Unlike ancient rhetoricians who rejected ambiguity altogether, modern theorists consider it as a value. This article, initially, presents a historical survey as well as the modern approaches to ambiguity and highlights the modern aesthetic tendency toward ambiguity and polysemy. After the early years of 20^th century, ambiguity was considered as the essential essence of literary texts by literary critics and theorists. Second, the article discusses the value of ambiguity in literary works and draws a borderline between difficulty and polysemy (i.e. pluralization and multiple meaning). Then, it introduces some kinds of ambiguity and elaborates on their distinct features. Meanwhile, this article pinpoints the basic deference between language and literature through emphasizing the value and function of ambiguity.  The main purpose of the article, then, is to emphasis that "ambiguity as inherent nature of literature" and stresses the principle saying: "the artistic value of a literary work and the secret of its eternality depend on the amount of its ambiguity". If one ignores the ambiguity in literary texts, he would lose its spirit and essential essence. Ambiguity causes an interaction between   reader and text and fosters the ability of meaning creation by readers.  Through persuading the readers to react to the content of text, ambiguity provides the opportunities for generations to engage in different dialogues with text across time and history.

Why did Rumi have empathy with the rulers of Seljuk and Mongols invaders in Konya, while Mongols destroyed Baghdad, the capital of Islamic Caliphate, and killed the Caliph? This question has remained an enigma to many Rumi scholars. This paper examines the political behavior of Rumi as an influential jurist and mystic, exploring the theoretical foundations of his behaviors. To clarify the issue, I have examined Rumi’s political behavior based on historical evidence at three levels: (1) the structure of power in Konya and Rumi’s relation with his contemporary politicians; (2) the relation between Rumi’s political behavior and his political unconscious; and (3) the cause of the inconsistency between Rumi’s political actions and his political thought. I have concluded that the verse “obligation to obey the Muslim Sultan” in the Quran acts as an ideological axiom that justifies appealing to cruel rulers by Muslims and cooperating with them. Ideology as a huge force prevents Rumi and his society from understanding this fundamental contradiction. In other words, ideology naturalizes all the contradictions for its followers.