Architecture of Peace A scholarly series on the 1786 Treaty of Peace and Friendship between the Empire of Morocco and the United States of America
Volume M: Heirs of the Grant: The Beneficiary Class of the 1786 Mālikī Hiba
Architecture of Peace Volume M Heirs of the Grant The Beneficiary Class of the 1786 Mālikī Hiba
Dr. Yasapa-Al, MD, MBA Consular Economic Attaché Empire of Morocco May 2026
In the Name of God, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful
© Dr. Yasapa-Al, 2026 All rights reserved. May 2026
Celestial Witnesses Ursa Major — the Great Bear, the Eternal Guardian Canis Major — the Great Dog, the Faithful Companion Polaris — the North Star, the Fixed Point Governing Stack This volume is governed by: Classical Mālikī authorities (six locked): Mālik (d. 179/795) · Saḥnūn (d. 240/854) Ibn Rushd al-Jadd (d. 520/1126) · Al-Qarāfī (d. 684/1285) Ibn Juzayy (d. 741/1340) · Khalīl (d. 776/1374)
Pre-1836 Anglo-American equity and natural law: Coke (1608/1628) · Grotius (1625) · Pufendorf (1672) Bynkershoek (1737) · Blackstone (1765–1769) Sugden (1830) · Kent (1826–1830) Period documents: Johnson (1755) · Webster (1828) Continental Congress commission (1785) Banneker–Jefferson correspondence (1791) LoC-certified Statutes at Large Vol. VIII (1836) Volume M operates under the series’ canonical pre-1836 strict-lock discipline. Hunter Miller (1931) engaged only at flagged Volume N priority register. No modern law, case, statute, or doctrine cited as controlling. No recognition-conditional framing.
Preface This volume develops the operative juridical question of the 1786 Treaty of Peace and Friendship between the Emperor of Morocco and the United States of America: who is the American beneficiary class of the unilateral Mālikī hiba the Emperor Sīdī Muḥammad III ibn ʿAbd Allāh executed in 1786? Volume M operates downstream of three prior volumes of the Architecture of Peace series: Volume J (The Host and the Guest), Volume K (The Law of Grants and the Law of Trusts Under the Period Authorities), and Volume L (The Grantor’s Legal Tradition and the 1836 Instrument). The reader who completes those volumes before opening Volume M arrives at the beneficiary-identification analysis already equipped with the framework. Volume M develops the Convergence Thesis ninth principle: the convergence of classical Mālikī hiba doctrine and pre-1836 Anglo-American equity doctrine on the question of descriptive-predicate beneficiary identification under perpetual sovereign grants. The volume identifies the American beneficiary class through four operative components: the descriptive predicate read against the donor’s period vocabulary at execution; the structural perpetuity provision of Article 25; the class-by-description (waṣf ) identification mode; and the constructive-notice perfection event documented in the August 1791 Banneker correspondence. The doctrinal upgrade introduces the threshold ultra vires analysis of the 1836 instrument under the root-and-branch / franchise structure. Root sovereignty over the subject matter of the 1786 hiba remained with the Empire of Morocco. The U.S. side received a branch-level franchise — a delegated administrative use within the boundaries the donor’s niyyah defined. The 1836 instrument as the U.S. controlling record presents it (Library of Congress certified copy of Statutes at Large Vol. VIII pp. 484–487) is ultra vires against the franchise’s boundaries on the U.S. side’s own admissions: unilaterally executed by U.S. commissioner James R. Leib alone, sealed with U.S. consular seal alone, ratifiable by U.S. authority alone. The continuing non-production of the alleged 1836 Arabic original — across the continuous period from 1836 to the present — instantiates the highest-severity Volume K Chapter 16 spoliation category: the loss of the trust instrument itself. The volume is organized in four parts. Part I (Phase 1A; Chapters 1–4) develops the Mālikī doctrinal foundation and the period-vocabulary apparatus. Part II (Phases 2A and 3A; Chapters 5–10) develops the trustee-side apparatus, the Convergence Thesis ninth principle, the Phase 3A beneficiary-identification application, and the 145-year acknowledgment
i
