with the help of various Malay notables such as Raja Ali Haji
and the Sultan of Lingga. (Winstedt 1992, 124) Dynastic succession had been a
preoccupation since his father’s rulership of Johor, and the title of Maharaja would locate
Abu Bakar within the hierarchy of British India and further cement his claim to being
sovereign over Johor. In this, Abu Bakar’s reputation amongst British officials in the
Straits as “in his tastes and habits...an English gentleman,” furthered his campaign for
imperial recognition.6 When he requested that he be recognised as Sultan of Johor, his
role as intermediary between the British and the Malay chiefs, his vast landholdings at
the heart of the Malay peninsula and his importance as a bulwark against Dutch and
French interests in the region helped overcome the objections of local British officials.7
In fact, when the increasing frustration of local British officials such as Straits
Settlements Governor Frederick Weld with Abu Bakar’s independence led them to
contemplate placing a British Resident in Johor, Abu Bakar went to London to broker a
new agreement with the imperial centre. (Nadarajah 2000, 32; Trocki 1979, 185) When
the Maharaja was made a Sultan, his treaty with the British was signed in London, not, as
other treaties with Malay rulers had been, in the Malay states; Abu Bakar would
thereafter be known within the empire as ‘Sultan Sir Abu Bakar’, a Knight Commander
of the Order of St Michael and St George.
This treaty, signed in 1885, brought a new set of terms into the discourse of Abu
Bakar’s legitimacy and sovereignty, and linked Abu Bakar’s status as a sovereign Sultan
to his standing within the British imperial imagination. In exchange for ceding foreign
affairs to the British and non-interference in the Malay States, Abu Bakar and his
successors would be recognised as Sultans of Johor. The treaty emphasised consultative
language that had not previously been part of the rationales used by Malay rulers to
6 Cowan 1961: 38–9. 7 In August 1878, the Maharajah requested British support for a change in his title to Sultan, a change that would place him as equal to the other sovereign Sultans on the Malay Peninsula. The Governor of the Straits Settlements’ reply was swift and unequivocal: “most undesirable to recognise Maharajah as Sultan it would be an incendiary to the whole Peninsula and following closely on the question of the Moar succession would greatly complicate our position.” CO 882/4/22, 1885.
Draft not for circulation or citation
9
legitimise their positions: “His Highness the Maharajah of Johore has made known to the
Governor of the Straits Settlements that it is the desire of his chiefs and people that he
assume the title of Sultan.” The treaty further worked to legitimise an action that was far
from customary, and then to insert it as a link into an assumed chain of tradition and law:
“He and his heirs and successors, lawfully succeeding according to Malay custom, shall
in future be acknowledged as His Highness the Sultan of the State and territory of
Johore.” (CO 882/4/22, 1885.)
Global theatres of law: Chicago, Cairo, Constantinople, London
Having placed the Sultan in his local context and illustrated the manner in which
law, symbols of rule and local and imperial political imaginaries were entwined in
nineteenth century Johor, we now turn briefly to the wider theatre within which the
Sultan travelled, in order to further elucidate law’s multiple circulations and
transformations. The Sultan, by most accounts a marginal actor in a global context he did
not make, nonetheless appeared across the globe in a number of moments between 1893
and 1895 that illustrate a global profusion of ideas about rulership and sovereignty in a
still-imperial world. Between the adoption of the Majalla and the Constitution, he
appeared in newspaper articles reporting the World’s Columbian Exposition in Chicago
(1892-3); in the diaries of W.S. Blunt and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Sublime
Porte in Constantinople (1893); in the United States Senate Committee on Foreign
Relations’ report on the Hawaiian Islands (1894); and throughout the press, as well as in
international law journals to this day, when he was sued as ‘The Sultan of the State and
Territory of Johore, otherwise known as Albert Baker’, for breach of promise to Miss
Jenny Mighell of Brighton (1893-1894).
Amongst a flurry of articles leading up to the excitement of the World’s
Columbian Exposition in Chicago (1893) were a number of articles in newspapers on
both sides of the Atlantic on the anticipated attendance of the Sultan of Johor. On
October 9 1892, the New York Times reported:
The Sultan of Johore is coming to the fair and is going to bring with him three
Malay bungalows constructed from the native nepah palm. In these bungalows the
Sultan will exhibit agricultural products, embracing gambier, tapioca, tea, coffee,
spices, &c. A superb exhibit of war implements and musical instruments from the
Draft not for circulation or citation
10
Sultan’s palace will be made. He will have also a half-dozen Malay women in
their native costume and a number of dancing girls. His suite will comprise
several Princes. (‘Dormitories for women,’ 1892, Oct 09)
The Sultan was by this time a well-known figure in diplomatic circles and in London
society. His wealth, his close friendships with European aristocracy, including Queen
Victoria, and his combination of exotic ostentation and gentlemanly manners, were a
subject of knowing comment in the English-language media of his day. For the reporters
and other commentators, the Sultan represented Johor – its wealth, its power and its
culture. As we have seen, Abu Bakar was adept at using these representations to
consolidate the identification of the state of Johor with its ruler, not just to reporters and
to mass audiences like those in Chicago, but in photographs and portraits, in diplomacy
and public speeches, and in his economic and political dealings.
