Pig Husbandry in Morocco in the Nineteenth Century: A Study in the History of Taboos

Introduction

The increasing flow of Europeans to Morocco in the nineteenth century brought with it an array of previously uncommon or unknown practices and led to Moroccans gradually adopting European lifestyles. This included illicit activities 1 that had been limited in scope before the spread of European influence in Morocco, including pig husbandry. The expansion of this taboo practice in the nineteenth century has attracted some scholarly attention, notably from Turki Ajlan Al-Harthi, who described 2 the phenomenon as one of several foreign transgressions in the Maghreb in the second part of the nineteenth century. This study explores the spread and development of pig husbandry in Morocco in the nineteenth century, that followed the increasing presence and influence of Europeans in the country. It examines its impacts and consequences and whether or not Morocco was compelled, in its dealing with Europeans, to relinquish certain principles that had been essential to the country's identity – or, in contrast, whether pig husbandry was simply a banal, if illicit, activity of the kind seen in any society from time to time. It analyzes official documents and correspondence that reveal how the Makhzen dealt with activities that had hitherto been relatively uncommon. 3 The research thus seeks a better understanding of Moroccan society, lifestyles and traditions in the nineteenth century and of the problems associated with the European presence both for the general public and the Makhzen (the governing establishment). The paper also investigates the status of the pig in the popular psyche 4 and the process of acculturation it has undergone. the Makhzen's approaches towards activities that had hitherto been relatively uncommon. This paper first demonstrates why pig farming was a banned, taboo activity in Morocco, and explores the animal's image in the popular psyche. It then examines how the activity spread with the European influence in Morocco, and how pigs transformed from an prohibited illicit food product into the focus of an illicit economic activity.

Moroccan Perceptions of the Pig: Between Scorn and Appreciation

1. The Pig in Islamic Law and the Maliki School of Jurisprudence The majority of Moroccans ascribe to the Maliki school of jurisprudence within Islamic law, which addresses human interaction with pigs in detail. It bears mentioning, however, that all Abrahamic religions take positions and have regulations regarding the pig. Judaism prohibits the consumption of pork or even physical contact with pig corpses. 5 Christianity, for the most part, did away with this interdiction and even explicitly permitted eating pigs, on the basis that Jesus Christ did not link a person's faith to what they ate,

whether meat or otherwise. 6 Islam emphatically banned the consumption of pork, with both the Quran and the teachings of the Prophet Mohammad calling it rijs , a "shameful or dirty act" 7 from which Muslims must abstain. The Quran makes several references to this prohibition. For example: Say, 'I do not find In the Message received by me by inspiration Any (meat) forbidden To be eaten by one Who wishes to eat it, Unless it be dead meat, Or blood poured forth, Or the flesh of swine,– For it is an abomination –Or, what is impious, (meat) On which a name has been Invoked, other that God's. (Ṣūrat Al-Anʿām, 146). Forbidden to you (for food) Are: dead meat, blood, The flesh of swine (Ṣūrat Al-Māʾidah, 3). Numerous similar verses outlaw the eating of pork except in cases of absolute necessity and demand: But if one is forced by necessity, Without wilful disobedience, Nor transgressing due limits,– Then is he guiltless. For God is Oft-forgiving Most Merciful. (Ṣūrat Al-Baqarah, 173). Several Hadith (sayings of the Prophet Mohammed) confirm that eating and selling the animal is ḥarām (prohibited). Jabir Bin Abdullah reported that he had heard the Prophet say in 8 AH in Mecca: "Allah and His Apostle made illegal the trade of alcohol, dead animals, pigs and idols". 8 Abu Hurayra also narrated that Prophet Mohammed ruled that "wine and its revenues are ḥarām , carrion and its revenues are ḥarām , pork its revenues are ḥarām. 9 Thus, Islam explicitly outlaws all pork products. Moroccan experts in Islamic jurisprudence also emphasized this in their writings. Medieval theologian Abu Al-Abbas Al-Wanshrisi's Al-Miʿyār Al-Muʿarrab 10 and others issued rulings to this effect. All four major schools of Islamic jurisprudence, including the Maliki school, agree that both eating and selling pig products is ḥaram , even if they differ on whether the animal itself is considered impure. Most Maliki scholars say that live pigs are not considered an abomination, as live beings are pure by their nature. By contrast, the Hanbali, Hanafiya, and Shafiʿi schools, as well as a few Malikis such as Ibn Al-Mashjoun, Sahnun, al-Qarafi, and Abu Umar Fairoun, consider pigs as najis al-'ayn , impure by nature and impossible to purify. 11 Thus, Islamic scholars' views on pigs range from seeing them as outlawed to seeing them as impure. These examples are presented not simply to summarize Islam's clear prohibition of pig products, but rather to point to other issues; most notably, the extent to which religious rulings contributed to creating a negative image of the pig in the Moroccan collective psyche as something foul and polluted, rather than simply prohibited. This was especially true after many scholars issued emphatic rulings and positions against eating pork. However, in the Moroccan context, a review of primary sources shows that the Makhzen did not base its approach to the issue solely on religious arguments. "You can see the harm it causes, which is not

