The Imams of Ahlul-Bait called on Muslims to follow the Book...

The Imams of Ahlul-Bait called on Muslims to follow the Book of Allah and the Prophet's traditions as the only two sources of Islamic laws and legislations while other Islamic schools of jurisprudence depended other additional for the sources in inducting of laws other than the above-mentioned sources.

Among them were: Opinion and Analogy, whose cause is inducted Approval The Closing and Opening of Pretexts Simple Interests The Imams, of Ahlul-Bait, and their students, who were related to their jurisprudential school, used academic ways of dialogues with the chiefs of other diverse schools of jurisprudence and called on them to depend on the Book and the sunnah as the only two sources.

It is worth mentioning, here, that other Islamic schools differ among themselves in accepting and rejecting such sources like analogy and to act with opinion; upon which the Hanafi sect depended.

The one who studies these diverse views of jurisprudence, and their principles; which were inducted from them in a comparative study, will find that the reason of difference can be found in two main causes: The difference in accepting and rejecting some narrations, in accordance with the conditions of accepting the narration, with an emphasis on the reliability of the narration.

The acceptance of certain Islamic schools of jurisprudence as sources of legislation, other than the Qur'an and the Prophet's traditions; like analogy, approval...etc. and refusing them. For example, each of the Hanafi, Shafi'i, Maliki, Hanbali, Zaydi, Shi'a Imamiya jurists,...etc. has its own way and conditions for accepting the narrations proved by the Prophetic traditions. This difference caused by these two foundations affects the jurists's views and opinions.

This, in return, leads to the appearance of jurisprudential difference among them. Thus, it is not a difference between the two sects (the Sunnis and the Shi'as) as some try to pretend in order to sow the seed of disunity and discord among the Muslims. In truth, it is only a scholarly difference among the Muslim jurists, altogether. Therefore, it is not true that this scholarly difference be a cause of discord and disunity among the Muslims.