How the contribution of the application of reason in inference of Sharia rules is explained in contemporary studies regarding women's issues. This study aims to address this question by applying an analytical-critical method, through contemporary sources. These studies have sometimes used the foresaid reason in the condition of discovering the “sovereign rule" of Sharia and have attributed the "precedence of the independent rule of reason over texts", "the rule of justice based on the rule of common sense", "the validity of the presumptive rule of reason" and "the evolutionary process of justice". Moreover, they also applied reason to discover the "secondary rule" of the Sharia, and they addressed the "rational discovery of expediency" and the "rational discovery of justice at the point of execution". It seems that though reason is not used much in the common background of jurisprudence, the scope of its application has been generalized in contemporary jurisprudential studies regarding women's issues. Indeed," presumptive reason" has been used to derive some jurisprudential Fatwas, from this point of view, reason is included among other valid conjectures. These studies are a great opportunity to activate the capacity of reason in jurisprudence, but at the same time, it is necessary to explain the basis of the validity of presumptive reason in them and to define the quality of its departure from the basic principle of sanctity of action to presumption, and to correct the ambiguities and some seemingly apparent mistakes in them.