acceptable in our law," one document reads. 12 The discourse in these documents focuses on the material harm pig husbandry caused to people's property. It appears that a combination of European pressures and the Makhzen 's need for customs revenue (including from pig exports) discouraged the authorities from taking strong measures against the trade. 2. The Pig in the Moroccan Psyche Aside from religious rulings, which largely focus on the animal's impurity, Moroccan society assigns to the pig, commonly known as ḥallūf rather than the classical Arabic khanzīr , 13 two main characteristics. Due to its strong build, it is seen as powerful and wild. Second, it is seen as inferior and disgusting due to "its revolting smell and the filth it leaves wherever it lives". 14 This duality can be seen in several Moroccan vernacular sayings. One might say of a person known for his physical strength: "by God, he's a pig (ḥallūf)", meaning he is strong, dominant, and can beat a rival. The same word is used for someone lacking wisdom, knowledge, morals, or articulation. "He's just a ḥallūf " compares a person's behaviour to the perceived inferior behaviour of a pig. Moroccans also assign the animal negative views verging on contempt, referring to acts such as adultery, seen as abnormal or reprehensible, as "the work of pigs". The pig also appears in other Moroccan sayings and folk stories which justify or refer to the animal's prohibition. 15 One story runs that a hunter in the mountains killed a wild boar. He invited a friend to join him and skin, roast, and eat it. His friend replied: "Pig is totally forbidden, so how can we justify or excuse eating it?" The man replied: "That's true." So he headed off and returned with a basket of figs, saying: "Come on, let's eat what I bought with money from the hunt". His friend replied: " ḥallūf karmūs " 16 (literally "pigs, figs"). This became a colloquial expression drawing a parallel between acts consensually viewed as ḥarām and others which are seen as ḥarām by scholars, yet accepted by society. Both pork and figs bought with the proceeds from selling it are ḥarām. The story provides a neat demonstration of Moroccan social attitudes towards pigs. It is clear that religious edicts in the Quran itself and the sayings of the Prophet which prohibit the pig and denote it as an abomination have deeply entrenched negative views of the animal in the Moroccan collective psyche. This phenomenon, which remains to this day, was noted by Europeans in the nineteenth century. British Consul John Drummond Hay, in one account of a hunting trip, wrote that "Muslims (meaning specifically Moroccans) saw pigs as filthy". 17 French sociologist Edmond Doutté wrote that the Chaoui (Amazigh) people despised and abstained from eating pork 18. Despite these negative references, the pig has a strong presence in the Moroccan collective psyche and the country's natural environment. Examples can be found in the names of many places across the country which carry the animal's name, as Table 1 demonstrates.

Table 1 Examples of Moroccan places bearing the name "Ḥallūf" (Pig)

The names in Table 1 demonstrate the presence of the pig in Moroccan social life and the collective psyche. This shows that the animal has imposed its presence in the country's society and culture despite the negative images around it. Doutté notes that Moroccans were often happy to see pigs, believing that "the presence of a pig in a heard of goats could keep the evil eye away, which involves transferring the evil from one living thing to another, a phenomenon accepted by all 'primitive' peoples and an essential element in their magic ceremonies and religious rites." This led him to conclude that small pigs had been domesticated simply for the purpose of keeping away the evil that could befall a household and transferring the evil onto an animal seen as disgusting. 21 Historical records dating to before the nineteenth century also show that finding and killing a pig was considered a good omen. Al-Duʿayif noted that in 1759, Sultan Mohammad bin Abdullah, whose hold on the throne was shaky, "went to the Maʿmūra forest. A huge wild boar came out, so he shot it between the eyes, and said: 'that's what we do at the [Kasbah of the] Udayas, it's a good omen.' He was happy to have killed the pig." 22 While eating pork was prohibited, this did not mean necessarily that all Moroccans saw the animal in the same way. There are indications that some people broke this ban. For example, Doutté writes in his book Marrākish that some Moroccans did not abstain from pork, either due to necessity or desire, and that was a phenomenon found beyond the kingdom. "The eating of pork is not limited to Morocco, but is also found among the tribes of North Africa. This is something we found among the small tribes. The practice also exists in the Khroumirie region of Tunisia." 23 According to Doutté, Moroccan pork consumption, regardless of colonialism, 24 was a rare but locally varying phenomenon. This may have been what he meant when he wrote: "the people of Morocco do not adhere unbendingly to these [Islamic] rulings. While the people of one area of Chaouia may abstain from eating pork and find it disgusting, the same is not the case with the Chaoui tribes of Ziyayda or Bani Wara.

They regularly eat the animal and claim that its meat is good for the body and helps to heal syphilis." 25 He added that some Amazigh tribespeople living near Rabat, who worked with Europeans to raise and guard pigs, did not totally abstain from eating their meat. Another historical reference comes in an account by August Mouliéras of the wanderings of darwish (poor guy) Mohammad Bin al-Tayyib among the tribes of the Rif region. Mouliéras relates that the tribespeople of Beni Khanūs raised pigs. "While [the darwish] was chewing on [some acorns] with difficulty, a group of domestic pigs startled him, making annoying yet meaningful noises. With one leap, the darwish stood up and was compelled, against his will, to give up to his new guests the greater part of the fruits… It will be noted that these people of little piety raise pigs with goats, and all live in the same cave, in great harmony… these are small pigs, and their boiled meat is good." He adds that the nearby Bani Sadāth people also hunted and ate wild boar. 26 Yet the accounts of Doutté and Mouliéras refer to isolated examples. Their observations cannot be applied to Moroccans in general, but rather to clandestine, isolated practices by a small minority of people in particular circumstances, even though Doutté notes elsewhere that pigs are raised "even in Fez, in secret". He adds: "It should be noted that most of these tribes that eat unclean meat are found in forested or semi- forested areas, where it is difficult to raise livestock, and their people have little alternative to the meat of these animals." 27 He also considered that Moroccans mostly ate pork on a "whim" saying: "You also find this whim, if it is right to consider it as such." Therefore, we can conclude that pork was consumed in Morocco during this period, but that it remained taboo, rare, and limited to a few geographical areas.

