Noting the frequency with which Ottoman Jews and Christians voluntarily choseto attend to their personal (as opposed to business) affairs at the Muslim court and theirwillingness to avoid or override the rulings of their own communal courts, scholarsof dhimml communities have suggested several explanations. Aryeh Shmuelevitz, forexample, argues that in the 16th century, Ottoman Jewish judges were liable to be sus-pended from office for prohibiting Jewish men and women from seeking the shari c acourts. He nevertheless posits an extensive Ottoman-sanctioned legal autonomy forthe empire's separate Jewish congregations by claiming that Jewish judges fulfilled thedemands of Jewish law (halakha) forbidding recourse to Muslim courts (even whenthe shari c a courts did not contravene Jewish law) by issuing their legal judgments andprohibitions against the mahkama in secret. 6
This suggests that dhimmis voluntarily chose Muslim courts and were not forced to rely solely on their own communal courts.