The Role of Jurisprudence in Explaining the Methods of Rulings Enforce-ment

Based on the popular definition, jurisprudence is charge of explaining the rulings and their inference through valid reasons, but the practical experience of Islamic communities has proven that simply stating rulings and how to execute them by a non-jurist can put religious rulings in deadlock and closure or execute rulings in an opposite path of the rulings objectives and then lead to Islam weakening and its content distortion. This research seeks to prove the necessity of developing the subject of jurisprudence by using the methods of rulings, and to examine the implications of the sufficiency of expressing the rulings and entrusting the enforcement ways to non-jurists. The current study suggests that examining the ways of rulings enforcement, and criticizing and comparing them with the religious rules as well as the purpose of the Sharia are all in the account of jurisprudential issues, or as a new branch of jurisprudence. In addition to these, the study deals with the important role it plays. This study, in addition to examination of the necessity of jurisprudence entering the methodology of rulings enforcement, finds the reasons that why jurists don't enter this field and brings up the negative consequences of this field and finally, in order to prove that jurisprudence tools are capable of evaluating the methods of rulings, using the jurisprudential principles, it deduces the following criteria for evaluating the methods of executing rulings and proposes them to the scientific community. 1. Feasibility 2. Agreeing with religious principles and jurisprudential rules 3. Adherence to the objectives of rulings.