<![CDATA[Contemporary Islamic jurisprudence faces epistemological challenges in reconciling classical legal authority with evolving ethical expectations, particularly concerning justice, human dignity, and contextual responsiveness. This study aims to critically re-examine the epistemological foundations of classical usul al-fiqh and develop an integrative framework synthesising traditional jurisprudential principles with contemporary legal ethics. Employing a qualitative library research approach, the study utilises critical philosophical interpretation, thematic analysis, and comparative conceptual synthesis of classical jurisprudential sources and contemporary scholarly literature. The findings identify three fundamental limitations: the conflation of revelatory authority with fallible human interpretation, methodological formalism, and the separation between juridical validity and substantive ethical legitimacy. Addressing these limitations, the study proposes an integrative epistemological framework comprising four interconnected dimensions: epistemic foundations, interpretative procedures, ethical evaluation, and contextual validation. This framework establishes a systematic relationship between authoritative legal sources, rational inference, substantive justice, and socio-legal circumstances. Its relevance is particularly evident in Islamic family law, encompassing marital justice, divorce protection, parental responsibilities, and family welfare. The study contributes a theoretically grounded paradigm that reconciles jurisprudential continuity with ethical accountability, while recognising that the framework requires further empirical validation through comparative legal analysis and judicial case studies.]]>
