The present study aims to identify the foundations of Mirza al-Qummi’s hadith-jurisprudential methodology and examine their practical application in Jāmiʿ al-Shatāt. Understanding and inferring from hadith rests on prior theoretical foundations that structure a hadith scholar’s methodological engagement with transmitted reports. The central question is which hadith-jurisprudential foundations Mirza, as a major theorist of the Usuli school, employed to develop a systematic approach to the provenance, meaning, authenticity, and apparent contradictions of reports. The study adopts a descriptive-analytical method based on an inductive examination of selected hadith and jurisprudential cases in Jāmiʿ al-Shatāt. The findings show that Mirza’s understanding of hadith rests on the primacy of apparent meaning (aṣālat al-ẓuhūr) and customary understanding, restricting unrestricted expressions to their common instances, the probative force of refraining from seeking further clarification (ḥujjiyyat tark al-istifṣāl), distinguishing technical legal meanings from lexical meanings, the authority of context, and attention to connected and disconnected contextual indicators. In authenticating reports and resolving apparent conflicts, he also accepts the authority of the trustworthy solitary report (khabar al-wāḥid al-thiqa) on the basis of the closure of the path to certain knowledge (insidād bāb al-ʿilm), qualifying Qur’anic apparent meanings through authoritative Sunnah, interpreting certain reports as expressions of taqiyya, conditional customary reconciliation, leniency in the evidentiary basis of recommended acts, the systemic coherence of reports, preference for scholarly fame over textual evidence, and the authority of early scholars’ understanding. These principles reveal a balanced methodology integrating transmission and Usuli rules with custom, context, fame, reason, and substantive coherence.