I am just curious . . . how would one go about becoming a faqih (jurist in Islamic jurisprudence)? Is there a way to become a faqih without following one or any of the five (usually, sometimes four) accepted madhahib (schools of Islamic jurisprudence), those being the Hanafi, Hanbali, Maliki, Shafii, and Imami or Ja’fari madhahib? I know Ibn Taymima didn’t believe the gates of ijtihad were closed. Usuli Ithna Ashari Shii also believe in ijtihad. So it’s possible, I guess, to be a faqih without taqlid to a or any madhhab?
I know that there are several levels of officials in fiqh. Faqih - jurist, qazi - judge, and mufti - who issues fatawa (plural of fatwa). Does one aspire to a certain position? How does one become a mufti? Is one appointed or acknowledged as a faqih or mufti, or is there a certification process?
Please don’t read too much into this. I’m just interested in what goes into becoming a faqih or mufti and what restrictions there may be, which I can’t find much about.
Thanks for the vote of confidence ( less thanks to the sarcastic baiting, but I suppose everyone needs a hobby ), but I can only give a very general answer.
Just as there is no fixed hiearchy in Sunni Islam and only a loose one in Imami Shi’a Islam, so there appears to be no fixed credentials required to achieve a particular clerical status. The bare minimum is generally literacy in Arabic ( to read the Qur’an in its original form ), but even that gets tossed by the wayside sometimes ( especially in rural or impoverished areas ). Generally these things are vetted by peers ( especially in the more structured Shi’a system ) - i.e. theological scholarship is recognized by other theologians/jurists to have reached a certain level. At times it is in part state-appointed ( i.e. certain religious offices in the late Ottoman state or modern Saudi Arabia ). Often it is influenced by size and status of following - i.e. a Grand Ayatollah may be recognized by one group of Shi’ites as a “source of emulation”, but not recognized by others. In short it is inconsistent and sometimes a bit confusing.
However I’m afraid I am not schooled on specific, internal details of how, say, the clerical establishment at Qom or Najaf arrive at a consensus on who merits what status and why. I am only conversant ( if at all ) with how the establishment tends to view certain individuals after-the-fact, as it were. For example I can tell you that Grand Ayatollah Khamene’i seems to be poorly regarded in theological circles as a theologian of middlin’ status that was elevated to his rank purely through an act of nepotism by Khomeini, who was looking for an ideologically like-minded successor. But I couldn’t tell you exactly why he is considered a theological lightweight.
Not to bump this from oblivion, but I wanted to thank Tamerlane for his wonderful answer.
Your answer was very informative and enlightening. As I did further research, I found that you were absolutely correct: there is no strict hierarchy or system by which way one may ascend the ranks. It all depends on one’s popularity and acknowledgement by peers and superiors. Which also means that either demogogues or moderates tend to rise.
I was about to consider joining an Islamic institution of higher education in America to study Islam and then try to promote a moderate form from within, until I read that the institution I was about to consider was connected with a US Army (I think) chaplain who was caught abetting the enemy.
I also realized that there would be no way I would survive any Islamic institution of higher education - I would be kicked out or executed (depending on where the institution was) for apostasy or heresy within the first day.
But thanks, Tamerlane. You are, as always, one of my SDMB heroes.