English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Modem critical studies of Islamic law have noted the need for the study of the procedural law in Islam and the role of the judicial practice in its formation. Generally, it is believed that qāḍīs had freer hand regarding witness and method of proof in the early period, but gradually it became more restrictive and rigid. Scholars have suggested various dates ranging from the second half of the seventh century (Tyan) to the eighth (Schacht, Dannhauer), to the eleventh century (Coulson) for this development. These scholars have treated the doctrine of yamīn ma‛ al-shāhid (oath with one witness) as an exception to the Shariah procedure which, according to them, strictly and mechanically adhered to the doctrine of two witnesses. According to them, this doctrine emerged under local [Schacht (Egypt) and Dannhauer (Madina)] or Jewish (Patricia Crone) influence. The present paper argues that the doctrine must have grown against the historical setting of the Civil War (Taḥkīm period) when the questions relating qiṣāṣ, qawad, qasāma and ḥakam were discussed frequently with reference to the role of the Qur’ān and the common sunna and the need for reforming the institution of ḥakam was felt. On the basis of scattered statements of scholars close to that period supported by WaM"s remarks and we conclude that Mu‛āwiya introduced this method to reform the institution of ḥakam. The judicial practice of this doctrine also confirms that it was too widespread to call it a Medinese or local practice as claimed by the classical jurists, traditionists and some modem scholars.

Procedural law between traditionists, jurists and judges: the problem of <em>yamīn ma' al-Shāhid</em>