And whoever holds that he should wash it, he said that it is the sheikh’s duty to know the murid who is deficient, that the mujtahid has made a mistake in that matter. This is the limit for washing it. If the murid is imitating the mujtahid, he is obliged to return to the words of his sheikh, and if the murid is the mujtahid, then it is forbidden for him to go back to it. The sheikh’s words on that issue, unless the sheikh’s words take the place of opposition in evidence, in which case the sheikh’s words are stronger than the evidence of the diligent person, so the diligent person is obligated to refer to the words of his sheikh, which is his own ijtihad, I mean his return to the preponderance of that evidence, which is the sheikh’s confirmation of the evidence he had due to the possibility that the narrator is lying. Or imagine the error on his part in his analogy, because the sheikh’s honesty in that affected him .