As the engine driving the dynamism of Islamic jurisprudence, *ijtihad* is responsible for deriving religious rulings; however, its traditional methods face challenges—specifically, a focus on isolated pieces of evidence without regard for the interconnected network of rulings, supra-jurisprudential principles, or socio-ethical consequences. This approach can lead to rulings incompatible with justice and human dignity—rulings that are impractical to implement and may even fuel alienation from religion.

The primary concern of this research is to examine the gap between "theoretical inference" and "actual realization." The article’s key question is whether a ruling that is incompatible with the spirit of Sharia and the exigencies of time and place can truly be considered a discovery of the Lawgiver's intent. In response, one may point to the necessity of the "systemic adaptability of rulings"—an approach that not only aligns the fatwa with fundamental Islamic principles but also ensures that its implementation is free from both intrinsic and extrinsic obstacles, thereby realizing the Lawgiver's intended interests.

The research gap lies in the failure to systematically articulate this concept. In contrast to the prevailing perspective, the "systemic approach" views legal inference as a comprehensive process, integrating factors such as the rationale behind legislation, justice, human dignity, the conventions of rational people, the exigencies of time and place, and the human sciences alongside traditional evidentiary sources.

Using a descriptive-analytical approach, this article elucidates the aforementioned paradigm and identifies key criteria—such as alignment with justice, public interest (*maslaha*), and custom (*'urf*). Its innovation lies in presenting a systematic analysis of "systemic adaptability" as a methodological theory that enhances the efficacy of jurisprudence, preserves the validity of Sharia, and addresses emerging challenges.