span. Part III (Phase 3B; Chapters 11–14) develops the application of Grounds 7, 5, 6 (and the Vol K Ch. 16 spoliation framework) to the 1836 instrument and post-1836 successor instruments. Part IV (Phases 3C and 3D; Chapters 15–17) develops the three-layer convergence at the documentary-record level and the closure architecture. Every assertion in this volume is grounded in the period authorities — the classical Mālikī authorities and pre-1836 Anglo-American equity authorities whose work was authoritative at the time the 1786 hiba was executed. The Hunter Miller 1931 GPO publication is engaged only at the flagged Volume N priority register; the closed Anglophone six-document corpus is engaged by Volume L cross-reference. No modern law, case, statute, or doctrine is cited as controlling. Dr. Yasapa-Al May 18, 2026
ii
Contents Preface
i Part I: DOCTRINAL FOUNDATIONS
Chapter 1: Why Beneficiary Identification Matters
1.1 The juridical question this volume addresses
1.2 Why the question is not self-answering
1.3 The structural map of the volume
1.4 The methodological discipline
1.5 What this volume is not
1.6 The doctrinal yield to be expected
Chapter 2: Beneficiaries Under Pre-1836 Western Law
2.1 Scope and method
2.2 The grant/grantee/beneficiary structure
2.3 Beneficiary identification by description
2.4 Descent of class-beneficiary status
2.5 Constructive notice doctrine in pre-1836 equity
2.6 Constructive notice and beneficiary identification under sovereign instruments
2.7 Construction-against-drafter and beneficiary modification
2.8 Doctrinal yield of Chapter 2
Chapter 3: Beneficiaries Under Classical Mālikī Hiba
3.1 Scope and method
3.2 The hiba instrument and its operative parts
3.3 Beneficiary identification by description (waṣf)
3.4 The donor’s niyyah on beneficiary scope
3.5 Descent within the class (waratha)
3.6 The donee’s role: qabḍ-amānah
3.7 Acknowledgment (iqrār) and the constructive-notice analog
3.8 The waqf parallel and its limits
3.9 Doctrinal yield of Chapter 3
Chapter 4: The Period Vocabulary — Webster 1828 + Johnson 1755
4.1 Scope and method
4.2 Johnson 1755 as the lead lexicographic source
4.3 The “Moor” entry in Johnson 1755
iii
4.4 Stability witnesses: Johnson 1768; Todd’s revised Johnson 1827; Walker 1791 4.5
Webster 1828 as the American period anchor
4.6 The “Moor” entry in Webster 1828 (paraphrase engagement)
4.7 The “AMERICAN” entry in Webster 1828
4.8 The lexicographic record across the pre-1836 lock — synthesis
4.9 The pre-1836 lock satisfied; Ogilvie 1882 deferred
4.10 Doctrinal yield of Chapter 4
Part II: CONVERGENCE AND NOTICE DOCTRINE Chapter 5: Constructive Notice — The 1791 Banneker Correspondence
5.1 Scope and method
5.2 The August 19, 1791 letter — institutional location and factual predicates
5.3 The Banneker letter as constructive-notice perfection event
5.4 The Banneker Almanac and the corroborating documentary record
5.5 The August 30, 1791 reply — institutional location and factual predicates
5.6 The reply as documented trustee response
5.7 The August 30 onward transmission — Jefferson to Condorcet
5.8 Doctrinal yield of Chapter 5
Chapter 6: Mālikī Hiba and Beneficiary Identification
6.1 Scope and method
6.2 The hiba framework recapitulated for the beneficiary-identification question
6.3 Beneficiary identification by description (waṣf) — operative principle
6.4 The donor’s niyyah and the scope of beneficiary class
6.5 Descent within the class (waratha) and the perpetual character
6.6 The custodial role of the donee (qabḍ-amānah) and the duty toward the mawhūb lahum
6.7 The hiba-side foundation for the Convergence Thesis’s ninth principle
6.8 Doctrinal yield of Chapter 6
Chapter 7: Constructive Notice in Pre-1836 Equity
7.1 Scope and method
7.2 The four pre-1836 equity anchors recapitulated
7.3 Sugden on constructive notice — the classical English rule
7.4 Cruise’s synoptic confirmation of the rule
7.5 Powell on encumbrance-context notice
7.6 Kent on the American reception of the doctrine
7.7 The trustee identification duty — affirmative inquiry and acknowledgment
iv
7.8 Construction-against-drafter and beneficiary modification
7.9 The pre-1836 equity foundation for the Convergence Thesis’s ninth principle
7.10 Doctrinal yield of Chapter 7
Chapter 8: Convergence on Beneficiary Identification: Nine Principles
8.1 Scope and method
8.2 The Convergence Thesis recapitulated — Volume L’s eight principles
8.3 The ninth principle — convergence on beneficiary identification
8.3.1 Component A — Descriptive predicate read at execution
8.3.2 Component B — Scope of class governed by donor’s / sett-