Image 1 The Wild Boar found in Morocco

Having examined the presence of the pig in the Moroccan psyche, it is worth noting that during the nineteenth century, only foreigners appear to have been engaged in rearing the animal. There is no documentary evidence that Moroccans themselves had domesticated pigs. Rather, they suffered from the

animal's presence due to the damage it could cause when grazing in their fields. The Makhzen 's objections to pig farming were therefore not based on religious arguments and the ban on Muslims eating pork, but rather on efforts to prevent pigs causing yet more damage to Moroccans' property. 28 The authorities only rarely used religious arguments to justify their objections to Europeans raising pigs. This is observable in the Makhzen documents examined in this study, which focus entirely on the damage caused by pigs to people's fields and farms, 29 without any reference to objections on religious grounds. There is a single exception to this: al-Khadeem Mohammed Barqesh, after talking of the damage a pig could do to farmland, told John Drummond Hay: "its harmfulness is not hidden from you, and it is unacceptable in our law". 30 He then wrote further of the material damage the animal could do to fields and villages, without referring again to the religious aspect.

The Prohibition on Pig Husbandry and its Geographical Spread

1. Pig Husbandry in Morocco in the Nineteenth Century and the Path to Prohibition The growing presence and influence of Europeans in Morocco in the nineteenth century forced the Makhzen to allow them to live their normal lifestyles, despite the fact that this entailed practices that conflicted with Moroccans' beliefs, such as drinking alcohol and consuming pork. As these practices were outlawed by Islam, it became necessary to issue legislation that would allow Europeans to live these lifestyles, while guaranteeing respect for the society in which they lived. Foreigners and dhimmis (non-Muslim religious minorities protected under Islamic law) were allowed to import sufficient but reasonable quantities of wine 31 , and in a similar way, were allowed to rear and consume pigs according to conditions that protected the material and moral rights of the country's citizens. This was achieved through a special agreement between Morocco and the European states, allowing foreigners to raise pigs for personal consumption. Before the reign of Sultan Mohammed IV, official documents make no mention of pig-farming. It appears that the influx of foreigners after the signing of the Anglo-Moroccan Treaty of 1856, which increased European presence in the economy, played a major role in the spread of the practice. This seems to have been a haphazard process, until Moroccans started complaining about the damage it was causing, which in turn played a critical role in the signing of the agreement. 32 According to a letter sent by Barqesh to military official Mohammed al-Khadr al-Saloui, Europeans started raising pigs in this administrative division ("Eyalet") in around 1864. 33 Given the amount of damage being caused by the proliferation of pig-farming, a law was passed in 1868 to regulate and limit the practice. In his letter, Barqesh says: "Without hiding from you what we wrote some four years ago regarding the rise of pig farming in this happy Eyalet, when we had allowed those who were doing so to export the animals provided they did not return to raising them, as previously mentioned. Now we have heard that

the practice has re-appeared in some places and increased, and that people have been harmed by it. So, we again discussed how to address this, and set out laws to limit the practice, so people may be relieved from the damage it causes." 34 This was the context in which the two sides met in Tangiers in February 1868 to negotiate the terms of an agreement. The meeting was attended by Barqesh, representing the Makhzen , and delegates from several European countries. The resulting deal stipulated that: the pig should not be in the cities, and that a family of foreigners living in the countryside should not have the right to have more than one pig per family. Whoever has more should be fined one riyal per head. These pigs should be in an enclosed space, away from public roads, and anyone who allows a pig to roam in the countryside will be fined one riyal the first time and two riyals the second time. Whoever finds a pig roaming outside its enclosed area has the right to kill it without compensating its owner. We order you to talk again to the delegates of the (European) states in Tangiers and tell them to order their traders to respect this deal and uphold their obligations in the cities and the countryside, as outlined above. We have also ordered the district governors [ʿummāl] concerned to respect it too. Faithfully, 5 Shaaban 1309 (4 March 1892). 35 The text of this agreement shows that pig-farming had become widespread in both the countryside and the cities, necessitating efforts to limit the damage it was causing. This was only made possible by adherence to the deal, which limited the number of pigs per person and where they could be raised. It further prohibited pigs from being grazed on commons or rough ground near the cities where they could damage people's property, especially as pigs could easily defile sacred places such as cemeteries. The agreement also gave pig-breeders: a period of 60 days from the district governor's announcement to the qanāṣī [consuls] 36 or their successors to export their animals. After the 60 days, anyone found in possession of more than one pig, in an enclosed space, may pay one riyal for each animal additional to the one permitted and dispose of the excess either by export or slaughter. If he has not done so after eight more days, he may pay another riyal per head beyond the one permitted animal, and this will be repeated each Friday, on the condition that it be kept outside the city … this is the substance of the established laws, so it is your duty to enforce it. 37 A number of later letters lay out other conditions based on the deal. These cover exceptions for exporting a pig during the allotted period, which prescribes a fee of 20 riyals per head and what would happen if a pig was found outside its enclosure and killed (the owner would bear full responsibility). If a pig arrived from Europe after the allotted time, it would not be accepted at the ports. One letter cited by Nahleel says: "Our consideration required that we set a period of 60 days for them to rid themselves of (the pigs) they have, and after 60 days anyone who wants to export them must pay 20 riyals per head, and if any are left after the set period then nothing will be accepted at the ports or elsewhere." 38 After the deal was reached, the representatives of the European countries requested that the 60 days begin after the lifting of the "Karanṭīna" (quarantine) 39 in Gibraltar and Spain. The Sultan accepted this and ordered officials to allow them to export their pigs in order to resolve the problem entirely. It is clear that the

