Los Angeles herald. [microfilm reel] (Los Angeles [Calif.]) 1900-1911, 1909-05-19

their fetwas also in private disputes.
Generally the question at dispute Is
submitted to them in such definite alb
stract form, without giving names, SO
as to require the answer yes or no
and the answer is then briefly COM
mented by a concise quotation of re-
speetive passage of the law of the
scheriat. The sultan, though kalif, Is
no priest; /. e., he has followed the
study of Mohammedan theology; he
does not belong to the ulemas There
fore, he appoints an ulema as Seheich
uel Islam who represents him in the
duties of the spiritual head of Islam
in the empire.
Rights of Life and Death
But the Mohammedan clergymen are
not priests. They are not ordained, re-
ceiving by such procedure divine
priestly powers; they do not admins
trate ecclesiastical mysteries; they are
merely the learned in the religious law,
the teachers opponents and executors
of the law. Just as the muftis have to
interpret the law of the scheriat for
concrete cases, SO the scheichs, mu-
deris and chodschas have to teach the
law, the kadis have to judge according
to the law and the imams are merely
the leaders in prayer. All these persons
are Mohammedan clergymen in the
larger sense of the word. To the ule-
mas are counted only the theologians
of complete and perfect training and
not the simple chodschas and imams.
The scheich uel islam is just as little
ordained to priesthood as the other
Mohammedan clergy. The sultan sim
ply appoints him at will to the highest
spiritual position from the ranks of the
ulemas. But by this appointment he
becomes a personality in a position of
great menace to the sultan. Not only
can he impede or invalidate mandates
of the sultan as being contradictory to
the Koran, but by fetWa he can even
declare the sultan unworthy of being
a ruler and to legitimate his deposition.
This has happened frequently in the
empire of the Osmanli Turks, but in
such cases the scheich uel islams acted
mostly as tools of the will of the people
or of a political party. In this priv
ilege OF the scheich uel islam is a cor
receive of the despotic power Of sui
tans. But the Osmanli sultans were
seldom ruled or directed by the scheich
uel Islam. The ulemas mostly did not
call for more than to be permitted to
enjoy undisturbedly their privileges and
let the sultans do as they pleased. The
despotic right over life and death of
the subjects. in especial over the gov
eminent officials considered as his
slaves, the sultan has never been re-
stricted by the religious law and its
guardians, and only in rare cases the
ulemas protested against tyranny of,
the sultan. Only in very recent times
also the softas, the students of theolo-
gy, have participated in politics.
May Change Ancient Laws
Pliable and unprejudiced scheich uel
islams have made it possible in the
nGnfnpV IN obtain for the
Christians, so to say, by acts of inter-
probation of the law of Islam, equal
rights with the Moslem in almost every
thing in principle as we'll as in prac-
tice. BY this procedure of progress,
which in the start was a horror to the
majority of the Mohammedan popula-
ton and did not reconcile the Chris
tian subjects, Turkey has lost to a
greater extent it's character of a
strictly Mohammedan state. But in it's
essential Institutions it remained, as
1t could not be expected else, a Mo-
hammedan state, fundamentally differ
ent from all European states in spite of
its many surface limitations. Such an
imitation, which by it's inherent nature
is in conflict with Islamitic conceptions
of the state, and which yet was advo-'
Gated as religiously admissible by toll
ierant and liberal minded ulemas, is
the introduction of parliamentarism at
tempted in 1876, then failing, and tried
again in the recent times. The prophet
Mohammed consulted also with his adj
herents. ("Their official acts shall be
object of consultation between them
selves. KORAN, suve 42:30) This
seems to speak for parliament, but
not for one in which -Mohamme-
dams could participate and vote on de-
The theocratical character cannot be
and separated from the Mo-
hammedan monarchy without shaking
its foundation, and a theocratic state
cannot be we'll ruled with parliament.
That in spite of all it's reforms and
tolerance Turkey remains as yet an
state is most distinctly mani
tested to the outside, Independent of
the peculiarities of its inner organiza-
ton, by the rigid and Interchangeable
confession of faith of the ruling dy-
nasty, by the permission of slavery and
by the, up to this time, purely Moham-
medan army. slavery has receded
from the foreground since the prohibit
ton of the public slave trade, and legal
polygamy has also receded, being hard
ly of Importance any more in Turkey.
It Is questionable If the Young Turks.
who already in principle have decided
the admissbility of Christians in the
army, thing decided upon repeatedly
in the past, will be capable to abolish
also in principle the Mohammedan in
of slavery) But we must
not overlook the fact that the present
Turkish empire is already for
about half a century, and not only
since the recent Young Turk revolution,
a modern Mohammedan state, which is
just as far differentiated from the
above related old strictly Mohammedan
state as from the states of Christen-
to "a
latter because, as explained previously.
the law of the scheriat can be adopted
and eliminated in many matters by in
and amendments as soon
as not only the government but also
the Moslem clergy with the people are
brought to see the necessity of so
doing.