After the death of the Prophet, the Companions derived rulings directly from the Qurʾān and the Sunnah. The Qurʾān had been revealed in their Arabic language, and
the Prophet addressed them in it. However, as Islam spread and non-Arabs embraced it, deriving fiqh rulings became increasingly difficult. Consequently, qualified scholars capable of iǧtihād undertook this responsibility and became the primary authorities in jurisprudence matters. Foremost among them were the four great muǧtahid imams: Abū Ḥanīfa, Mālik, al-Šāfiʿī, and Aḥmad. People practiced 1aqlid by following the fiqh school they considered most correct.Over time, some laypeople became overly lenient in their practice of 1aqlid by following the juristic concessions (or exemptions, rukhaṣ) of scholars, even when the supporting evidence was weak. In some cases, this led to talfīq (combining rulings from different fiqh schools), whereby they adopted the easiest position in a single issue involving two or more interrelated aspects in a manner that no muǧtahid they followed would endorse. This study examines the ruling on talfīq and the pursuit of juristic concessions. Since both are branches of 1aqlid, it also explores the meaning of 1aqlid, its distinction from ittibāʿ (adherence based on evidence), and the rulings concerning a layperson’s following of an unspecified or specific scholar.The study concludes that 1aqlid is the adoption of another’s opinion without proof and that laypersons are obligated to consult qualified scholars. It defines talfīq as a muqallid’s adoption, in a single issue with interrelated aspects, of a combination of rulings not upheld by any of the muǧtahids he/she follows. It further defines the pursuit of concessions as choosing the easiest opinion in disputed matters for the sake of ease rather than evidentiary strength. While both practices share this aim, the pursuit of concessions is broader than talfīq. Since both prioritize ease over evidence, the study concludes that they are impermissible.