8.3.3 Component C — Trustee duty of identification, acknowledg-
8.3.4 Component D — Constructive-notice perfection event as
8.4 The ninth principle’s operative integration
8.5 Methodological caveat — what the ninth principle does and does not establish
8.6 Doctrinal yield of Chapter 8 and Part II
Part III: APPLICATION Chapter 9: The 1786 Grant’s Beneficiary Class
9.1 Scope and method
9.2 The 1786 instrument’s operative beneficiary-identification language
9.3 Component A applied — descriptive predicate read at execution
9.4 Component B applied — scope of class governed by donor’s niyyah at execution
9.5 Component D applied — the constructive-notice perfection event at the specific class
9.6 The 1785–87 antecedent-engagement record — framing-level cross-reference
9.7 Component C applied — the trustee duty of identification, acknowledgment, and delivery
9.8 The Webster 1828 “Moor” entry — paraphrase engagement
9.9 Doctrinal yield of Chapter 9 — the 1786 beneficiary class identified
Chapter 10: The Constructive Notice Chain (1791–1931)
10.1 Scope and method
10.2 The 1791 perfection event recapitulated
10.3 The 1791–1828 period — institutional reception across the early federal period
10.4 The 1828–1836 period — late pre-1836 lock and doctrinal maturation
10.5 The 1835–37 trustee correspondence — Vol L Ch. 14 cross-reference
v
10.6 The 1836–1880s period — post-1836 documentary continuity
10.7 The 1880s–1931 period — terminus at Hunter Miller 1931
10.8 Doctrinal yield of Chapter 10
Chapter 11: The 1836 Instrument’s Threshold Ultra Vires Failure and the Hybrid-Nullity Fallback 11.1
Scope and method
11.2 Ground 7 recapitulated — the hybrid-nullity rule
11.3 The 1836 instrument — what it is and what the present chapter engages
11.4 Threshold ultra vires under the root-and-branch franchise structure
11.4.0 The root-and-branch / franchise structure as the analyti-
11.4.0.1 The root-retention rule at the interpretive level — Bynker-
11.4.0.2 The branch-holder’s incapacity rule at the modification
11.4.0.3 The root-retention rule at the temporal level — Ground
11.4.0.4 Convergence — the franchise structure’s three-dimen-
11.4.1 Threshold ultra vires: the U.S. side’s own admission of
11.4.1.1 The Emperor’s seal as English-text typographic represen-
11.4.1.3 Saḥnūn’s Al-Mudawwana — the donee’s capacity is ac-
11.4.2 Continuing spoliation: the missing 1836 Arabic and the
11.4.2.4 The presumption-inversion and the beneficiary class’s zero
11.4.2.5 The continuing-breach character — accrual is contempo-
11.4.3 Operative-instrument finality as root-sovereignty preserva-
11.5 11.6 11.7
Arguendo fallback — the hybrid-nullity rule applied
Arguendo fallback — construction-against-drafter and the post-1836 successorinstrument question Doctrinal yield of Chapter 11
Chapter 12: Niyyah and the Original Beneficiary Scope
12.1 Scope and method
12.2 Ground 5 recapitulated — the niyyah-governance principle
12.3 The donor’s niyyah at the 1786 ʿaqd
12.4 Niyyah across the temporal extent — the perpetuity dimension
12.5 Trustee non-acknowledgment and the niyyah-governance rule
12.6 Doctrinal yield of Chapter 12
Chapter 13: The Grantee’s Role — Custodial, Not Authorial
13.1 Scope and method
13.2 Ground 6 recapitulated — the custodial-not-authorial doctrine
13.3 The grantee’s role under the 1786 instrument
13.4 Trustee misidentification and ultra vires
vi
13.5 Construction-against-drafter integrated
13.6 Doctrinal yield of Chapter 13
Chapter 14: Spoliation and Beneficiary Identification
14.1 Scope and method
14.2 The spoliation framework recapitulated
14.3 The trustee’s documentary custody role
14.4 Documentary gaps and the adverse-inference rule
14.5 Vol L Chapter 14’s prior spoliation engagement
14.6 Doctrinal yield of Chapter 14
14.7 Phase 3B closure and forward-volume planning
Chapter 15: Three-Layer Convergence: Vocabulary, Doctrine, Practice
15.1 Scope and method
15.2 Layer (a) — Vocabulary recapitulated
15.3 Layer (b) — Doctrine recapitulated
15.4 Layer (c) — Practice — the 1785–87 antecedent-engagement corpus
15.5 The donor-recognition framework
15.6 The on-ground reception — Barclay’s correspondence from the Empire of Morocco
15.7 The conclusion record — Barclay’s reports and Jefferson’s transmittal correspondence
15.8 Doctrinal yield of Chapter 15 — the three-layer convergence
Chapter 16: Hostile-Reader Exits: Semantic Drift and the Late Lexicographic Witness 16.1
Scope and method