Makhzen wanted to deal decisively with pig-breeders, giving them just two months' grace in order to sell their herds and export them, while conceding that foreigners could continue to keep one animal per household, outside the city and in an enclosed area, so it would not cross people's paths. Whoever did not respect the law would bear full the responsibility, and his financial penalties would multiply. He would also lose the right to seek compensation if the animal was slaughtered by Moroccan authorities or by farmers whose property was damaged. But to what extent was this agreement implemented? Was it enough to rein in the spread of pigs? As with all the agreements they concluded with Morocco during the nineteenth century, European countries used cunning means to violate the accord. This is reflected in a letter sent by the Italian commissioner to the Arab deputy for foreign affairs, al-Turais, which read: "We inform you that we ordered our successor in the aforementioned port [Larache] to prevent subjects of the state of Italy and people under its protection from owning or herding pigs within the city or the nearby fields. We stressed to him that no family shall have more than two pigs, provided that the provincial governments do not consent to the violation of these orders by the subjects of other countries and the people under their protection." 40 Thus, the Italian commissioner ostensibly acknowledged his commitment and that of his successor in Larache to the terms of the agreement, whilst in reality committing to breaking it, by conditioning compliance on a new term that was not in the original deal. In other words, as far as the Italian official was concerned, a breach by one party would imply that the deal had been breached by all sides. The Spanish appeared particularly determined to violate the agreement between themselves, the other foreign parties and the Makhzen. Spanish officials repeatedly defended their nationals by presenting alternative readings of the agreement to serve their interests, even if these ran counter to the actual text of the accord. This was confirmed in a letter by Spanish official Theodor de Conias in which he demanded compensation for Spanish pig owners and argued that the terms of the deal allowed for owners of more than one pig to pay a fine, so that their excess animals would not also be slaughtered. 41 It is clear that Europeans were exploiting loopholes in the agreement, or rather, that the latter was vaguely worded. It allowed for owners to be fined once, fined double the second time, then for pigs to be slaughtered without compensation. A person who slaughtered a pig found outside its enclosure would have no obligation towards the owner. Yet on another occasion, a Tetouan official issued orders, under the agreement, for the slaughter of 71 pigs belonging to Spanish merchants Manuel Mentes and Manuel Martins, after the animals damaged a field. This move was met with disapproval from the Spanish commissioner, who considered it a flagrant violation of the agreement and an official infringement on the rights of the two merchants, rather than the other way around. In a letter, he wrote: "In view of this act and what was agreed between the honourable presence [the Makhzen] and the [European officials], … our consul quickly contacted him and informed him that he was responsible for the damages incurred by the Spaniards. He replied that he was authorized to kill the pigs if they had caused harm or strayed into the roads. It is no secret to you that this official's version is incorrect. You will not be surprised to know that we also doubt that this official was authorized to issue such orders, as they violate both the letter and the spirit of the pig [agreement]." 42 2. The Geographical Spread of Pig-Breeding Before attempting to describe the geographical prevalence of pig farming in Morocco during the nineteenth century, we must note that the wild boar's presence has been common for centuries throughout most of the country, from south to north. 43 What is relevant is not the geographical range of the wild animal, but rather the locations where it was raised domestically during this period. Boar is present in most regions of Morocco and is part of the country's ecological diversity and natural geography.

There are many historical references to the presence of wild boar in Morocco. Al-Badsi mentions that it was found in the Rif 44. During the sixteenth century, it was found in the Dkala region 45 , while al-Wazzan mentions its presence near Tagasa, in the coastal province of Haha, 46 which was confirmed by Marmol Carvajal at the end of the century. 47 Carvajal also referred to other areas where wild boar roamed, such as al-Jabal al-Akhdar in the Dkala region 48 and Mount Celilgo in the Fez area. 49 In the late nineteenth century, a nomad noted its presence in the Middle Atlas mountains 50 and on the shores of the Haha region,

As for pig farming, all of the documents consulted indicate that Europeans were solely responsible for the practice, which was thus inevitably limited to the cities and regions where Europeans lived. This consists of a region extending along the Atlantic coast from Tangiers to al-Jadida, as well as the town of Tetouan and its hinterland on the Mediterranean coast. A good number of these documents indicates that the city of Larache and the western region in general housed the main contingent of Europeans, especially Spaniards, who raised

Image 2 A map showing the spread of pig-breeding in Morocco in the nineteenth century

Tangier Tetouan Larache Rabat

Keys Area where pig husbandary had spread Main Cities where pig husbanday had spread

stretching from Essouaira (Mukador) to Agadir. 51

pigs in Morocco during the nineteenth century. 52 It is possible to summarize this data in the following map.

Atlantic Ocean

Casablanca El Jadida

This shows that pig-farming was mainly practised in the northwest of Morocco, in cities that housed large numbers of European settlers such as Tangiers, Larache, Casablanca, and Rabat. It also indicates that the practice arrived in Morocco along with European settlement, as a practice otherwise alien to Moroccans themselves. Evidence for this is found in various Makhzen documents indicating irritation at European settlers. There are no mentions of Moroccans themselves rearing pigs. There are also European testimonies confirming this, such as Doutté: "The Europeans of Rabat used to raise pigs [...] It is worth noting that pig-raising, which is common today in many coastal cities, used to be strongly opposed by the Makhzen ". 53 Most of the documents consulted indicate that pigs were commonly found in the western region, as well as in Moroccan port cities there. 54 Such references include a letter dated 4 March 1892, stating that "a complaint against the workers of the Badia tribes, especially those of the western tribe, came as foreign pig-herders encroached on their country, until it became like a country of sheep." 55 The writer of another letter noted that "foreign herders have started taking [pigs] out to graze in the western country like they were herds of sheep." 56 These documents confirm that the western region was the main centre of pig-farming, with some references specifically focusing on the city of Larache. This raises the question as to why Larache was the focus of this activity. Was this due to its geography, climate, and generally stable political situation, or to the high number of Spanish subjects there and a Spanish cultural tendency to raise pigs?