The Sultan did not in the end attend the World’s Fair, sending instead one of his
most senior advisors, Abdul Rahman Andak, in his stead. (Mohd Said 1940; Abdullah
2010, 12) In 1893, he was not in Chicago but in Cairo, where W.S. Blunt, British writer,
anti-imperialist and sometime diplomat, noted a meeting with the Sultan of Johor in his
diary. Blunt commented that the Sultan was:
a good old man of very simple manners and much bonhomie…he complained that
though he had been a fortnight at Cairo, he had as yet seen none but English
officials, and that Lord Cromer had not encouraged him in his desire to go into
Egyptian society. I offered to put him in the way of this…I am to take him…to
the Sheykh el Bekri and get Mohammad Abdu and other Sheykhs to call on him,
and we will put him the right way to an introduction to Sultan Abdul Hamid when
he goes to Constantinople. (Blunt 1921, March 31 1893)
Shortly thereafter, the Sultan was brought to the Sublime Porte, where he found that his
title was a liability rather than an asset: “the Court had refused from the first to
acknowledge him as having any claim to calling himself a Sultan. Nevertheless he was
credited by everyone with a very high position as a Mohammedan Prince in the Malay
States.” (April 15 1893) He was received with full honours and feted at a reception
Draft not for circulation or citation
11
brokered by Jamal al-Din al-Afghani, the anti-imperialist, modernist and pan-Islamist, in
exile from Egypt and Iran. Despite reports that Abu Bakar appeared uninterested about
pan-Islamism and could not be drawn out on matters of empire and state, it was after this
visit that the Medjelle was introduced to Johor.
Perhaps the most prominent of the Sultan’s appearances on the global stage was
in the London courts, in a case entitled ‘Mighell v. the Sultan of Johore’ (1893-1894). A
woman named Jenny Mighell sued the Sultan for breach of promise, attesting that he had
courted her under the name of Albert Baker, during which courtship she had discovered
his true identity, and that he had failed to make good on his promise of marriage. The
Court of Appeal summarised the case quite differently:
[IN THE COURT OF APPEAL.]
MIGHELL v. SULTAN OF JOHORE.
International Law—Foreign Sovereign, Immunity of—Extraterritoriality—
Jurisdiction—Submission to Jurisdiction—Proof of Status of Sovereign—
Certificate of Secretary of State.
The Courts of this country have no jurisdiction over an independent foreign
sovereign, unless he submits to the jurisdiction. Such submission cannot take
place until the jurisdiction is invoked.
Therefore, the fact that a foreign sovereign has been residing in this country,
and has entered into a contract here, under an assumed name, as if a private
individual, does not amount to a submission to the jurisdiction, or render him
liable to be sued for breach of such contract.
A certificate from the Foreign or Colonial Office, as the case may be, is
conclusive as to the status of such a sovereign. (Queen’s Bench 1893, 149)
The case served to confirm a far-reaching principle of international law, that foreign
sovereigns could not be tried in British courts. However, it also established that the
sovereignty of such persons depended upon the recognition of the British empire. The
case was reported and discussed extensively in journals of international, comparative and
imperial law, but it achieved its widespread notoriety in the popular press of the English-
Draft not for circulation or citation
12
speaking world, from London to New York to Auckland. In Singapore, the Straits Times
reported an item from London (November 7):
The British public has been grievously disappointed of a sensation…The prospect
of a reigning sovereign of an independent State sued by an English “Miss” for
breach of promise of marriage foreshadowed wonderful possibilities. These are
now dissipated and destroyed through the interference of a theory of international
law which deprives the disappointed maiden of her hearing and robs the British
public of the spectacle of an oriental sovereign in the court. (‘Mighell v the Sultan
of Johore,’ 12 December 1893)
The legal journals were not immune to this drama:
Mr. Gilbert ought to search the law reports for motives for comic operas. The
'Sultan of Johore' or 'The Baker and the Sultan' would, to begin with, be a capital
title for a musical performance at the Savoy Theatre. The Sultan's feats in the Law
Courts would lend themselves admirably to the treatment in which Mr. Gilbert's
genius excels. We have first the worthy and unpretending Albert Baker who sues
for the hand of Miss Mighell, obtains her love, and promises her marriage. Then
Mr. Baker is the gay deceiver who is pursued by the injured fair into the Law
Courts. His triumph seems certain, when suddenly Albert Baker is transformed
into the sovereign prince, the Sultan of Johore, and asserts his immunity from the
laws of England. The lady produces the Queen's writ; the Sultan brings out of his
pocket a certificate of sovereignty from the Foreign Office. A Court, amid the
universal approval of international lawyers, pronounces that it has no jurisdiction
over a sovereign. The Sultan is triumphant; the lady loses her case, and, we
presume, pays costs. Surely Mr. Gilbert's genius can make something out of these
suggestive incidents. (10 Law Quarterly Review, 101, 1894)
In this case, the performative aspects of law approached the conventions of theatre to a
comical degree, but the drama of these incidents helps highlight the ways in which law’s
mobility was facilitated by its publicity, its spectacle and its mass appeal. Further, this
case serves to illustrate that law in circulation can take unexpected turns, and that what
Draft not for circulation or citation
13
began as an intimate matter of tort served in the courts of empire to delineate a particular
vision of the sovereign.8
Johor’s prominence in international circles also brought it to the attention of other
monarchs facing unwanted imperial attention, including King Kalakaua of Hawaii, who
visited Johor on a world tour in 1881. In 1894, this relationship attracted the attention of
the United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, that saw Johor as a model to
be avoided: “King Kalakaua…seemed to be blind to the course of events and to the true
interests of his people. His chief object appears to have been to change the system of
government into an Asiatic despotism on the pattern of Johore, in which the white
“invaders”, as they were called, should have no voice in its administration.” (1472) For
the report’s writers, representing the interests of the United States and investigating the
possibility of annexing Hawaii, the parallels between Kalakaua and Abu Bakar, Hawaii
and Johor, the United States and United Kingdom, were uncomfortably close.
