The one who seeks a legal verdict (mustafti) is not a muqallid, because the muqallid is one who adopts the Sharī’ah rule and acts upon it. As for the mustafti (one who seeks a legal verdict), he is the one who learns the hukm Shar’i from a person who knows this hukm, whether that person is a mujtahid or not, and whether the mustafti learned it in order to practise it or just for the sake of knowledge. The mustafti is anyone who seeks to know the rule of Allah  pertaining to an issue. So anyone who is not a mujtahid with regard to a hukm is a seeker of a legal verdict in regard to that hukm. Thus the one who is not a mujtahid in any issue he is a mustafti (seeker of a legal verdict) in all issues. Whoever is a mujtahid in certain issues he is a mustafti in the issues he has not exercised Ijtihād in. As for the one who explains the rule of Allah  to a mustafti (seeker of a legal verdict) he is a mufti. It is said in the Arabic language:

And he sought a legal opinion from an ‘alim regarding an issue means he requested him to give a legal opinion about it. The legal opinions of the Sahabah and the Tabi’een are the rules they clarified to the people. And since having knowledge of Allah’s rule is a fard, there must be people, whether mujtahids or not who can teach the Sharī’ah rules to others, irrespective of whether they teach the people the rules with or without the evidences. Since it is not stipulated that the one who teaches the rules should be a mujtahid, just as it is not stipulated for the Muslim who teaches others to clarify the evidences, it is allowed for someone who knows a hukm to teach it to others when he becomes conversant about that hukm. Furthermore, because it is not stipulated for the one who gives legal opinions to people regarding the Sharī’ah rules or teaches them himself to be a mujtahid, on the contrary it is permitted for a non-mujtahid, who is acquainted with the Sharī’ah rule of a mujtahid to deliver a legal opinion using that hukm because he is a carrier of the hukm even if he does not declare about this. In performing this action there is no difference between an ‘alim and others, such as in the reporting of ahadīth. Just as it is not stipulated that the transmitter of a hadīth be an ‘alim it is not stipulated either for the one who conveys a hukm Shar’i to others to be an ‘alim. So it is by greater reason (min bab al-awla) that there should be no stipulation for him to be a mujtahid. Even though it is stipulated that he should know the hukm that he conveys in a clear and accurate manner since he cannot convey it to others if he is not precise and unable to convey it properly. Likewise, it is not stipulated for the person who teaches people the hukm Shar’i or gives them legal opinions to teach them the evidence or convey it to them, Rather it is allowed for him to limit himself just to conveying the hukm Shar’i without quoting the evidence. i.e, it is permitted for him to give fatwa with the hukm Shar’i and teach it to people without clarifying them the evidence. However, he is required to explain to them that what he transmits to them is a hukm Shar’i or the inference (istinbat) of someone else i.e, of a certain mujtahid. However if he conveys an opinion and he says to them:

‘This is my opinion’ or he conveys to them an opinion and says: ‘This is the hukm because so and-so mujtahid said such and such thing’, what he imparts is not considered a Sharī’ah rule since the statement of a mujtahid is not a Sharī’ah evidence. Using their speech as an evidence for a hukm invalidates its status as a hukm Shar’i. However, if he ascribes the hukm to a mujtahid’s deduction then it is a Hukm Shar’i even if he does not expound the evidence.

This was common practise in the time of the Sahabah. The people used to seek legal opinions from the mujtahidin and follow them in the Sharī’ah rules. The learned among them used to respond to their questions without alluding to the evidence and they were not forbidden from doing that. None from the Sahabah objected. Thus it became an ijma’ (consensus) amongst the Sahabah on the legality of a layman following a mujtahid without mentioning the evidence, it was also an ijma’ on the permissibility of learning the rules of Allah  and teaching them without learning or teaching the evidence. The layman (‘ammi) and the follower (muttabi’) are the same with regards to that. It is allowed for any one of them to seek verdicts from the other and teach the hukm shar’i he correctly understands to the other whether he knew the evidence or not. This is because anyone who gains knowledge of a hukm is considered to be knowledgeable about that hukm. So it is allowed for him to teach it to others. However, the layman (‘ammi) limits himself to conveying what he knows exactly as he learnt it. As for the follower (muttabi’) he teaches what he knows and he gives verdicts according to what he knows because he possess some of the recognised disciplines in Ijtihād, He comprehends the rules and he knows how to teach them and how to give legal opinions with them. However, learning the rules and giving opinions with them does not constitute making Taqlīd to the teacher or the mufti. This is considered only as the giving of opinions or learning a hukm. Taqlīd should be made to the one who deduced the hukm and not the one who teaches it or gives verdicts by it. However, it has been stipulated that the teacher, in analogy to the witness, be just i.e, without manifesting any transgressions in the Sharī’ah. Since the witness informs about an incident and the teacher also informs about the hukm of Allah . So both inform about something, for which trustworthiness (‘adala) is a stipulation. Also, Allah  has forbidden the Muslims to accept the statement of a fasiq (transgression) and ordered them to check it. He  said:

The use of the word ‘fasiq’ (transgressor) and ‘naba’ (news) in their indefinite (verbal noun) forms indicate that when any fasiq (transgressor) comes with any news, the people should desist from adopting what he says and seek to verify the matter and discover the true reality and not simply accept what he says. The opposite meaning (mafhum al-mukhalafa) of this verse is that the statement of the upright and just (‘adl) person is taken whether for the purpose of giving legal opinions or acquiring knowledge.