Taqlīd ni kukubali maoni ya mtu mwingine bila dalili yenye kufunga. Kwa hiyo kukubali maoni ya mtu mwingine bila dalili yenye kufunga kunachukuliwa kuwa Taqlīd, kadhalika kutenda kwa mujibu wa maoni ya mtu mwingine bila dalili yenye kufunga kunachukuliwa kuwa Taqlīd. Hii ni kama mtu wa kawaida (layman) kukubali maoni ya mujtahid, au mujtahid kukubali maoni ya mujtahid mwenzake. Kurejea kwa Mtume ﷺ si Taqlīd kwake, wala kurejea kwa ijma' ya Maswahaba si Taqlīd kwao, kwa sababu hiyo ni kurejea kwenye dalili yenyewe na si kukubali maoni ya mtu mwingine. Vivyo hivyo, kurejea kwa mtu wa kawaida kwa mufti si Taqlīd kwake, bali ni kuomba hukumu ya kisheria na kujifunza, wala si kukubali. Hivyo anamrejea ili kuomba fatwa au ili kujifunza. Kwa maana nyingine, kurejea kwa mtu wa kawaida kwa mtu mwenye elimu si Taqlīd kwake kwa sababu ni kuuliza kuhusu hukmu ya Shar'i au kujifunza hukmu hiyo. Kuhusu kukubali maoni pamoja na kujua dalili yake, jambo hilo litachunguzwa. Ikiwa kujua dalili ni maarifa tu, kama kujua kwamba kuzuru makaburi kunaruhusiwa kwa sababu Mtume ﷺ alisema:

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:

Kwa hiyo katika hali hii anachukuliwa kuwa ni muqallid kwa sababu amekubali maoni ya mwingine bila dalili yenye kufunga, hata kama alikuwa anajua dalili hiyo. Hata hivyo, muqallid mwenyewe hakutumia dalili hii kama hoja, kwa hiyo si hoja yenye kufunga kwake. Kuhusu kufahamu dalili baada ya kuichunguza dalili na kisha kuchota hukumu kutokana nayo, hilo huhesabiwa kuwa ni Ijtihād inayokubaliana na Ijtihād ya yule aliyeshikilia maoni hayo mwanzoni. Hiyo ni kwa sababu mchakato huu unategemea kutambua kwamba hukumu haina kizuizi chenye kupingana nayo, jambo ambalo linategemea uchunguzi wa kina wa dalili, na jambo hilo ni la Mujtahid pekee. Kwa hiyo muqallid si mujtahid. Watu kuhusu hukumu ya Shari'ah ni mujtahid au muqallid, na hakuna jingine. Yaani, ima anachota hukumu mwenyewe, hata kama mwingine alishaichota kabla yake, au yeye mwenyewe aliichota tangu mwanzo, au anakubali uchotaji wa mujtahid mwingine. Kwa hiyo yeyote asiye na uwezo wa Ijtihād ni muqallid, bila kujali kama alikuwa na ujuzi wa baadhi ya taaluma zinazotambuliwa kisheria katika Ijtihād au la. Basi huangukia katika kundi la muqallid 'ammi (mtu wa kawaida) au muttabi'. Hata hivyo, muttabi' anafuata kwa sharti kwamba anajua dalili ya mujtahid, ilhali 'ammi anafuata bila sharti lolote.

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.

Inaruhusiwa kwa muqallid, awe ni muttabi' au 'ammi, kufuata maoni ya mujtahid yeyote mara tu inapothibitika kuwa maoni haya ni Ijtihād, hata kama yalithibitishwa kwa khabar ahad (simulizi ya mtu mmoja). Anapokutana na suala fulani na hajajifahamisha na maoni ya mujtahidina, lakini anajua maoni ya mujtahid mmoja, inaruhusiwa kwake kufuata hukumu ya Sharī'ah ambayo mujtahid huyu ameitoa kwa kutumia dalili, kwa kuwa kinachohitajika kwake ni kufuata hukumu ya Sharī'ah katika suala fulani, si kufuatilia maoni ya mujtahidina. Katika hali kama hii, kuchagua maoni yenye nguvu zaidi (tarjeeh) hakuhitajiki kwake. Iwapo anaifahamu maoni ya mujtahidina na anataka kufuata mojawapo kati yake, basi haitakuwa sahihi kwake kufanya chochote isipokuwa kufanya tarjeeh (kuchagua lililo na nguvu zaidi), na tarjeeh hiyo isiwe kulingana na hukumu kulingana na matamanio yake au manufaa yanayoonekana, kwa kuwa lengo la Sharī'ah ni kumtoa mukallaf (mwenye jukumu la kisheria) katika msukumo wa matamanio yake na kumfanya awe mja wa kweli wa Allah. Bali tarjeeh inapaswa kuwa kulingana na sifa iliyo na nguvu ya kisheria, yaani, sifa hiyo iunganike na Allah na Mtume wa Allah ﷺ. Alisema:

Kurejelea Allah na Mtume wake ni kurejelea either neno la Allah au Sunnah ya Mtume wake , yaani dalili za Sharī’ah, either kile ambacho Allah au Mtume wake ameamuru. Kwa hiyo, sifa za kurejelea zenye uzito hutofautiana kulingana na hali tofauti za wafuasi wa taqlīd (muqallidūn). Ndio, sifa ya jumla yenye uzito kwa mtu wa kawaida (layman) ni, baada ya dalili, yule mwenye ujuzi na ufahamu bora zaidi. Na hii ndiyo sifa kuu yenye uzito kwa wafuasi wote wa taqlīd. Hata hivyo, kuna sifa tofauti zenye uzito ambazo watu wanaweza kuzitumia kupima, pamoja au bila sifa ya ujuzi bora. Hivyo, mtu wa kawaida hufuata mujtahid kulingana na imani yake katika ufahamu na taqwa (kumcha Mungu) wa wale wanaomfuata, miongoni mwa watu anaowajua, kama anapomwamini baba yake au mmoja wa ‘Ulama, basi hufuata wale wanaowafuata. Upimaji huu (tarjeeh) kwa ‘ammi (mtu wa kawaida) unatokana na mtazamo wa dini na si mtazamo wa matamanio yake. Au, sifa nyingine yenye uzito ni kwamba mtu wa kawaida anajua hukumu za Sharī’ah na dalili zake kwa kuhudhuria masomo ya fiqh, hadīth n.k. Katika hali hiyo anaweza kutofautisha kati ya hukumu na dalili zake. Mtu huyu hupima katika taqlīd kulingana na ufahamu wake wa dalili. Hivyo hufuata hukumu ambayo dalili yake anaifahamu, pale inapopingana na hukumu ambayo dalili yake hajui; basi atakuwa na hukumu iliyounganishwa na dalili, ambayo ni bora kuliko hukumu isiyounganishwa na dalili. Hizi hali mbili zinamhusu mtu wa kawaida (layman); yaani yeyote asiye na elimu ya baadhi ya taaluma zinazotambulika katika Ijtihad. Kwa hiyo, mtu wa kawaida katika hali zote hizi, pale ushahidi unapomdhihirikia, lazima aache Taqlid inayotegemea imani yake juu ya elimu na taqwa ya wale wanaofuata mujtahid anayemfuata, na akubali hukmu inayohusishwa na ushahidi, kwa sababu sasa ana sifa ya kurejeshwa iliyo na nguvu zaidi. Basi yeyote aliyekuwa akimfuata Shafi'i au wengine kwa sababu baba yake alikuwa akimfuata, pale ushahidi wa hukmu ya Shar'i, ambao ulikuwa umetolewa na mujtahid mwingine asiyekuwa yule anayemfuata, unapomdhihirikia na akaamini nao, basi lazima akubali hukmu hiyo kutokana na kuwepo kwa sifa ya kurejeshwa iliyo na nguvu zaidi, ambayo ni dalili ya Sharī'ah. Na asipoamini, basi hana haki ya kuacha hukmu aliyokuwa akiifuata, kwa kuwa hana sifa ya kurejeshwa inayomhalalishia kufanya hivyo. Katika kuchagua lililo bora zaidi (tarjeeh), anategemea kusikia dalili za kimazingira (qara'in). Mtu wa kawaida (layman) hana haki ya kuchukua madhehebu tofauti kwa kufuata matamanio yake. Wala hana haki ya kufuata madhehebu katika kila suala lile ambalo ni rahisi zaidi kwake; badala yake, lazima atafute sifa ya kurejeshwa pale panapokuwa na zaidi ya ufahamu mmoja wa hukmu.

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.