Growing European Involvement in Pig-Farming and the Resulting Problems

1. More Europeans Raising Pigs A review of contemporary documents related to pig-breeding presents an array of data, notably the variety of European nationalities involved in this practice: Spanish, English, French, Italians, and to a lesser extent Portuguese. Spaniards then the English dominated this activity and caused many problems by not adhering to the terms of the agreement with the Makhzen. Of around 20 documents on this subject, about 40 percent related to Spain, 27 percent to England, and 13 percent to Italy, while the rest were equally divided between France and Portugal. 57 The Spanish were the most keenly involved in pig farming, and the documents associate the phenomenon with the names of specific people, such as Manuel Monti, Manuel Mantis, Manuel Martins, Antonio, Jose, and Javier. The Spanish commissioner justified his compatriots' actions and attempted to clear their names, even to the extent of demanding they be rehabilitated and compensated. This is reflected in all the tactics adopted by the Spanish commissioner, who at times used attack as a means of defence and at others sought a truce, haggled, or delayed. 58 The Spanish used diverse methods in responding to the Moroccan side. One letter shows the commissioner denying responsibility for pig-related damage: "Our consul in Larache told us the aforementioned Spaniards Jose and Manuel sold the pig in their charge to an Englishman, and they now have no livestock, no sheep or cattle, left in the west." 59

The primary evidence that Spanish subjects and their state were the most enthusiastically involved in pig farming is not the large number of documents that refer to them, but rather their demonstrations of keenness to practice this activity, even at the cost of violating the agreement with the Makhzen. This is shown in tendentious interpretations of that agreement, designed to serve their interests. 60 The Spanish commissioner used multiple spurious grounds to justify his position. In his letters, he himself recognized that Spanish nationals had allowed pigs to graze in people's fields, yet he continued to reject local officials' rights to kill the animals as per the agreement, arguing that the deal provided for the payment of a fine rather than slaughter. 61 This was a bare attempt to circumvent the text of the agreement. As we have seen, the agreement recognized provincial governors' right to kill pigs that caused damage. Fines were imposed for pigs held in excess of one animal per European family. The agreement was that pigs would remain within their fences, but if they went out into people's fields, the agreement stipulated that they should be killed, not that their owners simply face additional fines. This stipulation was acknowledged by the Italian commissioner in his response to a letter from Larbi al-Taris: "We ordered him [the commissioner's successor] also to prevent [Italian subjects] from releasing pigs into the streets and fields, and we warned him that if he violated this order, provincial governors and others are authorized to shoot them, and that the owner cannot request compensation for the damage." 62 So why did the Spanish side refuse to acquiesce in the agreement while Italian officials accepted it? Before answering this question, it is worth examining the Spanish commissioner's logic in rejecting the Tetouan governor's decision: "It was [the governor's duty] not to rush this act until he had asked our consul to compensate the damage that the pig had done to the aforementioned field… if the governor had asked for recompense from our consul, there is no doubt that he would have received a fair resolution." 63 The Spanish commissioner's proposed solution thus clearly contradicts the content of the agreement. The accord does not state anywhere that in the event that a pig damages a field, the owner could resolve the issue by paying compensation. Rather, the agreement clearly states that if a pig is found grazing in the streets, it can be killed by a governor or anyone else, and the owner has no right to compensation. 64 A close examination of the commissioner's letters reveals his clear attempts to bypass these previously agreed terms, even by accusing the Moroccan governor of violating them, despite the fact that the latter's actions applied the agreement to the letter. Furthermore, the Spanish official does not offer a single example of the conditions that he claims have been breached. This is evident in many examples: "[Referring to] this action and what was agreed by [European representatives and the Makhzen], our consuls made haste"; "To do what he did was in violation of the terms and conditions of the pig [agreement]". 65 This was in contrast to the Italian commissioner's approach in the letter mentioned above, in which he cited several terms from the agreement, including the right to slaughter pigs found in public roads and fields, without paying compensation. The Spanish commissioner's consistent lack of clarity on the terms indicates that he did not see them as serving the interests of his compatriots. The possession of more than one pig was in itself a violation of the agreement, let alone a herd of 71. The agreement required that all but one of those animals be killed without compensation, in view of the damage they caused to people's crops. Their existence demonstrates

