Taqlīd shi ne karɓar ra'yin wani mutum ba tare da hujja mai ɗaurewa ba. Saboda haka, karɓar ra'yin wani mutum ba tare da hujja mai ɗaurewa ana ɗaukarsa taqlīd, kamar yadda aiki bisa ra'yin wani ba tare da hujja mai ɗaurewa ana ɗaukarsa taqlīd. Wannan yana kama da yadda mutumin da ba shi da ilimi yake karɓar ra'yin mujtahid, ko kuma yadda mujtahid yake karɓar ra'yi daga wani mai irin matsayinsa. Komawa ga Manzon Allah ﷺ ba taqlīd ba ne a gare shi, haka nan komawa ga ijma'in Sahabbai ba taqlīd ba ne a gare su, domin hakan yana nufin komawa ga hujjar kanta, ba karɓar ra'yin wani ba. Haka kuma, komawar mutumin da ba shi da ilimi zuwa ga mufti ba ana ɗaukarta taqlīd a gare shi ba; a maimakon haka, nemar fatawa ce da koyo, ba karɓa ba. Don haka yana komawa gare shi ko dai don neman fatawa ko don koyo; wato komawar wanda ba shi da ilimi zuwa ga malami ba ana ɗaukarta taqlīd a gare shi ba, domin hakan ko dai tambaya ce game da hukuncin shari'a ko kuma koyon sa. Amma karɓar ra'ayi tare da sanin hujjarsa, to za a yi duba a kan haka. Idan sanin hujjar ilimi ne kawai, kamar sanin cewa ziyarar kabarbura halal ce saboda Manzon Allah ﷺ ya ce:

Taqlīd is the adoption of another person’s opinion without a binding proof. So the acceptance of another person’s opinion without a binding proof is considered Taqlīd just as acting according to the opinion of another without a binding proof is considered Taqlīd. That is like the layman’s adoption of the opinion of a mujtahid or the adoption of the mujtahid of an opinion from someone like him. Referring to the Messenger PBUH is not Taqlīd to him and nor referring to the ijma’ of the Sahabah is Taqlīd to them because it constitutes referring to the evidence itself and not adopting the opinion of another. Likewise, the laymen’s reference to a mufti is not considered Taqlīd to him, rather it constitutes seeking a legal opinion and learning and not adoption. So he either refers to him to seek a legal verdict (fatwa) or to learn, that is, the reference of a layman to a learned person is not considered Taqlīd to him because it constitutes either inquiring about a hukm Shar’i or learning it. As for the adoption of an opinion with knowledge of its evidence, it will be looked into. If the knowledge of the evidence is mere knowledge, like knowing that visiting the graves is permitted because the Messenger PBUH said:

Saboda haka, a wannan yanayi ana ɗaukar sa a matsayin muqallid domin ya karɓi ra'ayin wani ba tare da hujja mai ɗaurewa ba, koda kuwa ya san dalilin. Duk da haka, muqallid da kansa bai yi amfani da wannan dalili a matsayin hujja ba, don haka ba hujja mai ɗaurewa ba ce a gare shi. Amma idan an fahimci dalilin bayan an bincika shi, sannan aka fitar da hukunci daga gare shi, to ana ɗaukar hakan a matsayin ijtihadi wanda ya yi daidai da ijtihadin wanda ya fara riƙe wannan ra'ayi. Hakan ya faru ne domin wannan tsari ya dogara ne akan sanin cewa hukuncin ba shi da wani abu mai karo da shi, wanda kuma ya dogara ne akan binciken dalilai sosai, abin da mujtahid kaɗai zai iya yi. Saboda haka, muqallid ba mujtahid ba ne. Dangane da hukuncin shari'a, mutane ko dai mujtahid ne ko muqallid, babu wani kashi na uku. Wato, ko dai ya fitar da hukuncin da kansa, koda kuwa wani ya fitar da shi a baya, ko kuma ya fitar da shi tun farko da kansa, ko kuma ya karɓi fitar da hukuncin daga wani mujtahid. Saboda haka, duk wanda ba shi da ƙarfin ijtihadi, to muqallid ne, ko yana da ilimin wasu daga cikin ilimomin da aka amince da su a ijtihadi ko bai da shi. Don haka yana cikin rukunin muqallid 'ammi (talaka) ko muttabi'. Sai dai muttabi' yana yin taklidi ne a kan sharadin cewa ya san dalilin mujtahid, shi kuwa 'ammi yana yin taklidi ba tare da wani sharadi ba.