These parallels seemed evident and relevant to Kalakaua and Abu Bakar in 1881
as well. One account of the royal meeting in 1881 noted, “Abubakr and his courtiers have
marked Hawaiian types of features, and the Malay Prince was recognised as presenting a
striking likeness to the late Hawaiian Prince Leleiohoku.” (P.C. Advertiser Co. 1881, 66)
William Armstrong, who accompanied King Kalakaua on his world tour, also observed
that the rulers sought points of commonality in language, and “These ethnological
‘strawberry marks’ placed the rulers on good terms with each other, and they were not
unwilling to assume that this meeting was one of ‘long-lost brothers.’” (Armstrong 1904,
144) At a banquet to honour Kalakaua,
(t)he Maharajah, at the close of the banquet, rose…Turning to the King, he took
his hand and said he would propose his health; he was glad to welcome a King
from a land very distant, but one who ruled over the same kind of people as those
ruled by himself; he was sorry that he did not speak the English language as well
as the King of Hawaii; and he hoped that his royal guest would reach his home in
safety and not forget the little kingdom of Johore. The royal Hawaiian replied that
8 A 2013 search of legal references to ‘Mighell v Sultan of Johore’ shows discussion of current cases involving China, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Australia, Argentina, Malaysia, Singapore, Canada, and international tribunals.
Draft not for circulation or citation
14
he had now discovered that his own people were Asiatics, and he hoped the
Asiatic nations would become powerful and stand by one another. (Armstrong
1904, 146)
What each of these moments of intersection serve to highlight is the complex
geography of Johor’s political landscape, and to make visible beyond that landscape a
wider map of global political relationships. In the vein of Engseng Ho’s “Empire
Through Diasporic Eyes,” this account of the Sultan’s travels, and the circulations of law,
legal ideas and agents that made these travels possible, contributes yet another “view of
the imperial ship of state as seen from a smaller boat sailing the same seas.” (2004, 213)
As this section has shown, just between 1893 and 1895, the ‘other boats’ to which Ho
refers made for a lively traffic – in world markets and entertainment, in communications
and industry, in diaspora and religiosity, in marriage, betrayal and criminality. The view
from these other boats, also carrying varied repertoires for law-making, layered
conceptions of sovereignty and authority, new perceptions of threat and modernity, seems
always to have included an awareness of the imperial ship of state.
This map of political relationships also helps locate a number of unexpected
audiences for what Tim Harper has called “Abu Bakar’s…global performance of Malay
sovereignty,” (Harper 2013, 5) a performance nested within a global drama of
sovereignty politics. For Abu Bakar, as for the rulers of Hawaii, Siam, Japan9 and the
Ottoman Empire, this global drama involved courts of law as well as newspaper reports,
the World’s Fair as well as royal reception halls, and increasingly a mutual awareness of
each other. “This is to see the late 19th century belle epoque not merely as globalised by
imperial networks, but as something much more complex than this…(i)t is into this kind
of world of cross-cutting linkages; its sense of synchronicity – the multiple directions of
syndication of images, techniques and ideas – that a specific experience of modernism
could take hold.” (Harper 2013, 7) It was into this context that the Medjelle and
Constitution came to Johor in the 1890s, and to which we now turn.
9 Abu Bakar visited Japan in 1883, and his stay was relatively lengthy – six months – in comparison to other trips. Abdullah 2010, 16.
Draft not for circulation or citation
15
Law as Vernacular: Local Logics and Translated Juris-diction, 1893-1913
The Medjelle and Constitution arrived in Johor as part of the Sultan’s repertoire
for consolidating his authority and succession, forestalling British imperial
encroachment, and developing an administration and bureaucracy through which the ruler
would exercise power. These two sets of laws may have arrived approximately at the
same time, but their unfolding in Johor and then into the Malay world around it followed
different chronologies and geographies. Upon closer examination, their arrival in Johor
was merely a beginning – both documents have complex histories of translation,
institutionalisation and enforcement, and these histories allow a deeper exploration of
how travelling law is made local, and what elements of law facilitate their onward
movement from the port cities of their arrival, into state administrative hinterlands.
Recent work by legal historians and law and humanities scholars, building on
Benveniste’s concept of ‘juris-diction’ as both law’s speech and the speaking of law
(1973), has drawn attention to the role of jurisdictional moments in producing law’s
power (McVeigh 2007; Douzinas 2007; Cormack 2008). Tracing law at this level of
detail makes clear that, in nineteenth-century Johor at least, law’s speech was
polyphonous and polyglot from the start. Part of the work of juris-diction was to repeat,
re-iterate, echo, parse and interpret law in its new context, but these translations were
never complete, nor were they universally satisfactory. (Richland forthcoming, 29) The
polyphony and dissonance of the law in this case was an expression of political realities
in the Malay world, a site whose fluidity and cosmopolitanism is well-known, but
perhaps what the case of the Johor Constitution should also provoke is further exploration
into the polyphony and dissonance of law itself. In this section, we trace the process of
law’s ‘localisation’ and translation, showing that the move from one language to another
required complex political as well as linguistic work; that each document followed a
different path to becoming local law, and a different timeline. In this process, however,
law’s ability to speak in many voices – its polyphony – and its tendency to allow for
multiple meanings, some contradictory – its dissonance – were key elements of its
mobility.
