The hierarchy of Ijtihad and the boundaries of juristic authority in Islamic jurisprudence represent a pivotal foundational subject with direct implications for resolving contemporary legal issues. This research delineates the subtle demarcations of juristic authority between the Mujtahid Mutlaq (Absolute Jurist) and the Mujtahid Muntasib (Affiliated Jurist) that distinguish their respective operational spheres. The central research question explores whether the Affiliated Jurist is merely a follower (Muqallid) in the principles of jurisprudence (Usul al-Fiqh), or if he possesses the scholarly authority to deviate from his Imam’s principles while exercising Ijtihad in subsidiary matters (Furu’), and how this distribution of power influences the contemporary legal framework. Utilizing a qualitative and analytical methodology, this study conducts a comparative analysis of classical legal texts within a modern context to evaluate the juristic actions of both classes of jurists. The findings indicate that the scope of the Affiliated Jurist is not restricted to minor details; rather, through the process of Takhrij, he possesses the capacity to formulate new legal structures, though this remains conditioned by the nature of his affiliation. The distinct scholarly contribution of this paper lies in establishing the foundational authority of the Mujtahid Muntasib elevating him from a mere commentator to a subordinate legislator and identifying specific conditions where the Ijtihad of the affiliate may take precedence over the general rules of the Absolute Jurist, an aspect not explicitly addressed in prior literature.