on which to erect their casuistry, their dogma, and their mysticism.  This implied an interpretation of the oldest sources independent from the catholic development of Islam, and in contradiction with the general opinion of the canonists, according to whom, since the fourth or fifth century of the Hijrah, no one is qualified for such free research.  A certain degree of independence of mind, together with a strong attachment to their spiritual past, has given rise in the Moslim world to this sort of liberal protestantism, which in our age has many adherents among the Mohammedans who have come in contact with modern civilization.

That the partisans of all these different conceptions could remain together as the children of one spiritual family, is largely owing to the elastic character of Ijma’, the importance of which is to some extent acknowledged by catholics and protestants, by moderns and conservatives.  It has never been contested that the community, whose agreement was the test of truth, should not consist of the faithful masses, but of the expert elect.  In a Christian church we should have spoken of the clergy, with a further definition of the organs through which it was to express itself synod, council, or Pope.  Islam has no clergy, as we have seen; the qualification of a man to have his own opinion depends entirely upon the scope of his knowledge or rather of his erudition.  There is no lack of standards, fixed by Mohammedan authorities, in which the requirements for a scholar to qualify him for Ijma’ are detailed.  The principal criterion is the knowledge of the canon law; quite what we should expect from the history of the evolution of Islam.  But, of course, dogmatists and mystics had also their own “agreements” on the questions concerning them, and through the compromise between Law, Dogma, and Mysticism, there could not fail to come into existence a kind of mixed Ijma’.  Moreover, the standards and definitions could have only a certain theoretical value, as there never has existed a body that could speak in the name of all.  The decisions of Ijma’ were therefore to be ascertained only in a vague and general way.  The speakers were individuals whose own authority depended on Ijma’, whereas Ijma’ should have been their collective decision.  Thus it was possible for innumerable shades of Catholicism and protestantism to live under one roof; with a good deal of friction, it is true, but without definite breach or schism, no one sect being able to eject another from the community.

Moslim political authorities are bound not only to extend the domain of Islam, but also to keep the community in the right path in its life and doctrine.  This task they have always conceived in accordance with their political interests; Islam has had its religious persecutions but tolerance was very usual, and even official favouring of heresy not quite exceptional with Moslim rulers.  Regular maintenance of religious discipline existed nowhere.  Thus in the bond of political obedience elements which might otherwise have been scattered were held together.  The political decay of Islam in our a day has done away with what had been left of official power to settle religious differences and any organization of spiritual authority never existed.  Hence it is only natural that the diversity of opinion allowed by the grace of Allah now shows itself on a greater scale than ever before.