In Johor, the adoption of the Medjelle in 1893 was part of an overarching program
of reform undertaken by the Sultan that had begun with broad changes to the
Draft not for circulation or citation
16
administration of Islamic law in 1863. This program included the drafting of a
constitutional document, the establishment of a hierarchy of state administration within
which these laws would be applied, and the eventual promulgation of the Medjelle as the
Undang–Undang Sivil Islam: Majalah Ahkam Johor (Code of Islamic Civil Law) in
1913. The adoption of the Medjelle sent a range of signals, echoing the reforms of the
Ottoman Empire (itself under European pressure) while assigning Islam a formal legal
space within the state. For the Ottomans, the Medjelle performed a number of functions –
it represented reform of the law and the Empire at a time of great civilizational anxiety,
and it did so in a way that worked to satisfy those who wanted Western-style codes and
those who wished to maintain the shar’i (Islamic jurisprudential and Quranic) content of
the law. Instead of the wholesale adoption of the French civil code, this was a
codification of the jurisprudence of the Hanafi school in matters of contract, torts and
civil procedure. The Medjelle achieved uniformity and regularity across the Ottoman
legal system by applying to all subjects of the Ottomans regardless of religion. (Findley
2012)
Importantly, it kept all powers of adjudication, interpretation, jurisdiction and
application of the law firmly in the hands of the Ottoman central state, affirming the
power of the Sultan as it radically altered the state over which he ruled. By codifying
Islamic jurisprudence and delegating its application to judges and legal officials untrained
in shari’a matters in all areas but that of the family, the Ottoman state erected an
institutional partition around family and inheritance law that soon became more like a
substantive wall.10 The adoption of the Medjelle was an explicitly Islamising move if
Johor were to be compared to the Malay States under British rule, where the only
category of law to be left to the shari’a was marriage and divorce. Unlike the practice in
these other Malay states, like Perak, in Johor ‘matters of religion and culture’ referred to
10 Collier, ‘Intertwined Histories,’ 1994: ““rationalizing" market exchanges established other types of property transfers, such as those involved in marriage, inheritance, succession, and adoption, as governed by "irrational" (i.e., emotional or religious) principles. The Ottoman reformers who subjected commercial transactions to the requirements of modernity, reason, and law thus unwittingly established family life as a realm governed by tradition, sentiment, and biology.”
Draft not for circulation or citation
17
commercial transactions as well as to marriage, divorce, inheritance, and religious
endowments.11
The Constitution, adopted two years later in 1895, detailed Johor’s autonomy, the
duties of Cabinet and Legislative Council, established Islam as the state religion, and
placed the Sultan as head of state. The document was drafted by the Sultan’s personal
legal advisors in Singapore (C.B. Buckley chief among them, from the firm Rodyk and
Davidson) and his ministers (Chief Minister Dato Jaafar bin Haji Mohamad and Dato
Abdul Rahman Andak, Setiausaha Kerajaan [State Secretary].) It comprised of four
parts: the position and powers of the Sultan, the Council of Ministers, the State Council,
and matters of justice, nomenclature and Islam. In its structure and language, this
Constitution loosely resembles the only other Asian constitution available at the time, the
Meiji Constitution of 1890.12 When the Sultan visited Tokyo in 1883, this Constitution
was already a topic of concern in Japan; the process of its drafting had begun, and a
delegation sent to explore constitutional models in the United States, United Kingdom,
and Europe was leaning towards the Prussian model.13
The Sultan would likely also have been aware of cautionary examples amongst
his contemporaries, all rulers facing both European imperial pressure and pressures from
competing elites in their state: King Chulalongkorn of Siam’s rejection of an 1885
proposal, made by Siamese elites in Europe, that Siam too adopt a Constitution along the
lines of Japan, and the earlier suspension of the Tanzimat Constitution (1876) by
Ottoman Sultan Abdulhamid in 1878.14 The Sultan’s decision to promulgate a
constitution twelve years after his visit to Tokyo and five years after the promulgation of
the Meiji Constitution in Japan, had much to do with securing his succession – he was ill,
and passed away shortly after. Unlike the Meiji Constitution, the Johor Constitution
11 Hussin 2008. 12 Hirobumi Ito, Commentaries on the constitution of the empire of Japan, trans. Miyoji Ito 1889. Meiji Constitution, National Diet Library site: http://www.ndl.go.jp/constitution/e/etc/c02.html. Hanover Historical Texts Project, http://history.hanover.edu/texts/1889con.html. 13 ‘Old and Modern Japan, the Birth of Constitutional Government,’ New York Times February 13 1890. The drafting committee included both Japanese and foreign members, among them the German legal scholars Rudolf von Gneist and Lorenz von Stein, both of whose legal theories tended towards conservatism rather than populism. 14 Chris Baker and Pasuk Phongpaichit, A History of Thailand, Cambridge UP 2005, 76.
Draft not for circulation or citation
18
contains far fewer details on the structure of government and its administration; whereas
the second section of the Meiji Constitution details the rights and duties of subjects, the
Johor document contains no such provisions.
For both the Medjelle and Constitution, the process of translation from the
original language of the text was critical, but by no means straightforward. Not only did
the translation of Constitution require the parsing of political concepts between
languages, it is difficult to determine which the Constitution’s ‘original’ language might
have been. That the Constitution was drafted by English lawyers in Singapore with the
help of English-educated court officials like Abdul Rahman Andak; that the Sultan may
have held as models both the Meiji Constitution (1890) and Chulalongkorn of Siam’s
rejection of constitutional monarchy in 1885; that Malay and English and Arabic all show
their trace in the texts; all these make the question of which – if any – of these were the
original text, difficult to answer.
