Is it more befitting for a Muslim to follow the Maliki school of thought prevalent in his country without fanaticism? And what is the meaning of the saying of Sheikh Al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah: "The soundest of principles are the principles of Malik, and the soundest of branches are the branches of Ahmad"? And how can one give preference to one opinion over another among the differing views in the principles of Islamic jurisprudence?

Whoever is capable of deriving rulings from the legal evidences must follow the evidence and not adhere to a specific madhhab (definition). And whoever is unable to do so must follow a madhhab, and it is preferable to follow the prevalent madhhab in their country without fanaticism. As for what has been attributed to Sheikh Al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah, that the principles of Imam Ahmad's madhhab are sounder, we have not found it correctly attributed to him. However, Ibn Taymiyyah did mention that Ahmad was more knowledgeable of the Book, the Sunnah (definition), and the sayings of the Companions, and it is rare to find a saying of his that contradicts a text. Prioritizing among evidences requires familiarity with various disciplines, so it is advised to seek knowledge to reach this rank.