This study aims to examine the functioning of lending and facilities provided by the International Monetary Fund based on Imamia jurisprudence. In this study, a methodological approach based on the jurisprudence and independent reasoning of contemporary Shia scholars and jurists, drawing upon the principled jurisprudential method of Sheikh Murtadha Ansari, is employed. This method involves first conducting terminological and lexical conceptualization of the intended religious ruling, followed by presenting the jurisprudential evidence and drawing conclusions. The examinations have shown that two principles among the important jurisprudential principles in the area of monitoring the Fund are of particular interest. The first principle is the principle of negation of harm, which encompasses the sovereignty and comprehensive political and financial authority of Muslims and Islam. The pure Muhammadan Islam should manifest this sovereignty and authority in all its aspects. On the other hand, the areas of this monitoring, which have been identified, must adhere to the principle of non-harm, ensuring that the principle of non-injury is observed in these monitoring and policy-making activities of the Fund. On the other hand, based on the foundations, evidence, and jurisprudential principles, seeking scientific knowledge from non-Muslim scholars and referring to an expert is permissible. However, other objectives such as granting large loans and imposing mandatory policies on governments are inconsistent with the evidence and jurisprudential principles. Ultimately, by summarizing the jurisprudential evidence and presenting alternative solutions to economic problems, despite all the criticisms, it is concluded that interaction and membership in this Fund, from a jurisprudential perspective, is permissible and even obligatory for Muslim governments.
