Reasons for the difference between the Imami jurists (Shia) and the majority jurists in the deriving Islamic rulings

Abstract

The most of the jurisprudential differences between the Islamic Schools causes are due to differences in the fundamental rules or in their minor applications.

   As for the reasons for the difference between the Shia (imami) and the doctrines of the majority, another dimension is added to them, which is the doctrinal dimension. More precisely, their difference is in the issue of Imamate, Shia (imami) considered (the issue of Imamate) is a matter of belief and the function of the Imam is a continuation of the function of the Prophet. Hence, the concept of the Sunnah was expanded among them to include the sayings, actions, and approvals of the infallible, and the infallible among them is the Prophet or the Imam.

   Hence, the reasons for the jurisprudential differences between the Shia (imami) and the majority can be attributed to three main reasons, the first of which is the doctrinal difference, which is the difference in the issue of the Imamate; it expanded the concept of the Sunnah among the Shia (imami), and this is what had a great impact on all the jurisprudential chapters.

   The second: the difference in the fundamental rules and general foundations of deduction. This difference may be due to doctrinal reasons, as the Shia (imami) jurists rejected a number of fundamental rules that are important to the majority, based on the rejection of their imams (peace be upon them) of those rules.

   Third: The difference in the extent to which the major premises (the fundamental rules) apply to the minor premises; after their agreement on the origin of the major premise. This reason includes all Islamic sects, and is not limited to the disagreement of the Shia (imami) with the sects of the majority. For example, the Shia (imami) jurists.