Background and Aim: Generals and specifics are among the major principle-based debates shared by Imamyia and Sunnite denominations in the Lafziyyah arguments domain. This suggests that debating any generalities could result in some specific jurisprudential and legal implications that may engender in contentious jurisprudential debates between denominations. This article aimed to investigate similar and different principle-based theories that have roots in the Qur’an and [religious] narratives to help approximate religions, prevent Takfiri and radical differences between denominations and provide a better sphere for scientific discussions based on religious brotherhood. The key point shared by all Islamic denominations centers around the Qur’an and the proper prophet’s Traditions.
Materials and Methods: This study uses the documentary method and studies credible legal and jurisprudential books to analyze data in a descriptive-analytical way.
Ethical Considerations: The article has observed scientific trustworthiness in all sections. 
Findings: Findings suggested that if a generality is discussed from a specific angle, i.e., if a generality is divided into specific realms, it will nonetheless cover all its adherents, after being specified; however, if it is not discussed from a specific angle, it will be a matter of contention between religious figures whether or not it is definitive or speculative argument, although it may cover all its adherents and remains general. 
Conclusion: Although the source of inferences is a single source but sometimes a plural one, it is Ijtihad that leaves behind various implications, as Islamic denominations’ thoughts and Ijtihad have no roots in disbelief or atheism, which could cause religious or doctrinal controversies.