What is the difference between a weak opinion (qawl ḍaʿīf) and a less-preferred opinion (qawl marjūḥ)? Is it permissible to adopt religious concessions (rukhṣa sharʿiyya) without necessity or need, and what is the preponderant opinion (rājih) on this matter?

Scholars differ on the permissibility of adopting the concessions (rukhus) of different jurisprudential schools (madhahib) and seeking out the easiest among them, falling into three main opinions: absolute prohibition, absolute permissibility, and permissibility with conditions. Among these conditions is that it should not lead to the annulment of a ruler's judgment or a departure from scholarly consensus (ijma'). There is no objection to adopting concessions and combining between madhahib, whether through ijtihad (independent reasoning) and tarjih (preferring one opinion over others), or through taqlid (following) by a common person for someone whose knowledge they trust. The opinion that one must act upon the stronger (rajih) view does not contradict the leniency of Sharia, because the truth is one in every issue, and acting upon the stronger view means acting according to what the evidence necessitates, not according to whims. The leniency of Sharia is evident in rules such as: necessities permit prohibitions, hardship brings ease, and when a matter becomes difficult, it expands. It is permissible for a mukallaf (accountable person) to adopt the easier opinion when there is a need. There is no clear difference between a weak opinion and a less-preferred (marjooh) opinion except by considering the type of disagreement.