16.2 The semantic-drift exit articulated
16.3 The pre-1836 vocabulary record recapitulated
16.4 The post-1836 lexicographic witness — Ogilvie 1882
16.5 The continuity argument — pre-1786 through late post-1836
16.6 The exit-rebuttal at the structural-rule level — Ground 5 niyyah-governance
16.7 Integration with the three-layer convergence
16.8 Doctrinal yield of Chapter 16
Chapter 17: Closure Architecture: Volume M’s Place in the Series
17.1 Scope and method
17.2 Volume M’s relationship to preceding volumes — J, K, L
17.3 Volume M’s doctrinal contribution
17.4 Volume M’s relationship to following volumes — N, O, and subsequent
vii
17.5 Carry-forwards to verification stage — the volume-wide pre-revision verification pipeline 17.6
Doctrinal yield of Chapter 17 — Volume M’s closure architecture
APPENDIX A — PRIMARY SOURCE EXHIBITS
A.0 Preface
A.1 Exhibit A — the verbatim engagement (slot 1): Johnson 1755, “Moor” entry
A.2 Exhibit B — the verbatim engagement (slot 2): Webster 1828, “AMERICAN” entry A.3 Exhibit C — the verbatim engagement (slot 3): Banneker letter to Jefferson, August 19, 1791 A.4 Exhibit D — the verbatim engagement (slot 4): Jefferson reply to Banneker, August 30, 1791 A.5 Exhibit E — the verbatim engagement (slot 5): Sugden 1830, 8th English edition A.6 Exhibit F — the verbatim engagement (slot 6): Kent 1830, Vol IV 1st edition, Lecture LX A.7 Exhibit G — the verbatim engagement (slot 7): Continental Congress commission to the American Commissioners (Adams, Franklin, Jefferson), 11 March 1785 A.8 Exhibit H — the verbatim engagement (slot 8): Ogilvie 1882, Imperial Dictionary, “American” entry A.9 Appendix Summary
Colophon
viii
Part I
DOCTRINAL FOUNDATIONS
Chapter 1 Why Beneficiary Identification Matters
1.1 The juridical question this volume addresses
A grant identifies three classes of person, not two. The grantor — the sovereign or natural person whose declaration brings the instrument into being — is one. The grantee — the named recipient or office to whom the immediate transfer runs — is a second. The third is the class that carries the ultimate benefit of the transfer: the cestui que trust in Anglo-American equity, the mawhūb lahu in its beneficiary sense in classical Mālikī fiqh, the destinataire in the civilian tradition. This third class — the beneficiary class — is the subject of the present volume. In transfers between two private persons, the three classes routinely collapse into two. The donor gives, and the recipient holds the benefit for himself. Where the recipient is not the ultimate beneficiary — where the recipient is a custodian, an executor, a trustee, an amīn, a sovereign holding for a population — the third class re-emerges and becomes the controlling juridical question. The grantee’s identity is not the answer to who benefits. The grantee’s identity is the answer to who holds the duty to deliver the benefit to those who do. Volume L of this series settled the prior questions. The 1786 instrument is established as a valid sovereign grant in the classical Mālikī hiba form, executed by the Empire of Morocco in the person of Sīdī Muḥammad III, with full perpetual character.1 The 1836 instrument is established as a hybrid nullity pro tanto under Khalil’s severance rule — the instrument’s English-side codification cannot disturb the underlying 1786 grant’s operative force.2 The grantor’s tradition is established as classical Mālikī, with the donor’s niyyah (intent at execution) governing the grant’s terms in perpetuity under Ground 5 of the Seven Grounds of Legal Impossibility.3
Vol J , Chs. 2–3; Vol L , Ch. 1. Vol L Ch. 3 §3.7 (Ground 7 — hybrid instruments are nullities pro tanto per Khalil’s severance rule); Vol L Ch. 14 §6 (1836 English-side directional pattern). Vol L Ch. 3 §5 (Ground 5 — donor’s niyyah governs in perpetuity); Vol L Ch. 5 (Convergence Thesis — Eight Principles).
Volume M takes those findings as settled and asks the next question. Under the controlling rules of the grantor’s legal tradition and the pre-1836 equity record, who are the beneficiaries of the 1786 hiba, how do they descend, and what evidentiary apparatus establishes them?
1.2 Why the question is not self-answering
A reader new to the classical hiba doctrine may suppose the question already answered by the 1786 controlling text itself. The text identifies its beneficiaries; the matter ends. This supposition rests on two assumptions, both incorrect.