What is apparent from the archive of the Johor Constitution is that there were
many constitutional texts – roughly contemporaneous versions in Malay, Jawi (Malay in
Arabic script) and English. While it may be understood that only one of these texts had
legal force, the circulation of at least four identifiably distinct texts in the first few years
of the Constitution’s life – two in English and one in Malay – destabilises the idea of a
uniform and sacrosanct constitutional text and suggests that the Constitution was not one
text but many, speaking not in one voice or language, but in a number of somewhat
different voices – a polyphony. (Hussin 2013b) In archives and textbooks of law between
1895 and 1961, there are multiple versions of the Johore Constitution: the Jawi text in the
Johor State Archives dates from an 1895 printing – this, presumably, would have been
the ‘official’ text (Version 1: Johor State Archive 1895). Next, chronologically, is a
Malay typescript copy attributed to State Secretary Abdul Rahman Andak, dated 1898
(Version 2: Basri 1988). In 1900, a Colonial Office report enclosure contains an English
text that was given to J.A. Swettenham and the Johor Advisory Board in London
(Version 3: Allen et al 1981). Finally, the Johor government printer later also issued an
‘official’ English text, The Law of the Constitution of 1895, including amendments to
1961 (Version 4: Johor State Archive 1962).
Draft not for circulation or citation
19
Each text of the Johor Constitution bears traces of the many sources of this
document, and of the struggle to reconcile political concepts very much in flux. The
Preamble, present in all four texts, articulates the basis of the Sultan’s right to enact this
law, and both English and Malay texts reverberate with imperfect synonyms, repetitions
and echoes:
Whereas We, by the rights and powers of Our State and our prerogatives as
Sovereign Ruler and Possessor of this State of Johore and its Dependencies,
together with the advice, concurrence and assent of all the Members of Our
Council of Ministers, and of Our Council of State and other Chiefs and Elders of
the country, have deliberated, considered and declared that it is proper, expedient
and suitable at the present time and age that We, in Our name, and on Our behalf,
and for and on behalf of Our Heirs and Successors, the Sovereign Rulers or
Sultans of Johore, should make, create, found and institute, and grant, give,
bestow upon and present to and for the use of the Government, subjects, and
inhabitants of Our Country, a Law and Regulation to be intituled…which,
enduring and continuing from generation to generation, shall become and form
the Law of Our State, Country, and people, and be an inheritance which cannot be
altered, varied, changed, annulled, infringed, or in any way or by any act
whatsoever repealed or destroyed. (Versions 3 and 4)
The English versions above may give the impression of being hardly able to contain the
requirements of Malay legal meaning, but each text, in fact, gives the impression of being
a translation, and none reads as though it had been written in the language of its
conception. The Malay texts (Versions 1 and 2), even accounting for the conventions of
Malay court documents, are awkward and laboured rather than ornate or elegant.15 In the
15 Version 1 of the Declaration, transcribed from the Jawi, for example, seems to have been translated word for word from the English with little concern for idiomatic expression: (Kenyataan): Dan bahawa oleh kerana kita sendiri dan mereka-mereka yang tersebut sangat-sangat berkehendak pada memulai mengadakan “undang-undang tubuh kerajaan” itu pada masa yang baik ini maka kita permulakanlah dengan panca-panca peraturan-peraturan dan syarat-syarat seperti yang ada tersebut dibawah ini iaitu ialah barang-barang yang kita pikirkan timbangkan sifatkan yang terutama dan terawali
Draft not for circulation or citation
20
English versions, the Arabic and Quranic formulae in the opening invocation (Bismillah)
were translated literally rather than idiomatically, for example Sayyidina in the English
versions translated to “Our Leader,” referring to the Prophet Muhammad, and sahbihi
was translated in the English versions as “his Friends,” drawing attention by this to the
unfamiliarity of the translator (and presumed audience) to Muslim conventions of
address.16
At times, the language of these texts serves to amplify through repetition and
echoing; at other points in the texts, imperfect synonyms and concepts taken in from
other legal lexicons strike a discordant note, providing a reading of the text that is
dissonant and open to multiple meanings. These meanings included both the
consolidation of the Sultan’s authority, and greater openness to consultation with state
elites; monarchical absolutism supported by stiff legal penalties, and the image of a
monarch bound by principles of just and rational rule. The timing of the Constitution
signals a clear need to cement the succession for Abu Bakar’s dynasty with law rather
than treaties signed with the British, and through the support of other power-holders
within the Johor polity. Part 1.1 states: “the Raja rules and owns this State of Johor and
all territories in its dominion…with the agreement of all the members of Our Council of
Ministers and Council of State.” Part 2.2 allows for penalties against those who challenge
the position and power of the Sultan, with penalties for treason at the Sultan’s
discretion.17 The short-lived Tanzimat Constitution (1876-1878) and the Meiji
dikehendaknya supaya menjadi asas panduan tauladan bagi ketetapan dan ketentuan perintahan dan tadbir kerajaan kita. Lest we be content to conclude from this that the English is therefore the originary text, the section entitled Royal Command, Titah, refers to the Sultan’s subjects using vocabulary indigenous to the Malay political world: tanah air, (tanah=land; air=water, a phrase the English translation delivers as “native soil”) and follows this with phrases underlining the legitimacy of the law that are perfectly alliterative in Malay (“benar betul teguh tentu dan tetap”) but read in English with far less fluency (“true, real, firm, fixed and settled”). 16 The opening invocation of English Version 4 is typeset in a style reminiscent of printed English-language bibles of the period, with “Allah” translated into English text as “GOD,” and terms deemed to have sacred content capitalised, such as “Our Leader Mohamed” and “His Relations and Friends”. 17 “It is clear that His Majesty saw the Constitution as a device for strengthening his position through the co-optation of the state’s elites in government. When there were no
Draft not for circulation or citation
21
Constitution both may have served as examples of monarchical attempts to answer the
challenges of political instability and imperial pressure with broadening the base of
political legitimacy while maintaining a firm grip on authority over the state.
