The Jurisprudence of Persuasion in Judicial pleadings A Comparative Analytical Study

Abstract

Persuasion represents a fundamental pillar in achieving justice and revealing truth, reflecting the intellectual and rhetorical competence of judges and advocates in constructing arguments that create rational conviction and psychological assurance in judicial rulings. Accordingly, this study, entitled “The Jurisprudence of Persuasion in Judicial Pleadings: An Analytical and Comparative Study,” examines the jurisprudential foundations and Sharī‘ah principles that regulate persuasive reasoning during pleadings and their impact on judicial fairness and integrity.

The research investigates the conceptual and textual roots of persuasion within Islamic jurisprudence, analyzing classical juristic methods of establishing proof, organizing evidence, and applying objectives and legal maxims to strengthen argumentation. It further compares classical Islamic perspectives with modern judicial systems, identifying areas of convergence and divergence in the theory and practice of persuasion.

The study highlights the ethical and procedural dimensions of judicial discourse, emphasizing clarity, fairness, emotional restraint, and sincerity as key factors in shaping judicial conviction. It demonstrates that persuasion, when grounded in truth and Sharī‘ah objectives, becomes a legitimate means of realizing rights and preventing judicial deviation.

Ultimately, the research concludes that the jurisprudence of persuasion combines the depth of Islamic legal theory with the precision of judicial methodology, reinforcing both confidence in the judiciary and the moral foundations of Sharī‘ah-based justice.