The conditional cases are of two types: the original which is called the agreeing case or the spoken case and the second one is sub-content which is called obligatory case or the concept of the conditional case. On the other hand, the conditional cases are the ones used mostly in the Islamic texts because we believe that the concept of conditionality comes before other concepts in the science of principles of jurisprudence. According to the fundamentalists, if the matter in question is one of the sharia texts, it is not permissible for the person to rule, so that the ruling will not go away after the issue has disappeared, thus the case has the concept of the spoken case. But this is a matter of congruence with the well-known fundamentalist building on the status of the expression in question. In order to solve the problem, many fundamentalists tried to present the appropriate evidence, but these arguments do not help to prove the concept of condition and from here this question arises on the surface: "How can the concept of condition be adopted in the conditional cases, where the structure of the bodies is not inconsistent with the one who says the concept in the conditional cases?" To remove this conflict and to arrive at a robust answer, we followed the analytical and descriptive method of tracing through the traceability of the fundamentalists in the specialized libraries of jurisprudence and assets. However, as we have shown in the article, attempts and solutions by major fundamentalists have not solved the problem, and the result is that the only solution is to disavow the famous foundation on the status of expression.