The judicial procedure of Eastern Mohammedans is equally remarkable. They entirely reject the Urf, _i.e._, the decision of the judge, based upon his own judgment and convictions, in cases where the Sheriat (the laws of the Koran) is insufficient; as also the Kanun, _i.e._, laws framed by later legislators. The latter they regard as heretical innovations, and they take the Sheriat, or the code of laws emanating from the Koran, as their sole and infallible guide. That the laws Mohammed framed twelve hundred years ago for the social wants of the simple Arabs, should not suit every clime and epoch, can be no matter of surprise. In Turkey and Persia the necessity for reform has long been felt. The Governments of these countries have tried in all cases to supply the deficiencies of their primitive codes by supplemental additions, however much the opinions of the Ulemas resisted such a step, naturally foreseeing from it, as they did, the downfall of their power. In Turkestan, not only the Mollahs, but the Government, and everybody in fact, is highly indignant at the very idea of a supplement. In their eyes the Koran is "as fine as a hair, as sharp as a sword, and satisfies all possible wants of life;" whoever thought differently would be treated as a wicked man and an infidel. People eat, drink and dress, in strict conformity with the precepts of the Koran; it is the standing rule, by which all taxes and toll-moneys are levied, the standard, by which all wars are conducted, and the guide for directing their relations with foreign powers! Upon the same principle, any innovation in domestic life is strictly forbidden as _sin_. England, Russia, and other modern states, of whom the Koran makes no mention, cannot be recognised by the Tartar rulers _de facto_; on the contrary, they consider it their duty to oppose them as intruders by the law of the Djihad (the religious combat), a policy which will, of course, as already sufficiently shown, lead them to entire destruction. With regard to the Shiitish Persians, the Eastern Mohammedans stand in a very different relation to them from their Western brethren. This religious schism, as is well known, has often been the cause of long and bloody wars,--under the pretext of a temporary quarrel. Ever since the first dissensions took place between the dynasties Akkoyunlu and Karakayunlu, Turks and Arabs have frequently been opposed to the Persians in destructive and calamitous wars: deep hatred and bitter resentment separated the two sects, and the former succeeded in ejecting their Shiitish enemies from the bond of Islamism. The Persian is looked upon as an heretical Mussulman, but always as a Mussulman; he is admitted to the holy cities and all places of pilgrimage, the orthodox Sunnite does not object to pray with him in the same mosque, and in modern times the hatred between the Osmanli and Persian has already so far diminished that the latter is permitted by law to intermarry with the former.