Na aliyetaka fatwa kutoka kwa 'alim kuhusu jambo maana yake ni kwamba alimwomba amtolee hukmu ya jambo hilo. Fatwa za Maswahaba na Tabi'iyn ni hukumu walizozifafanua kwa watu. Na kwa kuwa kujua hukumu ya Allah ni fardh, lazima kuwepo watu, wawe ni mujtahidi au si mujtahidi, wanaoweza kuwafundisha wengine hukumu za Sharia, bila kujali kama wanawafundisha watu hukumu hizo pamoja na dalili au bila dalili. Kwa kuwa haijashurutishwa kwamba anayefundisha hukumu lazima awe mujtahidi, kama ambavyo haijashurutishwa kwa Muislamu anayewafundisha wengine kufafanua dalili, inaruhusiwa kwa mtu anayejua hukmu kuwafundisha wengine pale anapokuwa amebobea katika hukmu hiyo. Zaidi ya hayo, kwa kuwa haijashurutishwa kwa anayewatolea watu fatwa za hukumu za Sharia au kuwafundisha mwenyewe kuwa mujtahidi, bali inaruhusiwa kwa asiyekuwa mujtahidi, ambaye anaifahamu hukmu ya Sharia ya mujtahidi, kutoa fatwa kwa kutumia hukmu hiyo kwa kuwa yeye ni mbebaji wa hukmu hiyo hata kama hatangazi hilo. Katika kitendo hiki hakuna tofauti kati ya 'alim na wengine, kama ilivyo katika kupokea hadithi. Kama ambavyo haishurutishwi kwamba msimulizi wa hadithi awe 'alim, haishurutishwi pia kwa anayewapa wengine hukmu ya Sharia awe 'alim. Basi kwa sababu ya hoja yenye nguvu zaidi (min bab al-awla), haipaswi kushurutishwa awe mujtahidi. Ingawa inashurutishwa kwamba ajue hukmu anayoifikisha kwa uwazi na usahihi, kwa kuwa hawezi kuwafikishia wengine ikiwa hana usahihi na hawezi kuifikisha ipasavyo. Vilevile, haishurutishwi kwa mtu anayewafundisha watu hukmu ya Sharia au kuwapa fatwa, awafundishe dalili au kuwafikishia dalili hizo; bali inaruhusiwa kwake kujizuia kufikisha hukmu ya Sharia tu bila kutaja dalili. Inaruhusiwa kwake kutoa fatwa kwa hukmu ya Shari'a na kuwafundisha watu bila kuwaeleza dalili zake. Hata hivyo, anapaswa kuwaeleza kwamba anachowapa ni hukmu ya Shari'a au istinbati ya mtu mwingine, yaani ya mujtahid fulani. Lakini akitoa maoni fulani na kuwaambia:
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:
"Huu ni maoni yangu" au anawawasilishia maoni fulani na kusema: "Huu ndio hukmu kwa sababu fulani mujtahid amesema jambo fulani," basi kile anachokitoa hakihesabiwi kuwa hukmu ya Sharia, kwa kuwa kauli ya mujtahid si dalili ya Sharia. Kutumia kauli yake kama dalili ya hukmu kunaondoa hadhi yake ya kuwa hukmu ya Kisharia. Lakini akiinasibisha hukmu hiyo kwa istinbati (uchambuzi wa kisheria) ya mujtahid, basi ni hukmu ya Kisharia, hata kama hataeleza dalili yenyewe.
‘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.
Hii ilikuwa desturi ya kawaida wakati wa Maswahaba. Watu walikuwa wakiwauliza wanachuoni wa ijtihadi maoni ya kisheria na kufuata maamuzi yao katika hukumu za Sharī’ah. Wale wenye elimu miongoni mwao walikuwa wakijibu maswali yao bila kutaja dalili, na hawakukatazwa kufanya hivyo. Hakuna hata mmoja miongoni mwa Maswahaba aliyepinga. Hivyo ikawa ijma’ (makubaliano) miongoni mwa Maswahaba juu ya uhalali wa mtu wa kawaida kufuata mujtahid bila kutaja dalili, na pia ikawa ijma’ juu ya ruhusa ya kujifunza hukumu za Allah ﷻ na kuzifundisha bila kujifunza au kufundisha dalili zake. Mtu wa kawaida (‘ammi) na mfuasi (muttabi’) ni sawa katika hilo. Inaruhusiwa kwa yeyote kati yao kuomba fatwa kutoka kwa mwenzake, na kumfundisha mwenzake hukumu ya kisheria aliyoielewa kwa usahihi, awe anajua dalili au hajui. Hii ni kwa sababu yeyote anayepata elimu ya hukumu fulani anachukuliwa kuwa mjuzi wa hukumu hiyo, hivyo ni ruhusa kwake kuwafundisha wengine. Hata hivyo, mtu wa kawaida (‘ammi) hujizuia kupeleka tu kile alichokijua hasa kama alivyokijifunza. Kwa upande wa mfuasi (muttabi’), yeye hufundisha kile anachokijua na hutoa fatwa kulingana na alichokijua, kwa sababu anamiliki baadhi ya taaluma zinazotambulika katika Ijtihādi; anaelewa hukumu na anajua jinsi ya kuzifundisha na jinsi ya kutoa maoni ya kisheria kwa kuzitumia. Hata hivyo, kujifunza hukumu na kutoa maoni kwa kuzitumia hakumaanishi kufanya Taqlīd kwa mwalimu au mufti. Hili linachukuliwa kuwa ni kutoa maoni au kujifunza hukumu tu. Taqlīd inapaswa kufanywa kwa yule aliyeitoa hukumu kwa kuchambua dalili, si kwa yule anayeifundisha au kutoa fatwa kwa kutumia hukumu hiyo. Hata hivyo, imewekwa kuwa mwalimu, kwa kulinganishwa na shahidi, awe mwadilifu, yaani asiwe na udhihirisho wa makosa yoyote dhidi ya Sharī’ah. Kwa kuwa shahidi huelezea tukio, na mwalimu pia huelezea hukumu ya Allah ﷻ, wote wawili wanatoa taarifa juu ya jambo fulani, ambalo uaminifu (‘adala) ni sharti lake. Pia, Allah ameiharamisha Waislamu kukubali kauli ya fasiq (mtu mwenye kutenda maovu), na amewaamuru wailinganishe na kuithibitisha. Amesema:
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: