Some Western observers were as strongly impressed with the superiority of Ottoman justice over that in their own lands as they were with the superiority of discipline in the Ottoman camp, or of promotion by merit in the Ottoman government service.[704] One of them said: “To understand at length their diligence in justice, it would be necessary to write more than I have done; and further, since there is nothing here [that is, in France] so near immorality as the processes and extortions which men do, it gives me shame to recite so great diligence among people proclaimed wicked; this it is, without any doubt, which makes them so to rule, conquer, and keep.... Of Sultan Suleiman, who rules at present, I do not wish to speak, for his deeds are not yet accomplished, and he cannot yet be praised, except for his humanity, justice, and fidelity.”[705] The law which the judges administered was primarily the Sacred Law, as given in the Koran and the traditions of Mohammed, but especially as codified by the great doctors of the school of Abu Hanifa, and as interpreted in collections of the _fetvas_ of great jurists. Next the judges applied the _Kanuns_ of the sultans, and the customs and immunities of the regions in which they served.[706] Finally, they had a considerable field in which to make use of equity: “The good sense and prudence of judges trained in reasoning,” says Postel, “supplies and decides many things that are not written.”[707] The only resemblance to the Anglo-Saxon system of case law seems to have been the use of the _fetvas_ of the _muftis_. Since the hearing of ordinary cases was summary and decisions were rendered very briefly, no extended reports were possible. The absence of printing, which was not introduced into Turkey until the eighteenth century, aided further toward making a general use of the decisions of judges as precedents practically impossible. In those days judges relied upon their own knowledge of law and custom, on the few books they might possess, on their sense of equity, and, in matters of difficulty, on the opinions of the local _muftis_. Since the judges were not each surrounded by a group of trained and keenly watchful lawyers, but acted alone except for their own subordinates, there was more opportunity for unjust decisions by a dishonest judge than among English-speaking peoples. Or, to state the matter differently, Ottoman justice depended more upon the integrity of judges than does Anglo-Saxon justice. Although the Sacred Law was rigid, its application to the individual case was adjustable, and adjustment was ordinarily accomplished by the decision of one man. Judges therefore possessed great power over the fortunes of individuals, a fact which in part explains the great deference and honor that was shown them. THE MOSLEM INSTITUTION AS A WHOLE