Imomlarning orasida ba'zilari o'zlari ba'zi hukmlarni asoslagan bir qator bahsli tamoyillarni ishlab chiqqan edilar. Natijada ham hukmlar, ham tamoyillar faqihlar orasida ixtiloflar manbaiga aylandi. Masalan, aksariyat faqihlar sahobalardan keyingi avlodlarda ijmoning amal qilishini tan olgan, ammo Imom ash-Shofi'iy uning yuzaga kelganiga shubha bildirgan, Imom Ahmad esa uni butunlay rad etgan. Xuddi shunday, aksariyat faqihlar Imom Molikning Madina aholisining urf-odatlariga tayanishini qonunchilik manbai sifatida rad etganlar. Imom Abu Hanifaning istihson tamoyili va Molikning istisloh tamoyilini esa Imom ash-Shofi'iy Qur'ondan, Sunnatdan va ijmodan juda mustaqil bo'lgani uchun man qilgan. Ya'ni uning fikricha, ular inson aqliga haddan tashqari tayanganlar.

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.

Boshqa tomondan, Imom ash-Shofi‘iy sahobalarning fikriga huquqiy masalalarda amal qilish zarur deb hisoblagan, boshqalar esa bu faqat ularning ijtihodi bo‘lib, keyingi avlodlar uchun majburiy emas deb hisoblaganlar.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