Explanation of the types of ijtihad (independent legal reasoning), and that among the issues of the Shari'ah (Islamic sacred law), some are explicitly stated in the texts and others require derivation.

The Shaykh : So here is something that must be mentioned, even though it was not in your question; because this clarifies my answer to your question. It is that the scholars mention a reality, which is that the issues mentioned in the Shari'ah (Islamic sacred law) are divided into two categories: a category for which there are clear texts, and a category that is not so; rather, it requires derivation. In the first category, a scholar’s knowledge can be partial. In other words, the first category, which the scholars call the chapter of ijtihad (independent legal reasoning), is the function of the scholars. What corresponds to it is the position of the questioners, which is the rank of those who follow scholars without knowing their evidence. The first category, which is ijtihad (independent legal reasoning), includes both sections: a section that is explicitly stated in the texts, and a section that is not explicitly stated and requires derivation. As for what belongs to the first section, it is not required of it that one be a scholar of the methods of derivation. Because it is not hidden from you that the text from the Book and the Sunnah (the Prophet's way) sometimes has a decisive indication, not just an apparent one; it is certain. This is understood by every man who knows the Arabic language. Sometimes it is apparent but may have another meaning; this is specific to the people of knowledge. So, regarding this section, ijtihad (independent legal reasoning) in it is partial and weakened. I mean by this, and all of this is well-known in the introduction to "The Description of Prayer" which I wrote about thirty years ago. This type of ijtihad (independent legal reasoning) is called partial ijtihad (independent legal reasoning). This is permissible for anyone who has understanding of the Arabic language and does not have deep expertise in those sciences I mentioned; because this deep expertise is the attribute of the scholar who wants to derive, to use analogical reasoning, and to exercise independent legal reasoning.
Therefore, many of the imams, such as al-Subki and Ibn al-Salah and others, say that the layman—and he is, of course, the one who... the hadith, meaning: he understands the Arabic language—if a hadith from the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) is conveyed to him, and he finds that some of the scholars have acted upon it, then it is permissible, indeed obligatory, for him to act upon this hadith. Why? Because the hadith from the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) has been conveyed to him, and whoever is conveyed a hadith must submit to it. And it is always said on this occasion, forever and ever... this man does not understand. This man is not only between the two ranks of ijtihad (independent legal reasoning) and following scholars without knowing their evidence, but he is a layman. But... he understands the Arabic language and the text. So, to be safe and secure from falling into misinterpretation, the scholars stipulated that there must be someone who has gone to acting upon this hadith. So, his acting upon the hadith at that time is correct, because he did not rely on his own understanding, which may be subject to error; because some of the scholars, known by nature as the people of the Sunnah and the community, preceded him in acting upon it.
So here we arrive at a reality: this layman to whom this hadith was conveyed, before the hadith was conveyed to him, his rank was that he must follow any scholar from the scholars of the Muslims. But in this case, he has advanced relatively. So, he has a hadith, and in addition to this hadith, there is a statement from the people of knowledge and virtue that agrees with this hadith. So, when we recall this reality which many of our scholars have explicitly stated, it becomes clear to you that this broad ijtihad (independent legal reasoning), which is the function of the mujtahids (scholars qualified to derive rulings) and their like, and we also do not believe that it has ceased... the mujtahids (scholars qualified to derive rulings) until the Hour, but rather there are scholars = -- and upon you be peace and the mercy of Allah and His blessings -- = who followed... and followed their path, and explicitly stated the obligation of following the hadith with any scholar from the scholars of the Muslims. So, we... ijtihad (independent legal reasoning) is of two types from one aspect: it is the search for the text, so wherever he finds it, he acts upon it, and it is an explicit and clear text. And the second rank is derivation, and this is specific to a class of scholars who gathered the conditions we mentioned. If we return to the first section, which is following the text, the conditions we mentioned in the other section are not required in it...
... This absolute Islam is that in which the conditions are required, which we summarized and the scholars of the principles of jurisprudence elaborated upon. This is not a condition for the general Muslims, meaning the majority of them, if they want to follow the hadith or follow the Book with clear texts, and they have predecessors who say what they understood from the text. This predecessor is a protection for them from the error that is thought to possibly occur in one of them, and it did occur; because the conditions we hinted at were not present in him. But he may find one of the imams who did that, so instead of being a follower of scholars without knowing their evidence, he is not just a follower of a hadith; no, he is a follower of a hadith in addition to being a follower of scholars without knowing their evidence, or a follower of scholars without knowing their evidence in addition to a hadith. Without a doubt, this means he is more complete in terms of the Shari'ah (Islamic sacred law) and reason than a follower of scholars without knowing their evidence who has added nothing. This is a reality that we do not derive by derivation in truth, but rather we found it explicitly stated in the words of... and we mentioned the names of some of them earlier.