Here the writer desires to mention some examples that show that the method of the Imams of the family of the Messenger (S) was distinct from the scholars of Ahlul Sunnat. It is common knowledge among the literate public that Abu Hanifah, Malik and other scholars used analogy (Qiyas) in deriving the rules of Shariah, while Imams of Ahlul Bayt (a.s.) used to prohibit it. It is apparent that even if in the beginning a faith observes these principles, it will eventually be filled with contradictions.
Thus, what we see is that the religion of the Imams of Ahlul Bayt (a.s.) is very much opposed to the religion of the leaders of Ahlul Sunnat. The writer of the Sharh (Explanation) of Minhaj writes that the denial of analogy (Qiyas) is the religion of Ahlul Bayt (a.s.) just as acting on analogy is the religion of Abu Hanifah and other Ahlul Sunnat. Thus, the statement of this writer clearly shows that the faith of Ahlul Sunnat and Shias is different from the aspect of analogy.
The second difference is that Mulla Jalal Dawwafi, the writer of Sharh Aqaid Uzdiya says that the best of the sects is the ‘Successful sect’, that is the Ashari sect, because this sect acts upon those traditions of the Messenger of Allah (S) that are related by his companions and unlike the Motazalite, this sect does not temper traditions by rationality. And neither does it quote persons other than the companions as Shias have done, who, due to the belief in their superiority, quote their Imams. Here the notable point is that the Motazela sect is mentioned to be different from the Ashaira.
However, both these relate traditions from the companions, unlike Shia sect which related traditions from non-companions, that is the Imams of Ahlul Bayt (a.s.). The writer presents five examples of controversies from the aspect of actions. One is that Ali (a.s.) mostly considers legal the selling of slave-girls who have children while the scholars of Ahlul Sunnat consider it prohibited. Allamah Taftazani writes in Sharh Mukhtasar Usoole Azudi:
“The companions have differed in the matter of the selling of slave girls who have borne children. Ali (a.s.) considers it permissible and it is the religion of Shias and Shias know well the religion of Ali (a.s.).” Secondly, Thalabi has related that Ali (a.s.) considers the wiping over the shoes prohibited while Abu Hanifah allows it, as is also mentioned in the Sharh Waqaya.
Thirdly, Ahlul Sunnat scholars do not allow inheritance to the woman whose husband had died with the consummation of marriage unlike Ali (a.s.). Shah Waliullah Muhaddith Dehlavi, the believer of Sunni faith in his Sharh Mishkat differs with the religion of Ali (a.s.) and says: “That is the religion of Ali (a.s.) and his Shias and this is the religion of Ibn Masood, that is why we follow the statement of Ibn Masood.” It should be clear that the above two examples illustrate that Ahlul Sunnat differ from the religion of Ali (a.s.).
Ignorant people from Ahlul Sunnat think that their religion is same as that of Ali (a.s.); it is certainly not so. There is no similarity between the religion of Ahlul Sunnat and the faith of Ali (a.s.).
Fourthly, rabbit meat is unlawful in the religion of Imam Ja’far Sadiq (a.s.), while Abu Hanifah permitted it. Mulla Jami has mentioned this in his book Tafhaat. Here it is worth saying that rabbit is prohibited by Allah in Taurat. Thus, the impermissibility of rabbit is mentioned with the prohibition of pork. That the Imams of Ahlul Bayt (a.s.) had prohibited it does not seem to be without reason. It seems that Imam Ja’far Sadiq (a.s.) has taken into consideration the prohibition of the Almighty and decreed rabbit unlawful.
Fifthly, fishes without scales are prohibited in Imamiyah faith and Ahlul Sunnat consider them lawful. Please note that this type of fish is also prohibited in Taurat. It is included in the list that mentions pork and rabbit meat. Thus, we see that Imams of Ahlul Bayt (a.s.) used their broad knowledge fully while practicing jurisprudence. The title of Amirul Mo-mineen (a.s.) as a “judge who judges by the four scrolls” is very much appropriate. All his successors also are seen to be fully qualified for this title. And why shouldn’t it be so?