The issue of combining legal rulings from different schools of thought, and the issue of deviating from adherence to a specific school of thought, are topics that have sparked considerable debate in jurisprudential and legal theory studies, particularly in light of the developments in contemporary society, the multiplicity of new legal issues, and the accompanying diversification of methods of reasoning and approaches to issuing legal opinions. The central problem addressed by this research revolves around the following question: What is the Islamic legal ruling on combining rulings from different schools of Islamic jurisprudence, and what are the limits of permissibility in deviating from a particular school, in light of the established principles of legal methodology and the objectives of Islamic law adopted by scholars of Islamic law?The researcher adopted an inductive-analytical approach to this topic, examining the statements of imams and scholars in books of legal methodology and jurisprudence. These statements were then analyzed in light of established legal principles and compared between different jurisprudential trends without adopting any particular opinion. The researcher also drew upon relevant contemporary studies.This study concluded that combining rulings from different schools of thought is not a matter of consensus. Scholars have differed on this issue, holding three main opinions, with the most sound view being that which allows for a more nuanced approach. The prohibited form of combining rulings is that which leads to the omission of a religious obligation, the legalization of a prohibited act, the pursuit of dispensations, contradicts a recognized consensus, or creates a legal precedent not endorsed by any scholar. Permissible combining of rulings is that which is done out of a legitimate need or necessity, or which adheres to the established legal principles, free from personal bias and the pursuit of ease.The fundamental difference between combining rulings and seeking dispensations is that the former may be based on scholarly reasoning or necessity, while the latter is based on personal whims and is unanimously condemned by scholars.