Feasibility of Applying Grounded Theoryin Jurisprudential Ijtihad in the Form of Critical Realism

Ijtihad and its jurisprudential principles (Osule Feqh) are more important than qualitative methods of research such as the contextualization (Zamine Yābi) approach, because the method of inferring the religion's laws and acquiring the Shariah rulings, are considered the basis of authority (Hojjiyat) or excuse (Mo'aẑẑeriyat) and finality (Monajjeziyat) in Imamiyyah jurisprudence. However, it seems that due to the centrality of language (texts, and data) and the generation of ideas (theory, fatwa, and inference) there are common features between the two approaches of contextualization and jurisprudential ijtihad. Since a large number of studies in methodology of research confirm the advantages and strengths of the contextualization approach, the possibility of using this qualitative research method in the process of ijtihad and inference of jurists is questionable.The upcoming research, by adopting the descriptive-analytical method and in the form of critical realism, has compared the two mentioned approaches to answer this question, the results indicate that the approach of contextualization and jurisprudential ijtihad in requirements, ontology, epistemology and the methodology (data, research approach and analysis method) have fundamental differences. Also, the results of the research showed that unlike the direct and explicit method of contextualization, ijtihad is a complex process that requires the agency of the researcher (mentality (Malakeh) of ijtihad) and vast and deep knowledge of the mujtahid.