jurisprudence and law is harming others in the case of coercion. The present article presents various forms of harming others in the case of coercion and explains and critically analyzes the theory of Imami jurists, especially Sheikh Ansari. This study reviews and criticizes the jurists’ arguments for the permissibility of harming others in the case of coercion (except bloodshed), including the application of the grounds of coercion, necessity, and taqiyyah, and states that the gratuitousness of the grounds of coercion, necessity, and taqiyyah prevents their inclusion in the case of harming others. This study also points out the neglect of the role of reason in relying on the application of the grounds and explains that innate reason condemns harming others in the case of coercion. Also, in this study, it is noted that the adherence to the application of evidence is not compatible with the set of religious teachings on justice and the condemnation of self-interest and the importance of offering and forbidding evil. Addressing this issue in terms of its practical effects is a necessity, and its necessity is felt more when we realize that over time, many people have been doing it. Correctly explaining this fact is no small achievement.