The matters arising

The issue of the origin and the evolution of the Islamic law and the root from which it is founded is thought provoking as I did not see any yardstick or the root cause of determining the cumulative doctrine. In trying to differentiate doctrinal schools from the personal schools of thought, certain characteristics of the doctrinal school are highlighted and amongst all of them is the axis of authority that is grounded methodological principles and the substantive positive laws. Granted and accepted as such stands tall for determining a law. However, what I am not coming to terms with is how some schools over time gain acceptance in the doctrinal school against the others. For instance ,Abu Hanifa, Malik, and Shafii. The questions now are, how were their metamorphosis into this doctrinal school determined? Is it based on the approval or the number of followers each school had?, Was there different sources of reference being relied on by these personal schools? If so, it means that certain sources were not taken to be true. In this case one could say just like in the early Christian, these schools that could not make it to the doctrinal school must have set bad precedents which were not to the interest of Islamic religion. Hence, their school might have had in their thoughts some heretical tendencies as it was the case in the early Christianity to have not made it in the doctrinal school.