What is your advice for the beginner student of knowledge who is unable to weigh the differences of opinion among the scholars?

The questioner : What is your advice for the beginner student of knowledge who is unable to weigh the differences of opinion among the scholars, especially when the scholars and shaykhs who are trusted in creed and known for following the Sunnah differ—for example—in authenticating or weakening a hadith, or in a specific fatwa, or in issues related to the jurisprudence of da'wah and its outcomes? What is your advice for the student of knowledge so that he does not fall into taqlid (following a scholar without knowing his evidence), partisanship, and following desire? The beginner student of knowledge who is unable to...?

The Shaykh : ...In reality, this is a problem, and it is not a problem of the present age; ...some of this disagreement was known even among the Companions. I said "some of this disagreement" because the scope of knowledge expanded after them. They did not have what is called the science of terminology, nor did they have what is called the science of al-jarh wa al-ta'dil (the critique and vindication of narrators). However, after the spread of Islam and the entry of intermediaries to transmit Islam from the Messenger (peace be upon him) to those after him, this necessitated the existence of some of the Islamic sciences. Therefore, the scope of disagreement actually expanded more than before. But as long as some of this disagreement and transmission in jurisprudential issues, in understanding some of the texts of the Shari'ah from the Book and the Sunnah, was known among the Companions and those after them, it is obligatory for the general Muslims in this time to follow the example of their righteous predecessors (the Salaf), whether they were among the people of knowledge or those after them... among the students of knowledge or... among the general people. It is not known that the Companions differed in any issue other than what I mentioned earlier, but there was none of the commotion and confusion that we witness today. Why? Because the majority of these Companions were God-fearing (taqwa) of Allah (Mighty and Majestic); they did not show partisanship for men, but rather they showed partisanship for the truth that appeared to them. It is well known that Ibn Mas'ud (may Allah be pleased with him), for example, had some opinions and independent legal reasoning (ijtihad) that differed from the ijtihad of Abdullah ibn Umar and others. Nevertheless, this difference had no effect in that Islamic community, as I mentioned earlier, that they were upon God-fearingness of Allah (Blessed and Exalted is He). And what is called today sectarian partisanship or partisanship for persons rather than the truth had not crept into them.
Today, history must repeat itself; that is, if one of the general Muslims sees some of the scholars differing from one another, as... earlier; this one authenticates and this one weakens, or this one permits and that one forbids, and so on; then in this case, he must investigate which of these two scholars who differed in a jurisprudential issue, for example, is more knowledgeable and more scrupulous (wara')? And who is more established in this knowledge than the other? Here, the ijtihad of the questioner or the layperson is not a scientific ijtihad that distinguishes the proof and prefers it over the other proof, but rather his ijtihad is to distinguish that this person has spent so many years studying Islamic knowledge, while this one is... young in age, having graduated—for example—from the university only a few days ago, and that one can teach and graduate doctors in that knowledge. This is something every Muslim can do, no matter how low his... academic level is; he can know whether this one is more settled in his knowledge than that one or not. Added to this is something else that can also show him, if he strives for it; which is to see which of the two men is more God-fearing of Allah (Blessed and Exalted is He)?
And a third thing—and perhaps the last: suppose that the two scholars who differed in that jurisprudential or hadith issue—and the intention is to give an approximation—were equal in all the qualities we mentioned; then there comes a third thing—and perhaps the last—which is to consider whose specialization is closer to that... The one who is closer to that is the one who should be relied upon over the other. And so it is said in all sciences. And we know by experience that a person afflicted with an illness in himself or in his child =
-- And upon you be peace and the mercy of Allah and His blessings --
= or in his child; he does not take him to any doctor, but rather after asking: which doctor is more famous and more knowledgeable? Which doctor is specialized in this disease? Until his heart is reassured and he relies on him, he goes to him and treats himself or treats his beloved. And there is no doubt that the knowledge of the Shari'ah is more important than the knowledge of medicine and the body. Therefore, it is obligatory for every questioner to investigate the reference he wants to ask. If the opinions differ before him, he should place this example before him if he is able to do so. And for the one who is not able to do so, it is sufficient for him to act upon what Allah has made easy for him. This is what I have.