that Spanish subjects were not abiding by the agreement to limit their pig herds, suggesting that they were raising them for export rather than for personal use. Moreover, the Spanish commissioner focused not on his compatriots' actions, as the cause of the dispute, but rather on the Moroccan response. Despite the fact the latter was a literal implementation of the agreement, he insisted on presenting his consul and the two merchants as the aggrieved party, with such phrases as "our consul drew attention to the damages incurred by the Spaniards." He blamed the local governor: "He is liable… This governor is violating the rules in this case… since this violation took place with his permission and he did not follow the relevant conditions." The commissioner presented the local governor's actions as a violation of the agreement in order to pressure his interlocutor and weaken his position. The Spanish official also cast doubt on the permission given to the local governor by Qaid Mohammed bin Mohammed al-Labadi 66: "It is no secret to you, Your Excellency, that the governor's version of events is without basis, and you should not be surprised that we have doubts about the permission the governor claims he received to do what he did." 67 The Spanish commissioner doubled down on his position and considered that the infringement would not be resolved unless the governor paid compensation for the pigs killed, to cover the damages incurred by the two merchants, even though the agreement did not provide for such compensation under any circumstances. The commissioner argued that al-Labadi should order the governor to pay compensation, otherwise he would raise the matter to the Makhzen itself: In light of what we have presented, we ask your Excellency to order the aforementioned governor to quickly give our consul 1,775 riyals, the price of seventy-one pigs killed, at 25 riyals a head, since this transgression took place with his permission, and he has ignored what was agreed. In the event that he does not comply with this request, [we ask you] to raise this case with the honourable presence [the Makhzen], in our name, to settle the issue immediately and in a sound and benevolent manner. 68 2. Problems Resulting from Pig Breeding British commissioner John Drummond Hay recognized the damage that pig farming was causing. During one of his hunting trips, he noted that the Spanish had allowed their pigs to graze in peasants' fields at night, prompting the latter to file complaints with the Makhzen. 69 We find echoes of this in a letter from the Sultan to Mohammad Ibn al-Arabi al-Taris in a document dated 4 March 1892, which reads: "workers from the Badia tribes, especially the western tribe, have complained that foreign subjects have been grazing pigs in their region, to the point that it has become like a nation of sheep, and caused severe harm to their property by digging up graves and spoiling their fields and gardens." 70 The spread of pigs on their land and the resulting damage sparked outcry from the Moroccan public. The situation prompted the Makhzen to confront the Europeans and demand they comply with the agreement. 71 Europeanss had not abided by what they had signed, something indicated by al-Taris in a letter addressed to the Spanish commissioner, Don Francisco, adding that "pigs have been causing ever worse and greater damage, to the point where the Europeans have been raising it as a flock in the western area as the citizens

of this country would do with sheep, and there are a huge number of complaints about the damage it is causing." 72 Other nationalities followed a similar pattern of disregard for local law. The English commissioner, for example, wrote in response to a complaint: "We have received your letter regarding the complaint that you placed eight months ago regarding the damage caused by the foreign-owned pig in the Larache area. You have now renewed your demand to alert its owners that if the aforementioned pig is found on Muslim property, it will be shot." 73 It thus appears that pigs were continuing to cause damage, something reflected in the following message: We inform you that the pig has been bred here in great abundance, to the extent that its owners allow it to graze on the properties and farms as if they were sheep or cows. They often send them inside the city. People have started complaining frequently about the resulting harm. We have discussed this with the consuls of the pigs' owners, but their responses contradicted the rules established in this regard. Your Excellency is aware of the prior correspondence on this issue with the Spanish consul. The harm the people have suffered was such that they wrote us a card, which is attached hereto, and they mentioned that no one is permitted to kill [the pig] as the agreement requires, because due to the audacity of its owners they could fall into [the forbidden]. What should happen is that the family remove with their own hands the harm they cause. Your Excellency has a broader view of how this matter may be resolved. 74 It seems clear, then, Europeans of all nationalities took part in pig-breeding and refused to abandon it, despite all the complaints that the Makhzen raised to European representatives. Accordingly, the problems resulting from this activity oblige us to add it to a list of violations committed by European settlers during the nineteenth century, in the broader context of colonial pressures. It is very clear that Moroccan subjects were aware of the Makhzen's weak position in the face of these excesses. Mohammad al-Taris wrote many times to foreign representatives to urge them to abide by the agreement on pig-raising. He repeatedly received promises that their merchants and their subjects would halt their violations, but violations continued. In another letter, the Italian commissioner acknowledged the rules that had been laid out, and promised to oblige Italian citizens to respect them, saying: "What you said in this regard is correct and just, and for my part, I was seriously engaged to remove the damage mentioned by our subjects." 75 However, these remained empty promises. With lack of determination to enforce the agreement, and with repeated empty promises to implement it, led foreign nationals to disregard the agreement and show indifference to the penalties it supposedly laid out, whether fines for breeders with more than the permitted number of animals or punitive slaughter of pigs that were found outside their enclosures. This research did not find a single document indicating that the stipulated financial penalties had been imposed on Europeans whose pigs exceeded the limit, nor that pigs had indeed been slaughtered as per the agreement, with the sole exception of the 71 Spanish-owned pigs ordered slaughtered by Tetouan governor Mohammad Ibn Mohammad al-Labadi, in accordance with the agreement. This act sparked Spanish official condemnation and demands for compensation despite the fact such a request was clearly not provided for in the agreement. No other documents were found to indicate that the agreement was implemented in other cases.