These texts differ not only in language but in content and meaning. For example,
the Malay copy (Version 2) attributed to Abdul Rahman Andak, the State Secretary and
one of its most important Malay drafters, is missing two paragraphs that appear in the
English versions labelled as ‘Declaration’ and ‘Royal Command’, that seem to emphasise
a model of enlightened and rational constitutional monarchy: “We do therefore
commence the same with the points, arrangements, and terms stated hereunder, they
being the things which We think, consider and regard to be principally and primarily
requisite to be the basis, guide, and model for the firm establishment and proper
arrangement of the Government and administration of Our State.” (Declaration) The
Royal Command further elaborates upon the breadth of membership in the state of Johor:
“all the subjects of Our State, of all ranks, nationalities, and religions,” before asserting
that “it shall be unlawful, unmanly, rebellious and criminal for any person to refuse to
acknowledge and neglect to obey it.” In the printed Jawi version (Version 1) in the Johor
state archives, these missing paragraphs appear but differ in a new way – this text has the
last line of the Royal Command carry meanings the English versions do not carry: the
Malay parsing of “unlawful, unmanly, rebellious and criminal” (Versions 3 and 4) is
“haram, dayus, derhaka dan berdosa” (Version 1) – “wrongful, corrupt, treasonous and
sinful,” crimes against God as well as the Ruler.18
The multiplicity of versions of the Constitution is an archive of the multiplicity of
its authorship – Sultan, nobles of his court and council, English lawyers, British colonial
officials – and their differing emphases in, and interpretations of, this experiment in
constitutionalism. Further, the promulgation of one version into law in Johor did not
internal threats it was thought that the independence of the state of Johor could be preserved. The formalisation of the Sultan’s rights over Johor and legitimisation of the rule of the existing government were considered paramount at the time because of the growth of British influence in the Malay States.” Author’s translation at 57, Sahari Jantan, 1975. Mesyuarat Kerajaan Johor 1895-1914 [The Johor State Council 1895-1914]. Thesis: Jabatan Sejarah UKM Bangi. 18 Detailed discussion of the textual content of these documents may be found in Hussin 2013b.
Draft not for circulation or citation
22
prevent these multiple versions from continuing to exist and exert influence as sources of
law for the Federation of Malaya and the Federation of Malaysia Constitutions. Multiple
variations of the Johor constitutional text were in use at the same time by members of the
legal profession, members of the Johor Advisory Board, British Residents and court
advisors. There is not yet much evidence to suggest which translation of the many
available versions of the Johore Constitution were consulted by Malay rulers and elites,
in what language, and through what interpretive lens, but the existence of multiple copies
of this text in archives and in law texts between the late 1890s and the middle of the
twentieth century indicate that these elites had a variety from which they might have
chosen.
The Medjelle, in contrast to the Constitution, did have a clear language of origin –
Arabic, a language that facilitated the movement of Ottoman law across its diverse
empire through the assumption of a common vocabulary of Islamic legitimacy and
learning. When the Medjelle arrived in the Malay world, however, it followed a different
pattern and chronology than the Constitution. Unlike the Constitution, the Medjelle was
not translated into Malay until two decades after its arrival. During the period between
the adoption of the Medjelle and its translation, administrative bodies like the Department
of Religion and Education were established that bureaucratised Islam and Muslim life
further, and brought it under the formal purview of the state. When printed in Malay for
the first time in 1913, the Undang–Undang Sivil Islam: Majalah Ahkam Johor (hereafter
Majalah) began with the phrase: “This book contains discussions of the fiqh rulings
emanating from the shari’ah of Islam used by the government of Johor in times past in
the Arabic language.”19
In 1913, the Sultan (Abu Bakar’s son Ibrahim, 1873-1959) was asked by the
Mufti of Johor for permission to use the Majalah as a source for the Islamic law (hukum
syarak) of the state. The Sultan granted this request but made provision for the Majalah to
19 Printed by Matba’ Khairiyyah in Muar in 1913: “Kitab ini mengandungi perbicaraan hukum-hukum fiqh yang diterbitkan daripada syari’at al-Islam yang telah digunapakai oleh kerajaan Johor selama-lamanya dengan bahasa Arab.” The phrase “selama-lamanya,” in its contemporary usage connoting “for ever, always,” here adds a note of antiquity to the Majalah.
Draft not for circulation or citation
23
be superceded by the Constitution.20 This relationship was further clarified by the
Constitution to place the Majalah within the purview of state officials “in matters relating
to the law of Islam” (Johor Constitution Sections 49 and 57),21 a phrase that since the
Treaty of Pangkor in 1874 had specific connotations limiting Islamic law to matters of
marriage, divorce, custom and ritual observance. (Hussin 2008) Whereas the Mufti
signed the first printing of the Majalah (1913) as a servant of the Sultan, using the epithet
“Yang Hina” (the Base/the Humble), by the time of the second printing, he signed as a
state employee, “dengan perintah” (under orders). Here, the lack of translation of the
Arabic Medjelle upon its arrival into Johor helped maintain the sense of an unbroken
legacy of shari’ah from the Caliphate and the centre of Muslim empire, while also
allowing Islamic elites in Johor, such as the Arab muftis appointed by the Sultan,
interpretive control over its application. The Majalah was not translated into Malay until
its status as state law within a state bureaucracy and hierarchy had been articulated, and
the agents of its administration specified as state employees.
The timing of this promulgation was significant for other reasons as well, 1913
being the year before Johor finally conceded to British pressure for a Resident (in Johor,
titled ‘General Advisor’) to be installed. (Nadarajah 2000, 51) The Sultan’s efforts to use
a circulating language of sovereignty and legitimacy also put into place a codified Islamic
law and a hierarchy and administrative bureaucracy within which it would function. In
the case of law’s travels, the period of flux within which Abu Bakar of Johor lived was
bounded, and he was both an exemplar of its dynamism and a harbinger of its end.
