We are not called upon here to enter into the minutiae of the fine-spun casuistic of the Fiqh. The main subject handled in it is an ideal righteousness, which can never be illustrated in all its purity in our imperfect world. We are acquainted now with its principles, and with the position which it holds in Islam. Let us merely add a brief notice of the division of moral acts which was formulated by ethical teachers. According to this classification there are: 1. Acts, the practice of which is an absolute duty and is therefore rewarded, and the omission of which is punished: 2. Acts which are recommended by the Law, and are the subject of reward, but the neglect of which does not call for punishment: 3. Acts which are permitted, but which in the eyes of the Law are a matter of indifference: 4. Acts which the Law disapproves of, but does not hold as punishable: 5. Acts which are forbidden by the Law and which demand unconditional punishment [10]. 4. Greek philosophic enquiries have had a two-fold influence upon the Ethics of Islam. With many of the sectaries and mystics, both orthodox and heretic, an ascetic system of Ethics is found, coloured by Pythagorean-Platonic views. The same thing appears with philosophers, whom we shall afterwards meet again. But in orthodox circles the Aristotelian deliverance,—that virtue consists in the just mean—, found much acceptance, because something similar stood in the Koran, and because, generally, the tendency of Islam was a catholic one,—one conciliatory of opposites. More attention indeed was given to Politics than to Ethics, in the Muslim empire, and the struggles of political parties were the first thing to occasion difference of opinion. Disputes about the Imâmat, i.e. the headship in the Muslim Church, pervade the entire history of Islam; but the questions discussed have commonly more of a personal and practical than a theoretical importance, and therefore a history of philosophy does not need to consider them very fully. Hardly anything of philosophic value emerges in them. Even in the course of the first centuries there was developed a firm body of constitutional law canonically expressed; but this, like the ideal system of duty, was not particularly heeded by strong rulers,—who viewed it as mere theological brooding,—while, on the other hand, by weak princes it could not be applied at all. Just as little is it worth our while to examine minutely the numerous ‘mirrors of Princes’, which were such favourites, in Persia especially, and in whose wise moral saws, and maxims of political sagacity, the courtly circles found edification.