ed by
judges in the form of decisions. A systematic knowledge of the whole
body of Mahometan law was important to the Indian lawyer, as enabling
him more thoroughly to understand the system, and its various isolated
doctrines; but the whole body of that law was at no time binding in
India. Since the establishment of British sway, only so much of the
Mahometan law as has kept its ground in the practice of the courts,
or has been reenacted by the "regulations" or "ordinances" of the
Anglo-Indian Government, _is law_; the rest is only valuable as the
"antiquities of the law," which help to trace the origin of what
survives, and thereby throw light upon what in it is obscure or
doubtful.

Among the most valuable, if not indeed the most valuable of the
compilations from which we may obtain a knowledge of Mahometan
jurisprudence, is the "Futawa Alumgeeree," mentioned in Mr. Baillie's
title-page. Its value is not confined to the purposes of those
who would make themselves acquainted with Mahometan jurisprudence
in the peculiar form it assumed in India. It is highly esteemed
throughout Islam, and is quoted even by the doctors of Mecca as the
Futawa-i-hind, or the Indian _responsa prudentum_. It was compiled by
the orders of the Emperor Aurungzebe. It is a digest of the "Futawa"
of the most celebrated jurists of the Hanifeh (or, as Mr. Baillie
spells it, _Hunefeeah_) sect or school. Mr. Baillie informs us in
his preface, that "_futawa_ is the plural form of _futwa_, a term in
common use in Mahometan countries to signify an exposition of law by a
public officer called the _mooftee_, or a case submitted to him by the
_kazee_ or judge." The "futwa," therefore, seems to correspond not
so much with our English "decisions" or "precedents" as with the
"responsa prudentum," that fertile source of doctrines in the Roman
law. The "Futawa Alumgeeree" consequently resembles the Pandects
of Justinian in being a systematical arrangement of selections from
juridical authorities--compiled by Imperial authority; but differs
from it in this, that the selections are made exclusively from the
"responsa prudentum," and a few legal treatises, whereas Justinian's
digest combined with those excerpts from judicial decisions,
praetorian edicts, &c. With this distinction, we may regard the "Futawa
Alumgeeree" as the Pandects or Digest of Mahometan Law. As in the
Roman work of that name, to each extract is appended the name of the
original work from whic