An Analysis of the Inference Rules

The present article discusses four theories in trying to arrive at a legal ruling:1. Ijtihad based on one's independent rational reasoning; 2. analogical ijtihad;  3. explorative ijtihad 4.exclusiveness in hearing from the Infallibles
The self-conceived ijtihad or the Ijtihad which is based on independent rational reasoning and analogical ijtihad about things that are not evidenced by any textual proofs and traditions from the Prophet (s) and his noble successors is disapproved and denounced by Shia scholars and it also suffers from challenges from both textual and rational perspectives. The Shiite scholars of Ilm al-Usul have distanced themselves from these two inference methods defining Ijtihad as the application by a jurist of all his faculties to the consideration of the authorities of law with a view to finding out what in all probability is the law.  However, some other Shia scholars have critically assessed the method adopted by the Usul scholars restricting the derivation of a legal ruling to hearing from the Infallibles (as). Although what the Akhbari's are pushing for precedes other methods of inference, restricting inference of legal rules to this method leads to unnecessary constraints and difficulties and it is also in contravention with the teachings of the Infallible Imams (leaders), peace be upon them.
The present article focuses on a number of reports and gives answers to them. In the end, the article also deals with authoritativeness of the inference rules from both essential and legislative perspectives.