This article examines the scope of the prophethood of Prophet Moses (peace be upon him) based on procedural inference (process-based deduction). The central question is: according to procedural inference, which of the two views—the regional or the universal nature of the prophethood of Prophet Moses (peace be upon him)—is supported by stronger evidence? Furthermore, at which stage or stages of the inferential process can the opposing view be critiqued?
By employing a descriptive-analytical method, with an emphasis on an instructional-analytical approach, the study not only provides an answer to the aforementioned question but also demonstrates the necessity of systematizing theological inference through the presentation of a methodological model. Depicting procedural inference in the discipline of kalām (Islamic theology) is among the key merits and innovations of the present research.
 
Among the eleven hypotheses proposed in the article as possible bases for deriving a conclusion, the first hypothesis was accepted. By affirming the applicability of foundational principles in matters of belief, accepting generalities, absolutes, and principles that may operate contrary to the foundational presumption, denying the restrictive effect of qualifiers on general proofs, accepting specific proofs that indicate the universality of the prophethood of Prophet Moses (peace be upon him), rejecting the continuity of the general proofs mentioned in the fifth stage, and denying the probative force of the specific proofs mentioned in the seventh stage, the universality of his prophethood may be established. Given the presence of accepted and authoritative general and specific proofs, there remains no need to resort to practical principles (uṣūl ʿamaliyyah) to formulate a conclusion.
The instructional-analytical method, implemented through the eight stages of inference, yielded three major outcomes: first, careful and independent reflection upon each stage; second, the generation of intermediate conclusions at every stage that collectively produce the final comprehensive result; and third, the formulation of competing viewpoints in accordance with these very stages.