Does the consensus attributed to Ibn Abd al-Barr and others, concerning the prohibition of following juridical dispensations (rukhas) out of mere desire, imply an absolute prohibition of acting upon dispensations, or does it pertain to switching between madhahib (schools of thought) without Sharia-compliant evidence, knowing that there is a disagreement among the jurisprudential madhahib regarding the permissibility of following dispensations?

It is not permissible to seek out the dispensations (rukhus) of the jurisprudential schools of thought with the aim of following one's whims, and this is the opinion of the majority of scholars, and a consensus (ijma') has been reported on it. Ibn Abd al-Barr mentioned that whoever takes the dispensation of every scholar combines all evil within themselves, and he considered this a consensus. Ibn Hazm said that seeking the dispensations of every interpretation without a text (kitab) or Sunnah is an act of transgression (fisq). This does not contradict the permissibility of adopting the lighter opinion of a respected mujtahid, if the aim is not to follow one's whims. However, to seek out the lightest and most agreeable opinions among the madhhabs for the follower is forbidden, because it leads to the nullification of religious obligations. The consensus is not invalidated by the statement of Al-Izz ibn Abd al-Salam regarding the permissibility for a layperson to act upon the dispensations of the madhhabs, because the consensus is based on transmission, and Al-Izz's statement might be an opinion or a logical consequence of a statement after the consensus had already been established, which makes it void. It is also permissible to take a dispensation when there is a need or when the ruling is ambiguous.