This study aimed to collect narratives and methods of hadith, and to identify the fundamentalist rules that influenced the jurisprudential dispute. The study answered the reason for the multiplicity of opinions regarding the ruling on wild animals despite the presence of the forbidden text. The study was divided into two sections: the first on the rules related to legal evidence, and the second on the rules related to the semantics of words. The research was organized into eleven rules. Then I concluded the research with a conclusion on the results, the most important of which are: emphasizing the impact of fundamentalist rules on jurisprudential jurisprudence, and that the scholars’ disagreement was not arbitrary or based on fanaticism, but rather the imams, may God have mercy on them, started in their statements from what they decided as a method for them in their principles and the rules of their deduction. Among the most important recommendations: paying attention to studying legal evidence from the Scriptures and Sunnah, and looking at the method of scholars in deduction, and exploiting and analyzing their texts.