What is the third opinion among scholars regarding taking dispensations (rukhas), and does it prefer taking the dispensation or the strict ruling (azimah), or is there no preference between them?

The questioner confuses legal concessions (al-rukhsa al-shar'iyyah) with jurisprudential dispensations (al-rukhas al-fiqhiyyah). While it is permissible to act upon a legal concession, scholars differ on the ruling concerning the pursuit of jurisprudential dispensations, holding three opinions: absolute prohibition, absolute permissibility, and permissibility with conditions. As for legal concessions, scholars differ on whether they are preferable to strict adherence (al-'azimah). The correct view is that neither is preferred over the other, because the reasons for a concession (such as hardship, need, and necessity) are relative and vary according to individuals, times, and circumstances. Thus, the accountable person becomes his own jurisprudent, unless there is a legitimate impediment.