Conclusion: Maps for the Muslim State, c. 1913
20 Borham 2002, vi; Correspondence between Sultan Ibrahim, the Mufti of Johor (Abdul Qadir bin Mohsin al-Attas) and Dato Pemangku Setiausaha Kerajaan Johor (Bil. 998/13, 29.11.1913.) 21 al-Mansor Adabi, Malayan Law Journal. “Berkenaan dengan Undang-Undang Tubuh Kerajaan Johor Fasal 49 dan 57, Sultan Ibrahim dengan persetujuan ahli-ahli jawatan keadilan dan beragama berkenan dan membenarkan Kitab Majalah Ahkam Johor supaya digunakan oleh sekelian pegawai-pegawai, majistret-majistret dan hakim-hakim di Negeri Johor dalam perkara yang berkenaan dengan hukum Islam. [In relation to Sections 49 and 57 of the Johor Constitution, Sultan Ibrahim with the agreement of judicial and religious personnel approves the Majalah Ahkam Johor for use by all officers, magistrates and judges in the state of Johor in matters relating to the law of Islam.]”
Draft not for circulation or citation
24
..(I)n the analysis of the relations between law and society we should substitute the
complex paradigm of scale/projection/symbolisation for the simple paradigm of
correspondence/non-correspondence. (Santos 1987: 283)
Locating law’s travels within local, regional and global theatres of politics allows
another dimension of the mobility of law to emerge: its patterns, its networks, its
conditions for locality and universality. Law circulated between its ports of call – in
Johor, in London, Constantinople, Cairo, Calcutta, Tokyo, Honolulu, Washington –
through newspaper reports of sensational trials, through lawyers, judges, merchants,
scholars and pilgrims, through networks of family and intermarriage – each trans-location
also requiring acts of translation. To trace the chronologies, geographies and mechanisms
of these circulations may help us gain further analytic purchase on questions of legal
diffusion and transplant, jurisdiction and sovereignty, globality and locality. To do so
from the vantage point of what Tim Harper has called the “open horizon” of the Malay
world in the nineteenth century, “perhaps allow(s) for the fact that there are many
traditions of thinking and acting globally, and sets us to explore what they might really
mean for people who inhabited these worlds. It is to ask: in a world of multiple
connections and networks, which had particular saliency?” (Harper 2013, 10)
For the Sultan of Johor and other independent sovereigns of the late nineteenth
century, law served as part of a cosmopolitan repertoire whose object was to consolidate
their local authority against political challenges, to forestall Western imperial
intervention, and to elaborate a new state vision. Figures like the Sultan of Johor acted as
law’s agents in ways different from that of law merchants, forum shoppers, lawyers or
judges – they were carriers of law and amongst its most creative advocates because of its
utility for their politics, their successions, and their visions of sovereignty in an imperial
world. Their legislative choices were conditioned by a global gaze, an acute awareness of
the need to balance local and foreign constituencies, and a heightened sensitivity to the
potential of law as a tool both for the consolidation of their power and its dilution.
Constitutions, in particular, were multi-vocal texts that played critical roles during this
period to establish the content of sovereignty against imperialism, and the ability of
constitutional texts to be read in multiple languages (their polyphony) and at varied
Draft not for circulation or citation
25
registers of political meaning (their dissonance) facilitated their mobility. The political
context within which these travels occurred served to condition the cast and content of
these laws.
As travelling law, both Majalah and Constitution were implicated in larger
projects of state and dynastic consolidation, and these legal instruments were harnessed
to powerful interpretive regimes. When taken together, while the Constitution made a
formal space for Islam as the state religion, the Majalah helped locate that space within
the areas of civil law and under the direct supervision of state administrators.(Hussin
forthcoming) These were not simply transplants, but vehicles by which multiple visions
of the state, some local and some imported, were institutionalised, and they represented
an increasingly common pattern of legal transformation, not only in the Malay Peninsula,
but across the Muslim world, in the nineteenth and early twentieth century.
Draft not for circulation or citation
26
References
Archival sources
The National Archives [TNA], Kew, United Kingdom
CO 882/4/22, 1885.
Arkib Negeri Johor, Johor Bahru, Malaysia
Undang-undang tubuh kerajaan Johor 1895.
Bil. 998/13, 29.11.1913 – Correspondence between Sultan Ibrahim, the Mufti of Johor
(Abdul Qadir bin Mohsin al-Attas) and Dato Pemangku Setiausaha Kerajaan Johor.
State of Johore. 1962. Law of the Constitution of 1895. Johore Bahru: Government
Printer of the State of Johore.
Arkib Negara Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Sahari Jantan. 1975. Mesyuarat Kerajaan Johor 1895–1914 [The Johor State Council
1895–1914]. PhD thesis, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia.
Undang-Undang sivil Islam: Majalah Ahkam Johor. Muar, Matba’ Khairiyyah 1913.
Published sources
A. Rahman Tang Abdullah. 2010. Sultan Abu Bakar’s Foreign Guests and Travels
Abroad, 1860-1895: Fact and Fiction in Early Malay Historical Accounts. Journal of the
Malaysian Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, Vol 84 Part 1 No 300 1-22.
Allen, J. de V., Stockwell, A.J. and Wright, L.R. (eds). 1981. A collection of treaties and
other documents affecting the states of Malaysia, 1761–1963. Vol. 1. London: Oceana
Publications.
