The discussion of conflict between evidences is considered one of the important topics of the science of principles and the last link in the path of deriving Sharia rulings and determining the practical duty of the obligatory. This debate has long been the focus of fundamentalists and it has been discussed more than any fundamental issue. With the progress of the science of principles and the development of fundamental writings, usually the conflict between evidences has been discussed in the two dominant forms of conflicting and conflicting evidences. Usulians have usually interpreted conflict as conflict in the area of falsification of rulings and conflict as conflict in the area of compliance, in such a way that these two issues are completely different from each other and each of them independently seeks to solve a problem in the path of inference; According to the popular opinion, the chapter of conflict is created to solve the problem in the area of falsification of rulings and the chapter of conflict to solve the problem is created in the stage of compliance. But in the opinion of the author, it is possible to refer the conflict of conformity to the conflict of evidence, and the conflict in both positions first arose in the area of forgery. Therefore, in this article, this issue has been investigated by analytical-library method by criticizing the existing differences between conflict and conflict.
تقریرات درس خارج اصول، محمد تقی شهیدی، سال 1396؛ https://yun.ir/8jpf
جوهری، ابو نصر. الصحاح تاج اللغة و صحاح العربیة. بیروت: دار العلم للملایین، چاپ اول، 1407 ه.ق.
چوبداری، میلاد، علی فروتن، محمد محمد پور.« تببین نظام اندیشه اصولی شهید صدر در تعارض انگاری تزاحم امتثالی»، پژوهش های اصولی. دوره 9، ش 31، پائیز 1401، ص 125 تا 138.
