Does following those who have knowledge of the Book and the Sunnah due to the follower's inability lead to the emergence of new schools of jurisprudence?

The questioner : I understood at the end of the speech that we must return to the original source, which is the Qur'an and the Hadith, to look at them and proceed according to their guidance. You mentioned a condition for this matter, which is that we must have a good understanding of the Hadith. In reality, this requires clarification, as this capability is not available to all youth to understand the Hadith correctly so that they can derive the intended ruling from it. Furthermore, the capability to compare this Hadith with other Hadiths is not available to all youth, due to reasons that may be weakness in language or weakness in the knowledge of the principles of jurisprudence, where rulings are classified, or other such things. These are all obstacles that stand in the way of youth in deriving the correct ruling. Does this mean following those who have knowledge of this matter, and thus we have emerged with a new school of jurisprudence?

The Shaykh : The answer also feels to me that it also requires a long session, and a very long one, but I will answer briefly as much as possible, and please do not blame us if we are forced to lengthen it.
The student : ... needs time ... a second session after Maghrib.

The Shaykh : Yes, but in the field.
The student: Yes.
Another student: Now in the field.
Another student: To the extent you see necessary ... questions ... .

The Shaykh: Okay, I mention the brotherThe questioner : And perhaps he is aware that the scholars divide independent legal reasoning in the Shari'ah into several categories: First: absolute independent legal reasoning, and this is only for the imams like the predecessors. Then restricted independent legal reasoning, which is that a scholar who adheres to one of the schools of the followed imams exerts independent legal reasoning while considering the rules of his imam, and thus reaches an opinion that contradicts his imam. This type is permissible with them, indeed obligatory, like the first type. The third type, which in reality we can consider a section ... of the first, because absolute independent legal reasoning is divided into general and specific. The general is the imam from the previous imams who exerts independent legal reasoning in every issue that comes to him. As for specific independent legal reasoning, it is that one who follows an imam from the imams exerts independent legal reasoning in one issue or more than one issue, and thus reaches in this independent legal reasoning an opinion that contradicts the school of his imam in this issue. Then, after we have known these levels of general and specific independent legal reasoning and absolute independent legal reasoning, we come to a state that is not of independent legal reasoning in any way, nor is it of following a scholar without knowing his evidence in any way. This state is called by the scholars following (ittiba'). The difference between following (ittiba') and following a scholar without knowing his evidence (taqlid) is like the difference between the seeing and the blind. That is because the one who follows (muttabi') follows the statement of an imam from the imams of the Muslims accompanied by its evidence, whereas the one who follows a scholar without knowing his evidence (muqallid) follows the imam without knowing his evidence. There is no doubt for one of intellect and soundness, especially regarding the educated youth, that the one who knows the imam's opinion and its evidence is better than the one who knows neither the imam's opinion nor its evidence. In other words? The one who follows (muttabi') is following a scholar without knowing his evidence (taqlid) plus evidence. And there is no doubt that this addition is better than zero. Therefore, if we know this explanation with brevity, we say that both the one who follows (muttabi') or the one who exerts specific independent legal reasoning, let alone the one who exerts restricted independent legal reasoning, all of this does not take its practitioner out of being a follower of an imam from the imams of the Muslims. That is the one who knew the evidence of the issue for an imam from the imams of the Muslims and followed him, even if he contradicted the Muslims, because he followed an imam from their imams. And we know necessarily that the Hanafis, for example, when a Hanafi follows his imam in an issue, such as the issue of blood coming out, this Hanafi who follows his imam says it breaks the ablution. In this case, he is contradicting Imam al-Shafi'i, who says it does not break the ablution. So contradiction of an imam from the imams of the Muslims is unavoidable and there is no escape from it. So what is the difference between a person, for example, as you all know, I am Al-Albani, and the Albanians like the Turks do not know Islam except from the angle of the Hanafi school only.
The student : ... .

The Shaykh: Yes.
The student : ... .

The Shaykh: In summary, I am a Hanafi and I lived for a considerable number of years while I held the view that blood coming out breaks the ablution. But when Allah enlightened me with the correct Muhammadan Sunnah, I followed Imam al-Shafi'i with his evidence, and I am not currently in the position of... So what is the difference between me previously and me now? When I was a Hanafi following him without knowing his evidence, I was contradicting al-Shafi'i. Now I am following Imam al-Shafi'i, contradicting Abu Hanifa. What is the difference between me previously and me now? There is no difference.