holy order before the
Resurrection, was a necessary consequence of the amalgamation of the
political expectations formed under Shi'itic influence, with eschatological
conceptions formerly borrowed by Islam from Christianity.

The orthodox Mahdi differs from that of the Shi'ah in many ways. He is not
an _imam_ returning after centuries of disappearance, but a descendant of
Mohammed, coming into the world in the ordinary way to fulfill the ideal of
the Khalifate. He does not re-establish the legitimate line of successors
of the Prophet; but he renews the glorious tradition of the Khalifate,
which after the first thirty years was dragged into the general
deterioration, common to all human things. The prophecies concerning his
appearance are sometimes of an equally supernatural kind as those of the
Shiites, so that the period of his coming has passed more and more
from the political sphere to which it originally belonged, into that of
eschatology. Yet, naturally, it is easier for a popular leader to make
himself regarded as the orthodox Mahdi than to play the part of the
returned _imam_. Mohammedan rulers have had more trouble than they cared
for with candidates for the dignity of the Mahdi; and it is not surprising
that in official Turkish circles there is a tendency to simplify the
Messianic expectation by giving the fullest weight to this traditional
saying of Mohammed "There is no mahdi but Jesus," seeing that Jesus must
come from the clouds, whereas other mahdis may arise from human society.

In the orthodox expectation of the Mahdi the Moslim theory has most sharply
expressed its condemnation of the later political history of Islam. In the
course of the first century after the Hijrah the Qoran scholars (_garis_)
arose; and these in turn were succeeded by the men of tradition (_ahl
al-hadith_) and by the canonists (_faqihs_) of later times. These learned
men (_ulama'_) would not endure any interference with their right to state
with authority what Islam demanded of its leaders. They laid claim to an
interpretative authority concerning the divine law, which bordered upon
supreme legislative power; their agreement (Ijma') was that of the
infallible community. But just as beside this legislative agreement, a
dogmatic and a mystic agreement grew up, in the same way there was a
separate Ijma' regarding the political government, upon which the canonists
could exercise only an indirect influence. In other words since the
acce