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

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.