A similar lack of concern is found in the English official's response to a complaint sent to him by al-Taris, regarding damage caused by pigs which had already been mentioned in a previous letter. The response only came eight months after the initial complaint and repeated follow-ups. This response reflected utter disdain for the agreement between the Makhzen and the European officials: "We had commanded all the [European officials] whose deputies we are representing to issue warnings to subjects of the aforementioned countries. This permission has remained the same, but under your wishes we renewed our order to the aforementioned officials to renew the warning, therefore our interpreter will read you the letter we wrote, so all servants of the consuls can hear it, including the Belgians". 76 The document makes it clear that theM oroccans ide could onlycomplain and threaten but had no no capacity to implement effective punitive measures. This is clear from the British commissioner's remark that he had received a complaint about pig-caused damage eight months ago, according to the date of the document, then his comment that he was aware of the punishment, and finally that his order to his subject in this regard had been issued before his letter arrived. The language of the document indicates that the British Commissioner's dealings with the complaints of the Sultan's deputy aims to appease the Moroccan side – but not to the extent of actually preventing foreign nationals from continuing their practices or of enforcing the conditions in the agreement. The British official indicates that the warning had already been issued, but "based on request, we renewed [it]", as if the matter was limited to appeasing the deputy. In the same context, there was another issue related to the pig in nineteenth century Morocco: pig fat. At the beginning of his account "A week in Paris", written in the early decades of the twentieth century, Mohammed Bin Abdulsalem refers to the issue of lard: "I had written: Something frequently asked about these days is the evidence for the prohibition of lard, as what is prohibited in the Quran is [pig] meat, not lard." 77 What concerns us here is not so much the Islamic legal position but the question itself, which reflects a reality on which historical information is scarce. Bin Abdulsalem himself offers no further information, instead moving directly to clarifying the religious position on the matter. 78 The only other document that could be found on this subject is dated 17 December 1889. It states that the British commissioner raised the issue of a group of merchants' loss of a box of pork ghee to Mohammad al-Taris, blaming negligence by port officials who had failed to preserve it. The merchants were therefore seeking compensation for their loss. 79 The document did not indicate whether the ghee was destined for consumption by Moroccans or by Europeans alone. With the exception of this little data on the topic, there is no other information that gives an indication of how widespread the use of pork ghee was in Moroccan society.

Conclusion

While pig farming in Morocco in the nineteenth century appears to be a fringe subject, it is one that reveals cultural, religious, social, political, and economic aspects of the country's history at the time, associated with the increased foreign presence in Morocco. This reflects the extent to which Europeans penetrated and influenced the smallest details of Moroccan society. It is notable that most of the relevant Makhzen documents do not focus on the pig's uncleanliness, nor the religious position that raising them is prohibited, despite the fact that both the Quran and Islamic

jurisprudence take a clear position against both eating pork and profiting from it materially. Rather, these documents are more concerned with the fact that the practice was just one way in which Europeans disrespected and caused damage to Moroccan society. This paper thus argues that pig farming, which spread in Morocco in the nineteenth century due to European demand, was an issue that went beyond the religiously prohibited matter of pork consumption, which in any case was extremely limited among Moroccan citizens. Rather the practice represented an economic activity introduced by Europeans, that brought large herds of animals and caused problems to farmers and the general population alike, as well as to the Makhzen , which regularly received complaints from citizens affected by the resulting damage. As such, it constituted just one manifestation of the pressures on Moroccan authorities during the period of colonial infiltration.

References

al-Badsi, Abdulhaq. al-Maqṣad al-Sharīf wa-l-Manzaʿ al-Laṭīf fī al-Taʿrīf bi-Ṣulaḥāʾ al-Rīf. Saeed Aʿrab. 2nd ed. Rabat: al-Maṭbaʿa al-Malakiyya, 1993. al-Bukhari, Abu Abdullah Muhammad bin Ismail. Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī. Damascus/ Beirut: Dār Ibn Kathīr lil-Ṭibāʿa wa-l-Nashr wa-l-Tawzīʿ, 2002. al-Harthi, Turki bin Ajlan. "Namādhij min al-Tajāwuzāt al-Ajnabiyya fī al-Maghrib al-Aqṣā khilāl al-Niṣf al-Thānī min al-Qarn al-Tāsiʿ ʿAshar." Majallat Jāmiʿat al-Malik ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz, al-Adab wa-l-ʿUlūm al-Insāniyya. no. 6 (1993).

Ali, Abdullah Muqbil. "Naẓariyyat Bayʿ al-Muḥarramāt fī al-Fiqh al-Islāmī: Dirāsa Muqārana." PhD diss. Kulliyyat al-Ādāb wa-l-ʿUlūm al-Insāniyya says. Fes. 2009. al-Rabati, Muhammad al-Daʿeef. Tarīkh al-Ḍaʿīf (Tārīkh al-Dawla al-Saʿda). Ahmad Amari (ed.). Rabat: Dār al-Maʾthūrāt, 1986. al-Sajistani, Abu Dawud bin al-Ashʿath bin Ishaq bin Bashir al-Azadi. Sunan Abī Dāwūd , Shuʿaib al-Arnaʾut & Muhammad Kamil Qarah Balali (eds.). Damascus: Dār al-Risāla al-ʿĀlamiyya, 2009. al-Shazli, Abdullatif. Muʿjam al-Muṣṭalaḥāt al-Idāriyya wa-l-Alfāḍ al-ʿĀmiyya wa-l-Ajnabiyya al-Wārida fī Baʿḍ al-Wathāʾiq wa-l-Muʾallafāt al-Maghribiyya. Rabat: al-Maṭbaʿa al-Malakiyya, 2007. al-Tuzani, Naeema Haraj. al-Umanāʾ bil-Maghrib fī ʿAhd al-Sulṭān Mūlāy al-Ḥasan 1290-1311h/ 1873- 1894: Musāhama fī Dirāsat al-Niẓām al-Mālī bil-Maghrib. Rabat: Manshūrāt Kulliyyat al-Ādāb wa-l-ʿUlūm al-Insāniyya, 1979. al-Wansharisi, Abu al-Abbas Ahmad bin Yahya. al-Miʿyār al-Muʿrab wa-l-Jamiʿ al-Mughrab ʿan Fatāwā al-Andalus wa-l-Maghrib. Rabat: Manshūrāt Wizārat al-Awqāf wa-l-Shuʾūn al-Islāmiyya lil-Mamlaka al-Maghribiyya, 1981. al-Wazzan, al-Hassan bin Muhammad. Waṣf Afrīqiyā. Muhammad Hajji & Muhammad al-Akhdar (trans.). 2nd ed. al-Dār al-Bayḍāʾ: al-Jamʿiyya al-Maghribiyya lil-Taʾlīf wa-l-Tarjama wa-l-Nashr; Beirut: Dār al-Gharb al-Islāmī, 1983.

