The emergence and appearance of differences in the views of jurists in the jurisprudence of contracts can be seen in many forms and in various positions. One of the most wide-ranging areas of disagreement between scholars of jurisprudence is the difference of opinion in jurisprudence. Among them, it is possible to mention the issue of subsidizing the haram in the mahram gains. Although the maximum agreement on the commonality of this issue is undeniable, the difference of opinion in examining the role and judgment of custom and the difference in the perspective of the jurists through the lens of the text with the help of familiar mental tools or the focus of custom on not reaching a precise definition of the subject and in The next step has led to the difference of opinion of the jurists in deriving the Sharia ruling. Based on the analytical-exploratory descriptive method, with a case study of the issue of donation, this essay investigated the reasons for the differences in the views of jurisprudents in the field of jurisprudence, and the result is that according to several reflections on the performance of some jurists, in the field of knowledge The subject matter of the ruling has not achieved a desired result, and identifying the source of the dispute is helpful in reducing the volume of the dispute and reaching accurate and common results.