عنوان مقاله [English]
Sometimes the ambiguity in understanding the meaning of a tradition leads to its brevity or not to be permitted being appealed to, also causes it to lose its valuable contents. This ambiguity sometimes looks seriously, especially if tradition is a general rule rather than a secondary specific one that plays a role not only in the secondary jurisprudence but basically in the structure and the construction of organizational jurisprudence, as well as a source for governmental rules.
This paper is an effort to resolve the ambiguity from the most important transmitted evidence on the principle of "No Harm" and also to discover the lost series that is hidden in comparing the noted tradition on its exterior reality.
The author has carried out a research in the field of Javahiri Jurisprudence in order to achieve this goal. Having done a research on the possibility regarding this difficulty with jurisprudential approach, the author has put the problem and its answer on the basis of different principles.
At the end, the author reconciled the two ideas of Imam Khomeini, srule and Ayatollah Sistani's inhibition. According to Ayatollah Sistani, the second one is an interpretation for the first. He claims that by ignoring the position of guardianship and its intellectual and conventional objects in interpretation of "No Harm" has created an ambiguity and paradox in comparing the above-mentioned tradition and its exterior reality.