This study aims to address a methodological gap in the field of philosophical arguments related to doctrinal principles, motivated by the need to develop a systematic framework for the rational elucidation of religious beliefs. Utilizing a descriptive-analytical approach and a comparative study of Islamic philosophical texts, the author investigates three inferential methods: deductive, inductive, and synthetic. The primary objective of this research is to identify the most effective reasoning method for proving and clarifying doctrinal principles, considering the capacities and limitations inherent in each approach.

The findings indicate that while the deductive method possesses a robust logical structure, it is insufficient for explaining all dimensions of doctrinal matters. The inductive method, due to its probabilistic nature, also fails to provide conclusive proof. In contrast, the synthetic method—intelligently integrating reason, revelation, and intuition—emerges as the most comprehensive approach, capable of leveraging the strengths of multiple methods to present a holistic understanding of doctrinal truths.

The ultimate contribution of this study is the proposal of a novel model in the philosophy of religion that enriches the theoretical discourse and offers a practical framework for addressing contemporary challenges and doubts concerning religious beliefs.