چکیده:
Some jurists, in proving the eternal prohibition resulting from marriage to a married woman, have relied on narrations regarding marriage to a woman in iddah (waiting period), combined with the principle of priority. The primary reason is the narrations, even though these narrations are themselves in conflict with one another. The important issue is the conflict between the narrations of Zurarah and the narrations of Abd al-Rahman ibn Hajjaj. In the assumption of ignorant intercourse, according to the narrations of Zurarah, eternal prohibition is established; whereas according to the narrations of Abd al-Rahman, in the case of ignorance, eternal prohibition is negated. Although the narrations of Abd al-Rahman are absolute in terms of whether intercourse occurred or not, the qualification of these narrations to the assumption of non-intercourse is not conventional (urfi); therefore, the conflict cannot be resolved this way. However, two conventional reconciliations with different results can be presented in this matter, the first of which is more conventional. According to the first reconciliation, the narrations of Zurarah are applied to the doubting man, and the narrations of Abd al-Rahman are applied to the case of negligence or compound ignorance of the man; but according to the second reconciliation, the narrations of Zurarah are applied to the ignorance of both spouses, and the narrations of Abd al-Rahman are applied to the ignorance of the man and the knowledge of the woman. Therefore, the eternal prohibition resulting from marriage to a married woman is not attached to marriage to a woman in iddah; because in marriage to a woman in iddah, mere intercourse or knowledge of her being in iddah is sufficient to rule for eternal prohibition.
خلاصه ماشینی:
3 Fourth perspective: Marriage to a married woman, in the case of sexual intercourse, even out of ignorance, brings about eternal prohibition.
In any case, it is derived from the narration that the marriage of a woman who has a husband, absolutely whether with knowledge or ignorance, and with consummation or non-consummation, brings about eternal prohibition.
3 In this narration, regarding a man who married and had intercourse with a woman who had a husband, the ruling is that eternal prohibition does not apply.
According to this reconciliation, the apparent or diverted-from (منصرفٌالیهِ) subject of the sahih narrations of Abd al-Rahman is a man who is negligent or in a state of compound ignorance regarding the woman having a husband.
is eternal prohibition, and its basis is the reliable report of Udaym, which has no opponent in this assumption; because the case covered by the sahih narrations of Abd al-Rahman is the case of compound ignorance or the husband's negligence.
Fifth and sixth cases (man's ignorance and woman's knowledge, with intercourse, or without intercourse): In this case, if the man is negligent or possesses compound ignorance, according to the sahih narrations of Abd al-Rahman, the woman is not eternally prohibited; but if the man is in doubt and proceeds with marriage without legal proof, the reliable report of Udaym, without any opponent, rules eternal prohibition.
Eighth case (man's knowledge and woman's ignorance, without intercourse): In this assumption, there is no evidence for eternal prohibition; because the reliable report of Udaym is specific to the assumption of the woman's knowledge (proof).
(
, 
, 
)
