The Shaykh’s explanation of the reality of following the texts of the Shari'ah and the categories of people in this regard.

'Ayd 'Abassi: The second issue that the Salafis emphasize is the issue of following, the method of deriving rulings, and the method of understanding the religion. It is common among people, especially in the later centuries, that every person, once he reaches maturity, must choose one of the four schools of jurisprudence, for example his father’s school, and study it, adhere to it, and not contradict it in any issue. He follows blindly without asking for evidence and without seeking independent legal reasoning, because independent legal reasoning is considered closed and because he has no option but to follow blindly. This issue is also serious and important, and the Salafis differ from the majority of people in this. They hold that the original principle in understanding the rulings of the Shari'ah is to take them directly from the Book and the Sunnah, following the saying of Allah the Exalted: .
'Ayd 'Abassi: So the original principle is to take the rulings from the Book and the Sunnah. However, it is well known that people differ in this, and it is not within the capability of every person to take from the Book and the Sunnah, especially after errors in recitation became widespread and people distanced themselves from the Arabic language, the natural Arabic instinct, and the innate disposition. They became strangers to the language of the Qur'an and the language of the noble Prophetic hadith.
There is no doubt that it is a known principle of the Shari'ah that if a person is unable to do something, he is only obligated to do what is below it. If this person is unable to take the rulings of his religion directly from the Book and the Sunnah, Allah does not burden a soul beyond its capacity, as He Blessed and Exalted is He said. So he descends a level to following. We differ from them in that they say there is only following, either as an independent legal reasoner or as a blind follower. This is stubbornness, and in reality, it is defiance, because it contradicts what is observed and what is felt. You see among people a scholar who has reached a great distance in knowledge, who has understood the Arabic language, who has studied the principles of jurisprudence, and who has acquired the tools of independent legal reasoning. This is the independent legal reasoner, and everyone agrees that it is permissible for him to take from the Book and the Sunnah, and indeed it is obligatory for him to do so directly. And there are the rest of the people other than this person. We see two categories, and although they differ between themselves in many levels, these two categories are the general public who have no concern for knowledge and no study of the religion. These are the ones called blind followers. If you recite a verse to them, they do not understand it except for a few of the clear and explicit verses. If you mention a hadith to them, they cannot know its meaning or know the method by which they distinguish its authenticity from its weakness. These people are obligated to ask the people of knowledge. But they must also exert their effort in choosing trustworthy people of knowledge who have no sectarian bias and who are reliable in their religion and their knowledge. Even so, they are not obligated to adhere to one specific person among them. Rather, as Allah Blessed and Exalted is He said: "If you do not know, ask the people of remembrance." He did not specify one particular person. Rather, it is ... according to what is facilitated and made easy for him. So he asks one person he trusts in his knowledge and religion, and that person makes it easy for him. Another time, he asks another person, and he does not restrict himself. He should not love following or blindly imitating a specific scholar.
Between this blind follower and that independent legal reasoner, there are many people who have concern for knowledge, study of the language, study of the Islamic sciences, study of the Qur'an, exegesis, and hadith. We cannot say that these people are like the first group, the blind followers. They differ from them, and we wrong them when we equate them with them. There is no doubt that they have a virtue over them, and it is not permissible to treat them like them. If you mention verses and hadiths to them, they know their meanings or understand most of them in general. Of course, some meanings may be hidden from them, but if they seek the help of some scholars, they understand them. These people must exert their effort. Their effort is achieved by knowing the Islamic ruling through a scholar and knowing the evidence by which he reached the opinion he adopts. These people are capable of this. So how do we excuse them and be lenient with them by saying to them, "It is enough for you to follow blindly, ask the scholar, 'What is the ruling of the Shari'ah in this?' and he says to you 'so and so.' You are capable, if the evidence is mentioned to you, of understanding it. Why did you give up that and be lenient, when in matters of the world, if you are a merchant, for example, you do not suffice with asking the specialist a general and casual question, but you scrutinize, calculate, compare, and ask more than one person? Why do you do that in matters of the world and not in matters of religion? In matters of the world you do it, and in matters of religion you may be negligent and lenient. Is your religion lighter for you, weaker in your estimation, and less important than your worldly affairs? If you are so, then wretched is your loss and great is your misguidance.
There is no doubt that there is an intermediate level between the blind follower and the independent legal reasoner ... he is the one who looks into ... with the help of an independent legal reasoner scholar after he understands his evidence and looks into ... and ... and prefers the opinions of the scholars ... in his mind ... This is ... the Salafis regarding the issue of taking Islamic rulings and the issue of understanding the religion. In our belief, this is the true, just, middle position, with no excess and no deficiency.