section_path: Qadi versus mufti
section_name: Qadi versus mufti
paragraph_text: Qadi versus mufti
  
  Similar to a qadi, a mufti is also an interpreting power of Sharia. Muftis are jurists that give authoritative legal opinions, or fatwas, and historically have been known to rank above qadis. With the introduction of the secular court system in the 19th century, Ottoman councils began to enforce criminal legislation to emphasize their position as part of the new executive. That creation of the hierarchical secular judiciary did not displace the original Sharia courts.
  
  Sharia justice developed along lines comparable to what happened to the organization of secular justice: greater bureaucratization, more precise legal circumscription of jurisdiction, and the creation of a hierarchy. This development began in 1856.
  
  Until the Qadi's Ordinance of 1856, the qadis were appointed by the Porte and were part of the Ottoman religious judiciary. This Ordinance recommends the consultation of muftis and the ' ulama. In practice, the sentences of qadis usually were checked by muftis appointed to the courts. Other important decisions were also checked by the mufti of the Majlis al-Ahkam or by a council of ulama connected with it. It is said that if the local qadi and mufti disagreed, it became customary to submit the case to the authoritative Grand Mufti.
  
  Later, in 1880, the new Sharia Courts Ordinance introduced the hierarchical judiciary. Through the Ministry of Justice, parties could appeal to the Cairo Sharia Court against decisions of provincial qadis and ni'ibs. There, parties could appeal to the Sharia Court open to the Shaykh al-Azhar and the Grand Mufti, and other people could be added.
  
  Lastly, judges were to consult the muftis appointed to their courts whenever a case was not totally clear to them. If the problem was not solved, the case had to be submitted to the Grand Mufti, whose fatwa was binding on the qadi.