Abstract
One of the most respected principles of human societies is the freedom of individuals’ will in fulfilling their desired interests. Therefore, not only individuals but also public authorities cannot prevent the freedom of individuals from benefiting social and economic interests under any pretext. However, in some cases, the freedom of individuals in obtaining the greatest benefit, conflicts with each other, in such a way that the absolute freedom of someone to obtain more benefit, in some cases, makes harm the others. Therefore, it is very important to determine the limits and loopholes of individuals freedom and to establish a balance between it and the harm that may be caused to others due to this freedom. as this determination can have a wide impact on the comprehensive development of a state and the people living on it, Due to this necessity, many schools of thought throughout the history have commented on this issue including Islamic and Western schools of thought. The philosophical thoughts of these two schools, one of which is included in the Islamic rule of "no harm" and the other in the Western rule of "harm," has led this article to investigate the points of commonality and differences between these two rules in the shared interaction between them. This paper finally reached the conclusion that from the perspective of legal science, the freedom of individuals in fulfilling their interests is of special importance to ensure the maximum social welfare of any society and its people. So governments, not only should not hinder people's activities, but also In their management, should first seek to combine the conflicted interests of individuals with each other and if it is not possible, in the second step, they should give priority to fulfilling the interests that have the most public function for the most people in the society.