1 – Some of the ‘Ulamaa, including Abu Ishaq Al-Marouziy, said that if the Muqallid took that which was easiest and lightest upon him from every Madh’hab, then he would have committed Fisq (clear disobedience) meaning that he would be sinful and disobedient.

That is whilst the Hanaabilah specified the Fisq (clear disobedience) to the Mujtahid if he was to follow what was the lightest and easiest upon him. Al-Imaam Ahmad Bin Hanbal said: If a man acted in accordance to the opinion of the people of Kufa in respect to Nabeedh (beverage), the people of Al-Madinah in respect to As-Samaa’ and the people of Makkah in regards to Al-Mut’ah (temporary marriage), then he would have been a Faasiq. And the Hanaabilah specified the Fisq to the Mujtahid whilst the Muqallid Al- ‘Aammiy, if he was to make Taqleed in respect to that, he would not have committed Fisq.

Al-Imaam Ahmad mentioned the three matters previously mentioned because the people of Kufa used to permit Nabeedh, the people of Al-Madinah used to permit As-Samaa’ (listening to songs and instruments) and the people of Makkah permitted the Mut’ah marriage.

2 – As for ‘Izz ud-Deen ‘Abdis Salaam, then he said: The action that the Mujtahid does is examined. If it is from that which its prohibition is widely known in the Shar’a then he would have sinned and if it was not, then he would not have. He therefore restricted or specified the following of the Rukhas to that which its Tahreem (prohibition) was not widely known.

3 – Some of the ‘Ulamaa, including Ibn ul-Himaam, said: There is no preventer (Maani’) preventing the following of the Rukhas as it is permitted for the person to follow according to what is the lightest upon him. That is in the case where the Muqallid has not acted in accordance to another Hukm within the Mas’alah (issue). They would say that the Messenger of Allah (saw) used to love that which was lighter for the Sahaabah (rah).