The term "Ahm" is a part of the rule of "Ahm" and "Mahm" that was raised when there was a conflict between rulings and if there was no other way but to accept one and abandon the other, considering the main and secondary principles in the field of Islamic jurisprudence, both among the Sunnis and the Imamis, and with the precedence of "Ahm" being higher in rank than "Mahm", Islamic jurists necessarily accepted "Ahm" and abandoned "Mahm". The question is, if someone goes against the aforementioned rule (abandoning "Ahm") and accepts "Mahm" instead, will he be held responsible or not

In this research, it was answered that in Islamic jurisprudence, both Sunni and Imami, it was examined that the views are the same in accepting the priority of the important over the important, and that leaving the important is responsible, and this responsibility depends on the manner of action, which makes the type of responsibility different, meaning that sometimes leaving the important will entail a responsibility in the hereafter and sometimes it will entail a worldly responsibility. The only difference that was found between the Sunni and Imami jurisprudential discourse on this subject is that in examining the responsibility of leaving the important in the book, the citations of the schools were the same, but in other cases such as Sunnah, consensus, reason and analogy with the text and sources are different, but in the task, the views seem to be similar and the same. So that in other books, the subject was addressed from the perspective and sources of each school (Sunni and Shiite), and no theory or reason was found in any of the schools that proves the lack of responsibility for leaving the important.