Editing Sharia (section)

====Evidences / testimonies====
'''In Criminal cases''': A confession, an oath, or the oral testimony of Muslim witnesses are the main evidence admissible in traditional sharia courts for hudud crimes, i.e., the religious crimes of adultery, fornication, rape, accusing someone of illicit sex but failing to prove it, [[Apostasy in Islam|apostasy]], drinking intoxicants and theft.<ref>Mohamed S. El-Awa (1993), Punishment In Islamic Law, American Trust Publications, {{ISBN|978-0892591428}}, pp. 1–68{{nonspecific|date=April 2016}}</ref><ref>Philip Reichel and Jay Albanese (2013), Handbook of Transnational Crime and Justice, Sage publications, {{ISBN|978-1452240350}}, pp. 36–37</ref>{{sfn|Otto|2008|p=663}}{{sfn|Otto|2008|p=31}}

According to classical jurisprudence, testimony must be from at least two free Muslim male witnesses, or one Muslim male and two Muslim females, who are not related parties and who are of sound mind and reliable character. Testimony to establish the crime of adultery, fornication or rape must be from four Muslim male witnesses, with some [[fiqh]]s allowing substitution of up to three male with six female witnesses; however, at least one must be a Muslim male.<ref>Ajijola, Alhaji A.D. (1989). ''Introduction to Islamic Law''. Karachi: International Islamic Publishers. p. 133.</ref>

[[Forensic identification|Forensic evidence]] (''i.e.'', fingerprints, ballistics, blood samples, DNA etc.) and other [[circumstantial evidence]] may likewise rejected in [[hudud]] cases in favor of eyewitnesses in some modern interpretations. In the case of regulations that were part of local Malaysian legislation that did not go into effect, this could cause severe difficulties for women plaintiffs in rape cases.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Kamali |first1=Mohammad Hashim |author-link=Mohammad Hashim Kamali |year=1998 |title=Punishment in Islamic Law: A Critique of the Hudud Bill of Kelantan, Malaysia |jstor=3382008 |journal=[[Arab Law Quarterly]] |volume=13 |issue=3 |pages=203–34 |doi=10.1163/026805598125826102}}{{request quotation|date=April 2016}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Mohd Noor |first1=Azman |last2=Ibrahim |first2=Ahmad Basri |year=2008 |title=The rights of a rape victim in Islamic Law |journal=IIUM Law Journal |volume=16 |issue=1 |pages=65–83 |url=http://irep.iium.edu.my/id/eprint/5699 |access-date=19 July 2016 |archive-date=27 December 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201227213728/http://irep.iium.edu.my/5699/ |url-status=live }}</ref> In Pakistan, DNA evidence is rejected in paternity cases on the basis of legislation that favors the presumption of children's legitimacy, while in sexual assault cases DNA evidence is regarded as equivalent to expert opinion and evaluated on a case-by-case basis.<ref>{{cite journal|title=DNA Evidence in Pakistani Courts: An Analysis|author=Shahbaz Ahmad Cheema|journal=Lums Law Journal|volume=3|url=https://sahsol.lums.edu.pk/law-journal/dna-evidence-pakistani-courts-analysis|date=30 January 2017|access-date=25 March 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190325131327/https://sahsol.lums.edu.pk/law-journal/dna-evidence-pakistani-courts-analysis|archive-date=25 March 2019|url-status=live}}</ref>

'''In civil cases''';{{qref|2|282|b=y}} recommends written financial contracts with reliable witnesses, although there is dispute about equality of female testimony.<ref name="mfdl1">{{cite journal |last1=Fadel |first1=Mohammad |title=Two Women, One Man: Knowledge, Power, and Gender in Medieval Sunni Legal Thought |journal=International Journal of Middle East Studies |volume=29 |issue=2 |year=2009 |pages=185–204 |ssrn=1113891 |jstor=164016 |doi=10.1017/S0020743800064461|s2cid=143083939 }}</ref>

Marriage is solemnized as a written financial contract, in the presence of two Muslim male witnesses, and it includes a brideprice ([[Mahr]]) payable from a Muslim man to a Muslim woman. The brideprice is considered by a Sharia court as a form of debt. Written contracts were traditionally considered paramount in Sharia courts in the matters of dispute that are debt-related, which includes marriage contracts.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Paul Powers |date=2005 |title=Intent in Islamic Law: Motive and Meaning in Medieval Sunnī Fiqh |publisher=Brill Academic |isbn=978-9004145924 |pages=97–110, 125–41}}</ref> Written contracts in debt-related cases, when notarized by a judge, is deemed more reliable.<ref name="remes1" />

In commercial and civil contracts, such as those relating to exchange of merchandise, agreement to supply or purchase goods or property, and others, oral contracts and the testimony of Muslim witnesses historically triumphed over written contracts. Islamic jurists traditionally held that written commercial contracts may be forged.<ref name="remes1">Reem Meshal (2014), ''Sharia and the Making of the Modern Egyptian'', [[Oxford University Press]], {{ISBN|978-9774166174}}, pp. 96–101 and Chapter 4</ref><ref name="timku1">Timur Kuran (2012), The Long Divergence: How Islamic Law Held Back the Middle East, Princeton University Press, {{ISBN|978-0691156415}}, pp. 246–49 and Chapter 12</ref> [[Timur Kuran]] states that the treatment of written evidence in religious courts in Islamic regions created an incentive for opaque transactions, and the avoidance of written contracts in economic relations. This led to a continuation of a "largely oral contracting culture" in Muslim-majority nations and communities.<ref name="timku1" /><ref>[http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/private/ierc/conference_registration/papers/Kuran.pdf "Explaining the Economic Trajectories of Civilizations&nbsp;– Musings on the Systemic Approach"] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141020235639/http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/private/ierc/conference_registration/papers/Kuran.pdf |date=20 October 2014 }} pp. 7, 10.</ref>

In lieu of written evidence, oaths are traditionally accorded much greater weight; rather than being used simply to guarantee the truth of ensuing testimony, they are themselves used as evidence. Plaintiffs lacking other evidence to support their claims may demand that defendants take an oath swearing their innocence, refusal thereof can result in a verdict for the plaintiff.<ref>Lippman, Matthew Ross; McConville, Seán; Yerushalmi, Mordechai (1988). ''Islamic Criminal Law and Procedure&nbsp;– An Introduction''. New York City: [[Praeger Publishers]]. p. 71. {{ISBN|978-0275930097}}.</ref> Taking an oath for Muslims can be a grave act; one study of courts in Morocco found that lying litigants would often "maintain their testimony right up to the moment of oath-taking and then to stop, refuse the oath, and surrender the case."<ref name="frank">Frank, Michael J. (April 2006). "Trying Times&nbsp;– The Prosecution of Terrorists in the Central Criminal Court of Iraq". ''[[Florida Journal of International Law]]''.{{page needed|date=April 2016}}</ref> Accordingly, defendants are not routinely required to swear before testifying, which would risk casually profaning the Quran should the defendant commit perjury.<ref name="frank" />