Abstract This chapter evaluates and reconsiders some of the interpretive strategies and epistemological foundations of the current form of ijtihad. The basic thesis is that the moral rationalist presuppositions of Muslim reformers are diametrically opposed to the traditional jurists’ text-centered epistemological assumptions. The chapter contends that the current form of inferential jurisprudence (al-fiqh al-istidlali) should be replaced by neo-ijtihadism and that, should this transition occur, it will engender major paradigmatic shifts in the genre of rulings pronounced. An Islamic reformation also requires a revision of the epistemological and methodological foundations that undergird the current Islamic legal system. These are the key principles and procedures that guide a jurist in his interpretation and application of the rulings he deduces. The chapter also suggests different exegetical and hermeneutical strategies that neo-ijtihadism could adopt and proposes solutions that synthesize hermeneutical strategies with current exigencies so as to make Islamic law more moral, rational, and practical.