Shia Principles of Jurisprudence (Usul al-Fiqh), as the logic for inferring divine laws, has achieved significant coherence within the context of individual jurisprudence. However, expanding the scope of jurisprudence to “social systems” has revealed the latent structural shortcomings and content deficiencies of this discipline. The central inquiry of this research is whether the current structure of Usul al-Fiqh has the capacity to respond to the complex requirements of system-building and civilizational jurisprudence. The hypothesis posits that extending jurisprudence to the realm of systems functions as a “resilience test,” exposing directional flaws within the discipline. Utilizing a descriptive-analytical method, this study demonstrates that existing Usul, due to its focus on micro-propositions, neglect of social reason, and lack of logic for inferring objectives, faces a methodological crisis when confronting macro-social issues. The findings indicate that the solution is not “inflating issues” or adding supplementary chapters, but rather a fundamental “methodological paradigm shift.” This research proposes a model wherein Usul evolves from a linear, one-dimensional state to a multi-layered, networked structure. By acting as a logic for integrating jurisprudence, theology, and ethics, this restructuring becomes the necessary condition for the dynamism of Shia jurisprudence in the path toward the New Islamic Civilization.