اعتبارسنجي استصحاب در دو امر حادث با تاريخ مجهول؛ و تأثير آن در نقد ماده 873 قانون مدني

Validation of companionship in two matters of an accident with an unknown date; and its effect in criticizing Article 873 of the Civil Code

ﺟﺮﯾﺎن و ﯾﺎ ﻋﺪم ﺟﺮﯾﺎن اﺳﺘﺼﺤﺎب در دو ﺣﺎدﺛﻪاي ﮐﻪ ﺗﻘﺪم و ﺗﺄﺧﺮ آن دو ﻣﺸﺨﺺ ﻧﯿﺴﺖ، داراي ﺛﻤﺮات ﻓﻘﻬﯽ و ﺣﻘﻮﻗﯽ ﻓﺮاواﻧﯽ در ﺑﯿﺸﺘﺮ اﺑﻮاب ﻓﻘﻪ و ﺣﻘﻮق ﻣﯽﺑﺎﺷﺪ و اﻧﺪﯾﺸﻤﻨﺪان ﻓﻘﻪ و ﺣﻘﻮق در اﯾﻦ ﻣﺴﺌﻠﻪ دﯾﺪﮔﺎهﻫﺎي ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻔﯽ اﺑﺮاز داﺷﺘﻪاﻧﺪ. در ﻧﻮﺷﺘﺎر ﭘﯿﺶرو ﺑﺎ ﺑﻬﺮهﮔﯿﺮي از ﻣﻨﺎﺑﻊ ﮐﺘﺎﺑﺨﺎﻧﻪاي و ﺑﺎ روش ﺗﺤﻠﯿﻠﯽ ﺗﻮﺻﯿﻔﯽ، آراي داﻧﺸﻤﻨﺪان ﻓﻘﻪ و دﯾﺪﮔﺎه ﺣﻘﻮﻗﺪاﻧﺎن ﻣﻮرد ﺑﺮرﺳﯽ ﻗﺮار ﮔﺮﻓﺘﻪ اﺳﺖ. ﻧﺘﺎﯾﺞ ﭘﮋوﻫﺶ ﻧﺸﺎن ﻣﯽدﻫﺪ ﮐﻪ ﻓﻘﻬﺎ اﺳﺘﺼﺤﺎب را در اﯾﻦ ﻣﺴﺄﻟﻪ ﺟﺎري داﻧﺴﺘﻪ، وﻟﯽ ﺑﻪ ﺳﺒﺐ ﺗﻌﺎرض، اﺛﺮي ﺑﺮاي آن ﻟﺤﺎظ ﻧﻤﻰﮐﻨﻨﺪ و ﺑﻪ ﻗﺎﻋﺪه ﻃﻬﺎرت، ﻗﺮﻋﻪ، اﺣﺘﯿﺎط و ... ﻣﺮاﺟﻌﻪ ﻣﯽﮐﻨﻨﺪ. اﻟﺒﺘﻪ ﺑﺮﺧﯽ ﺑﻪ ﮐﻠﯽ اﺳﺘﺼﺤﺎب را ﺟﺎري ﻧﺪاﻧﺴﺘﻪ و اﺻﺎﻟﺖ ﻃﻬﺎرت را ﻣﻄﺮح ﻧﻤﻮدهاﻧﺪ. ﻓﻘﻬﺎ ﺑﺎ اﺧﺘﻼف در ﺟﺮﯾﺎن اﺳﺘﺼﺤﺎب، در ﮐﯿﻔﯿﺖ و ﻧﻮع ﺟﻬﻞ ﺗﻔﺎوت ﻗﺎﺋﻞ ﻧﺸﺪهاﻧﺪ. ﺣﻘﻮﻗﺪاﻧﺎن در ﻓﺮض ﺟﻬﻞ در زﻣﺎن ﺣﺎدﺛﻪ ﻧﺨﺴﺖ دﯾﺪﮔﺎه ﻓﻘﯿﻬﺎن را ﭘﺬﯾﺮﻓﺘﻪاﻧﺪ، وﻟﯽ در ﻓﺮض ﺟﻬﻞ در زﻣﺎن ﺣﺎدﺛﻪ دوم، آراي ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻔﯽ دارﻧﺪ. در اﯾﻦ ﻣﻘﺎﻟﻪ اﺷﮑﺎﻻت ﻣﺎده 873 ﻗﺎﻧﻮن ﻣﺪﻧﯽ ﮐﻪ ﻣﺨﺎﻟﻔﺖ ﺻﺮﯾﺢ ﺑﺎ ﻓﻘﻪ دارد ﺑﺮرﺳﯽ ﺷﺪه اﺳﺖ. ﺑﻪﻋﻨﻮان ﯾﮑﯽ از ﻧﺘﺎﯾﺞ اﯾﻦ ﭘﮋوﻫﺶ، و ﻣﻼﺣﻈﻪ اﯾﻦﮐﻪ ﻗﺎﻧﻮن ﻣﺪﻧﯽ اﯾﺮان، ﺑﺮ ﮔﺮﻓﺘﻪ از ﻓﻘﻪ اﻣﺎﻣﯿّﻪ ﻣﯽﺑﺎﺷﺪ، ﺑﻪﻧﻈﺮ ﻣﯽرﺳﺪ ﺑﺎﯾﺴﺘﯽ در ﻣﺤﺘﻮا ﻗﺎﻧﻮن ﻣﺪﻧﯽ اﯾﺮان در ﻣﻮﺿﻮع ارث ﺑﺎزﻧﮕﺮي ﺻﻮرت ﮔﯿﺮد. ﺗﻔﺎوتﻫﺎي ﺑﺴﯿﺎر ﻣﯿﺎن »ﻗﺎﻧﻮن ﻣﺪﻧﯽ اﯾﺮان« و »ﻓﻘﻪ اﻣﺎﻣﯿﻪ« ﻣﻨﺠﺮ ﺑﻪ ﺑﺮوز اﺧﺘﻼﻓﺎﺗﯽ در ﻣﺴﺎﺋﻠﯽ ﭼﻮن ارث ﺷﺪه اﺳﺖ.

The flow or non-flow of istishab in two incidents whose precedence and latency are not clear, has many jurisprudential and legal fruits in most chapters of jurisprudence and law, and jurists and jurists have expressed different views on this issue. In the present article, using the sources of libraries and by the method of comparative analysis, the opinions of jurisprudential scholars and the views of jurists have been examined. The results of the research show that the jurists consider istishab as current in this issue, but due to the conflict, they do not consider it and refer to the rule of purity, lottery, precaution, etc. Of course, some have not considered istishab as valid at all and have proposed the originality of purity. The jurists have not distinguished the quality and type of ignorance by differing in the course of istishab. The jurists have accepted the view of the jurists on the assumption of ignorance at the time of the first incident, but have different opinions on the assumption of ignorance at the time of the second incident. This article examines the problems of Article 873 of the Civil Code, which is in direct opposition to jurisprudence. As one of the results of this study, and considering that the Iranian civil law is derived from Imami jurisprudence, it seems that the content of the Iranian civil law on the subject of inheritance should be reviewed. Many differences between "Iranian civil law" and "Imami jurisprudence" have led to differences in issues such as inheritance.