The Differences in Fundamental Principles and Their Causes A Comparison Between the Methodology of Jurists and Theologians

The reasons for the disagreement are the difference in understanding, then the difference in access to the evidence, and access to the evidence. One person may be informed of something and the other may not be informed of anything, so his judgment differs because of that. We must meet jurisprudential differences with our minds, not with our emotions, and the evidence is the circle of arbitration between one opinion and another, and we do not claim infallibility for the imams. Jurisprudential and fundamentalist differences are a healthy phenomenon, as they have provided the nation with legislative wealth that has expanded the nation throughout the past centuries, but jurisprudential fanaticism is a disappointment in the minds and is the cause of discord. We researched this topic with the aim of finding out the reasons for the difference in fundamentalist rules and explaining the importance of studying the reasons for the difference in fundamentalist rules. We benefited from the analytical approach and analyzed the research topics and everything we documented in it, attributed to its original sources, and we arrived at useful results, including: that in setting rules Fundamentalism arose among the mujtahids. The reasons for it are many and reasonable, and the difference in fundamental rules has a major role in the fate of the branches of jurisprudence.