تاثير پذيرش نظريه انقلاب نسبت در احكام تداخل عده

قبول نظرية انقلاب النسبة و أثرها علي أحكام تداخل العدتين (THE EFFECT OF THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE "THEORY OF CHANGING OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN EVIDENCES” IN THE ORDINANCES CONCERNING THE OVERLAPPING OF THE PERIOD OF WAITING (IDDAH

در مصاديق متعدد براي عده زن، اگر دو سبب وجود داشته باشد، محل اختلاف است كه عده ها تداخل مي كنند و رعايت يك عده بر زن واجب و لازم است؛ يا اين كه عده ها تداخل نمي كنند؟ اين اختلاف ناشي از تعارض ادله است. از سوي ديگر، زماني كه بين دو دليل، تعارض مستقري وجود داشته باشد و دليل سومي با ورود خود اين نسبت را به عموم و خصوص مطلق تغيير دهد، در كيفيت رفع تعارض نظر واحدي وجود ندارد. برخي از اصوليان، كبراي انقلاب نسبت را قبول ندارند و برخي آن را پذيرفته اند؛ برخي ديگر هم با توجه به دليل سوم و با شرايطي آن را مورد پذيرش قرار داده اند. در اين مقاله كه با شيوه تحليلي و با تكيه بر منابع دست اول فقهي و اصولي به انجام رسيده است، تبيين مي شود كه يكي از خاستگاه هاي اختلاف در احكام تداخل عده، اختلاف در پذيرش نظريه فوق مي باشد؛ بدين معني كه با پذيرش نظريه و سنجش گروه اول از ادله متعارض با گروه دوم، نسبت آن با گروه سوم از ادله تغيير مي‎كند و از تباين به عموم و خصوص مطلق تبديل مي شود و امكان تخصيص و جمع دلالي فراهم مي آيد.

In several cases there are two sources for the period of waiting. There is a dispute between jurists in these cases as to whether it is obligatory or necessary for the divorcee to wait and looked out for two periods of waiting (Iddah) or one, or that the waiting period does not overlap. This dispute is due to the conflict of evidence. On the other hand, when there are two pieces of evidence and there is an established conflict over the two that should be resolved and a third evidence changes this conflict between them to absolute generality with its entrance, there is no single opinion on the quality of the conflict resolution. Some great fundamentalists do not accept the “theory of changing the relationship between these pieces of evidence” while some have accepted it, while others have accepted it in light of the third evidence and under its terms. In this article, which has used the analytical method, relying on first-hand jurisprudential and fundamental sources, we argue that one of the origins of the difference in the rules of the interference of a number of differences in the acceptance of the above theory. Thus, by accepting the theory and evaluation of the first group contrariquent evidence with the second group, its proportion to the third group has changed from the evidence, and from the contradiction to the general and absolute, and the possibility of allocation and aggregation of the dealership is provided.