Daga cikin Malamai akwai wasu waɗanda suka ƙirƙiri wasu ƙa'idodi masu jawo muhawara, waɗanda suka dogara da su wajen wasu hukunce-hukuncensu. Sakamakon haka, duka hukunce-hukuncen da ƙa'idodin suka zama abin sabani tsakanin masana fikihu. Misali, yawancin masana fikihu sun amince da ingancin Ijma'i a tsakanin zamanin bayan Sahabbai, amma Imam ash-Shafi'i ya tambayi faruwarsa, yayin da Imam Ahmad ya ƙi shi gaba ɗaya. Haka kuma, yawancin masana fikihu sun ƙi dogaron Imam Malik kan al'adun mutanen Madina a matsayin tushen shari'a. Imam Abu Hanifa kuma, ƙa'idar Istihsan tasa da ta Malik ta Istislah, Imam ash-Shafi'i ya hana su saboda sun yi nisa da Alkur'ani, da Sunnah, da Ijma'i. Wato, a ra'ayinsa, sun dogara sosai kan hankalin ɗan adam.

There were among the Imaams some who developed a number of controversial principles on which they based some of their rulings. As a result, both the rulings and the principles became source of differences among jurists. For example, the majority of jurists recognized the validity of Ijmaa’ among the generations after the Sahaabah, but Imaam ash-Shaafi’ee questioned its occurrence while Imaam Ahmad rejected it outright. Similarly the majority of jurists rejected Imaam Maalikreliance on the customs of the Madeenites as a source of legislation. And Imaam Abu Haneefah’s principle of Istihsaan and Maalik’s Istislaah were both disallowed by Imaam ash-Shaafi’ee as being too independent of the Qur’aan, the Sunnah, and Ijmaa’. That is to say, they relied too much, in his opinion, on human reasoning.

A wannan ɓangaren, Imam ash-Shafi'i ya ga cewa dole ne a karɓi ra'ayin Sahabbai a al'amuran shari'a, yayin da wasu suka ga cewa ra'ayinsu kawai hankali ne nasu, wanda ba ya ɗaure tsararraki na baya.181

On the other hand, Imaam ash-Shaafi’ee felt that the opinion of the Sahaabah had to be accepted on legal matters, while others felt that it was only reasoning on their part which was not binding later generations.181