Aʿmāl Nadwat al-Tijāra fī ʿIlāqathā bi-l-Mujtamaʿ wa-l-Dawla ʿAbr Tārīkh al-Maghrib. al-Dār al-Baydaʾ: Manshūrāt Kulliyyat al-Ādāb wa-l-ʿUlūm al-Insāniyya, 1989. bin Abdullah, al-Hussein bin Ali. Qiṣaṣ wa-Amthāl min al-Maghrib. Rabat: Dār Abī Raqrāq lil-Ṭibāʿa wa-l-Nashr, 2012. bin al-Sagheer, Khalid. al-Maghrib fī al-Arshīf al-Biriṭānī: Murāsalāt John Drummond Hay maʿ al-Makhzan bin Zidan, Abdulrahman. Itḥāf Aʿlām al-Nās bi-Jamāl Ḥāḍirat Miknās. Abdulhadi al-Tazi (ed.). 2nd ed. Busharb, Ahmad. Dakalah wa-l-Istiʿmār al-Burtughālī Ilā Sanat Ikhlāʾ Āsfī wa-Azmūr. al-Dār al-Baydāʾ: Carvajal, Mármol. Ifrīqyā. Muhammad Hajji et al. (trans.). Casablanca: al-Jamʿiyya al-Maghribiyya de Foucauld, Charles. al-Taʿarruf ʿAlā al-Maghrib. al-Mukhtar bilarbi (trans.). Casablanca: Dār al-Thaqāfa, de Torres, Diego. Tārīkh al-Shurafāʾ. Muhammad Hajji and Muhammad al-Akhdar (trans.). Casablanca: Harris, Marvin. Muqaddasāt wa Muḥarramāt wa Ḥurūb: Alghāz al-Thaqāfa. Ahmad M. Ahmad (trans.). Hay, John Drummond. "Reminiscences of Boar-hunting in Morocco." Murray's Magazine: A Home and 1846-1886. al-Dār al-Bayḍāʾ: al-Shirka al-Maghribiyya lil-Nashr – Wallāda, 1992. al-Dār al-Baydāʾ: Maṭābiʿ Idyāl, 1990.

Dār al-Thaqāfa, 1984. lil-Tarjama wa-l-Nashr; Rabat: Maktabat al-Maʿārif, 1984. al-Jamʿiyya al-Maghribiyya lil-Taʾlīf wa-l-Tarjama wa-l-Nashr, 1988.

Document 11, Portfolio 56, Tetouan public record office. Document 113, Portfolio 10, Tetouan Public Records Office. Document 114, Portfolio 37, Tetouan Public Record Office. Document 127, Portfolio 56, Tetouan public records office. Document 140, Portfolio 36, Tetouan Public Record Office. Document 154, Portfolio 42, Tetouan Public Record Office. Document 158, Portfolio 36, Tetouan Public Record Office. Document 163, Portfolio 32, Tetouan public records office. Document 163, Portfolio 36, Tetouan Public Record Office. Document 2, Portfolio 96, Tetouan Public Records Office. Document 24, Portfolio 42, Tetouan Public Record Office. Document 24, Portfolio 80, Tetouan public records office. Document 56, Portfolio 11, Tetouan public record office. Document 8, Portfolio 52, Tetouan public records office. Document 8, Portfolio 79, Tetouan public records office. Document 83, Portfolio 37, Tetouan Public Record Office. Document 90, Portfolio 42, Tetouan Public Record Office. Doutté, Edmond. Marrākish. Abdurrahim Hazal (trans.). Rabat: Manshūrāt Marsam, 2011. Doha/ Beirut: Arab Center for Research and Policy Studies, 2017. colonial Periodical for the General Reader. vol 3, no. 15 (January-June 1888). ibn Ashur, al-Tahir. Tafsīr al-Taḥrīr wa-l-Tanwīr. Tunis: Dār Saḥnūn, 1984. Mouliéras, August. " Le Maroc inconnu: Exploration des DJEBALA ". Paris: Éditions Augustin Challamel, Mouliéras, Auguste. al-Maghrib al-Majhūl: Iktishāf al-Rīf. Izz al-Din al-Khatabi (trans.). Rabat: Manshūrāt Tifrāznārīf; Maṭbaʿat al-Najāḥ al-Jadīda, 2007.

Muʿallimat al-Maghrib. al-Dār al-Bayḍāʾ: al-Jamʿiyya al-Maghribiyya lil-Taʾlīf wa-l-Tarjama wa-l-Nashr, Muhammad bin Abdelsalam al-Sayeh. Usbūʿ fī barīs 1922. Sulayman al-Qurashi (ed.). Abu Dhabi: Dār al-Suwaydi lil-Nashr wa-l-Tawzīʿ; Beirut: al-Muʾassasa al-ʿArabiyya lil-Dirāsāt wa-l-Nashr, 2004.

Mustafa Boushaara, "Settlement and the Protectorate in Morocco" (Rabat: The Royal Press, 1984), vol. 1, p. 417.

Nahleel, Muhammad. Rasāʾil Arshīfiyya. al-Jilali al-ʿAdnani & Abderrahim binhadda (intro.). Rabat: Manshūrāt Kulliyyat al-Ādāb wa-l-ʿUlūm al-Insāniyya, 2013.