The claim of comprehensiveness of Imami jurisprudence as a normative system for regulating various dimensions of human life has encountered new conceptual and jurisprudential challenges with the rise of artificial intelligence and lethal autonomous weapons systems. The fundamental question is: how can the traditional paradigm of ijtihad, based on concepts such as intention (qasd), free will (ikhtiyar), and human agency, analyze the performance of systems that lack human consciousness and intention, yet play a role in critical decision-making? This research aims to examine the capacities and limitations of the rules of Imami jurisprudence in confronting this issue and to explain the requirements for rethinking the model of ijtihad. It employs an analytical-critical method and examines four jurisprudential rules: the necessity of intention (luzum al-qasd), the principle of discernment (asl al-tamyiz), liability through possession (daman al-yad), and the rule of la darar wa la dirar. The findings indicate that the direct application of traditional concepts and rules based on human agency to the performance of autonomous systems faces limitations in explaining various dimensions of jurisprudential responsibility and accountability. These limitations can be formulated in three characteristics of the traditional paradigm: individual-centrism, particularism, and the lack of interdisciplinary language and analytical tools. Furthermore, examining the rule of la darar wa la dirar reveals the necessity of attention to the widespread and systemic consequences of these technologies and the requirements for prevention and oversight of their application. Effective confrontation of Imami jurisprudence with the challenges of artificial intelligence requires paradigmatic rethinking and a transition toward institutionalized and interdisciplinary ijtihad. Accordingly, the article proposes a framework with three pillars: separation of governance domains and sources of legitimacy, institutionalization of interdisciplinary consultative processes, and production of competitive scientific and legal discourse through training hybrid elites and formulating doctrines appropriate to emerging issues.