نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی
1 استادیار، دانشگاه علوم و معارف قرآن کریم قم، قم، ایران.
2 طلبه سطح چهارحوزه علمیه، مجتمع آموزش عالی فقه، جامعة المصطفی (ص) العالمیة قم، قم، ایران.
عنوان مقاله [English]
The involvement or non-involvement of istiṣḥāb (presumption of continuity) in two incidents whose priority and posteriority are not clear, has many legal and jurisprudential effects in most chapters of jurisprudence and law, and jurisprudence and law scholars have expressed different views on this issue. In the following article, the opinions of jurisprudence scholars and the views of jurists have been examined by using library sources and descriptive-analytical method. The results of the research show that the jurists consider istiṣḥāb to be valid in this issue, but due to the conflict, they do not consider any effect for it and refer to the principles of taṭhīr (purification), casting of lots, discretion, etc. Of course, some have totally considered istiṣḥāb to be invalid and brought up the authenticity of taṭhīr. By differing on the proceeding of istiṣḥāb, the jurists have not differentiated the quality and type of. Jurists have accepted the opinion of jurists regarding the assumption of ignorance at the time of the first incident, but they have different opinions regarding the assumption of ignorance at the time of the second incident. In this article, the defects of Article 873 of the Civil Code, which are in clear opposition to jurisprudence, have been examined. As one of the results of this research, and considering that Iran’s Civil Code is derived from Imāmī jurisprudence, it seems that the content of Iran’s Civil Code should undergo a revision on the issue of inheritance. Many differences between “Iran’s Civil Code” and “Imāmī jurisprudence” have led to arising differences in issues such as inheritance