Then in this situation he is considered a muqallid because he has adopted the opinion of another without a binding proof even if he knew the evidence. However, the muqallid himself did not use this evidence as proof so it is not a binding proof with respect to him. As for if an understanding of the evidence was arrived at after examining the evidence and then deducing the hukm from it, it is then regarded as an Ijtihād which agrees with the Ijtihād of the one who initially held this opinion. That is because this process depends on realizing that the Hukm is free of conflicting factor based on the necessity of studying it, a matter which depends on the close examination of the evidences, something only the Mujtahid can do. Therefore, the muqallid is not a mujtahid. People with regards to the hukm Shar’i are either mujtahid or muqallid and none other. i.e, either he deduces the hukm himself whether some one else had deduced it before or he himself deduced it from the onset or he adopts the deduction of another mujtahid. Therefore, whoever does not have the capacity for Ijtihād he is a muqallid irrespective of whether he had knowledge of some of the legally recognised disciplines in Ijtihād or not. So he falls under the category of muqallid ‘ammi (layman) or muttabi’. However, the muttabi’ imitates on condition that he knows the evidence of the mujtahid while the ‘ammi he imitates without any condition.

Ana halatta ga muqallid, ko shi muttabi' ne ko 'ammi, ya karɓi ra'ayin kowane mujtahid matuƙar an tabbatar cewa wannan ra'ayin nasa ijtihadi ne, koda kuwa an tabbatar da shi ta hanyar hadisi guda ɗaya (khabar ahad). Idan ya fuskanci wata matsala, bai san ra'ayoyin mujtahidai ba amma ya san ra'ayin mujtahid guda ɗaya, to halal ne a gare shi ya karɓi hukuncin Shari'a da wannan mujtahid ya fitar, domin abin da ake buƙata daga gare shi shi ne karɓar hukuncin Shari'a a cikin wata matsala, ba bin ra'ayoyin mujtahidai ba. A irin wannan yanayi, ba a buƙatar tarjihi daga gare shi. Idan kuma ya san ra'ayoyin mujtahidai, ya so ya karɓi ɗaya daga cikinsu, to ba zai yi daidai ba a gare shi ya yi wani abu face yin tarjihi, kuma wannan tarjihi bai kamata ya kasance bisa dacewar hukuncin da son zuciyarsa ko amfanin da ake gani ba, tun da manufar Shari'a ita ce ta kuɓutar da mukallafi daga tafiya bisa son zuciyarsa da sha'awarsa, ta kuma mai da shi bawan Allah na gaskiya. Hakika, tarjihi ya kasance bisa siffar fifiko ta Shari'a, wato, wannan siffa ta kasance tana da alaƙa da Allah da Manzon Allah ﷺ. Ya ce:

Yin magana game da Allah da Manzonsa shi ne ko dai game da maganar Allah ko Sunnar Manzonsa watau, hujjar Shari’ah, ko kuma game da abin da Allah ko Manzonsa ya umarta. Saboda haka, sharuddan rinjaye sun bambanta gwargwadon yanayin muqallidai daban-daban. I, sharadin rinjaye gaba ɗaya ga mutumin talaka shi ne, bayan hujja, wanda yake da mafi kyawun ilimi da fahimta. Wannan kuma shi ne babban sharadin rinjaye ga dukkan muqallidai. Sai dai akwai wasu sharuddan rinjaye daban da mutane za su iya amfani da su wajen yin rinjaye, tare da ko ba tare da sharadin mafi kyawun ilimi ba. Don haka talaka yana bin mujtahidi gwargwadon yadda ya amince da fahimtarsa da takawarsa (tsoron Allah), daga cikin mutanen da ya sani, kamar lokacin da ya amince da mahaifinsa ko wani daga cikin malamai, sai ya bi waɗanda suka bi shi. Wannan rinjaye ga talaka yana kasancewa ne daga mahangar addini, ba daga mahangar son zuciyarsa ba. Ko kuma wani sharadin rinjaye shi ne talaka ya san dokokin Shari’ah da hujjojinsu ta hanyar halartar darussan fiqhu, hadisi da sauransu. A wannan matakin yana iya bambance tsakanin hukunce-hukunce da hujjojinsu. Wannan mutum yana yin rinjaye a cikin taqlidi gwargwadon sanin da yake da shi game da hujja. Don haka sai ya bi hukuncin da hujjarsa ya sani, idan ya ci karo da wani hukunci wanda hujjarsa ba ya sani ba. Sa’an nan zai kasance da hukuncin da yake da alaƙa da hujja, wanda ya fi hukuncin da ba shi da alaƙa da hujja. Waɗannan yanayi guda biyu sun shafi talaka; wato duk wanda ba shi da ilimin wasu daga cikin sanannun ilimomin Ijtihādi ba. Saboda haka, talaka a cikin dukkan waɗannan yanayi, idan wata hujja ta bayyana gare shi, dole ne ya bar Taqlīd ɗin da ya dogara da shi a kan amincewarsa ga ilimi da taqwa na waɗanda suke bin mujtahid ɗin da yake bi, ya karɓi hukuncin da ke da alaƙa da hujja, domin yanzu yana da wata cancanta mai ƙarfi da ta fi rinjaye. Saboda haka duk wanda ya kasance yana bin Shafi'i ko wasu, saboda mahaifinsa yana bin sa, idan hujjar wani hukuncin Shar'i, wanda wani mujtahid ba wanda ya bi ya fitar da shi, ta bayyana gare shi kuma ya yi imani da ita, to dole ne ya karɓi wannan hukunci saboda kasancewar wata cancanta mai ƙarfi da ta fi rinjaye, wato hujjar Shari'a. Idan kuma bai yi imani da ita ba, to ba shi da damar barin hukuncin da yake bi, tun da ba shi da wata cancanta mai rinjaye da za ta tabbatar da hakan. A cikin zaɓen mafi rinjaye (tarjeeh), yana dogara ne ga jin alamomi (qara'in). Ba shi da damar ya karɓi mazhabobi daban-daban bisa son rai. Haka kuma ba shi da damar ya bi mazhabobi a kowace mas'ala wacce ta fi sauƙi a gare shi, a maimakon haka dole ne ya nemi cancanta mai rinjaye idan akwai fiye da fahimta ɗaya game da hukunce-hukuncen.

Referring to Allah  and to His Messenger  is either to the word of Allah  or the Sunnah of His Messenger  i.e, to the Sharī’ah evidence, either to what Allah  or His Messenger  has ordered. Consequently, the preponderant qualifications differ according to the different states of the muqallids. Yes, the general preponderant qualification for the layman is, subsequent to the evidence, the one who has the best knowledge and comprehension. And this is the primary preponderant qualifications for all muqallids. However, there are different preponderant qualifications which people may use to outweigh, with or without the preponderant qualification of best knowledge. So the layman follows a mujtahid according to his trust of the understanding and taqwa (God fearing) of the ones who follow him, from the people he knows, like when he trusts his father or one of the ‘Ulama, so he follows the ones who follow him. This tarjeeh (outweighing) for the ‘ammi (layman) is from the perspective of the deen and not the perspective of his whims. Or, another preponderant qualification is that the layman knows the Sharī’ah rules and the evidences by attending lessons on fiqh, hadīth etc. At that point he is able to distinguish between rules and their evidences. This person outweighs in Taqlīd according to his acquaintance with the evidence. So he follows the hukm the evidence for which he is familiar with, when it contradicts with a hukm the evidence for which he is not acquainted with, He will then have a hukm which is linked to an evidence which is preferable to a hukm which is not linked to an evidence. These two situations apply to the layman; who is anyone who does not have knowledge of some of the recognised disciplines in Ijtihād Therefore, the layman in all of these situations, when an evidence becomes manifest to him, he must leave the Taqlīd that is based on his trust of the knowledge and taqwa of those who follow the mujtahid whom he follows and adopt the hukm which is linked to an evidence, because now he has a stronger preponderant qualification. So whoever used to follow Shafi’i or others because his father used to follow him, when the evidence of a hukm Shar’i, which had been deduced by a mujtahid other than the one he followed, becomes manifest to him and he believes in it, then he must adopt that hukm due to the presence of a stronger preponderant qualification which is the Sharī’ah evidence. And if he did not believe in it, then he does not have the right to leave the hukm he has been following since he has no preponderant qualification to warrant it. In the outweighing (tarjeeh), he relies on the hearing of indications (qara’in). He (the layman) does not have the right - to adopt different mazhabs based on whims. And nor does he have the right to follow the mazhabs in every issue which is easier for him, rather he must seek a preponderant qualification when there is more than one understanding for the ahkām.