Examination of Citing Medical Tests in Islamic Jurisprudence

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to examine how scientific evidence, expert opinions, and medical tests can be referenced, as well as to clarify the jurisprudential status and foundations for utilizing these tools. Evidence in proving claims holds significant importance in uncovering the truth and is considered the most critical criterion for fair trials. The evidentiary methods in Islamic jurisprudence include testimony, oath, the judge’s knowledge, confession, documents, judicial oaths, and circumstantial evidence. Medical tests encompass a wide range of skills and techniques that utilize advanced tools and scientific and technical experiments. These tests can play a diverse role in uncovering and proving legal matters, facilitating judicial processes, and uncovering facts. The main challenge lies in how medical tests can be admissible as evidence in claims from the perspective of Islamic jurisprudential foundations. Moreover, there are substantial disagreements among jurists in this regard. Therefore, addressing this challenge is of particular importance and necessity. The research findings indicate that consulting medical experts and utilizing medical tests are applicable when a specialized issue arises, and the judge is unable to address it independently. If such expert opinions generate definitive knowledge for the judge, they must be included as part of the reasoning in the judgment. Thus, medical tests are not categorized as primary evidence of proof and ultimately fall outside the scope of criminal evidentiary tools. They cannot directly form the basis of a court’s ruling. The final decision regarding the validity of these opinions rests with the judge. It appears that, although medical tests are considered a type of judicial indication, the judge is not obligated to follow them. However, in cases where medical tests provide definitive and conclusive knowledge for the judge, such as DNA testing for establishing lineage, the judge is compelled to rely on them. This reliance is based on the fact that such results are considered definitive knowledge for any judge, both logically and customarily.