To the _muftî_ criticism is somewhat more favourable than to the _qâdhî_. A muftî is not necessarily an official; every canonist who, at the request of a layman, expounds to him the meaning of the law on any particular point and gives a _fatwa_, acts as a _muftî_. Be the question in reference to the behaviour of the individual towards God or towards man, with regard to his position in a matter of litigation, in criticism of a state regulation or of a sentence of a judge, or out of pure love of knowledge, the scholar is morally obliged to the best of his knowledge to enlighten the enquirer. He ought to do this for the love of God; but he must live, and the enquirer is expected to give him a suitable present for his trouble. This again gives rise to the danger that he who offers most is attended to first; and that for the liberal rich man a dish is prepared from the casuistic store, as far as possible according to his taste. The temptation is by no means so great as that to which the _qâdhî_ is exposed; especially since the office of judge has become an article of commerce, so that the very first step towards the possession of it is in the direction of Hell. Moreover in "these degenerate times"--which have existed for about ten centuries--the acceptance of an appointment to the function of _qâdhî_ is not regarded as a duty, while a competent scholar may only refuse to give a _fatwa_ under exceptional circumstances. Still, an unusually strong character is needed by the _muftî_, if he is not to fall into the snares of the world. Besides _qâdhîs_ who settle legal disputes of a certain kind according to the revealed law, the state requires its own advisers who can explain that law, i.e., official _muftîs_. Firstly, the government itself may be involved in a litigation; moreover in some government regulations it may be necessary to avoid giving offence to canonists and their strict disciples. In such cases it is better to be armed beforehand with an expert opinion than to be exposed to dangerous criticism which might find an echo in a wide circle. The official _muftî_ must therefore be somewhat pliable, to say the least. Moreover, any private person has the right to put questions to the state _muftî_; and the _qâdhî_ court is bound to take his answers into account in its decisions. In this way the _muftîs_ have absorbed a part of the duties of the _qâdhîs_, and so their office is dragged along in the degradation that the unofficial canonists denounce unweariedly in their writings and in their teaching.