Al-Shafi'i, Abu Yusuf, and Muhammad held this view. Abu Hanifa said: If the judge is among those capable of Ijtihad, it is permissible for him to abandon his own opinion for the opinion of one who is more learned than him according to his view, when he reaches that conclusion, for it is a type of Ijtihad. And [this is] because he believes that he [the other scholar] is more knowledgeable than him in the path of Ijtihad. Our position is that since he is of those capable of Ijtihad, it is not permissible for him to blindly follow (taqlid) another, just as if he were his equal, like those performing Ijtihad regarding the Qibla. What he (20) mentioned is not correct; for it is possible for one who is more learned than him to be mistaken. So, if he believes that what he said is an error, it is not permissible for him to act upon it. And if the truth has not become clear to him, it is not permissible for him to rule by that which might be shown to be an error if he were to perform Ijtihad.

Section: Our companions say: It is recommended that he bring to his assembly the people of knowledge from every school, so that if an incident occurs that requires him to ask them about it, he may ask them, so that they may mention their evidences regarding it and their answers to them, for it is swifter for his Ijtihad and closer to what is correct. If he rules according to his [own] Ijtihad, no one among them has the right to reject it, even if it contradicts his own Ijtihad, because that would be an encroachment upon him, unless he rules in contradiction to a text (21) or consensus.

Section: It is appropriate for him to bring his witnesses to his assembly so that he may fulfill rights through them, and through them, evidences and records may be established. If he is one who rules based on his own knowledge, then if he wishes, he may bring them close to him, and if he wishes, he may distance them, such that when he needs to call upon them to witness his ruling, he may summon them to testify to that. If he is one who does not rule based on his own knowledge, he shall seat them near him so that they may hear the words of the two disputants, so that one of them does not affirm something and then later deny and reject it; thus, they would preserve his affirmation and testify to it.

Section: When the incident is brought to his attention and the evidence becomes clear for one of the two parties, he shall rule. If there is ambiguity in it, he shall command them to reconcile. If they refuse, he shall delay them until clarity is reached. If he hastens [to judge] before that clarity, his ruling is invalid.