Is a jurisprudential issue that contradicts the consensus of the four schools of thought considered weak, even if imams like Al-Awza'i, Ibn Taymiyyah, and Ibn Hazm held that opinion?

The rulings of the religion come from revelation (the Book and the Sunnah) and what the scholars have agreed upon. As for what the people of knowledge have differed on, it is referred back to the Book and the Sunnah. The four imams and their followers are part of the Ummah, and their agreement is not a consensus that must be adhered to; rather, what is supported by evidence is the preponderant opinion. Nevertheless, it is almost impossible for truth to lie in opposition to what the four imams have agreed upon, and this agreement is often the preponderant opinion. Some scholars prohibit departing from the opinions of the four madhhabs (schools of thought) in order to preserve the religion, and because the madhhabs of imams other than these have not been sufficiently codified. However, this prohibition does not apply to the proficient scholar who is able to refer directly to the Book and the Sunnah. There is no blame upon a scholar if his ijtihad (independent reasoning) leads him to an opinion contrary to what the four madhhabs have agreed upon, and no one has the right to object to him for that.