)The Ruling on Oath and Its Role in Criminal Jurisprudence A Comparative Study in Islamic Jurisprudence and Iraqi Law)

Abstract

This study discusses the importance of the oath in Islamic criminal jurisprudence as a legitimate means of proving the truth or refuting an accusation, especially in cases where material evidence or witness testimony is insufficient. The research clarifies that the oath is not merely a verbal statement but a spiritual and moral contract tied to the accountability before God, making it a weighty piece of evidence within the Islamic evidentiary system.

The study begins by defining the oath from both linguistic and legal perspectives, then reviews the conditions for its validity, including Islam, sanity, maturity, free intention, the acceptable content of the oath according to Sharia, and other conditions that prevent its misuse.

The research addresses the role of the oath in proving crimes and hudud (fixed punishments), and its use in cases of ta’zir (discretionary punishments) and diyat (blood money), clarifying its impact on judicial rulings and comparing it with other means of proof.

Subsequently, the study presents the views of the five major Islamic jurisprudential schools regarding the acceptance and role of the oath, highlighting points of agreement and disagreement. It emphasizes legal preferences based on Sharia evidence and judicial experience, underlining the importance of the judge’s discretion and wisdom in handling the oath.

The research also examines the effect of the oath on judicial decisions concerning acquittal or conviction based on it, providing practical examples derived from Islamic judicial practice.

In conclusion, the study affirms the significance of the oath as a legitimate tool with a profound impact on safeguarding rights and achieving justice. It offers recommendations to promote its balanced use in criminal courts and calls for further applied studies to deepen legal and jurisprudential understanding of the oath