is permissible in principle. They do not require everyone to exercise independent legal reasoning while prohibiting following others on authority, nor do they require everyone to follow others on authority while prohibiting independent legal reasoning. Rather, independent legal reasoning is permissible for those capable of it, and following others on authority is permissible for those incapable of it. As for someone capable of independent legal reasoning, may he follow others on authority?

There is disagreement concerning this. The correct view is that he may do so when he is unable to exercise independent legal reasoning, whether because the evidence is evenly balanced, because there is insufficient time, or because no evidence has become apparent to him. Whenever he is unable to do something, the obligation to do what he cannot do falls away, and he turns to its alternative—in this case, following others on authority—just as when he is unable to purify himself with water.

Likewise, if an ordinary person can exercise independent legal reasoning in certain questions, he may do so. Independent legal reasoning is a scholarly qualification that admits subdivision; what matters is a person’s ability or inability. A man may be capable in some matters but incapable in others. However, the ability to exercise independent legal reasoning requires acquiring branches of knowledge that enable one to ascertain the answer sought. As for independent legal reasoning confined to a single question within a discipline, that is unlikely. And Allah, glorified is He, knows best.