Following the Sunnah as the second pillar of legislation has always been threatened by two extremes: innovation (unjustified expansion of religion) and legal rigidity (adherence to historical forms). Differences in the definition of "Sunnah" and the degree of imitation have led the jurisprudence of Shi'ism and Sunnism to develop in ways susceptible to one or the other of these pitfalls.

In Sunni jurisprudence, approaches based on the conduct of the Caliphs and companions, and *masāliḥ mursalah* (unspecified public interests) – particularly in schools like Maliki – have facilitated flexibility in responding to executive developments. However, this approach, from an evaluative perspective, carries the risk of entering into innovation. Conversely, Salafi-oriented tendencies, such as the view of Ibn Taymiyyah, have led to severe legal rigidity in the face of contemporary circumstances.

In contrast, Shi'i jurisprudence, with its emphasis on defining the Sunnah as fixed (words, actions, and approvals of the infallible Imam), has established a clear boundary against structural innovations in religion. However, the strict application of the principle of caution in ritualistic and ambiguous matters, especially in the rituals of Hajj, in some viewpoints has led to cautious rigidity in accepting modern tools, which in itself hinders the realization of the spirit of facilitating Sharia.

The balanced approach, in following the Sunnah, is to differentiate between the fixed elements and the variable executive tools, so that, simultaneously, the expansion of sources of legislation (innovation) and the adherence to historical forms (rigidity) are prevented. The results of this research indicate that strengthening interpretive jurisprudence and reducing biased approaches can simultaneously prevent innovation and rigidity, and create the conditions for the sustainable realization of the Sunnah in contemporary circumstances.