‌Context & Objective: In legislative discourse, it is common for multiple rulings or general statements to be followed by a qualifier or exception, either for rhetorical elegance or necessity. When such a restriction is introduced after several rulings, ambiguity may arise: does the restriction apply solely to the final ruling, or to all the preceding ones? In the absence of any contextual indicator (qarīnah) to resolve this ambiguity, legal interpretation becomes problematic. This article explores how scholars of Uṣūl al-Fiqh (principles of Islamic jurisprudence) have addressed this issue, particularly within the framework of linguistic rules such as ʿām (general) and khāṣṣ (specific). The research aims to clarify whether such ambiguities should be resolved through verbal principles (uṣūl lafẓiyyah) or through procedural principles (uṣūl ʿamaliyyah), thus contributing to broader jurisprudential methodology.
 ‌Method & Approach: This study adopts a doctrinal and critical approach, analyzing classical and contemporary views within the Shi‘i uṣūl tradition. It systematically reviews the arguments and methodologies employed by legal theorists when confronting linguistic ambiguity in legal texts, particularly where multiple rulings are followed by a single restriction. The study distinguishes between different interpretive strategies and evaluates their consistency and adequacy in addressing cases lacking explicit contextual clues.
 ‌Findings: Although the issue may initially appear to fall under linguistic interpretation, the analysis reveals that verbal principles alone do not provide a conclusive resolution. The common assumption that the restriction applies only to the final clause—on the basis of avoiding redundancy—is insufficient in many cases. Instead, the study finds that ambiguity in such legal formulations often reflects deeper uncertainty not resolved by verbal rules. Consequently, the recourse to procedural principles becomes not only relevant but necessary in the absence of a definitive linguistic guideline.
 ‌Conclusion: The article concludes that resolving ambiguity arising from post-positional restrictions in legal propositions should not be confined to verbal principles. Given the indeterminate nature of such cases and in line with established Shi‘i jurisprudential practice, procedural principles (uṣūl ʿamaliyyah) offer a more reliable and coherent method for resolving uncertainty. This approach ensures consistency in legal interpretation and aligns with the broader objectives of Islamic legal methodology in dealing with ambiguous or doubtful matters.