Discrepancies in deductive foundations serve as the primary root of diversity and opposition in the interpretation of religious texts. Utilizing a descriptive-analytical method with a critical approach, this study comparatively dissects two influential Sunni movements—Al-Manar and contemporary Salafism—and subsequently evaluates their theological implications against the standard of the "Imami transcendental school." The findings indicate that concerning epistemological foundations (i.e., the quality of regulating the relationship between reason and tradition), Salafism denies the independence of reason and remains confined to the textual-chain (isnad) criticism of reports. In contrast, Al-Manar prioritizes textual (matn) critique and the presentation of reports against definitive Quranic certainties as a prerequisite for accepting tradition. Regarding semantic (dillati) foundations, by denying the metaphorical capacities of the Arabic lexicon, the Salafi current has fallen into literalism and, by asserting corporeal meanings in the verses concerning Divine attributes, has drifted toward anthropomorphism (tashbih). Conversely, to avoid anthropomorphism, Al-Manar resorts to ta'wil (figurative interpretation); however, through an excess of allegorical approaches, it occasionally reduces unseen (ghayb) texts to sensory concepts. The continuation of this divergence in theological branches has led Salafism—by incorporating bodily acts into the essence of faith—to expand the domain of takfir (excommunication). The evaluation of these two approaches from the perspective of the Imami exegetical school proves that achieving a methodical understanding of the Sharia requires integrating definitive rational proofs with the preservation of textual appearances (via disciplined ta'wil) to prevent the twin destructive perils of "text-bound literalism" and "unprincipled allegorism."