RULE OF CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE UNDER COMMON AND CIVIL LAW: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS FROM ISLAMIC LAW.

Md Nurullah

Abstract


Common and civil law are allowing two type evidences such as direct and indirect on the other hand Islamic law allow just direct evidence. Also, direct evidence is acceptable in court without any confusion but indirect evidence which is also known as circumstantial evidence, which requires an implication to be made in order to arrive at a conclusion to be drawn from the evidence. Because the perception among the public is that circumstantial evidence carries less weight than direct evidence. The position is worse when it comes to its admissibility under Islamic law. The common perception is that circumstantial evidence is inadmissible in criminal proceedings under Islamic law system. This paper, therefore, examines the significance and admissibility of circumstantial evidence in criminal proceedings. Basically, this paper discusses based on Quran and Hadith of Prophet Mohammad (SWA). It is qualitative research. Primary and secondary resources are used in this paper. The information has been taken from many readings, articles and books. It makes a comparative analysis of the Common, civil and Islamic law systems. It finds out that circumstantial evidence is admissible in all cases in Common and civil law system, while in Islamic law system; Muslim jurists hold different views with respect to its admissibility in Huduud and Qisaas cases. It draws a conclusion that although Muslim jurists hold different views, the soundest view is its admissibility in all cases including Huduud and Qisaas.


Full Text:

PDF HTML

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.