Evidence in ‘Islamic’ Sharia Law:-


       In Arabic, Evidence is called Shahadah

       The law of evidence is very clearly laid down in all Muhammadan books of law, especially in the Hidayah, and the Duruu 'l-Mukhtar, and it is interesting to observe the difference between the law of evidence as provided for in the Law of Moses and that laid down in Muhammadan books.

        In the Pentateuch two witnesses at least are required to establish any charge (Num.35: 30), and the witness who withheld the truth was censured (Lev 5: 1) whilst slanderous reports and officious witnesses were discouraged (Ex. 23:1; Lev 19:15-16), and false witnesses were punished with the punishment due to the offence they sought to establish (Deut 19: 16). 

Exodus 23:1 " Do not accept a false report, do not extend your hand with the wicked to be a venal witness. Do not be a follower of the majotity for evil;and do not respond to a grievance by yielding to the majority to pervert [theLaw]. Do not glorify a destitute person in his grievance"        

Leviticus 5:1 " If a person will sin: If he accepted a demand for an oath, and he is a witness - either he saw or he knew - if he does not testify, he shall bear his iniquity "

Leviticus 19:15 "         You shall not commit a perversion of JUSTICE; you shall not favour the Poor and you shall not honour the Great, with righteousness shall you judge your fellow.

                     16 " You shall not be a gossiper among your people, you shall not stand aside while your fellow's blood is shed....you shall LOVE your fellow as yourself ...."

Numbers 35:30         Whoever smites a person, according to the testimony of witnesses shall one kill the murderer, but a single witness shall not testify against a person regarding death "

Deut 19:16 If a false witness stands against a man to speak up spuriously against him...if the testimony was false testimony; he spoke up falsely against his fellow; 
          
                19 you shall do to him as he conspired to do to his fellow "                                                                            

         The Sunni law, as explained by the author of the Hidayah (vol iii p 664), is in many respects the same as the Jewish and is as follows: - 

       It is the duty of witnesses to bear testimony, and it is not lawful for them to conceal it, when the party concerned demands it from them. Because it is written in the 

Qur'an, Surah ii 282, "Let not witnesses withhold their evidence when it is demanded of them." And again, "Conceal not your testimony, for whoever conceals his testimony in an offender." 

       *** It is obvious that the Quran plagiarized VERBATUM from the
 Mosaic Law ***

       The requisition of the party is a condition, because the delivery of evidence is the right of the party requiring it, and therefore rests upon his requisition of it, as is the case with respect to all other rights. 

       In cases inducing corporal punishment, witnesses are at liberty either to give or withhold their testimony as they please, because in such case they are distracted between two laudable actions; namely the establishment of the punishment and the preservation of the criminal's character. The concealment of vice is, moreover, preferable; because the prophet said to a person that had borne testimony, 'Verily, it would have been better for you if you had concealed it'; and also because he elsewhere said, 'Whoever conceals the vices of his brother Muslim shall have a veil drawn over his own crimes in both worlds by Allah.' Besides, it has been inculcated both by the Prophet and his Companions as commendable to assist in the prevention of corporal punishment; and this is an evident argument for the concealment of such evidence as tends to establish it. It is incumbent, however, in the case of theft, to bear evidence to the property, by testifying that "a certain person took such property," in order to preserve the right of the proprietor; but the word taken must be used instead of stolen, to the end that the crime may be kept concealed; besides, if the word stolen were used, the thief would be rendered liable to amputation; and as, where amputation is incurred, there is no responsibility for the property, the proprietor's right would be destroyed. 

       *** Any person, reading the above paragraph must ask one's self if these rules are Moral, Just or even Logical. 

       How is it LAUDABLE to 'PRESERVE' the character of a murderer just because he is a 'Muslim' BUT without batting an eye lid or giving the matter a second thought, Muhammad would CUT OFF the HAND of a THIEF ?

       How can any Just and Moral human being accept such an incredibly DEMONIC rule whereby a thief is punished with HAND AMPUTATION while a MURDERER, one who slaughtered another person, is allowed to be FREE?

         It is incomprehensible that Muhammad had greater tolerance in cases of murder than in cases of theft where in the punishment was not only cruel but way out of proportion to the crime.

       Is this really Justice? ***

       The evidence required in a case of whoredom is that of four men, as has been ruled in the Qur'an (Surah xxiv 8); and the testimony of a woman in such a case is not admitted because az-Zuhri says, 

"in the time of the Prophet and his two immediate successors, it was an invariable rule to exclude the evidence of women in all cases inducing punishment or retaliation," and also because the testimony of women involves a degree of doubt, as it is merely a substitute for evidence, being accepted only where the testimony of men cannot be had; and therefore it is not admitted in any matter liable to drop from the existence of a doubt. 

       The evidence required in other criminal cases is that of two men, according to the text of the Qur'an; and the testimony of women is not admitted, on the strength of the tradition of az-Zuhri above quoted. In all other cases the evidence required is that of two men, or of one man and two women, whether the case relate to property of to other rights, such as marriage, divorce, agency, executorship, or the like. 

       Ash-Shafi'i has said that the evidence of one man and two women cannot be admitted, excepting in cases that relate to property, or its dependencies such as hire, hail, and so forth; because the evidence of women is originally inadmissable on account of their defect of understanding their want of memory and their incapacity of governing, whence it is that their evidence is not admitted in criminal cases. "The evidence of women is valid with respect to such things as it is not fitting for man to behold." Ash-Shafi'i holds the evidence of four women to be a necessary condition in such cases. 

       *** Muhammadan Islam and its male followers have always exhibited an incredibly LOW ESTEEM of ALL WOMEN, equating and treating them invariably with DOMESTIC ANIMALS.

       The irony and tragedy of this situation is that even in the 21st century, they are still treated with the same CONTEMPT ***

       The testimony of any person who is property - that is to say, a slave, male or female - is not admissible; because testimony is of an authoritative nature; and as a slave has no authority over his own person, it follows that he can have no authority over others, a forieri. 

       If an infidel who has suffered punishment for slander should afterwards become a Muslim, his evidence is then admissible; for although, on account of the said punishment, he had lost the degrees in which he was before qualified to give evidence (that is, in all matters that related to his own sect), yet by his conversion to the Muslim faith he acquires a new competency in regard to evidence (namely, competency to give evidence relative to Muslims), which he did not possess before, and which is not affected by any matter that happened prior to the circumstances which gave birth to it. 

       The testimony of Dhimmis with respect to each other is admissible, notwithstanding they be of different religions. 

       The Imam Abu Hanifah is of opinion that a false witness must be stigmatized, but not chastised with blows. The two disciples are of opinion that he must be scourged and confined; and this also is the opinion of ash-Shafi'i. 

       *** Under Sharia Law, 'JUSTICE' is very much One Sided. 

       ONLY MUHAMMADAN MUSLIMS have RIGHTS. All others are without PROTECTION vis a vis Muslims ***