The role of the narrator in questioning the ambiguity and ambiguity of jurisprudential hadiths

One of the important and influential factors in understanding the jurisprudential hadiths is the question of the narrator and it is considered as the strongest analogy in removing the ambiguity of the jurisprudential hadiths. The issuance of narrations by the infallibles is based on the custom of the colloquialists and without considering the question of the narrator, it is either completely incomprehensible or there is doubt in understanding it. Studying the narrators' question helps to dispel such ambiguities. In some cases, the narrator's question has been an obstacle to inference. Shiite jurists have long offered solutions to some ambiguities arising from the narrator's question.This article uses a descriptive-analytical method to carefully study the prominent role of the narrator's question in disambiguation and possibly ambiguity based on the reaction of jurists in the face of the narrator's question.The question of the narrator is the best analogy in removing the ambiguity of the jurisprudential hadiths, so that if the narrations are considered without asking the narrator, most of the hadiths will be excluded from the circle of jurisprudence and jurisprudence. The narrator's question plays an important role in interpreting the sentences, explaining the contents, identifying the gender and type of sentence, and recognizing the restrictions in the religious hadiths. In some cases, the complexity of the question, incomplete quotation or omission of the question has caused the transmission of ambiguity to the words of the innocent. Comparison between similar hadiths, considering the classification of hadith companions and paying attention to the personality and position of the narrator is one of the most important solutions that can be used to resolve the ambiguities arising from the narrator's question.