Gender justice and the discourse of change in women's jurisprudential rulings

Gender justice means entitlement justice for women and men. The discourse of change seeks to reduce the jurisprudential inequalities between men and women in order to achieve this justice. The purpose of this study is to analyze the methodology of this discourse and provide a desirable methodological roadmap for achieving gender justice. In this regard, by analytical-critical method, the works of writers after the Islamic Revolution on these inequalities have been studied. Under this discourse, "non-jurisprudential and intellectual approaches" undermine the credibility of the book and tradition. But jurisprudential and quasi-jurisprudential approaches still insist on the validity of some jurisprudential arguments. Under these recent approaches, the "change approach in implementation" considers the scope of change only in the implementation stage of Sharia rules. The "change approach in infallibility" considers the stage of inference of  Sharia rules to be changed, and is formed by "discovering new branches" and revision the reasons with the conventional methods in jurisprudence. And the "setting of new principles approach" achieves new jurisprudential ideas by ijtihad in the rules of inferring the Shari'a ruling themselves and acquiring new methods. Despite some criticisms of these approaches, some of their rules are acceptable. And the desired order in them for achieving gender justice is as follows: First, the establishment of new principles and the revision of the rules of inference; Second, discovering new branches and revision the reasons; Third is the change approach in implementation on the assumption that  inequality leads to corruption, and fourth is the discourse of stability on the assumption that no justified change is proven even in the execution stage.