Shia and Sunni commentators have come to understand some of the rules of the Qur'anic verses, and to understand and analyze these rules as one of the requirements of identifying and classifying various interpretative methods. While they have often not only have not explained the rules they have adopted, but also they have even used interpretive rules without specifying the rules, even under different names. Therefore, in order to evaluate the interpretive methods of the interpreters, one has to discover their unknown rules. The interpretive rule of "Beat one to frighten another" is one of the rules that this paper seeks to streamline its use in the Shia and Sunni interpretations in various times. This rule has been used by most Shia and Sunni commentators since its inception, sometimes by name and sometimes without mentioning the phrase "Beat one to frighten another" and has often been used to justify and analyze the verses blaming the Prophet. In the meantime, Shi''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''ite commentators have used this rule far more in the prophetic transcendence, in line with stricter theological principles in the field of infallibility. Examining many cases of the use of the interpretive rule of "Beat one to frighten another" in the multiple interpretations of Shia and Sunni regarding their time periods, suggests that commentators have never had a fixed and consistent method to use it, and they have often used this rule as a loophole. As even in the context of the verses of blame, not only have they not used this interpretive rule in a fixed way and below the specified verses, but also, when there is no collective way between the Book and the infallibility of the prophets, they have used the rule of "Beat one to frighten another" in a dispersed and unpredictable way along with some other rules.
