English academic works on Islam and Islamic sciences are often written from a Sunnī perspective, neglecting the rich Shīʿī heritage. This oversight leads to an unbalanced presentation of Islamic ideas and teachings, particularly in the realm of Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh). This study examines the sources of Islamic jurisprudence from both Shīʿī and Sunnī perspectives using a comparative approach. Data were first collected from books and papers in Arabic, Persian, and English, and subsequently analyzed to provide a comprehensive comparison. The results indicate that while the jurisprudential sources are similar in terminology—namely, the Book, the Sunnah, consensus, and reason—their concepts, scopes, and methodologies differ significantly. These findings underscore that while the Prophet’s companions hold a significant role in Sunnī thought, the Prophet’s infallible Ahl al-Bayt (as) occupy a unique position within Shīʿī thought. Moreover, due to the centrality of the Imāms in Shīʿī Islam, based on their injunctions, the Sunnah is deemed reliable only if it aligns with the Qur’ān, consensus is accepted solely if it reveals the statements and ideas of an infallible Imām, and only certain rational arguments are considered valid, while conjectural arguments such as qiyas (analogy) are strictly prohibited.