A Comparative Study of the Ijtihad Method of sahebjavaher and Khoee

The search in jurisprudential method of jurists, leads the searcher to deal with two general methods of inference. The first method, which is interpreted as the "Contentment-based" (Qanāʿat Miḥwar) method, is the way in which the jurist integrates various conjectures of the issue and attaches them to each other, giving him the credibility, assurance or conjecture which is considered as the best  possible way regarding deduction of the Sharʿī  ruling of the issue., even if  each one of those conjectures and evidence has no value in inference separately; in another word they are not "Probative" (al-Ḥujjat) separately based on Uṣūlī term The second method in the process of Ijtihād is called "Tradition-based" (Ṣanāʿt Miḥwar) method. According to this method the jurist infers the verdict by applying a specified and bounded group of proofs which their authenticity has been proved in Uṣūl. If those proofs miss the requirements of authenticity, the jurist puts them aside and refers to procedural principle. The article attempts to compare the juristic method of Ṣāḥib-al-Jawāhir and al-Khuʾī based on comparative research method, to declare the different fruits of these two methods. Keywords:  contentment-based method, Ṣāḥib al-jawāhir, al-Muḥaqqiq al-Khuʾī