Andaya, B. A and L. 1984. History of Malaysia. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Draft not for circulation or citation
27
Armstrong, W. 1904. Around the world with a king. Cambridge: The University Press.
Baker, C. and Pasuk Phongpaichit. 2005. A History of Thailand. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Basri, Ahmad Fawzi. 1988. Johor 1855-1917: Pentadbiran dan perkembangannya [Johor
1855–1917: its administration and development]. Petaling Jaya: Fajar Bakti.
Benveniste, É. 1973. Indo-European Language and Society, Miami Linguistics Series,
vol. 12. Miami, FL: University of Miami Press.
Blunt, W. 1921. My Diaries: 1888-1914, Vol. 1. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Borham, A. 2002. Majalah Ahkam Johor: latar belakang, pelaksanaan, dan komentar
[Majalah Ahkam Johor: background, application and commentary]. Skudai, Malaysia:
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia.
Collier, J. 1994. Intertwined histories: Islamic law and western imperialism. Law &
Society Review 28 (2): 395–408.
Cormack, B. 2008. A Power to do Justice: Jurisdiction, English Literature and the Rise of
Common Law, 1509-1625. University of Chicago Press.
Cowan, C. 1961. Nineteenth-century Malaya: The origins of British political control.
London: Oxford University Press.
Findley, C. 1980. Bureaucratic Reform in the Ottoman Empire: The Sublime Porte 1789-
1922. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
---. 2012. “Medjelle.” Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition. Brill Online, 2013.
Reference. University of Cambridge - Cambridge University Library (UK). 09
Draft not for circulation or citation
28
May 2013 <http://www.encquran.brill.nl/entries/encyclopaedia-of-islam-2/medjelle-
SIM_5107>
Freitag, U. 2003. Indian Ocean Migrants and State Formation in Hadhramaut: Reforming
the Homeland. Leiden: Brill.
Kahn, J. 2006. Other Malays: Nationalism and Cosmopolitanism in the Modern Malay
World. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
Harper, T. 2013. “The Malay World, Besides Empire and Nation,” Indonesia and the
Malay World 2013 Vol 41 No 120 pp.
Ho, E. 2004. “Empire through diasporic eyes: the view from the other boat,”
Comparative Study of Society and History 46 (2): 210–46.
Hussin, I. 2013a. “Circulations of Law: Colonial Precedents, Contemporary Questions,”
Oñati Socio-Legal Series Working Paper, Winter 2013.
---. 2013b. “Textual Trajectories – Re-reading the Majalah and Constitution in 1890s
Johor,” Indonesia and the Malay World 2013 Vol 41 No 120 pp 1-19.
Ito, H. Commentaries on the constitution of the empire of Japan, trans. Miyoji Ito 1889.
Meiji Constitution, National Diet Library site:
http://www.ndl.go.jp/constitution/e/etc/c02.html.
Kennedy, D. 2003. “Two Globalizations of Law and Legal Thought, 1850–1968,” 36
Suffolk U. L. Rev. 631.
Legrand, P. 1997. “The Impossibility of “Legal Transplants”,” 4 Maastricht Journal of
European & Comparative Law 111.
Draft not for circulation or citation
29
---. 2003. “The Same and the Different,” in Comparative Legal Studies: Traditions and
Transitions. Pierre Legrand and Roderick Munday eds., 240. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Markovits, C., Jacques Pouchepadass and Sanjay Subramanyam, eds. 2003. Society and
Circulation: Mobile People and Itinerant Cultures in South Asia 1750-1950. London:
Anthem Press.
McVeigh, Shaun, ed. 2007. Jurisprudence of Jurisdiction. New York: Routledge
Cavendish Press.
Nadarajah, N. Johore and the Origins of British Control, 1895–1914. Kuala Lumpur:
Arenabuku, 2000.
Pacific Commercial Advertiser Company. 1881. King Kalakaua’s Tour Round the World:
A sketch of incidents of travel. Honolulu: P.C. Advertiser Co.
Raj, K. 2010. Relocating Modern Science: Circulation and the Construction of
Knowledge in South Asia and Europe, 1650-1900. Palgrave MacMillan.
---. 2013. ‘Beyond Postcolonialism…and Postpositivism: Circulation and the Global
History of Science,’ Isis, 104:2.
Richland, J. forthcoming. “On Perpetuity: Juris-dictional chronotopes and the
transcendent immanence of Law and Tradition,” Annual Review of Anthropology.
Queen’s Bench Division. 1893. Court of Appeal, ‘Mighell v the Sultan of Johore.’
Sousa Santos, B. de 1987. “Law: a map of misreading. Toward a postmodern conception
of law,” Journal of Law and Society 14 (3): 279–302.
Draft not for circulation or citation
30
Trocki, C. Prince of Pirates: The Temenggongs and the Development of Johor and
Singapore 1784-1885. Singapore: National University of Singapore Press.
Twining, W. 2004. “Diffusion of Law: A Global Perspective,” Journal of Legal Pluralism
Vol. 49, 1–45.
United States. 1894. Hawaiian Islands: Report of the Committee on Foreign Relations,
United States Senate, with accompanying testimony and executive documents transmitted
to Congress from January 1, 1893, to March 10, 1894.
Watson, A. 1993. Legal Transplants: An Approach to Comparative Law. Second Edition.
Athens, Georgia: The University of Georgia Press.
Westbrook, D. 2006. “Theorizing the Diffusion of Law: Conceptual Difficulties,
Unstable Imaginations, and the Effort To Think Gracefully Nonetheless,” 47 Harvard
International Law Journal 2.
Winstedt, R. 1992. A History of Johore, 1365-1941. Kuala Lumpur: Malaysian Branch of
the Royal Asiatic Society.
top related