An Account of How to Apply Epistemological Issues to Practical Doctrines of Islamic Jurisprudence

There is a direct connection between the popularity of the doctrines of every religion and the logic of deduction in it. Accordingly, the functionality of Islamic jurisprudence as the most considerable Islamic knowledge, depends on its ability to answer the needs and requirements of its very time. In contemporary discussions, so many issues are proposed on the right way of deduction or argument as a tool for justification of beliefs or a method for understanding texts. Naturally, Shia's jurisprudence must consider these studies in its logic of deduction and discovery of divine commands to retain the required dynamism or in the case of its refutation, offers some alternative versions. According to the findings of this research, which is achieved by the descriptive-analytical method, the connection between today’s epistemological movement and jurisprudential deductions in Islam is not clear. The most serious problem is the complete distinction between these two realms. Before considering and applying the opinions in the epistemological sphere (theoretical realm) to the jurisprudential issues (practical realm), the connection between these two realms should be explained. Naturally, if this connection is proved, various epistemological ideas could be proposed in the logic of deduction. It seems that moral philosophy can work as an intermediary between these two realms. In this paper, we attempt to suggest how the notion of proof in Uṣūl al-fiqh and the notion of deserving reward/punishment in moral philosophy can fit together. In the next step, we explain how reward/punishment relates to the justification in epistemology. If this claim is proved, it can be a ground for using theoretical issues like the structure of beliefs’ justification or rationality of belief in Islamic jurisprudence, and so making the logic of deduction in Islamic law compatible with the contemporary scientific method as much as possible.