s been derived from that source. To
the general scholar who wishes to master the civil history of Arabia
and Babylonia, in which the Sunnite sect, and more particularly the
Hanifite subdivision of it, originated, or to familiarize himself
with the moral theories which regulate the judgments and actions of
the modern Turks, Turcomans, Arabians, and Egyptians, the digest of
Aurungzeebee is also a valuable repertory of facts and illustrations.

For this reason we incline to be of opinion that Mr. Baillie is
mistaken in thinking that a selection from the two books of the
"Futawa Alumgeeree," which embrace the subject of "sale" can have much
utility for Indian practitioners. It does not follow, because a legal
doctrine is declared sound in this work, that it is or ever has been
practically applicable in India. As an authoritative declaration of
legal doctrines, the book is as likely to mislead as to guide aright.
On the other hand, as an exposition of the general principles of
Mahometan law, even with regard to sale, it is necessarily imperfect.
The work from which it is taken is a collection of legal opinions,
which had in their day the force of judicial decisions--of something
equivalent to the "responsa prudentum" of Roman jurisprudence. Each is
expounded on its own merits; and all the special doctrines involved
in it are laid down. Hence it comes, that much that is calculated
to throw light on the principles of the law of sale must be sought
under other heads; and that much included in the chapters ostensibly
treating of sale refers to other topics. As part of an entire digest
of the law compiled on the same principle as that of Justinian,
the two books relating to sale are sufficient; but for an isolated
treatise on "sale," they contain at once too much and too little.

Nevertheless, we welcome Mr. Baillie's publication as a valuable
addition to juridical and even to general literature. The translation,
though not by any means free from defects, is the best specimen of
a really good Mahometan law-book that has yet been published. The
defects to which we allude are twofold. In the first place, though Mr.
Baillie mentions that in the original the name of the treatise from
which it is taken is appended to every excerpt, he has not in his
translation given those references. His work is not therefore what
the original is, a Chrestomathia of the best Arabian jurists--a
succedaneum for their complete works--an illustration of